alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### PLASTICS RESEARCH and DEVELOPMENT CO. et al *v.*Ruby Nell GOODPASTER

5-5838

476 S.W. 2d 242

Opinion delivered February 21, 1972

*1030
      *Dobbs, Pryor ir Hubbard,*for appellants.

*Wiggins ir Christian,*for appellee.

Lyle Brown, Justice.

In this workmen’s compensation case claimant-appellee, Ruby Nell Goodpaster, was awarded eight months temporary total disability. The appeal of the employer, Plastics Research and Development Company, and the carrier, Houston General Insurance Company, is based on the single assertion that there was no substantial evidence to support the award.

According to claimant’s evidence she was, in February 1968, working on the “topcoat line” for Plastics Research. It was her job to take fishing lures from a box on the floor and clip each one on a revolving chain. The chain carried the lures into a paint container where the last coat of paint was applied. The attaching of the lures necessitated reaching forward and slightly above shoulder level. It was in February 1968 that she said she began to experience pain in her left shoulder blade each time she extended her arms to attach a lure. She obtained some medical treatment “off and on” for several months but continued with her job. She asserted that the pain struck her right shoulder in February 1969 and continued intermittently until the job played out in November of that year. During that time she was under the treatment of Dr. Hoge. On December 19, 1969, claimant was hospitalized, so the doctor testified, with a thoracic outlet syndrome. The top rib on her right side was removed. Dr. Hoge testified that the hanging of the lures on the line caused an aggravation of the pre*1031existing condition and that the aggravation, which he said originated in February 1969, created the need for the surgery. The commission awarded temporary total disability from the time claimant entered the hospital and to continue for six months following the operation on February 19, 1970.

The claim was thoroughly contested and in fact there was medical testimony that the problem was not job related. However, the evidence we have abstracted was substantial and the commission elected to follow the testimony of Dr. Hoge. The burden of appellants is heavy — they must convince the court “that fair-minded men could not reach the conclusion arrived at by the commission.” *Hall*v. *Pittman Construction Co.,*235 Ark. 104, 357 S. W. 2d 263 (1962). On appeal we are concerned, not with the weight of the evidence or credibility of witnesses, but with whether there is any substantial evidence to support the commission. *Reynolds Metal Co.*v. *Robbins,*231 Ark. 158, 328 S. W. 2d 489 (1959). We have also long been committed to the rule that doubtful cases are resolved in favor of the claimant. *Boyd Excelsior Fuel Co.*v. *McKown,*226 Ark. 174, 288 S. W. 2d 614 (1956).

Affirmed.
Rural 

Roaded Natural 

Roaded Mod fi ied 

Semi-prim ti ive M to orized 

Semi-prim ti ive Non-M to orized 

Glacier

National Park 

Blackfeet Indian

Reservation 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

HiLine District 

Map W.5 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

Comparison of Alternatives B-D 

Maps show the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Alternative B (ROS) classifications for Alternatives B, C, and D.

Boundaries are not intended to confer authority,

responsibility, or jurisdiction over lands and waters that
 

are not administered by the BLM.

Proposed boundaries and regulations apply only to the

BLM-administered lands within those boundaries.
 

ROS Classification 

Rocky Boys

Indian Reservation Ft. Belknap

Indian Reservation 

CMR National

Wildlife Refuge 

Alternative C 

Alternative D 0 60 120 

Miles 

Albers Equal Area, NAD83, Meters 

Created by the Malta Field Office in December 2012 

Glacier

National Park 

Blackfeet Indian

Reservation 

Glacier

National Park 

Blackfeet Indian

Reservation
 

Rocky Boys

Indian Reservation 

Ft. Belknap

Indian Reservation 

CMR National

Wildlife Refuge 

Rocky Boys Ft. Belknap

Indian Reservation Indian Reservation

CMR National

Wildlife Refuge This map is intended for display purposes. This map may not meet National Map Accuracy Standards.

This product was developed through digital means and information may be updated without notification.

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness 

of these data for individual or aggregate use with other data, or for purposes not intended by the BLM.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           6,604
<SECURITIES>                                    17,549
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,009
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,553
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,489
<PP&E>                                           4,201
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,763
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  53,381
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,745
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            28
<OTHER-SE>                                      31,608
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    53,381
<SALES>                                         35,014
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                46,781
<CGS>                                              896
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,917
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                36,741
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   526
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  56
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,436
<INCOME-TAX>                                       550
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,886
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,886
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.13


</TABLE>
1

Werner, Christopher

From: Szabo, Aaron <Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 10:23 PM

To: Lorang, Phil; Werner, Christopher

Cc: Beaver, Melinda

Subject: RE: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO12866 and 13563: EPA NPRM -- 

Protection of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans (RIN 2060-AS55)

Attachments: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO12866_E013563_Regional Haze_2060-

AS55_NPRM.docx

Categories: Regional Haze

Phil,

Please see attached for an updated revised version of the summary of interagency comments that incorporates some 

additional interagency comments as well as the revision to the comment below.

Thank you very much and please let me know if you have any questions.

From: Lorang, Phil [mailto:Lorang.Phil@epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 9:07 PM 

To: Szabo, Aaron <Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov>; Werner, Christopher <Werner.Christopher@epa.gov> 

Cc: Beaver, Melinda <Beaver.Melinda@epa.gov> 

Subject: RE: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO12866 and 13563: EPA NPRM -- Protection of Visibility: 

Amendments to Requirements for State Plans (RIN 2060-AS55) 

 

Aaron,

We greatly appreciate your speed in getting these to us.

Specific edit #30 appears to be cut off.

1) Page 102, §51.308(f)(3)(ii)(A) – Reviewer 

Phil Lorang, Senior Policy Advisor

Air Quality Policy Division, OAQPS

919-541-5463

From: Szabo, Aaron [mailto:Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 7:11 PM 

To: Werner, Christopher <Werner.Christopher@epa.gov> 

Cc: Lorang, Phil <Lorang.Phil@epa.gov>; Beaver, Melinda <Beaver.Melinda@epa.gov> 

Subject: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO12866 and 13563: EPA NPRM -- Protection of Visibility: 

Amendments to Requirements for State Plans (RIN 2060-AS55) 

 

Attached please find the summary of interagency comments under EO 12866 and 13563 for the draft proposed rule 

entitled, Protection of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans (RIN 2060-AS55). 
2

Thank you and please let me know if you have any comments or questions. 

 

 

Aaron L. Szabo 

Policy Analyst 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

Office of Management and Budget 

202-395-3621 

Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov
§ 1910.97 Nonionizing radiation. ( a ) *Electromagnetic radiation* — ( 1 ) *Definitions applicable to this paragraph.* ( i ) The term *electromagnetic radiation* is restricted to that portion of the spectrum commonly defined as the radio frequency region, which for the purpose of this specification shall include the microwave frequency region.
( ii ) *Partial body irradiation.* Pertains to the case in which part of the body is exposed to the incident electromagnetic energy.
( iii ) *Radiation protection guide.* Radiation level which should not be exceeded without careful consideration of the reasons for doing so.
( iv ) The word “symbol” as used in this specification refers to the overall design, shape, and coloring of the rf radiation sign shown in figure G-11.
( v ) *Whole body irradiation.* Pertains to the case in which the entire body is exposed to the incident electromagnetic energy or in which the cross section of the body is smaller than the cross section of the incident radiation beam.
( 2 ) *Radiation protection guide.* ( i ) For normal environmental conditions and for incident electromagnetic energy of frequencies from 10 MHz to 100 GHz, the radiation protection guide is 10 mW/cm.2 (milliwatt per square centimeter) as averaged over any possible 0.1-hour period. This means the following: Power density: 10 mW./cm.2 for periods of 0.1-hour or more. Energy density: 1 mW.-hr./cm.2 (milliwatt hour per square centimeter) during any 0.1-hour period.
This guide applies whether the radiation is continuous or intermittent.
( ii ) These formulated recommendations pertain to both whole body irradiation and partial body irradiation. Partial body irradiation must be included since it has been shown that some parts of the human body (e.g., eyes, testicles) may be harmed if exposed to incident radiation levels significantly in excess of the recommended levels.
( 3 ) *Warning symbol.* ( i ) The warning symbol for radio frequency radiation hazards shall consist of a red isosceles triangle above an inverted black isosceles triangle, separated and outlined by an aluminum color border. The words “Warning—Radio-Frequency Radiation Hazard” shall appear in the upper triangle. See figure G-11.
( ii ) ANSI Z53.1-1967 or ANSI Z535.1-2006(R2011), incorporated by reference in § 1910.6, is for use for color specification. All lettering and the border shall be of aluminum color.
( iii ) The inclusion and choice of warning information or precautionary instructions is at the discretion of the user. If such information is included it shall appear in the lower triangle of the warning symbol. Figure G-11—Radio-Frequency Radiation Hazard Warning Symbol
( 4 ) *Scope.* This section applies to all radiations originating from radio stations, radar equipment, and other possible sources of electromagnetic radiation such as used for communication, radio navigation, and industrial and scientific purposes. This section does not apply to the deliberate exposure of patients by, or under the direction of, practitioners of the healing arts.
( b ) [Reserved]
[39 FR 23502, June 27, 1974, as amended at 61 FR 9236, Mar. 7, 1996; 78 FR 35566, June 13, 2013]
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document









































 
 

  EXHIBIT 4.2    
    

 






 



					
	Number

B-        	 	Incorporated Under the Laws of the State of Delaware	 	Shares

-0-
	 	 	 	 	Cusip No.




 

 LIBERTY MEDIA CORPORATION  


Series B Liberty Starz Common Stock, par value $.01 per share  


 Specimen Certificate  


This Certifies that                               is the owner of
                                         
        FULLY PAID AND
NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF SERIES B LIBERTY STARZ COMMON STOCK, PAR VALUE $0.01 PER SHARE, OF LIBERTY MEDIA CORPORATION (hereinafter called the "Corporation") transferable on the
books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of the Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate is not valid unless countersigned by the
Transfer Agent and registered by the Registrar. 


Witness,
the seal of the Corporation and the signatures of its duly authorized officers. 


Dated: 


Liberty
Media Corporation

[Corporate Seal] 

 






 



					
	 	 	 	 	 
	President	 	 	 	Secretary




 

 








QuickLinks



EXHIBIT 4.2
#### GREENFIELD (Village) v MURPHY

Ohio Appeals, 4th Dist, Highland Co

Decided Dec 20, 1928

H S Pulse, Lynchburg, for Village.

McMullen & Durnell, Hillsboro, Eli H Spidel and Hugh C Nichols, Batavia, for Murphy.

THOMAS, PJ

Plaintiff in error asks for a reversal of the judgment on- the following grounds:

1. That the court erred in overruling the motion for a directed verdict.

. 2. In overruling the motion for a new trial.

.3. In excluding evidence offered on behalf of the village.

4. That the verdict of the jury is against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Plaintiff in error argues that the evidence of defendant in error fails to show actionable negligence on the part of the village. It is further contended that if any defect in the sidewalk existed and which caused the injuries the village officials had no notice of same.

*135The record clearly shows that the officials not only had constructive notice but actual notice of whatever conditions that existed and about which complaint is made. Whether there were such defects as to constitute actionable negligence is ordinarily one of fact and -not of law. Gibbs v. Gerard, 88 O. S. 44. Consequently we can not say that the court erred in overruling the motion for a directed verdict.

The motion for new trial brings before the court all the questions that can be raised in the record.

Plaintiff in error complains of error in the exclusion of evidence wherein it was sought to show that no other accidents had occurred at this intersection and that no complaints had been made to the village authorities. Such evidence is manifestly incompetent and the trial court was right in excluding it.

That the verdict of the jury is against the manifest weight of the .evidence is strongly urged by the plaintiff in error. Until the Gerard case was decided by the Supreme Court the law was unsettled in this state whether in cases similar to the one at bar the question of negligence was one of law to be determined by the court or one of fact for the determination of the jury. That case decides it to be one of fact and we are bound by it. Right or wrong, in Ohio it is decided that it is a question ordinarily for the jury to determine.

We are unable to find any prejudicial errors in the record and the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

Middleton and Mauck, JJ, concur.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER Appellate case name: The City of Houston v. Frank Nicolai and Debora Nicolai as parents of C aroline Nicolai, deceased Appellate case number: 01

- 20

- 00327

- CV
Trial court case number: 20 13

- 75121
Trial court: 164th District Court of Harris County
A ppe llant , the City of Houston, has filed a “Motion to Transfer Record from Prior Related A p peal .” The motion is granted

. Accordingly, we order the Clerk of this Court to transfer the clerk’s r ecord in appeal number 01

- 1 6

- 00 184

- CV , styled City of Houston v. Frank Nicolai and Debora Nicolai as p arents of Caroline Nicolai, deceased , to the present appeal, appellate number 01

- 20

- 00327

- CV , styled City of Houston v. Frank Nicolai and Debora Nicolai a s parents of C aroline Nicolai, deceased

. The tr ans f

erred record will be design ated as volume 1 of the clerk ’ s record in the present appeal

. It is so ORDERED. Judge’s signature:

_________ __ /s/ Jul ie C ountiss

_____________________ Acting individually

Date: April 28, 2020
TS-ASLT60

Attachment #2

Summary of Information on the New Chemical Substances 
TS-ASLT60 Attachment #2

Manufacturing and Processing Information on the 

New Chemical Substances – General Description
#### KUMMER v GRODIN

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co.

No. 9752.

Decided June 10, 1929

Frey, Oliver & Maerland, Cleveland, for Kummer..

Bernon, Mulligan, Keeley & LeFever, Cleveland, for Grodin.

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

MAUCK, J.

In a statutory trial of the right'of personal property levied upon to satisfy a judgment against Joseph I. Grodin, his wife, Rose Grodin asserted ownership of the property and the judgment of the Justice of the Peace sustained her claim.

The finding and judgment of the Justice were affirmed- by the Common Pleas. It is now sought in this court to reverse both of these judgments. The only claim urged by the plaintiff in error is that the judgment complained of rests on the uncorroborated testimony of the wife to the effect that the property consisting of household goods was given her by her husband when the home was purchased many years ago, and that the testimony of the wife alone is incompetent in law to establish the gift so claimed to have been made to her. There is no rule of law requiring any particular number of witnesses in such' cases. The trial jury had a right to believe Mrs. Grodin and we can see nothing wrong in their believing her. The record is free frQm error.

The judgment is affirmed.

Justice and Hughes, JJ, concur.
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

Open-File Report 2013-1020

Pubs Warehouse

High-Resolution Geophysical Data Collected Aboard the U.S. Geological Survey Research Vessel *Rafael* to Supplement Existing Datasets From Buzzards Bay and Vineyard Sound, Massachusetts

----

## References Cited

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior |            U.S. Geological Survey                                                URL: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2013/1020/html/ofr2013-1020_reference.html            Page Contact Information: GS Pubs Web Contact                        Page Last Modified: Wednesday, March 12, 2014, 05:11:20 PM
§ 1960.29 Accident investigation. ( a ) While all accidents should be investigated, including accidents involving property damage only, the extent of such investigation shall be reflective of the seriousness of the accident.
( b ) In any case, each accident which results in a fatality or the hospitalization of three or more employees shall be investigated to determine the causal factors involved. Except to the extent necessary to protect employees and the public, evidence at the scene of an accident shall be left untouched until inspectors have an opportunity to examine it.
( c ) Any information or evidence uncovered during accident investigations which would be of benefit in developing a new OSHA standard or in modifying or revoking an existing standard should be promptly transmitted to the Secretary.
( d ) The investigative report of the accident shall include appropriate documentation on date, time, location, description of operations, description of accident, photographs, interviews of employees and witnesses, measurements, and other pertinent information. A copy of the investigative report required by this section shall be forwarded to the official in charge of the workplace, the appropriate safety and health committee, and the exclusive employee representative, if any. The investigative report shall be made available to the Secretary or his authorized representative on request.
[45 FR 69798, Oct. 21, 1980, as amended at 69 FR 68804, Nov. 26, 2004]
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 877 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to add human growth hormone 

to schedule III, to prohibit the sale of prescriptions for controlled substances for illegitimate purposes, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 14, 2007 

Mr. SCHUMER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to add human 

growth hormone to schedule III, to prohibit the sale 

of prescriptions for controlled substances for illegitimate 

purposes, 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 ‘‘Controlling the Abuse 

5 of Prescriptions Act of 2007’’. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•S 877 IS

1 SEC. 2. HUMAN GROWTH HORMONE. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Schedule III of section 202(c) of 

3 the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812(c)) is 

4 amended by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(f) Growth hormone, recombinant human growth 

6 hormone, or human growth hormone.’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 this section shall take effect 30 days after the date of en9 actment of this Act. 

10 SEC. 3. BAD FAITH SALE OF PRESCRIPTIONS. 

11 (a) IN GENERAL.—Part D of the Controlled Sub12 stances Act (21 U.S.C. 841 et seq.) is amended by adding 

13 at the end the following: 

14 ‘‘SEC. 424. BAD FAITH SALE OF PRESCRIPTIONS. 

15 ‘‘(a) OFFENSE.—It shall be unlawful for any practi16 tioner to knowingly sell, or otherwise transfer or deliver 

17 in exchange for anything of pecuniary value, a prescription 

18 for a controlled substance, other than in good faith in the 

19 course of the professional practice of that practitioner. 

20 ‘‘(b) PENALTY.—Any practitioner that violates sub21 section (a) shall be fined under title 18, United States 

22 Code, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.’’. 

23 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.— 

24 The table of contents for the Controlled Substances Act 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

3 

•S 877 IS

1 (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) is amended by inserting after the 

2 item relating to section 423 the following: 

‘‘Sec. 424. Bad faith sale of prescriptions.’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Gateway Distributors, Ltd., a
Nevada  corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB/A No. 2 for the period ended
December  31,  2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard A. Bailey, Chief Financial 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 result of operations of the
Company.

Dated: November 1, 2006.

                                        /s/ Richard A. Bailey
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Richard A. Bailey, Chief Financial
                                        Officer