alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[No. 50034-1-I.

Division One.

November 4, 2002.]

#### *In the Matter of the Marriage of*Laurel M. Baldwin, *Respondent,*and Marlin Prowell, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Whatcom County, No. 98-3-00728-1, David A. Nichols, J., entered February 1, 2002. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Agid, J., concurred in by Kennedy and Ellington, JJ.
Exhibit
10.1

    


    FIRST
AMENDMENT TO THE

    SPORT
SUPPLY GROUP, INC.

    AMENDED
AND RESTATED

    2007
LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN

    


    


    THIS
FIRST AMENDMENT (the “ First
Amendment ”) to the Sport Supply Group, Inc. Amended and Restated 2007
Long-Term Incentive Plan, as amended from time to time (the “ Plan ”),
is effective November 19, 2009 (the “ Effective
Date ”), and is made by Sport Supply Group, Inc. (the “ Company
”).

    


    WITNESSETH:

    


    WHEREAS , the Company
previously adopted the Plan, under which the Company is authorized to grant
equity-based incentive awards to certain employees and service providers of the
Company;

    


    WHEREAS , Article XI of the
Plan provides that the Company’s board of directors (the “ Board ”)
has the right to alter or amend the Plan from time to time, including, with the
approval of the stockholders of the Company, the right to amend the Plan to
increase the maximum aggregate number of shares that may be issued under the
Plan; and

    


    WHEREAS , the Board has
determined that it is desirable to amend the Plan to increase the maximum
aggregate number of shares thereunder in the manner contemplated hereby, subject
to approval by the Company’s stockholders at the Company’s fiscal 2010 annual
meeting.

    


    NOW, THEREFORE , the Plan
shall be amended as of the Effective Date as set forth below:

    


     1.           
Section V.A. of the Plan is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the
following:

    


     A.           
Shares Subject to the
Plan .  Subject to adjustment in the same manner as provided in
Section X with respect to shares of Common Stock subject to Awards then
outstanding, the aggregate number of shares of Common Stock that may be issued
under the Plan, since inception of the Sport Supply Group, Inc. 2007 Stock
Option Plan, shall not exceed 2,500,000 shares.  Shares shall be
deemed to have been issued under the Plan only to the extent actually issued and
delivered pursuant to an Award.  If an Award under this Plan expires
or is canceled, forfeited, settled in cash or otherwise terminated without an
issuance of shares to the Participant, shares of Common Stock subject to such
Award, including (1) the number of shares withheld in payment of any exercise or
purchase price of an Award or taxes related to an Award, and (2) the number of
shares surrendered in payment of any exercise or purchase price of an Award or
taxes related to an Award, shall again be available for the grant of an Award
under the Plan, except to the extent otherwise limited by applicable law or
regulation.

    


     2.           
Except as set forth above, the Plan shall continue to read in its current
state.
§ 1635.5 Limiting, segregating, and classifying. ( a ) A covered entity may not limit, segregate, or classify an individual, or fail or refuse to refer for employment any individual, in any way that would deprive or tend to deprive the individual of employment opportunities or otherwise affect the status of the individual as an employee, because of genetic information with respect to the individual. A covered entity will not be deemed to have violated this section if it limits or restricts an employee's job duties based on genetic information because it was required to do so by a law or regulation mandating genetic monitoring, such as regulations administered by the Occupational and Safety Health Administration (OSHA). See 1635.8(b)(5) and 1635.11(a).
( b ) Notwithstanding any language in this part, a cause of action for disparate impact within the meaning of section 703(k) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(k), is not available under this part.
#### RIVERS v. THE STATE.

(Decided January 30, 1917.)

Appeal from Covington Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. A. B. Foster.

No counsel marked for appellant.

W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.

Per curiam.

Affirmed on certificate.
§ 1603.210 Discovery. ( a ) Unless otherwise ordered by the administrative law judge, discovery may begin as soon as the complaint has been transmitted to the administrative law judge pursuant to § 1603.201. Discovery shall be completed as expeditiously as possible within such time as the administrative law judge directs.
( b ) Unless otherwise ordered by the administrative law judge, parties may obtain discovery by written interrogatories (not to exceed 20 interrogatories including subparts), depositions upon oral examination or written questions, requests for production of documents or things for inspection or other purposes, requests for admission, or any other method found reasonable and appropriate by the administrative law judge.
( c ) Except as otherwise specified, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall govern discovery in proceedings under this part.
( d ) Neutral mediators who have participated in the alternative dispute resolution process in accordance with § 1603.108 shall not be called as witnesses or be subject to discovery in any adjudication under this part.
[62 FR 17543, Apr. 10, 1997, as amended at 89 FR 47853, June 4, 2024]
§ 61.189 Flight instructor records. ( a ) A flight instructor must sign the logbook of each person to whom that instructor has given flight training or ground training.
( b ) A flight instructor must maintain a record in a logbook or a separate document that contains the following: ( 1 ) The name of each person whose logbook that instructor has endorsed for solo flight privileges, and the date of the endorsement; and
( 2 ) The name of each person that instructor has endorsed for a knowledge test or practical test, and the record shall also indicate the kind of test, the date, and the results.
( c ) Each flight instructor must retain the records required by this section for at least 3 years.
[Docket No. 25910, 62 FR 16298, Apr. 4, 1997, as amended by Docket FAA-2010-1127, Amdt. 61-135, 81 FR 1306, Jan. 12, 2016]
###### Editorial Note on Part 1615

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1615 appear at 73 FR 39866, July 11, 2008.

#### § 1615.151 Program accessibility: New construction and alterations.

Each building or part of a building that is constructed or altered by, on behalf of, or for the use of the Commission shall be designed, constructed, or altered so as to be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. The definitions, requirements, and standards of the Architectural Barriers Act (42 U.S.C. 4151-4157), as established in 41 CFR subpart 101-19.6, apply to buildings covered by this section.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          42,809
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,617
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                75,873
<PP&E>                                         159,141
<DEPRECIATION>                                 137,366
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 412,982
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          311,615
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,998,285
<OTHER-SE>                                     761,872
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   412,982
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   745
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   89,837
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               458,165
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (547,257)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (547,257)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (547,257)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)


</TABLE>
#### Matthew Mulvihill, Appellant, v Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., Also Known as Wegmans, Respondent.

[698 NYS2d 130]

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff was assaulted by a group of males in defendant’s parking lot at approximately 2:00 a.m. Plaintiff alleged that defendant was negligent in failing to provide adequate security to prevent the attack. Defendant has no duty “to take protective measures unless it is shown that [it] either knows or has reason to know from past experience ‘that there is a likelihood of conduct on the part of third persons * * * which is likely to endanger the safety of the visitor’ (Restatement, Torts 2d, § 344, comment /)” *(Nallan v Helmsley-Spear, Inc.,*50 NY2d 507, 519). Although the past criminal activity need not be at the same location or of the same type, a court should consider “the location, nature and extent of those previous criminal activities and their similarity, proximity or other relationship to the crime in question” *(Jacqueline S. v City of New York,*81 NY2d 288, 295, *rearg denied*82 NY2d 749). The incidents that occurred in the parking lot and the store during the three years before plaintiffs assault “were so dissimilar in nature from the violent attack upon plaintiff[ ] as to be insufficient, as a matter of law, to raise a triable factual issue as to foreseeability” *(Jarosz*
      *852
      *v 3135 Johnson Tenant Owners Corp.,*246 AD2d 488; *see, Gray v Forest City Enters.,*244 AD2d 974; *Polomie v Golub Corp.,*226 AD2d 979, 980). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Bergin, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present— Green, J. P., Lawton, Hayes, Hurlbutt and Balio, JJ.
### SERVED: May 5, 2014
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTERS OF REGENT AEROSPACE CORPORATION



### FAA DOCKETNO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA 2013-0851 AND REGENT AEROSPACE CORPORATION



### FAA DOCKETNO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA 2013- 0852



### AMENDED PROCEDURAL ORDER Paragraphs#2 and #3 oftheProcedural Order are amended as follows: WHEREFORE, the parties be and are hereby ORDERED to adhere to the following procedural schedule: 1. Venue will be Chicago, IL; 2. Onorbefore August 1, 2014, the parties shall conclude all discovery including, butnot limitedto, depositions, documentproduction, responses to productionrequests and/or interrogatories. Ifthe parties cannotresolve a discovery dispute they shall submitthe dispute to the undersigned for resolution inatimely manner;

1

### 3. Theparties shall be prepared to present this case at a hearing on or after August 1, 2014, subjectto the availability ofcourtroom facilities. The specific date and time for the hearing will be forthcoming in a separate Order.

Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative Law Judge Attachment

- Service List

2SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000 1 ONE COPY Reza Soltanian, Respondent'sPresident RegentAerospace Corporation and Airbase Services, Inc. 28110 West Harrison Parkway Valencia, CA 91355-4109 TEL: 661-257-3000 FAX: 661-702-0241 JohnS. Hoff Jeffrey Clement, Respondent's Counsel HoffLaw Group 135 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603-4134 TEL: 312-346-81 11 FAX: 312-853-3924 Chris G. Zurales, Complainant's Counsel Attorney, Office ofRegional Counsel, Great Lakes Region, AGL-7K Federal Aviation Administration 2300 East Devon Avenue Des Plaines, IL 60018 TEL: 847-294-7713 FAX: 847-294-7498 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL:
. 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS Nos. FAA-2013-0851 & FAA-2013-0852 (Civil PenaltyAction)·

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
# EUR-Lex - 31999R0701 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31999R0701

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 701/1999 of 31 March 1999 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature **

*
Official Journal L 089 , 01/04/1999 P. 0023 - 0025 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 701/1999

of 31 March 1999

concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff(1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2261/98(2), and in particular Article 9,

Whereas in order to ensure uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature annexed to the said Regulation, it is necessary to adopt measures concerning the classification of the goods referred to in the Annex to this Regulation;

Whereas Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 has set down the general rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature and those rules also apply to any other nomenclature which is wholly or partly based on it or which adds any additional subdivision to it and which is established by specific Community provisions, with a view to the application of tariff and other measures relating to trade in goods;

Whereas, pursuant to the said general rules, the goods described in column 1 of the table annexed to the present Regulation must be classified under the appropriate CN codes indicated in column 2, by virtue of the reasons set out in column 3;

Whereas it is accepted that binding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States in respect of the classification of goods in the Combined Nomenclature and which do not conform to the rights established by this Regulation, can continue to be invoked, under the provisions in Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code(3), for a period of three months by the holder;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the tariff and statistical nomenclature section of the Customs Code Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The goods described in column 1 of the annexed table are now classified within the Combined Nomenclature under the appropriate CN codes indicated in column 2 of the said table.

Article 2

Binding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States which do not conform to the rights established by this Regulation can continue to be invoked under the provisions of Article 12(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 for a period of three months.

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 21st 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, 31 March 1999.

For the Commission

Mario MONTI

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 292, 30.10.1998, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 302, 19.10.1992, p. 1.

ANNEX

>TABLE>
§ 1601.75 Certification of designated FEP agencies. ( a ) The Commission may certify designated FEP agencies based upon the past, satisfactory performance of those agencies. The effect of such certification is that the Commission shall accept the findings and resolutions of designated FEP agencies in regard to cases processed under contracts with those agencies without individual, case-by-case substantial weight review by the Commission except as provided in §§ 1601.76 and 1601.77 of this part.
( b ) Eligibility criteria for certification of a designated FEP agency are as follows: ( 1 ) That the State or local agency has been a designated FEP agency for 4 years;
( 2 ) That the State or local designated FEP agency's work product has been evaluated within the past 12 months by State, Local, and Tribal Programs, Office of Field Programs, and found to be in conformance with the Commission's Substantial Weight Review Procedures; and
( 3 ) That the State or local designated FEP agency's findings and resolutions pursuant to its contract with the Commission, as provided in section 709(b) of title VII, have been accepted by the Commission in at least 95% of the cases processed by the FEP agency in the past 12 months.
( c ) Upon Commission approval of a designated FEP agency for certification, it shall notify the agency of its certification and shall effect such certification by issuance and publication of an amendment to § 1601.80 of this part.
[46 FR 50367, Oct. 13, 1981, as amended at 54 FR 32061, Aug. 4, 1989. Redesignated and amended at 56 FR 9625, Mar. 7, 1991; 85 FR 65219, Oct. 15, 2020]
#### STOLL v BALAZS etc

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 9039.

Decided Jan 14, 1929

Cook, McGovern, Foote, Bushnell & Burgess, Cleveland, for Stoll.

Cline & Patterson, Cleveland, for Balazs.

VICKERY, J

We have gone over this record and do not find the errors complained of, of sufficient importance to warrant a reversal of this judgment. We do think, however, that the verdict is excessive. We fear that the jury took into consideration the pain and suffering that this young man had to endure by reason of the kick of the horse, and that was no part and could be no part of a judgment that should be rendered against the attending physician, because he was in no way responsible for that.

We have gone over this whole record and we can come to no other conclusion than that the jury was justified in finding a verdict against the attending physician, and we think that the evidence is ample in the record that he did not use the usual and recognized methods of determining, just how this bone could be set. There is evidence in the record to show that even after the plaster cast was placed over the leg that an X-ray picture could have been taken through that cast, and it was not until the damage had been done, as far as the infection having taken place, that an X-ray was taken and it showed the situation which might have been avoided had this precaution been taken in the first instance.

We think, therefore, that the excessiveness of this judgment can be cured by a remittitur, and we order a.remittitur.of five thousand dollars in this verdict, leaving the same at Fifteen Thousand Dollars, and if the plaintiff accepts this remittitur the judgment will be affirmed for Fifteen Thousand Dollars. If. however, the plaintiff refuses to accept the remittitur, the judgment will be reversed on the ground that it is excessive.

Judgment affirmed, order see journal.

Sullivan, PJ, and Levine, J, concur.
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

No. 116,943

In the Matter of H ARRY L OUIS N AJIM ,

Respondent

.

ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT

On December 1, 2017, this court indefinite ly suspen ded the respondent Harry Louis Najim 's license to practice law in Kansa s retroactive to the May 15, 2015, order of temporary suspension. The court further ordered that the respondent undergo a reinstatement hearing under Supreme Court Rule 219 (d) (2017 Kan. S. Ct. R. 263 ) prior

to its consideration of a ny petition for reinsta tement filed under Supreme Court Rule 219(b)

. In re Najim , 307 Kan. 76, 405 P.3d 1223 (2017).

On November 19, 2018
, the respondent filed a petit ion for reinstatement

. T he Disciplinary Administrator agreed that sufficient time h ad passed for the court to
reconsider the suspension order. T he court then ordered the Disciplinary Administrator to
conduct a n investigation of the facts alleged in the petition for reinstatement and the respondent's conduct since the court suspended the respondent's license . See Rule 219(d)(2) (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 270)

. The court further ordered that upon completion of the Disciplinary Administrator's investigation, the respondent appear for a reinstatement hearing before a hearing panel appointed by the Kansas Board for Disciplin e of Attorneys
and that the reinstatement matter proceed pursuant to Rule 219. The court has since received the final hearing report detailing the panel's findings in support of its
recommendation for reinstatement.

A fter careful consider ation and a th o r ough review of the final hearing report
, the
court finds the respondent's license to practice law in Kansas courts should be reinstated

.2

The court further finds such reinstatement should be conditioned upon the respondent's compliance with the annual conti nuing legal education requirements and upon his payment of all fees required by the Clerk of the Appellate Courts and the Kansas Continuing Legal Education Commission

. See Supreme Court Rule 208 (adopted April 25, 2019) (attorney regist r atio n ) ; Supreme Cou rt Rule 811(b) (2019 Kan. S. Ct. R. 553) (continuing legal education).

I T I S T HEREFORE O RDERED that the respondent's license to practice law in Kansas is reinstated, conditioned upon the respondent's compliance with the annual continuing legal education requirements and upon his payment of all fees required by the Clerk of the Appellate Courts and the Kansas Contin uing Legal Education Commission . Upon receipt of proof of the completion of these conditions, the Clerk is directed to enter the

res pondent's n ame on the roster of attorneys actively engaged in the practice of law in
Kansas.

I T I S F URTHER O RDERED that this order be pu blished in the official Kansas R eports and that the costs herein be assessed to the respondent

.

Dated this 11th day of S eptem ber
, 2019.