alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Thomas R. Shuman et al., Appellants, v Abex Corporation et al., Defendants, and Navistar International Transportation Corporation, Formerly Known as International Harvester, Defendant-Respondent.

[698 NYS2d 207]

—Order and judgment unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion denied and complaint and cross claims against defendant Navistar International Transportation Corporation, f/k/a International Harvester, reinstated. Memorandum: Supreme Court *879erred in granting the motion of Navistar International Transportation Corporation, f/k/a International Harvester (defendant) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims against it. Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages resulting from the exposure of Thomas R. Shuman (plaintiff) to asbestos fibers released from defendant’s products. Defendant failed to establish that its product could not have contributed to the causation of plaintiffs injury *(see, Matter of Eighth Judicial Dist. Asbestos Litig., 255*AD2d 1002; *see also, Reid v Georgia-Pacific Corp.,*212 AD2d 462, 463). (Appeal from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Murphy, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present— Lawton, J. P., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., Hurlbutt and Balio, JJ.
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Agreements Adopted by the Traffic 

Conferences of the International Air 

Transport Association 

OST-2011- 0^1 ^ 

APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF AGREEMENTS 

BY THE 

INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION 

lATA AGREEMENT APPROVED & IMMUNIZED 

DOCKET OST- // - O ^/ ^ ACTION DATE 0-^ ^ -^ . "Xa 11 

This approval and grant of antitrust immunity is subject, where applicable, 

to conditions previously imposed. 

This action is effective after 7 days unless a petition is filed under 

14 CFR 385.30 or a review is undertaken on the Department's own motion. 

In view of the agreement's noncontroversial nature and the availability of 

the above propedure, the 2I-dayj>epipd i!>l<l'PPR-S03.42 is waived. 

30 November 2011 

Communications with respect to 

this document should be sent to 

Douglas E. Lavin 

Regional Vice President - North America 

Intemational Air Transport Association 

1776 K.St. N.W. #12"^ Floor 

Washington DC 20006 
Summary DOCKET: OST-2011 -XXXX US DOT ORDER: pending 

Date: 

Filing fee / lATA Acct: 

US/UST involved: 

30 November 2011 

USD 61 / 0000-06 

No 

End of Government Filing Period: 15 December 2011 

Meeting site, date: 

Intended effective date: 

Agreement: 

SIN, 14 Oct 2011 

1June2012 

Composite Passenger Tariff Coordinating Conference 

Singapore, 14 October 2011 

Composite Resolution 011b 

Intended Effective Date: 1 June 2012 

(Memo PTC COMP 1653) 

R1 011b
§ 1636.2 Definitions—general. ( a ) *Commission* means the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission established by section 705 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-4.
( b ) *Covered entity* means *respondent* as defined in section 701(n) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e(n), and includes: ( 1 ) *Employer,* which is a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has 15 or more employees, as defined in section 701(b) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e(b);
( 2 ) *Employing office,* as defined in section 101 of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1301, and 3 U.S.C. 411(c);
( 3 ) An entity employing a State employee (or the employee of a political subdivision of a State) described in section 304(a) of the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16c(a); and
( 4 ) An entity to which section 717(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(a), applies.
( c ) *Employee* means: ( 1 ) An employee (including an applicant), as defined in section 701(f) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e(f);
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( 3 ) A covered employee (including an applicant), as defined in 3 U.S.C. 411(c);
( 4 ) A State employee (including an applicant) (or the employee or applicant of a political subdivision of a State) described in section 304(a) of the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16c(a); and
( 5 ) An employee (including an applicant) to which section 717(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(a), applies.
( d ) *Person* means person as defined by section 701(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e(a).
[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:****Geologic field notes andgeochemical analyses of outcrop and drill core from mesoproterozoic rocks andiron-oxide deposits and prospects of Southeast Missouri**
 
Report
Table2: txt | xls
Table3: txt | xls
Table4: txt | xls
Table5: txt | xls
Table6: txt | xls
Table7: txt | xls
 
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.76:2014-1053
Item Number:0624-H (online)
CGP systemNumber:000932906
 
January 26, 2018
1930 Huguenot Road 

PO Box35655 

Richmond, VA 23235 

(804) 320-9100 

CowanGates.com 

Federal Aviation Administration 

ATTN: Hearing Docket Clerk 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Room924A 

Washington, DC 20591 

Re: Docket No. 2012EA210024 

December 12, 2012 

Federal Aviation Administration v. Dennis F. Harrnp, III 

and Central Virginia Aviation, Inc. 

Beech B90 Aircraft, ID No.: N603PA 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

KATHERINE G. GRAY 

(804) 320-9100 

(804) 320-2900 

KGRA Y@COWANGATES.COl\'l 

Matter No. 2463-033 

Please consider this letter Dennis F. Hanup, III and Central Virginia Aviation, Inc.'s request 

for a hearing in the above-referenced matter. David Gates and I are representing Mr. Han-up and 

Central Virginia Aviation, Inc. in the proceedings. 

Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Should you have any questions, please do 

not hesitate to contact me. 

Very truly yours, 

Katherine G. Gray 

cc: Zachary M. Berman, Esq. 

Dennis F. Harrup, III 

CowAN GATES 

In any case.
#### Diane a/k/a Veda Mae SLITTER *v.*Andrew J. PONDER

5-5854

479 S.W. 2d 567

Opinion delivered May 1, 1972

*Jackson County Legal Services, Inc.*and *Monroe L. Bethea,*for petitioner.

*Ray Thornton,*Atty. Gen., by: *David Hodges,*Pros. Atty., and *Gene O’Daniel,*Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

Lyle Brown, Justice.

Petitioner was charged in the Newport Municipal Court with the offense of disturbing the peace. She filed a motion to quash the affidavit for warrant of arrest and the warrant itself. The motions were overruled and she was convicted. She appealed to the Jackson County Circuit Court where she renewed her motions to quash. When they were overruled she filed in this court her petition for a writ of prohibition. Prohibition does not lie unless the court is wholly without jurisdiction of the subject matter, or where there is no adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise. *State ex rel Purcell*v. *Nelson,*246 Ark. 210, 438 S.W. 2d 33 (1969).

*415The jurisdiction of the respondent to try the accused was not affected by any deficiency in the affidavit for warrant or the warrant itself. *Cassady*v. *State,*249 Ark. 1040, 463 S.W. 2d 96 (1971); *Estes*v. *State,*246 Ark. 1145, 442 S.W. 2d 221 (1969); *Perkins*v. *City of Little Rock,*232 Ark. 739, 339 S.W. 2d 859 (1960). Finally, it cannot be questioned that petitioner, had she been convicted in circuit court, would have had a right to appeal.

We have not overlooked the citations of authority from federal jurisdictions. They deal mostly with search warrants. Others interpret the federal rules of. criminal procedure. We are convinced that our cited holdings are not repugnant to any decision of the United States Supreme Court.

Petition denied.
###### Editorial Note on Part 302

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 302.419 Modification or dissolution of enforcement actions.

Whenever any party to a proceeding, in which an order of the Department has been issued pursuant to section 46101 of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII or an injunction or other form of enforcement action has been issued by a court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to section 46106 of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII, believes that changed conditions of fact or law or the public interest require that said order or judicial action be modified or set aside, in whole or in part, such party may file with the Department a motion requesting that the Department take such administrative action or join in applying to the appropriate court for such judicial action, as the case may be. The motion shall state the changes desired and the changed circumstances warranting such action, and shall include the materials and argument in support thereof. The motion shall be served on each party to the proceeding in which the enforcement action was taken. Within thirty (30) days after the service of such motion, any party so served may file an answer thereto. The Department shall dispose of the motion by such procedure as it deems appropriate.
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 08753

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2File Name Description

x 08753\08753_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

08753\08753_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

08753\08753_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 08753\08753_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 08753\08753_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 08753\08753_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 08753\08753_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 08753\08753_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

08753\Certification Statement Plant ID 08753.pdf Plant certification statement

x 08753\Supporting Documentation\08753_Question A2-3 Attachment.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 08753\Supporting Documentation\08753_Question A5-2 Attachment.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 08753\Supporting Documentation\08753_Question A5-3 Attachment.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 08753\Supporting Documentation\08753_Question C3-29 Attachment (CBI).pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 08753\Supporting Documentation\08753_Question D3-1 Attachment.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

                           CERTIFICATION 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 Annual Report of Jupiter Marine International
Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended July 29, 2006
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Carl Herndon, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.



Date:  October 20, 2006


/s/ Carl Herndon
----------------
Carl Herndon
Chief Executive Officer
#### HOLTZINGER et v. CAITO

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist., Cuyahoga Co.

No. 8995.

Decided Oct. 8, 1928.

*11White, Cannon & Speith, Cleveland, for Holtzinger et.

Sol Edgert, Cleveland, for Ciato

VICKERY, J.

The writer of this opinion would agree with this proposition if that was all that there was to it. Apples, especially in the month of June, necessarily taken out of cold storage, if left to stand on a track for seven days after they arrive would be not accepting or rejecting them in a reasonable time, and the man to whom they were shipped would be responsible for it, if it was because of neglect, but the record does not show that state of facts. It shows that the shipping company had an agent here and Caito immediately took the matter up with him and the subsequent actions between this agent and his principals, the brokers, was the reason for the delay, and until that matter was settled, the defendant in error had no real ground to reject these apples. As soon as it was made known that the brokers refuted any overtures on his part, nowithstanding he had reported that they were defective and that they would make no allowance, he then rejected the apples and the loss that attended it was because of the neglect of the brokers, or the refusal of the brokers to make a proper allowance, and thus warranting the defendant in error in rejecting the apples. The mere fact that he accepted one car out of three, has nothing to do with the case in hand.

Sullivan, P. J. and Levine, J„ concur.
# EUR-Lex - 31998R2579 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31998R2579

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 2579/98 of 30 November 1998 establishing the list of textile products for which no proof of origin is required on release for free circulation in the Community **

*
Official Journal L 322 , 01/12/1998 P. 0027 - 0030 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2579/98 of 30 November 1998 establishing the list of textile products for which no proof of origin is required on release for free circulation in the Community

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1541/98 of 13 July 1998 on proof of origin for certain textile products falling within Section XI of the Combined Nomenclature and released for free circulation in the Community, and on the conditions for the acceptance of such proof (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Whereas, for those textile and clothing products not subject to specific measures under the Community's trade policy and which are released for free circulation, the above Regulation provides both that exemption from the obligation to present a proof of origin may be granted and that the provisions establishing exemption from the obligation to present a certificate of origin should indicate if a declaration of origin is to be presented or not for such products;

Whereas products which are not currently subject to specific trade measures have been identified after careful analysis; whereas it seems desirable to dispense with the need for a proof of origin for such products when they are presented for release for free circulation in the Community;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The release for free circulation of the textile products listed in the Annex to this Regulation shall not be subject to the presentation of any proof of origin.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th 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, 30 November 1998.

For the Commission

Mario MONTI

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 202, 18. 7. 1998, p. 11.

ANNEX

>TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         106,202
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,098
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               161,113
<PP&E>                                         151,498
<DEPRECIATION>                                 115,171
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 502,958
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           74,382
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,898,285
<OTHER-SE>                                     641,824
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   502,958
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,246
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   74,621
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               339,833
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (411,208)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (411,208)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (411,208)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)


</TABLE>
#### MINICK v WINDSOR BRICK CO

Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist, Summit Co

No. 1479.

Decided Jan 4, 1929

Lee J. Myers, Akron, for Minick.

Mather, Nesbitt & Willkie, Akron, for Brick Co.

WASHBURN, PJ

The Supreme Court of Ohio, as well as a large majority of the various courts of the states of the union, has definitely repudiated the doctrine of the turntable or attractive nuisance cases.

Railroad Co. v. Harvey, 77 O.S. 235.

United Zinc *&*Chemical Co, v Van Britt, 258 U.S. 268.

Hannan, Admr., v. Ehrlich, 102 O.S. 176.

The question is, is the defendant liable because it exposed said boy to a “hidden danger” upon its premises?

There is no evidence tending to prove that when installed, said wire was not properly insulated nor that the company had any knowledge- that the wire was in such condition as to make it dangerous to come in contact with it; indeed, the only evidence in support of the allegation in the petition that the wire had become worn and uninsulated is the fact that the boy was injured by coming in contact with it.

There was no evidence tending to show that when injured the bpy was proceeding along any path or a path commonly used by licensees or that the défendant had created a new danger or that it was operating in any manner other than its usual and customary manner, which it had followed for the preceding ten years.

We do not think that the authorities will warrant the conclusion that a manufacturing company, by the mere maintenance, upon its land, of a wire charged with electricity for ordinary and lawful purposes and incident to its use in carrying on a lawful business, which wire was properly insulated and installed, but which without the knowledge of the company, has become worn and partially uninsulated, can properly be said to have exposed to a hidden danger, one who, subsequent to such installation, has become a licensee and has been injured by coming in contact with said wire while upon said company’s premises; nor will the maintenance of such a wire, under such circumstances, make the one who maintains it a wilful tort-feasor with respect to a licensee who comes in contact with said wire.

Under the record in this case, the trial court was justified in directing a verdict in favor of the defendant, a^ri the judgment is affirmed.

Funk, J, and Pardee, J, concur.
§ 1404.14 Decision and award. ( a ) Arbitrators shall make awards no later than 60 days from the date of the closing of the record, unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties or specified by the collective bargaining agreement or law. However, failure to meet the 60-day deadline will not invalidate the process or award. A failure to render timely awards reflects upon the performance of an arbitrator and may lead to removal from the FMCS Roster.
( b ) The parties should inform OA whenever a decision is delayed. The arbitrator shall promptly notify OA if and when the arbitrator: ( 1 ) Cannot schedule or hear a case, and/or render a decision promptly and in accordance with time limits established in this part, or
( 2 ) Learns a dispute has been settled by the parties prior to the decision.
( c ) Within 15 days after an award and/or final invoice has been submitted to the parties, the arbitrator shall submit an online Arbitrator's Report and Fee Statement (Form R-19) to OA showing a breakdown of the fee and expense charges.
( d ) While FMCS encourages the publication of arbitration awards, arbitrators must not publicize awards without the express consent of the parties in conformance with the Code.
EX-4.14





Exhibit 4.14


Memorandum Of Understanding


This is a Memorandum of Understanding (“Memo”), dated September 17, 2009, by and between Lianchuang
Technology Company Limited (“Lianchuang Technology”), a limited company legally registered and
validly existing under the laws of the People’s Republic of China, and Linkage Technology
(Nanjing) Co., Ltd.(“Linkage Nanjing”), a wholly foreign-owned enterprise legally registered and
validly existing under the laws of the People’s Republic of China, collectively referred to herein
as “the Parties.”


By this Memo, the Parties seek to clarify the intellectual property arrangement between the Parties
prior to the execution of certain License Agreements in October 2008 and June 2009, respectively,
between the Parties (the “License Agreements”) as follows:


The Parties hereby agree that, prior to the effective date of the License Agreements, any and all
intellectual properties owned by Lianchuang Technology and used in any way or form by Linkage
Nanjing shall be deemed to have been validly licensed to Linkage Nanjing free of charge.


The Memo constitutes the entire understanding between the Parties with respect to the subject
matter of this Memo. The Memo becomes effective once executed by both Parties.


Lianchuang Technology Company Limited

Legal representative or authorized representative (signature):



	 	 	 
	/s/ Libin Sun
 


	 	 
	 
	 	 
	Name: Sun Libin
	 	 
	Title: Chairman
	 	 





Linkage Technology (Nanjing) Co., Ltd.

Legal representative or authorized representative (signature):



	 	 	 
	/s/ Libin Sun
 


	 	 
	 
	 	 
	Name: Sun Libin
	 	 
	Title: Chairman and CEO