alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### YARMY v SEMPLE

Ohio Appeals, 7th Dist, Mahoning Co

Decided Nov 3, 1928

Barnum, Stephens, Patchin & Hoyt, Youngstown, for Yarmy. .

Kennedy, Manchester, Conroy & Ford, Youngstown, for Semple.

*204FARR, J.

It will be recalled that the original section was amended in 1925 (111 O.L. 194), and that the paragraph above quoted w,as the subject of the amendment to the original section not carrying such provisions.

It is well settled that a lease' made for a consideration constitutes a sale of an interest in real estate; Brenner v. Speigle, 116 O.S., 631, and the fact that in the instant case the plaintiff asks judgment in the sum of $5,000.00 does not necessarily convert the action into one for quantum meruit as on an implied contract; Hornback, et al. v. Paper Co., O. L. Ab. May 12, 1928, 289, (6 Abs. 289) where it is expressly held by Mills, J., of the Court of Appeals of Butler County, that such action is not converted as above stated, and so it is indicated by Lloyd, J,. in Realty Company v. Frankle, O.L.R., June 27, 1927. To hold otherwise would be to destroy the clearly indicated purpose of the above statute, and so it is held in Mock v. Mitchell, Court of Appeals of Cuyahoga County, O.L.Ab., Dec. 3, 1927, 771, (5 Abs 771) where the opinion is by Vickery, J., and states the foregoing principle and in a clear and concise manner.

A case similar upon the facts to the instant case is Zuckerman v. Confer, 5 O.L. Ab., 120, where the decisive issue here is interestingly discussed by McCrea, J., of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. It is quite clear, therefore, that in order to save the provisions of the foregoing statute, it must be held that there is no right of recovery in the instant case. Some cases cited in behalf of the plaintiff in error were cases decided before the amendment to the above statute. Of interest here and as sustaining the contention of the defendant .in error is Siefert v. Dirk, 175 Wis., 690; 17 A.L.R., 885; 17 A.L.R., 891. A summary of the holdings in a number of other states and in harmony with the conclusion reached here is to be found in 17 A.L.R., 89.

Therefore, for the reasons given, it follows that the judgment must be affirmed and it. is so ordered.

Pollock and Farr, JJ, concur.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Home Mortgage Disclosure Act

              														Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, December 31, 1975.						https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/1038,			accessed on September 6, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
#### § 91.1085 Hazardous materials recognition training.

No program manager may use any person to perform, and no person may perform, any assigned duties and responsibilities for the handling or carriage of hazardous materials (as defined in 49 CFR 171.8), unless that person has received training in the recognition of hazardous materials.
§ 1401.2 Production of records or testimony by FMCS employees. ( a ) Public policy and the successful effectuation of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service's mission require that commissioners and employees maintain a reputation for impartiality and integrity. Labor and management or other interested parties participating in mediation efforts must have the assurance and confidence that information disclosed to commissioners and other employees of the Service will not subsequently be divulged, voluntarily or because of compulsion, unless authorized by the Director of the Service.
( b ) No officer, employee, or other person officially connected in any capacity with the Service, currently or formerly shall, in response to a subpoena, subpoena duces tecum, or other judicial or administrative order, produce any material contained in the files of the Service, disclose any information acquired as part of the performance of his official duties or because of his official status, or testify on behalf of any party to any matter pending in any judicial, arbitral or administrative proceeding, without the prior approval of the Director.
#### § 298.51 Processing by the Department.

In processing applications filed in accordance with § 298.50, the Department will generally follow the procedures set forth in §§ 302.207 through 302.211 of this chapter.
§ 1471.105 Does this part apply to me? Portions of this part (see table at § 1471.25(b)) apply to you if you are a(n)— ( a ) Person who has been, is, or may reasonably be expected to be, a participant or principal in a covered transaction;
( b ) Respondent (a person against whom the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service has initiated a debarment or suspension action);
( c ) FMCS debarring or suspending official; or
( d ) FMCS official who is authorized to enter into covered transactions with non-Federal parties.
# EUR-Lex - 31995R0354 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31995R0354

**Council Regulation (EC) No 354/95 of 20 February 1995 amending Regulation (EEC) No 337/75 establishing a European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training **

*
Official Journal L 041 , 23/02/1995 P. 0001 - 0001 *

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 354/95 of 20 February 1995 amending Regulation (EEC) No 337/75 establishing a European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to the Act of Accession of 1994, and in particular Article 169 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas Regulation (EEC) No 337/75 (1) established a European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training;

Whereas the composition of the management board of the abovementioned Centre should be adjusted to take account of the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The first subparagraph of Article 4 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 337/75 shall be amended as follows:

1. In the introductory sentence '39 members' shall be replaced by '48 members'.

2. In (a), (b) and (c) '12 members' shall be replaced by '15 members'.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

It shall apply from 1 January 1995.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 20 February 1995.

For the Council

The President

E. ALPHANDÉRY

(1) OJ No L 39, 13. 2. 1975, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 251/95 (OJ No L 30, 9. 2. 1995, p. 1).
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued a Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) on November 24, 1999, considering issuance of a new license for the Oswego River Hydroelectric Project, located on the Oswego River in Oswego County, New York, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission's) regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897). In the DEA, the Commission's staff has analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the existing project and has concluded that approval of the project, with appropriate environmental protection measures, would not constitute a major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

The Commission requested comments on the DEA within 45 days, or by January 8, 2000. Erie Boulevard Hydropower L.P., in its December 27, 1999 letter, requested an extension of time to complete its review of the DEA. In consideration of the holidays which fell during the review period, I am extending the DEA comment period until January 31, 2000.

Copies of the DEA will remain available for review in the Public Reference Branch, Room 2-A, of the Commission's offices at 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426.

Anyone wishing to comment in writing on the DEA must do so no later than January 31, 2000. Comments should be addressed to: David P. Boergers, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426. Please affix on the first page the caption “Oswego River Project No. 2474-004” to all comments and letters.

For further information, please contact Charles T. Raabe at (202) 219-2811.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-1180 Files 1-18-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT 32.1 -- CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
OFFICER OF FIRST CAPITAL INTERNATIONAL, INC., PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 AND SECTION 1350 OF 18 U.S.C. 63.


I,  Alex  Genin,  the Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of
First  Capital  International,  Inc.  hereby  certify  that  First  Capital
International,  Inc.'s  periodic  report  on  Form  10-QSB  and  the  financial
statements  contained  therein  fully  complies with the requirements of Section
13(a)  or  15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)
and  that  information  contained  in the periodic report on Form 10-QSB and the
financial  statements  contained  therein  fairly  represents,  in  all material
respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of First Capital
International,  Inc.


Date: May 9, 2007                 /s/ Alex Genin
                                  Chief Executive Officer and
                                  Principal Financial Officer
#### STATE v GRUESER

Ohio Appeals, 4th Dist, Meigs Co

Decided April 6, 1929

Dana H Peoples, Pomeroy, for State.

Rallston Russell, for Grueser.

BY THE COURT

This court does not adhere to that view. As determined by us in the case of Donahue v. State of Ohio in Vinton County this court is of the opinion that the possession of intoxicating liquor is unlawful even tho its possession is confined to the dwelling of its possessor in case such liquor is either unlawfully manufactured or unlawfully obtained.

In the instant case it has not been sufficiently shown that the liquor possessed by Grueser was either unlawfully manufactured or unlawfully obtained. It evidently was manufactured by Grueser, but whether manufactured before or after such manufacture was unlawful in Ohio is not clear. The judgment of reversal entered by the Court of Common Pleas is modified to the extent that the accused is not discharged from custody but that the case is remanded to the Probate Court to try out the question of whether or not the liquor in question was manufactured by the accused at a time when its manufacture was unlawful.

A copy of the opinion of this court in Donahue v. State of Ohio in Vinton County is filed herewith.

Our judgment in this case, modifying the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, *255is in conflict with the. decision and judgment of the Court of Appeals of the eighth district of Ohio in Blatnick v. State, 23 Ohio App. 137. If the defendant in error so desires the case will be certified by us to the Supreme Court as being in conflict with that decision, otherwise the case is remanded to the Probate Court of Meigs County for a new trial.

Middleton, PJ, and Mauck, J, concur.
# EUR-Lex - 31994R1267 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31994R1267

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1267/94 of 1 June 1994 applying the agreements between the European Union and third countries on the mutual recognition of certain spirit drinks **

*
Official Journal L 138 , 02/06/1994 P. 0007 - 0008 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 57 P. 0218 Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 57 P. 0218 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1267/94 of 1 June 1994 applying the agreements between the European Union and third countries on the mutual recognition of certain spirit drinks

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89 of 29 May 1989 laying down general rules on the definition, description and presentation of spirit drinks (1), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3280/92 (2), and in particular Article 11 (1) thereof,

Whereas the European Union has concluded an agreement in the form of an exchange of letters with the United States of America on the mutual recognition and protection of certain spirit drinks; whereas that agreement provides for the application, within a certain time, of the regulations and administrative measures necessary to fulfil the obligations set out therein; whereas, in order to provide the products concerned with the guarantees laid down with regard to control and protection, a list of the products covered by the agreements concluded by the European Union should be established;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Implementation Committee for Spirit Drinks,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1. The product descriptions given in the list in the Annex hereto, originating in the third countries referred to therein, may only be used for products produced in accordance with the laws and regulations of the third countries concerned.

2. The products referred to in paragraph 1 shall be covered by the measures for the protection and control of spirit drinks referred to in Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89 under the conditions laid down in the agreement with the third countries concerned.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 1 June 1994.

For the Commission

René STEICHEN

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 160, 12. 6. 1989, p. 1.

(2) OJ No L 327, 13. 11. 1992, p. 3.

ANNEX

"" ID="1">Tennessee Whisky / Tennessee Whiskey> ID="2">United States"> ID="1">Bourbon Whisky / Bourbon Whiskey / Bourbon as a description for Bourbon Whiskey> ID="2">United States">
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4804 

To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

to add Rhode Island to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 19, 2020 

Mr. REED (for himself and Mr. WHITEHOUSE) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act to add Rhode Island to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Rhode Island Fisher5 men’s Fairness Act of 2020’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4804 IS

1 SEC. 2. ADDITION OF RHODE ISLAND TO THE MID-ATLAN2 TIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL. 

3 Section 302(a)(1)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fish4 ery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 

5 1852(a)(1)(B)) is amended— 

6 (1) by inserting ‘‘Rhode Island,’’ after ‘‘States 

7 of’’; 

8 (2) by inserting ‘‘Rhode Island,’’ after ‘‘except 

9 North Carolina,’’; 

10 (3) by striking ‘‘21’’ and inserting ‘‘23’’; and 

11 (4) by striking ‘‘13’’ and inserting ‘‘14’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
§ 101.30 Formal hearing and procedure respecting election conducted after hearing. ( a ) The procedures are the same as those described in subpart C of 29 CFR part 102 and the statement of the general course respecting representation cases arising under Section 9(c) of the Act insofar as applicable. If the preliminary investigation indicates that there are substantial issues which require determination before an appropriate election may be held, the regional director will institute formal proceedings by issuance of a notice of hearing on the issues which, after hearing, is followed by regional director decision and direction of election or dismissal. The notice of hearing together with a copy of the petition is served on the petitioner, the employer, and any other known persons or labor organizations claiming to have been designated by employees involved in the proceeding.
( b ) The hearing, usually open to the public, is held before a hearing officer who normally is an attorney or field examiner attached to the Regional Office but may be another qualified Agency official. The hearing, which is nonadversary in character, is part of the investigation in which the primary interest of the Board's agents is to insure that the record contains as full a statement of the pertinent facts as may be necessary for determination of the case. The parties are afforded full opportunity to present their respective positions and to produce the significant facts in support of their contentions that are relevant to the issue of whether the Board should conduct an election to determine whether the employees in a bargaining unit covered by an agreement between their employer and a labor organization made pursuant to section 8(a)(3) of the Act, desire that such authority be rescinded. In most cases a substantial number of the relevant facts are undisputed and stipulated. The parties are permitted to argue orally on the record before the hearing officer.
( c ) Upon the close of the hearing, the entire record in the case is then forwarded to the regional director, together with an informal analysis by the hearing officer of the issues and the evidence but without recommendations. Post-hearing briefs are filed only upon special permission of the regional director and within the time and addressing the subjects permitted by the regional director.
( d ) The parties have the same rights, and the same procedure is followed, with respect to objections to the conduct of the election and challenged ballots as is described in connection with the postelection procedures in representation cases under Section 9(c) of the Act.
[79 FR 74477, Dec. 15, 2014]
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J EREM Y G A U TH I ER, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. J O H N J . S T I L E S , D O E S 1- 7, D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 56096 D . C. N o . 5 : 0 8 - c v - 1 4 8 8 - SJ O - RC ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea lfr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia S . J am e s O t e r o, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r19, 2010 ** B efo re: O ’ S C A N N L A IN , T A L L M A N , an dB E A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. J e r e m yG authi e r , af

orm e rC a l i f

orni as t a t e pr i s one r , appe a l s pr o s e f r om the d is tr ic t c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t d is m is s in g h is 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n a lle g in g d e lib e r a te in d if f e r e n c e to h is s e r io u s m e d ic a l n e e d s b yv ar io u s p r is o n m e d ic a l p e r s o n n e l. W e 

# FI LED OC T 29 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 56096 2 h av e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o , N el so n v. H eiss, 2 7 1 F. 3 d8 9 1 , 8 9 3 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) , an dw e a f f i rm. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r lyd is m is s e dG au th ie r ’s a c tio n b e c au s e n e ith e rh is d i sag reem en tw i th th e d o sag e o r typ e o f p ai n m ed i ci n e ad m i n i st eredaft er h i s n o se s u r g e ry , n o rh is d is s a tis f a c tio n w ith th e d e n ia l o f p r e s c r ip tio ns tr e n g th p a in m edi ci ne for tw o d ay s, const i tut ed del i berat e i nd i ff er ence t o h i s s er i ou s m edi ca l n e e d s . Se e T

oguc hiv . Chung , 3 9 1 F .3 d1 0 5 1 , 1 0 5 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( d if f e r e n c e in o p in io n b e tw e e n an in m a te an dm e d ic a l p e r s o n n e l in s u f f ic ie n t to c o n s titu te in d if f e r e n c e to m e d ic a l n e e d s ) ; Fr os t v . A gnos , 15 2 F . 3d11 24 , 11 30 (9th C i r. 1998) ( a l l e ge d de l ay s i n a dm i ni s t e r i ng pa i n m e di c a t i on, w i thoutm or e , do not c o n s titu te d e lib e r a te in d if f e r e n c e ) . T he di stri ctcourtal so prop er l y di sm i ss ed G authi er ’ s a ct i on w i th p re j ud i ce b e c au s e th e d e f

e c ts in h is c la im c o u ldn o t b e c u r e db yam e n d m e n t. See McKes s on H B O Cv . N

e w Y ork State Com m on R e t. Fund , 33 9 F . 3d10 87 , 10 90 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). G authi er ’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. AF F I RME D.