alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The Attorney General of Texas 

FM 23, 1978 

JOHN L. HILL 

Attorney General 

Honorable Chet Brooks, Chairman 

Committee on Human Resources 

Senate Chamber 

Austin, Texas 

Opinion No. I-I- 12.X 

Re: Authority of members of 

Board of Texas Department of 

Health to enter and inspect 

nursing homes. 

Dear Senator Brooks: 

You have requested our opinion regarding the authority of individual 

members of the State Board of Health to enter and inspect nursing homes. 

The State Board of Health is composed of 18 members appointed by the 

Governor. V.T.C.S. art. 4415a. The Board is empowered to employ a Director 

of the State Department of Public Health, and to investigate the conduct of 

the work of the Department. V.T.C.S. art. 4418a. The Department, as the 

licensing agency charged with the duty of regulating nursing and convalescent 

homes, is authorized to “make such inspections and investigations” of those 

facilities “as it deems necessary.” V.T.C.S. art. 4442~. 

We need not reach the issue of whether article 4442~ would permit an 

individual Board member to make inspections of nursing and convalescent 

homes in the absence of authorization by a majority of the Board, since 

article 4420, V.T.C.S., enacted in 1909, empowers 

members of the State Board of Health or any person 

authorized by them, upon presentation of proper 

authority in writing . . . whenever they may deem it 

necessary in pursuance of their duties, to enter into, 

examine, investigate, inspect and view any ground, 

public building, factory, slaughter house, packing 

house, abattoir, dairy, bakery, manufactory, hotel, 

restaurant and m other public place and building 

where they deem it proper to enter for the discovery 

and suppression of disease and for the enforcement of 

the rules of the sanitary code for Texas and of any 

health law, sanitary law or quarantine regulation of 

this State. 

p. 4598 
Honorable Chet Brooks - Page 2 (B-~26) 

(Emphasis added). It is apparent that article 4420 uses the term “public place” to 

refer to any location which is affected with 8 public interest. In our cpinion, 

therefore, a member of the State Board of Health is authorized to make inspections 

and investigations of nursing and convalescent homes pursuant to article 4420. See 

Attorney General Opinion O-9919 (1945) (authority under article 4420 to inspz 

convalescent homes). 

SUMMARY 

A member of the State Board of Health is authorized to 

make inspections and investigations of nursing and convalescent homes pursuant to article 4420, V.T.C.S. 

Very truly yours, 

APPROVED: ‘9 

DAVID M. KENDALL, First Assistant 

C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

jst 

p. 4599
Exhibit
32.2
  CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  In
connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of Marshall Holdings
International, Inc.  for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2007, I,
W. Jamie Plante, Chief Financial Officer of Marshall Holdings International,
Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, that:
  1.           Such
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2007, fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
  2.           The
information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ending December 31, 2007, fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Marshall Holdings
International, Inc.
  Dated:
April 15, 2008.
  /s/  W. Jamie
    PlanteW.
      Jamie Plante, Chief Financial Officer ofMarshall
      Holdings International, Inc.
**Exhibit 32**

 

CERTIFICATIONSPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. §1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Terry G. Roussel andSharon C. Kaiser, do each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatto the best of his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Cornerstone Realty Fund,LLC on Form 10-Q for the nine-month period ended September 30, 2005fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Qfairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results ofoperations of Cornerstone Realty Fund, LLC.

 
|                          |  /s/ TERRY G. ROUSSEL                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
|-------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:  November 11, 2005 | Terry G. Roussel  Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) of  Cornerstone Ventures, Inc., Managing Member of   Cornerstone Industrial Properties, LLC, the Managing Member of   Cornerstone Realty Fund, LLC |

 

 
|                          | /s/ SHARON C. KAISER                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|-------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date:  November 11, 2005 | Sharon C. Kaiser  Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) of   Cornerstone Ventures, Inc., Managing Member of   Cornerstone Industrial Properties, LLC, the Managing Member of  Cornerstone Realty Fund, LLC |

 

----
#### § 67.115 Discretionary issuance.

A person who does not meet the provisions of §§ 67.103 through 67.113 may apply for the discretionary issuance of a certificate under § 67.401.
Searched for **http://www.usitc.gov/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.usitc.gov/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judge Beales, Senior Judg e Fitzpatrick and Retired Judge Hodges *

S.E. SMITH, INC. AND SOUTHERN PILO T INSURANCE COMPANY MEMORANDUM OPINION ** v. Record No. 0091-08-4 PER CURIAM MAY 13, 2008 BERNARD STATEN, S.E. SMITH, INC. AND WEST AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

(Joseph C. Veith, III; Trichilo , Bancroft, McGa vin, Horvath & Judkins, P.C., on brief), for appellants.

(Andrew S. Kasmer, on brief), for appellee Bernard Staten.

(Daniel E. Lynch; Jo hn T. Cornett; Williams & Lynch, on brief), for appellees S.E. Smith, Inc. and West American Insurance Company.

S.E. Smith, Inc. and Southern Pilot Insu rance Company appeal a decision of the

Workers’ Compensation Commission finding that Bernard Staten pr oved he (1) sustained a new

injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment on November 18, 2005;

(2) his ongoing disability is causally related to his Novemb er 18, 2005 compensable injury by

accident; and (3) he made a reasonable effort to market his residual work capacity. We have

reviewed the record and the comm ission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without merit.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons st ated by the commission in its final opinion. See Staten

* Retired Judge William H. Hodges took part in the consideration of this case by designation pursuant to Code § 17.1-400(C).

** Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designa ted for publication.- 2- v. S.E. Smith, Inc. , VWC File Nos. 219-31-44 and 226-88-52 (Dec. 11, 2007). We dispense with

oral argument and summarily affirm because th e facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid th e decisional process.

See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.
VERDICT.

[Hamilton Circuit Court,

January Term, 1899.]

#### David J. Hauss v. George Koehler.

Verdict Dual in Form, Being a Mere Irregularity is not Prejudicial.

Where the jury return a verdict dual in form, being a finding for plaintiff on the cause of action stated in the petition, and a finding for defendant on the cause of action stated in the answer and cross-petition ; such verdict is not inconsistent, and the court is authorized to subtract the findings and enter judgment for the difference.

Wilson, J.

The petition in this- case states a cause of action against the defendant upon two counts, one upon contract, and the other upon a *quantum*meruit, for the same services.

The answer is a general denial, and a counter-claim for injuries to property by the attempt to perform the services to recover for which the plaintiff sues. The case was tried to a jury and resulted in a verdict dual in form, being a finding for the plaintiff on the cause of action stated in the petition in the sum of $53.00, and a finding for the defendant on the cause of action stated in the answer and cross-petition in the sum of $55.00.

No exception was taken to the form of the verdict. A motion for new trial was filed by the plaintiff and overruled, and thereupon the court subtracted the findings and entered judgment for the defendant in the sum of $2.00, to all of which the plaintiff excepted and prosecutes error to reverse the judgment.

It is argued that the court had no right to make the subtraction between the verdicts in order to arrive at the. amount of the judgment, and that the two verdicts were inconsistent. The case of Baugham v. Baugham, 114 Indiana, 73, is relied upon as authority for this contention. In that case the verdict for the plaintiff was : “We, the jury, find for the plaintiff, and assess his damages in the sum of eight hundred dollars,” and then followed a verdict for the defendant on his counterclaim. Of course, these verdicts were inconsistent. The finding for the plaintiff generally without confining it to the cause of action stated in *685the petition, precluded any finding for the defendant. But in the case at bar the finding for the plaintiff is expressly confined to his cause of action ; and so with the finding for the defendant. They are not, therefore, inconsistent. The conclusion of the jury upon all the issues joined is perfectly apparent, and a mere irregularity in the form of verdict is not prejudicial. That, no doubt, would have been corrected had the attention of the court been called to it before the jury had been discharged.

*Kelley & Hauck,*for plaintiff in error.

*Stephens &*Lincoln, for defendant in error.

Under the circumstances the court was authorized to make the subtraction and enter judgment loi the difference, for the reason that the verdicts were not inconsistent. Brainard et al. v. Lane, 26 O. S., 632.

We find no error in the record. The judgment will be affirmed.
Exhibit 10.21


 


SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE


BIRDS EYE FOODS MASTER SALARIED RETIREMENT PLAN


 






 


This
amendment is adopted by Birds Eye Foods, Inc., a corporation duly formed
and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware (referred
to herein as the “Employer”).


 


WITNESSETH


 


WHEREAS,
the Employer has adopted the Birds Eye Foods Master Salaried Retirement Plan
(the “Plan”) which was amended and restated effective January 1, 2001, and


 


WHEREAS,
the Employer has reserved the right pursuant to Section 10.1 of the Plan
to amend it at any time, and


 


WHEREAS,
the Employer now wishes to amend the Plan;


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended effective as of March 28, 2005 by
revising Paragraph (f) of Section 6.1 to read as follows:


 


“If
any benefit payable under the Plan has a single-sum Actuarial  Equivalent
present value which is less than or equal to $5,000 or such  other amount as
provided in Code Section 411(a)(11), such payment shall be  made in the form
of an Actuarially Equivalent lump-sum basis without the  Participant’s
consent; provided, however, that if the single-sum Actuarial  Equivalent
present value is greater than $1,000, then the lump-sum payment  to the
Participant or an eligible retirement plan designated by the  Participant
shall be made only if the Participant elects in writing on  forms provided
by the Plan Administrator for such payment or transfer to an  eligible
retirement plan. The Actuarial Equivalent present value shall be  based on the
benefit otherwise payable at the Participant’s Normal  Retirement Date
but shall not be less than the value as of the commencement  date in the case
of a Participant who is eligible for an Early Retirement  Benefit. A
Participant who terminates employment at a time when he is not  vested in any
portion of his employer-provided benefits shall be deemed to  have received a
lump sum payment of his full accrued benefit attributable  to his
employer-provided benefit as of the date of termination.”


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this
Amendment has been executed this 25 day of August, 2005.


 


	
   

  	
  BIRDS EYE FOODS, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By: 

  	
  /s/ Lois Warlick-Jarvie

  
	
   

  	
  Title: Vice President Human
  Resources

  



 


1
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 25, 2016

a0511 

# Order

Clerk May 25, 2016

149789(24)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 149789

COA: 321499

Berrien CC: 2011

- 016332

- FC

BILLY JO ORRICK,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s October 28,

2015 order is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the cas es of People v

Steanhouse (Docket No. 152849 ) and People v Masroor (Docket No s . 152946

- 8 ) are

pending on appeal before this Court and that the decisions in those cases may resolve an

issue raised in the present motion for reconsideration, we ORDER that the motion for

reconsideration be held in ABEYANCE pending the decisions in those cases.
#### KROPLIN v TRUAX, Dir. etc.

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21344.

Decided Feb 6, 1929

Syllabus by

ALLEN, J.

ANIMALS

(20 D) The legislature is authorized within its police power to require the examination, inspection and testing of cattle for bovine tuberculosis, and, if such disease is found to exist, to -provide for the summary destruction of the diseased animal.

Such destruction of diseased animals does not constitute a taking of private property for public use, nor _the invasion of the right of acquiring, possessing and protecting, property given under the Constitution of the State of Ohio.

*111CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

(140 S) Section 1121-10 General Code, does not violate the provisions of Article I, Section 1, of Article I, Section 16, nor Article I, Section 19, of the Constitution of the State of Ohio.

Marshall, C J, Kinkade, Robinson, Jones, Matthias and Day, JJ, concur.
§ 93.67 General rules: Bryant segment. ( a ) Each person operating an airplane to or from the Bryant Airport shall conform to the flow of traffic shown on the appropriate aeronautical charts, and while in the traffic pattern, shall operate that airplane at an altitude of at least 1,000 feet MSL until maneuvering for a safe landing requires further descent.
( b ) Each person operating an aircraft within the Bryant segment should self-announce intentions on the Bryant Airport CTAF.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 98-1049MN

_____________

Robert A. Lamminen, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

City of Cloquet; Donald Panger; Neil * of Minnesota.

Nemmers; Cynthia Singpiel; Herbert *

Johnson; Peggy Roy; Beverly Wetzel; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Jim Nelson; Cloquet Chamber of *

Commerce; Alan Pelvit, *

*

Appellees. *

_____________

 Submitted: June 8, 1998

Filed: June 15, 1998

_____________

Before FAGG, BRIGHT, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Robert A. Lamminen appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary

judgment in Lamminen's action for violations of the Sherman Act, interference with

business relationships and conspiracy to restrain trade, and failure to follow requirements

of the Minnesota competitive bidding statute. Having reviewed the record and the

parties' submissions, we agree with the district court's analysis and conclude that an

extensive discussion is not warranted. Because the district court dismissed all
-2-

of Lamminen's claims with prejudice, we modify the judgment to specify that the

dismissal of Lamminen's state law claims is without prejudice. As modified, we affirm

the judgment on the basis of the district court's well-reasoned opinion. See 8th Cir. R.

47B. We grant the City of Cloquet's motion to strike.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### § 1640.12 Standards.

In any investigation, compliance review, hearing or other proceeding, the standards used to determine whether section 504 has been violated in a complaint alleging employment discrimination shall be the standards applied under title I of the ADA and the provisions of sections 501 through 504, and 510, of the ADA, as such sections relate to employment. Section 504 agencies shall consider the regulations and appendix implementing title I of the ADA, set forth at 29 CFR part 1630, and case law arising under such regulations, in determining whether a recipient of Federal financial assistance has engaged in an unlawful employment practice.
§ 91.180 Operations within airspace designated as Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum airspace. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate a civil aircraft in airspace designated as Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) airspace unless: ( 1 ) The operator and the operator's aircraft comply with the minimum standards of appendix G of this part; and
( 2 ) The operator is authorized by the Administrator or the country of registry to conduct such operations.
( b ) The Administrator may authorize a deviation from the requirements of this section.
[Amdt. 91-276, 68 FR 70133, Dec. 17, 2003]
#### § 1601.10 Withdrawal of a charge by a person claiming to be aggrieved.

A charge filed by or on behalf of a person claiming to be aggrieved may be withdrawn only by the person claiming to be aggrieved and only with the consent of the Commission. The Commission hereby delegates authority to District Directors, Field Directors, Area Directors, Local Directors, the Director of the Office of Field Programs and the Director of Field Management Programs, or their designees, to grant consent to a request to withdraw a charge, other than a Commissioner charge, where the withdrawal of the charge will not defeat the purposes of title VII, the ADA, GINA, or the PWFA.

[44 FR 4669, Jan. 23, 1979, as amended at 47 FR 46275, Oct. 18, 1982; 49 FR 13024, Apr. 2, 1984; 54 FR 32061, Aug. 4, 1989; 56 FR 9624, Mar. 7, 1991; 71 FR 26828, May 9, 2006; 74 FR 63982, Dec. 7, 2009; 89 FR 11169, Feb. 14, 2024]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                      Exhibit 27.1 Financial Data Schedule
 
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from interim
financial  statements  as at September 30, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements:
</LEGEND>
       


<S>                                                    <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                          12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      sep-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                           sep-30-1998
<CASH>                                                 4,821,556
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          754,119
<ALLOWANCES>                                           15,533
<INVENTORY>                                            168,490
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       5,783,859
<PP&E>                                                 420,794
<DEPRECIATION>                                         122,757
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         6,204,653
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  751,166
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                               5,472
<OTHER-SE>                                             6,050,624
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           6,204,653
<SALES>                                                3,821,512
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       4,022,161
<CGS>                                                  1,190,523
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          1,190,523
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       2,358,445
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     6,106
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        473,193
<INCOME-TAX>                                           306,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    0
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                           167,193
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .03
        


</TABLE>