alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John Franklin SAIN Jr. *v.*Doris M. (SAIN) SMITH

73-63

495 S.W. 2d 865

Opinion delivered June 25, 1973

*Ponder ér Lingo,*for appellant.

*Penix & Penix*and *Hartman Hotz,*for appellee.

Lyle Brown, Justice.

This appeal challenges as excessive a monthly allowance of $500 per month for the support of a sixteen year old daughter.

In 1972 Doris Sain (now Smith) was granted a divorce from John Sain, Jr. The couple are the parents of four children, John III, Sherrill, Randy and Rhonda. The first two had reached their majority at the time of the divorce; Randy and Ronda are still minors. Custody of Randy was given to appellant John Sain, and custody of Ronda was given to appellee. The decree directed that *721appellant support Ronda but no amount was fixed. Five months after the divorce appellee petitioned that appellant be required to pay $500 per month for the support of Ronda. The court directed appellant to pay that amount each month into the registry of the court for Ronda’s support. This appeal followed.

Appellee itemized monthly expenses which she said were directly incurred by her for the support of Ronda, totaling $597.33. In addition to what might be called usual expenses there were included such items as car payments and upkeep therefor, summer vacation and private telephone. Additionally, appellee itemized the average monthly household expenses and allocated one-third thereof to Ronda, the average being $259.32. The items included household repairs, furniture and repairs, taxes, insurance and utilities. Although it is not specifically stated by the chancellor, we gather that the court did not consider the additional items as being allowable. This is because tl >se expenses would have remained substantially the same irrespective of Ronda’s presence in the household.

Appellant did not testify. According to appellee’s testimony appellant receives an annual salary of $22,500, a liberal expense allowance, a bonus, and a baseball pension of approximately $1200 per month. The two boys are in school in Jonesboro and the older daughter is attending school in Chicago. Appellant is supporting all three children. The two boys each have an automobile given them by appellant.

If the father is financially able, the child is entitled to such support as will sustain the manner and style of living to which she was accustomed. *Riegler*v. *Riegler,*246 Ark. 434, 438 S.W. 2d 468 (1969). “In addition to the actual needs of the child, a father has the legal duty to give his child those advantages which are reasonable considering his financial condition and his position in society.” 24 Am. Jur. 2d, Divorce and Separation, § 839.

Considering appellant’s earnings, the station in life, and the family’s customary manner and style of living, we are unable to say that the chancellor abused his latitude of discretion, or that his findings are against the preponderance of the evidence.

*722Affirmed.

Byrd and Jones, JJ., dissent. Justice Byrd would reduce the monthly allowance to $250. Justice Jones would eliminate the automobile allowances.
Agreement to Purchase

Between:

Industrial Rubber Innovations Inc.
4525 New Horizon Blvd., Suite 7,
Bakersfield, CA  93313

And:

CoVictory Capital Ltd.
438 Seymour Street
Vancouver BC  V6B 3H1

Whereas:

1.  Industrial Rubber Innoations Inc. will control EPL Ventures Ltd.
2.  EPL Ventures currently holds an equity interest in Savant Biomedical, Inc.
3.  EPL Ventures Ltd. intents to sell its interest in Savant Biomedical, Inc.
4.  CoVictory Capital Ltd. Desires to purchase the EPL Ventures Ltd. Interest
    in Savant Biomedical Inc.

In considerations of $10 exchanged herewith attached and recepted, the parties
hereby agree to:

A.  Industrial Rubber Innovations Inc. will sell its interest in Savant
Biomedical, Inc. to CoVictory Capital Ltd. For US $800,000.

B.  The agreed purchase price will be paid on or before July 15, 1999.

C.  This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the
laws of the Province of British Columbia, which shall be deemed to be the
proper law of this contract.

D.  This Agreement may not be modified or amended except by an instrument
in writing signed by the parties hereto or by their successors or assigns.

E.  This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which
shall be deemed to be an original, but all or which together shall constitute
one and the same document, and any facsimile signature shall be taken
as an original.

F.  The provisions herein contained constitute the entire agreement between the
parties and supersedes all previous communications, representations and
agreements whether oral or written between the parties with respect to the
subject matter hereof.

<PAGE>

G.  Each of the parties hereto hereby covenants and agrees to execute such
further and other documents and instruments and to do such further and other
things as may be necessary to implement and carry out the intent of this
Agreement.

H.  No condoning, excusing or waiver by any party hereto of any default,
breach of non-observance by any other party hereto at any time or times in
respect of any covenant, provison or condition herein contained shall operate
as a waiver of that party's rights hereunder in respect of any continuing or
subsequent default, breach or non-observance, or so as to defer or affect in
any way the rights of the party in respect of any such continuing or subsequent
default breach of non-observance, and no waiver shall be inferred from or
implied by anything done or omitted to be done by the party having those rights.

I.  This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the
parties hereto and their respective heirs, adminstrators, successors and their
respective permitted assigns.

J.  Time is of the essence of this Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have hereunto affixed their respective
hands as of this 29th day of March, 1999 in Vancouver, British Columbia,
Canada.


INDUSTRIAL RUBBER INNOVATIONS, INC.

/s/ unknown
Per:  Authorized Signatory


COVICTORY CAPITAL LTD.

/s/ unknown
Per:  Authorized Signatory
Before McCarthy, O’Dwyer and Schuchman, JJ.

#### Patrick A. Meehan, Respondent, v. The Traders and Travelers' Accident Company of New York, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment entered upon a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and from an order denying a motion for new trial.

Abel Crook and Jacob Fromme, for appellant; Joseph A. Flannery, for respondent.

Judgment and order appealed from affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 308

To provide for the resolution of certain labor issues relating to the merger 

of the Metro-North Railroad and the Long Island Rail Road. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 8, 2003

Mr. NADLER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL

To provide for the resolution of certain labor issues relating 

to the merger of the Metro-North Railroad and the Long 

Island Rail Road.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. EXTINGUISHMENT. 

4 Upon the merger of the Metro-North Railroad and 

5 the Long Island Rail Road, the collective bargaining 

6 agreement between the Association of Commuter Rail Em7 ployees and the Metro-North Railroad shall be extin8 guished. 
2

•HR 308 IH 

1 SEC. 2. DEEMED COVERAGE. 

2 Employees of the entity resulting from the merger de3 scribed in section 1 shall be deemed to be covered under 

4 the appropriate collective bargaining agreement of the 

5 Long Island Rail Road in compliance with the Railway 

6 Labor Act. 

7 SEC. 3. DISPUTES. 

8 All disputes arising from the application of this Act 

9 shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the National Medi10 ation Board.

Æ
#### § 263.41 Stays pending judicial review.

The commencement of proceedings for judicial review of a final decision and order of the Board may not, unless specifically ordered by the Board or a reviewing court, operate as a stay of any order issued by the Board. The Board may, in the Board's, and on such terms as the Board finds just, stay the effectiveness of all or any part of an order pending a final decision on a petition for review of that order.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 4.2
                                  -----------

                                AMENDMENT NO. 1

                                      TO

                                RADIO ONE, INC.
               1999 STOCK OPTION AND RESTRICTED STOCK GRANT PLAN


     The 1999 Stock Option and Restricted Stock Grant Plan (the "Plan") is
hereby amended as follows, effective March 10, 1999:

                                  ARTICLE II

                                  Definitions
                                  -----------

     1.  The following definition is inserted immediately before the definition
of "Common Stock":
    ------------

      "`Class A Common Stock' means the Class A Common Stock, $0.001 par value
        --------------------
      per share, of the Company."


     2.  The definition of "Common Stock" is amended to read as follows:
                            ------------

      "`Common Stock' means Class A Common Stock."
        ------------
Regulatory Evaluation 

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD 

Add the work hours, parts cost, and number of US. registered products to the table belo·w. When you are 

finished, click on I he "Update Fields" button to automatically fill in the totals. 

Update Fields I 

Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, _j)rOpeller, appliance) 

Work-hours Labor Pat1s Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) 

Do not (include cost (labor + u.s. for U.S. Fleet include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Inspection. repair. 8.6 430 etc. 

T he known number of products in compliance: Number 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 314,330 0 

Costs covered under wan·anty Ufknown) $Warrant) 

On-Condition Costs: ~ Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product Action (include access, (@$85/hour) (e.g., Inspection, testing, and close- replacement) up) 

None ----- -------
Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this .field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

1ha1 was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): 

Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"?-

YES* 0 NO IZI 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? 0 

YES* 0 NO IXl 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Expla in for 

either a Yes or No answer. ~ 

YES 0 NO ~ 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

a ircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode oftransportation? ~ 

YES* 0 ~ 

*Explanation:
§ 264b.5 Gifts of more than minimal value. ( a ) *Educational scholarships or medical treatment.* Board employees may accept and retain gifts of more than minimal value when such gifts are in the nature of an educational scholarship or medical treatment.
( b ) *Travel or travel expenses.* Board employees may accept gifts of travel or expenses for travel taking place entirely outside the United States (such as transportation, food, and lodging) of more than minimal value if appropriate, consistent with the interests of the United States, and permitted by the Board under paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section. ( 1 ) Board employees may accept gifts of travel or expenses for travel under paragraph (b) of this section in accordance with specific instructions of the Board, as evidenced by the prior approval of the Administrative Governor. Board employees must request prior approval under procedures established by the Office of the Secretary.
( 2 ) Board employees may accept gifts of travel or expenses for travel under paragraph (b) of this section without the prior approval of the Administrative Governor if such expenses are reported under § 264b.6(b) and the Administrative Governor approves their acceptance after the fact. Board employees must personally repay gifts of travel or expenses for travel of more than minimal value that are not approved by the Administrative Governor.
( c ) *Other gifts.* ( 1 ) Board employees may typically regard the refusal of gifts of more than minimal value at the inception (when offered or received without a prior offer) as consistent with the interests and general policy of the United States.
( 2 ) Board employees may accept gifts of more than minimal value when it appears that refusal would likely cause offense or embarrassment or otherwise adversely affect the foreign relations of the United States. Tangible gifts are considered to have been accepted on behalf of the United States and become the property of the United States on acceptance. Accordingly, they must be deposited and documented in accordance with § 264b.6(a) and can only be returned or otherwise processed by the Office of the Secretary under § 264b.8.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS AND BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-29-1996
<CASH>                                           4,797
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,054
<ALLOWANCES>                                       464
<INVENTORY>                                    134,886
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               144,768
<PP&E>                                          27,530
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,079
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 197,869
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           74,340
<BONDS>                                         86,450
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        35,080
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,225)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   197,869
<SALES>                                        404,265
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               404,265
<CGS>                                          277,116
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  277,116
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               110,631
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,482
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,036
<INCOME-TAX>                                       970
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,066
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (1,285)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,781
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
From: Mills, Alberta E.

To: Heggs, Angela

Subject: FW: Clarification of Response at CPSC ROV Hearing

Date: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 8:19:55 AM

Attachments: March 3 2015 letter to CPSC.pdf

Hi Angie,

Please see the email trail below regarding the attached comments for the ROV rulemaking. Thank

you!

Alberta

From: Tsacoumis, Stephanie 

Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 5:13 PM

To: Mills, Alberta E.

Cc: Pollitzer, Patricia; Little, Barbara; Boyle, Mary

Subject: FW: Clarification of Response at CPSC ROV Hearing

Another item for the rulemaking record (ROV rule). Thanks much.

From: Kaye, Elliot 

Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 4:54 PM

To: Tsacoumis, Stephanie

Cc: Fong-Swamidoss, Jana

Subject: Fw: Clarification of Response at CPSC ROV Hearing

Also for the rulemaking record, please. Thanks. 

From: Rachel Weintraub [mailto:rweintraub@consumerfed.org] 

Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 04:37 PM

To: Kaye, Elliot 

Cc: Adler, Robert; Buerkle, Ann Marie; Mohorovic, Joseph; Robinson, Marietta; Adkins, Patricia; Paul,

Caroleene; Erik Pritchard <epritchard@rohva.org> 

Subject: Clarification of Response at CPSC ROV Hearing 

Dear Chairman Kaye,

Please see my attached letter of clarification regarding my responses to questions asked during the

CPSC’s ROV hearing on January 7, 2015.

Thank you for your consideration,

-Rachel Weintraub

Rachel Weintraub | Legislative Director and General Counsel

Consumer Federation of America

1620 Eye Street, NW Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20006

T 202/939-1012 | | M 202/904-4953

consumerfed.org | rweintraub@consumerfed.org
**EXHIBIT 12.1**
I, Eivind Reiten, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Norsk Hydro;  2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;  3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periodspresented in this annual report;  4.  The company’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15eand 15d-15e) for the company and have:
 a)  designed such disclosure controls and proceduresor caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed underour supervision to ensure that material information relating to thecompany, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis annual report is being prepared;  b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the compnay‘sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and  c)  disclosed in this report any change in thecompany’s internal controls over financial reporting that occurredduring the period covered by this report that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s control overfinancial reporting; and
 5.  The company’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditorsand the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):
 a)  all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect thecompany’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in thecompany’s internal controls over financial reporting.     Date:18 March 2005   /s/ Eivind Reiten         Eivind Reiten     President and Chief Executive Officer
§ 325.1 Authority, purpose, and reservation of authority. ( a ) *Authority.* This part is issued by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “Corporation” or “FDIC”) under 12 U.S.C. 5365(i)(2), 12 U.S.C. 5412(b)(2)(B), 12 U.S.C. 1818, 12 U.S.C. 1819(a)(Tenth), 12 U.S.C. 1831o, and 12 U.S.C. 1831p-1.
( b ) *Purpose.* This part implements 12 U.S.C. 5365(i)(2), which requires the Corporation (in coordination with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) and the Federal Insurance Office) to issue regulations that require each covered bank to conduct periodic stress tests, and establishes a definition of stress test, methodologies for conducting stress tests, and reporting and disclosure requirements.
( c ) *Reservation of authority.* Notwithstanding any other provisions of this part, the Corporation may modify some or all of the requirements of this part. ( 1 ) The Corporation may accelerate or extend any deadline for stress testing, reporting, or publication of the stress test results.
( 2 ) The Corporation may require different or additional tests not otherwise required by this part or may require or permit different or additional analytical techniques and methodologies, different or additional scenarios (including components for the scenarios), or different assumptions for the covered bank to use in meeting the requirements of this part. In addition, the FDIC may specify a different as-of date for any or all categories of financial data used by the stress test.
( 3 ) The Corporation may modify the reporting requirements of a report under this part or may require additional reports. The Corporation may modify the publication requirements of this part and or may require different or additional publication disclosures.
( 4 ) The Corporation may also exempt a covered bank from the requirement to conduct a stress test in a particular reporting year.
( 5 ) Factors considered: Any exercise of authority under this section by the Corporation will be in writing and will consider the activities, level of complexity, risk profile, scope of operations, and the regulatory capital of the covered bank, in addition to any other relevant factors.
( 6 ) Notice and comment procedures: In exercising its authority to require different or additional stress tests and different or additional scenarios (including components for the scenarios) under paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the Corporation will apply notice and response procedures in the same manner and to the same extent as the notice and response procedures in 12 CFR 324.5, as appropriate.
( 7 ) Nothing in this part limits the authority of the Corporation under any other provision of law or regulation to take supervisory or enforcement action, including action to address unsafe and unsound practices or conditions, or violations of law or regulation.
[77 FR 62424, Oct. 15, 2012. Redesignated and amended at 83 FR 17740, Apr. 24, 2018; 84 FR 56933, Oct. 24, 2019; 84 FR 64985, Nov. 26, 2019]