alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### PAVILONIS v VALENTINE

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21221.

Decided Mar 20, 1929

Syllabus by

ROBINSON, J.

TRIAL

(590 J3e) The purpose of the examination of a prospective juror upon his voir dire is to determine whether he has both the statutory qualification of a juror and is free from bias or prejudice for or against either litigant.

The scope of the inquiry will not be confined strictly to the subjects, which constitute grounds for the sustaining of a challenge for cause.

It is not error to permit the examination of a prospective juror on his voire dire as to his connection with, interest in or relationship to a casualty insurance company where such a company is directly or indirectly interested in the result of the trial.

Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ, concur. Marshall, CJ, Kinkade and Jones, JJ, dissent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
REGISTRANTS FIRST QUARTER 2000 BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
THREE  MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          29,977
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,077
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    144,268
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               236,473
<PP&E>                                         326,064
<DEPRECIATION>                                 291,612
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 270,925
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,173
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,000,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   (766,248)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   270,925
<SALES>                                        113,077
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               113,077
<CGS>                                           49,621
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   55,124
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,332
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,332
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,332
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00



</TABLE>
#### § 1690.104 Authority.

These regulations are prepared pursuant to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's obligation and authority under sections 1-303 and 1-304 of Executive Order 12067 (Providing for Coordination of Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Programs) 43 FR 28967, July 5, 1978. (These regulations will also appear as EEOC Management Directive No. 1000).
#### In the Matter of Colonial Penn Insurance Company, Appellant, v Leonid A. Pevzner, Respondent, and State Farm Insurance et al., Respondents.

[698 NYS2d 310]

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75, *inter alia,*to permanently stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Shaughnessy, J.H.O.), dated November 24, 1998, which denied the petition and directed the parties to proceed to arbitration.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the petition is granted.

The 41-day delay of the respondent State Farm Insurance (hereinafter State Farm) in disclaiming coverage for the vehicle of its insured, Chin Hasing L. Ng, based on his failure to provide it with timely notice of an accident, was unreasonable as a matter of law *(see, Matter of Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v Steiner,*199 AD2d 507). Its attempt to justify that delay is unpersuasive. Since insurance coverage for the Ng vehicle still exists, the petition to stay arbitration of the uninsured motorist claim of Leonid A. Pevzner should have been granted. Santucci, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 13.2

                      CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

     In connection with this annual report of Ultrapetrol (Bahamas) Limited (the
     "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2006, as filed
     with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
     "Report"), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
     certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 that:

     (1)  The Report 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.

     This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section
     1350, and not for any other purpose.

Date: May 1, 2007


/s/ Leonard J. Hoskinson
--------------------------------
Leonard J. Hoskinson

Chief Financial Officer
§ 91.803 Part 125 operators: Designation of applicable regulations. For airplanes covered by this subpart and operated under part 125 of this chapter, the following regulations apply as specified: ( a ) For each airplane operation to which requirements prescribed under this subpart applied before November 29, 1980, those requirements of this subpart continue to apply.
( b ) For each subsonic airplane operation to which requirements prescribed under this subpart did not apply before November 29, 1980, because the airplane was not operated in the United States under this part or part 121, 129, or 135 of this chapter, the requirements prescribed under § 91.805 of this subpart apply.
( c ) For each supersonic airplane operation to which requirements prescribed under this subpart did not apply before November 29, 1980, because the airplane was not operated in the United States under this part or part 121, 129, or 135 of this chapter, the requirements of §§ 91.819 and 91.821 of this subpart apply.
( d ) For each airplane required to operate under part 125 for which a deviation under that part is approved to operate, in whole or in part, under this part or part 121, 129, or 135 of this chapter, notwithstanding the approval, the requirements prescribed under paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section continue to apply.
[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34321, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-276, 67 FR 46571, July 15, 2002]
# EUR-Lex - 31998R0189 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31998R0189

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 189/98 of 23 January 1998 determining to what extent import right applications submitted for live bovine animals weighing between 80 and 300 kilograms as part of a tariff quota provided for in Regulation (EC) No 2524/97 may be accepted **

*
Official Journal L 019 , 24/01/1998 P. 0076 - 0076 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 189/98 of 23 January 1998 determining to what extent import right applications submitted for live bovine animals weighing between 80 and 300 kilograms as part of a tariff quota provided for in Regulation (EC) No 2524/97 may be accepted

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2524/97 of 16 December 1997 laying down, for the first half of 1998, certain detailed rules for the application of a tariff quota for live bovine animals weighing from 80 to 300 kilograms and originating in certain third countries (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,

Whereas Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2524/97 lays down the number of head of live bovine animals weighing between 80 and 300 kilograms originating in certain third countries which may be imported under special conditions in the period 1 January to 30 June 1998;

Whereas the quantities for which import right applications have been submitted exceed the quantities available; whereas, pursuant to Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2524/97, a single percentage reduction in the quantities applied for should be fixed,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Import right applications submitted pursuant to the import arrangements referred to in Regulation (EC) No 2524/97 shall be reduced by 99,1797 %.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 24 January 1998.

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

Done at Brussels, 23 January 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 346, 17. 12. 1997, p. 48.
#### LAND & HOME CO. et v THOMAS

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co.

No. 8942.

Decided June 10, 1929

Smith, Olds, Smith & Shepherd, Cleveland, for Land & Home Co.

Clayton W. Tyler, Cleveland, for Thomas.

Judges JUSTICE & HUGHES, (3rd Dist.) and MAUCK (4th Dist.) sitting.

*404MAUCK, J.

In this court it is claimed that Smith as trustee should not be held on. the ground that he was a naked trustee of the Land ,and Home Company. This question was nowhere raised in the trial court and it is not, therefore, a question open for review in this court. In our judgment, however, there is nothing in the suggestion, however or whenever the question might be raised. The liability of Smith and the corporation arises not because of the relation of principal and agent that may have existed between them, nor because one was trustee and the other a cestui-que trust, but because one was the grantor and the other the grantee with notice, and because the action of both of them resulted in the wrong of which plaintiff complains. They both participated in this wrong and they were both liable.

It has been admitted in argument that the plaintiff had paid upon this purchase over Six Hundred Dollars and it is virtually admitted that the Land and Home' Company are indebted to him in some amount.

The only substantial question involved is that of the weight of the evidence, and we experience no difficulty in finding that the weight of the evidence was with the plaintiff, and that he is entitled to all or more than the amount of this judgment upon either of the two theories upon which that judgment might be predicated. At the time Smith put it out of his power to carry on his contract, it is evident that the plaintiff was not in default and it is quite doubtful whether he was in default at the time the Land Company sold the property to the new purchasers. If the action were one for damages the plaintiff was entitled to the value of the property fixed by the re-sale less the amount unpaid by him, subject to interest and taxes and without any charge of commission for re-sale. The amount due him under this calculation would be in excess of the judgment actually recovered by him.

If, instead., of awarding him damages predicated on this theory, the trial court undertook to treat the contract as abandoned by Smith, or of being rendered impossible of performance by the action of Smith and the Land Company, then the plaintiff, was entitled to recover all the payments made by him with interest and without any deduction for taxes or other charges. On this theory too the plaintiff was entitled to even more than the judgment. So whatever view we take of the character of the action as fixed by the pleadings, the judgment entered was sound and the record discloses no error prejudicial to the Land and Home Company or to Smith as trustee.

The judgment is affirmed.

Justice and Hughes, JJ, concur.
#### § 1471.915 Agent or representative.

*Agent or representative* means any person who acts on behalf of, or who is authorized to commit, a participant in a covered transaction.
#### § 1626.2 Terms defined in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended.

The terms *person, employer, employment agency, labor organization, employee, commerce, industry affecting commerce,* and *State* as used herein shall have the meanings set forth in section 11 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, as amended.
This .zip file contains graphic files (in .png format) of each chart and graph in the Economic Research Service report "Rural Employment Trends in Recessionand Recovery," ERR-172, published in August 2014. The content and context of these files is as of the publication date of the report. After time, the material may not reflect the current ERS program of work, may be outdated, and/or superseded, so please visit the website to obtain the latest information: www.ers.usda.gov. Any reuse ofthese images should include attribution to "Economic Research Service/USDA."The following inventory lists each of the files in this folder.File name			Description(Fig01.png)			Fig01 - Nonfarm employment trajectories during past five recessions (seasonally adjusted)(Fig02.png)			Fig02 - Employment indices by industry(Fig03.png)			Fig03 - Public-sector employment during last four recessions and recoveries(Fig04.png)			Fig04 - Employment/population ratio (seasonally adjusted): 1962 to present(Fig05.png)			Fig05 - Monthly unemployment rate (seasonally adjusted): 1950 to present(Fig06.png)			Fig06 - Percentage point change in State unemployment rates during recession (2007Q4/2008Q1 to 2009Q4/2010Q1)(Fig07.png)			Fig07 - County unemployment rates, July through December 2013 �(percent, not seasonally adjusted)(Fig08.png)			Fig08 - Nonmetro and metro quarterly employment indices, 2007 to present (seasonally adjusted)(Fig09.png)			Fig09 - Nonmetro versus metro employment/population ratio (seasonally adjusted)(Fig10.png)			Fig10 - Nonmetro versus metro quarterly unemployment rates (seasonally adjusted)	(Fig11.png)			Fig11 - Nonmetro counties with large minority population shares
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Draft record of decison fornorth Billings County allotment management plan revisions**
 
Volumes: One | Two | Three
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.92/2:N 81/13
Item Number:0080-F-03 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000931217
 
January 17, 2018
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2012 - 0 858 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2011 -NM - 1 83 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR - M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
§ 61.85 Application. An applicant for a student pilot certificate: ( a ) Must make that application in a form acceptable to the Administrator; and
( b ) Must submit the application to a Flight Standards office, a designated pilot examiner, an airman certification representative associated with a pilot school, a flight instructor, or other person authorized by the Administrator.
[Docket FAA-2010-1127, Amdt. 61-135, 81 FR 1306, Jan. 12, 2016, as amended by Docket FAA-2018-0119, Amdt. 61-141, 83 FR 9170, Mar. 5, 2018]
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 21

- 00628

- CV

Michael Krause , Appellant

v.
Tara Krause , Appellee

FROM THE 340TH DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY NO. C210385F , THE HONORABLE JAY K. WEATHERBY , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The clerk’s record in this appeal was due for filing in this Court on December 31,
2021

. On March 15, 2022 , we notified appellant that no clerk’s record had been filed due to his
fa ilure to pay or make ar ra ngements to pay the trial clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s record. The notice requested that appellant make arrangements for the clerk’s record and submit a status report regarding this appeal by March 25, 2022 . Further , the notice advised appella nt that his failure to comply with this request could result in the dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. To date, appellant has not filed a status report or otherwise responded to this
Court’s notice , and the clerk’s record has not been filed.
If a trial

- court clerk fails to file the clerk’s record due to an appellant’s failure to pay or make arrangements to pay for the clerk’s fee for preparing the record, the appellate court2 may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless the appellan t was entitled to proceed without payment of costs. Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). In this case, appellant has not established
that he is entitled to proceed without payment of costs. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 145 . Because appellant has failed to pay or make arran ge ments to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s record, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.

____________ ______________________________ Gisela D. Triana , Justice
Bef ore Justices Goodwin, Baker and Triana
Dismissed for Want of P ro secution
Filed: April 14, 2022
[Nos. 20242-9-III; 20567-3-III; 20854-1-III.

Division Three.

October 29, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Sidney Gilbert Orange, *Appellant. In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of*Sidney G. Orange, *Petitioner.*

Appeals from judgments of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 00-1-02380-5, Linda G. Tompkins, J., entered August 6, 2001 and March 14, 2002, together with a petition for relief from personal restraint. Judgment *affirmed*and petition *denied*by unpublished opinion per Schultheis, J., concurred in by Brown, C.J., and Sweeney, J.
§ 18.94 Indicative ruling on a motion for relief that is barred by a pending petition for review. ( a ) *Relief pending review.* If a timely motion is made for relief that the judge lacks authority to grant because a petition for review has been docketed and is pending, the judge may: ( 1 ) Defer considering the motion;
( 2 ) Deny the motion; or
( 3 ) State either that the judge would grant the motion if the reviewing body remands for that purpose or that the motion raises a substantial issue.
( b ) *Notice to reviewing body.* The movant must promptly notify the clerk of the reviewing body if the judge states that he or she would grant the motion or that the motion raises a substantial issue.
( c ) *Remand.* The judge may decide the motion if the reviewing body remands for that purpose.
§ 91.525 Carriage of cargo. ( a ) No pilot in command may permit cargo to be carried in any airplane unless— ( 1 ) It is carried in an approved cargo rack, bin, or compartment installed in the airplane;
( 2 ) It is secured by means approved by the Administrator; or
( 3 ) It is carried in accordance with each of the following: ( i ) It is properly secured by a safety belt or other tiedown having enough strength to eliminate the possibility of shifting under all normally anticipated flight and ground conditions.
( ii ) It is packaged or covered to avoid possible injury to passengers.
( iii ) It does not impose any load on seats or on the floor structure that exceeds the load limitation for those components.
( iv ) It is not located in a position that restricts the access to or use of any required emergency or regular exit, or the use of the aisle between the crew and the passenger compartment.
( v ) It is not carried directly above seated passengers.
( b ) When cargo is carried in cargo compartments that are designed to require the physical entry of a crewmember to extinguish any fire that may occur during flight, the cargo must be loaded so as to allow a crewmember to effectively reach all parts of the compartment with the contents of a hand fire extinguisher.
#### § 1610.36 Procedure in the event of an adverse ruling.

If the court or other authority declines to stay the effect of the demand in response to a request made in accordance with § 1610.34(b) pending receipt of instructions from the Legal Counsel, or if the court or other authority rules that the demand must be complied with irrespective of the instructions from the Legal Counsel not to produce the material or disclose the information sought, the employee or former employee upon whom the demand has been made shall respectfully decline to comply with the demand (United States ex rel. *Touhy* v. *Ragen,* 340 U.S. 462 (1951)).

[32 FR 16261, Nov. 29, 1967, as amended at 47 FR 46275, Oct. 18, 1982]
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION
 
 
 Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Columbus McKinnon Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the such Annual Report on Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all material  respects,  the  financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 
 Dated:  March 15, 2011
 
 
 /s/ Timothy T. TevensTimothy T. TevensChief Executive Officer/s/ Karen L. HowardKaren L. HowardChief Financial Officer