alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1996 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

10-22-1996

Pievsky v. Ridge

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 96-7206

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1996

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1996 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Pievsky v. Ridge" (1996). 1996 Decisions. Paper 49.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1996/49
 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 

 No. 96-7206 

 

 MAX PIEVSKY, 

 Appellant 

 v. 

 THOMAS J. RIDGE, in his capacity as the 

 Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

 

 On Appeal from the United States District Court 

 for the Middle District of Pennsylvania 

 (D.C. No. 96-cv-00116) 

 

 Argued July 17, 1996 

 BEFORE: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, COWEN and ROTH 

 Circuit Judges 

 

 ORDER AMENDING SLIP OPINION 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the slip opinion in the above 

case, filed October 16, 1996, be amended as follows: 

 On page 2, counsel for appellee should read as follows: 

 Paul A. Tufano (argued) 

 General Counsel 

 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

 Office of General Counsel 

 225 Main Capitol Building 

 Harrisburg, PA 17120 

 Stephanie A. Middleton 

 Gregory E. Dunlap 

 Eric L. Settle 

 Gregg R. Melinson 

 Deputies General Counsel 

 Office of General Counsel 

 333 Market Street, 17th Floor 

 Harrisburg, PA 17101 

 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE 
 

/s/ Robert E. Cowen 

 United States Circuit Judge 

 

Dated: October 22, l996
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Garn-St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982

              														Garn-St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982, October 15, 1982.						https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/1044,			accessed on August 27, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
#### Louis M. Cornish *et al.,*Resp’ts, *v.*Maurice Wormser, App’lt.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,*

*Filed May 24, 1889.)*

1. Discovert—Order for—May be granted to enable party to FRAME BILL OF PARTICULARS—CODE OlV. PRO., § 803.

The court, in a proper case, has the power to order a discovery or inspection of books and papers to enable a party to frame a bill of particulars. *Ball*v. *Evening Post Publishing Co.,*5 N. Y. St. R., 2á9, followed.

2. Same—Affidavits And order must definitely describe books and papers.

In discovery proceedings the affidavits and order should definitely describe the books and papers to be produced, and the order for discovery must be so explicit that the court upon reading the order, may determine what books and papers are desired.

*667Appeal from order denying defendants motion for discovery.

*Henry Melville,*for app’lt; *Frederick Seymour,*for resp’ts.

Van Brunt, P. J.

We are of the opinion that the court in a proper case has the power to order a discovery or inspection of books and papers to enable a party to frame a bill of particulars. *Ball*v. *Evening Post Publishing Co.,*48 Hun, 149; 5 N. Y. State Rep., 229.

It is true that rule 14 speaks of applications for discovery for the purpose of enabling a party to frame his complaint or answer; but it also provides that either party may be compelled to make discovery as provided by article 4, title 6, chapter 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This rule is passed pursuant to section 804 of said Code, which provides that the general rules of practice must prescribe the cases in which discovery may be had in any case authorized by the Code.

Section 803 authorizes such a discovery in any action in reference to any books and papers relating to the merits of the action or of the defense therein. Thus rule 14 contains no restriction, but the general authority exists to order such discovery at any stage of the action in furtherance of justice.

We think, however, the order appealed from was right, because there was no specification of the books and papers as to which discovery is sought, and nothing but surmises as to their contents. The affidavits and order should definitely describe the books and papers to be produced, so that the party proceeded against may know what to admit or deny, and also so that the court may know when books and papers are produced, whether or not they are such as the order calls for. An order for discovery must be reasonably definite and explicit, and cannot be so vague that what books and papers are desired cannot be determined by the court upon a reading thereof.

Por these reasons, the order appealed from must be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, with leave to renew motion upon payment of these costs and disbursements.

Daniels and Brady, JJ., concur.
§ 18.16 Disqualification. ( a ) *Disqualification on judge's initiative.* A judge must withdraw from a proceeding whenever he or she considers himself or herself disqualified.
( b ) *Request for disqualification.* A party may file a motion to disqualify the judge. The motion must allege grounds for disqualification, and include any appropriate supporting affidavits, declarations or other documents. The presiding judge must rule on the motion in a written order that states the grounds for the ruling.
#### MARTINEZ v. CLEVELAND (city)

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 9169.

Decided Feb 11, 1929

Gilbert Morgan, Cleveland, for Martinez.

Francis B Douglass, Cleveland, for City.

MIDDLETON, PJ and MAUCK, J of the fourth Dist and ROBERTS, J of the 7th Dist, sitting.

MAUCK,. J.

It is contended that there was no authority to include in the City Charter any' such purely legislative proceeding as the imposition of a penalty and further that the charter could not delegate to the Civil Service Commission the power to make a regulation that the City employee must be a resident of the City. An attempt has been made to draw an analogy between the constitution of the State and the law making, power of the State on the one hand and the City charter and the legislative branch of the Municipal government ón the other. We are content with that, analogy. The instances are perhaps not' numerous where a constitution enters into legislative details, but instances are available. The constitution of Kentucky, for instance, by its Section 217, prescribes definite penalties for the violation of the railroad regulations of that instrument and those provisions have been enforced by the courts of that State without questioning their validity.

In 12 Corpus Juris, 731, and the cases there cited will be found other illustrations of self-executing constitutional provisions including some where definite penalties are imposed. If the framers of the charter of the City of Cleveland and the people who adopted their work felt that the Civil Service ought to be protected against the possible failure of Council to' legislate, we know of no law that prevented their incorporating in the fundamental law of the City the provisions now under review.

The regulation of the Civil Service in the municipality is clearly within the scope of local self-government, and it was competent for the local authorities to make such regulations regarding such service as they saw fit, although the regulation may not have been specifically authorized by the constitution or laws of the State. State vs. Edwards, 90 O. S. 305, 309. Nor is the suggestion sound that it was not competent to delegate to the Civil Service Commission the power to make regulations having, the force and effect of law. In Green vs. State Civil Service Commission 90, O. S. 252, it was held that the State constitution could delegate to the State Civil Service Commission the power to make such regulations in respect to the civil service administered by that commission, and by a parity of reasoning a City charter can delegate like powers to a municipal civil service commission.

The regulation in question was a valid one and penalties for its violation were fixed by competent authority.

Middleton, PJ, and Roberts, J, concur.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 834 

To require annual testimony before Congress by the Securities and Exchange 

Commission, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, and the Public 

Company Accounting Oversight Board, relating to efforts to promote 

transparency in financial reporting. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 9, 2007 

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

to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To require annual testimony before Congress by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Financial Accounting 

Standards Board, and the Public Company Accounting 

Oversight Board, relating to efforts to promote transparency in financial reporting. 

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 ‘‘Promoting Trans5 parency in Financial Reporting Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds the following: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•S 834 IS

1 (1) Transparent and clear financial reporting is 

2 integral to the continued growth and strength of our 

3 capital markets and the confidence of investors. 

4 (2) The increasing detail and volume of ac5 counting, auditing, and reporting guidance pose a 

6 major challenge. 

7 (3) The complexity of accounting and auditing 

8 standards in the United States has added to the 

9 costs and effort involved in financial reporting. 

10 SEC. 3. ANNUAL TESTIMONY ON REDUCING COMPLEXITY IN 

11 FINANCIAL REPORTING. 

12 The Securities and Exchange Commission, the Fi13 nancial Accounting Standards Board, and the Public 

14 Company Accounting Oversight Board shall annually pro15 vide oral testimony by their respective chairpersons, or a 

16 designee thereof, beginning in 2007, and for 5 years there17 after, to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 

18 Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Financial 

19 Services of the House of Representatives on their efforts 

20 to reduce the complexity in financial reporting, so that in21 vestors are provided with more accurate and clear finan22 cial information. That testimony shall address— 

23 (1) complex and outdated accounting standards; 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
3 

•S 834 IS

1 (2) improving the understandability, consist2 ency, and overall usability of the existing accounting 

3 and auditing literature; 

4 (3) developing principles-based accounting 

5 standards; 

6 (4) encouraging the use and acceptance of 

7 interactive data; and 

8 (5) promoting disclosures in ‘‘plain English’’. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Kyocera Corporation
(the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that the Companys annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: June 30, 2009



/S/    SHOICHI
AOKIName:

Shoichi AokiTitle:

Director, Managing Executive Officerand General Manager ofCorporate Financial & Accounting Group(Principal Financial Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7709

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RONELL MCKINLEY PRESSEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, 

Chief District Judge. (4:01-cr-00083-RBS-3)

Submitted: April 26, 2012 Decided: April 30, 2012

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronell McKinley Pressey, Appellant Pro Se. Scott W. Putney, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ronell McKinley Pressey appeals the district court’s 

orders denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion and his 

motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Pressey, 

No. 4:01-cr-00083-RBS-3 (E.D. Va. Nov. 8, 2011 & Dec. 1, 2011). 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### LAKEWOOD (City) v MARTENSEN, etc.

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist., Cuyahoga Co

No 9365.

Decided January 11, 1929

R. G. Curren, Esa., Cleveland, for City.

Newcomb, Newcomb & Nord, Cleveland for Martensen.

Judges MIDDLETON *&*MAUCK (4th Dist) and ROBERTS (7th Dist) sitting.

ROBERTS, J.

It is said, that the accident was the result of negligence of the plaintiff herself, and in this connection it is urged that the plaintiff assumed a dangerous position in standing upon the running board at and immediately previous to the happening of *443the accident. It should be borne in mind that this automobile was only proceeding from house to house at ,a very slow rate of speed and whether or not the conduct of the daughter occupying the position which she did constituted negligence was submitted to the jury whose finding was in favor of the plaintiff, and we cannot say that such finding is against the weight of the evidence.

Although not appearing in written briefs, it is urged by counsel for plaintiff in error in oral argument that the mother and daughter were engaged in a joint enterprise and that the daughter was responsible for the negligence of her mother.

In the instant case the mother was prosecuting her own business of selling strawberries produced by her. The plaintiff below was assisting the mother under her direction and control. The elements essential to the existence of a joint enterprise are wholly wanting.

Finding no reversible error in this case the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

■Middleton, PJ., and Mauck, J., concur.
#### § 1626.6 Form of charge.

A charge shall be in writing and shall name the prospective respondent and shall generally allege the discriminatory act(s). Charges received in person or by telephone shall be reduced to writing.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 21

                THE LACLEDE GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                     SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



                                                        PERCENT OF
                                                       VOTING STOCK
                                                          OWNED
                                                       ------------



Subsidiaries of The Laclede Group, Inc. (Parent)

   Laclede Gas Company                                      100%
   Laclede Pipeline Company                                 100%
   Laclede Investment LLC*                                  100%
   Laclede Development Company**                            100%
   Laclede Energy Services, Inc.(1)                         100%
   SM&P Utility Resources, Inc.                             100%


<FN>
  *Subsidiary Company of Laclede Investment LLC
     Laclede Energy Resources, Inc.                         100%
   Subsidiary Company of Laclede Energy Resources, Inc.
     Laclede Gas Family Services, Inc.                      100%
 **Subsidiary Company of Laclede Development Company
     Laclede Venture Corp.                                  100%


All of the above corporations have been organized under the laws of the
State of Missouri.

<FN>
(1) Laclede Energy Services, Inc., was dissolved on April 14, 2003.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4967 

To amend the CARES Act to extend the excise tax holiday period for 

aviation taxes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 7, 2020 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the CARES Act to extend the excise tax holiday 

period for aviation taxes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AVIATION EXCISE TAX HOLI4 DAY. 

5 Section 4007(c) of division A of the CARES Act is 

6 amended by striking ‘‘January 1, 2021’’ and inserting 

7 ‘‘January 1, 2022’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 

| In      thousands, except ratios                                                                           |   | 2009   |   |   | 2008   |   |   | 2007   |   |   | 2006   |   |   | 2005   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| Income      before income taxes                                                                            |   | $      | 54,459 |   |   | $      | 27,073 |   |   | $      | 36,320 |   |   | $      | 28,187 |   |   | $ | 26,499 |   |
| Plus:      Fixed charges      (1)                                                                          |   |   | 5,853  |   |   |   | 5,209  |   |   |   | 4,950  |   |   |   | 5,475  |   |   |   | 4,240 |   |
| Income      available to cover fixed charges                                                               |   | $      | 60,312 |   |   | $      | 32,282 |   |   | $      | 41,270 |   |   | $      | 33,662 |   |   | $ | 30,739 |   |
|                                                                                                       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Ratio      of earnings to fixed charges                                                                    |   |   | 10.3   |   |   |   | 6.2    |   |   |   | 8.3    |   |   |   | 6.1    |   |   |   | 7.3 |   |
|                                                                                                       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| (1)      Fixed Charges:                                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|       Interest      expense                                                  |   | $      | 3,353  |   |   | $      | 3,162  |   |   | $      | 2,883  |   |   | $      | 3,275  |   |   | $ | 2,473 |   |
|       Interest      portion of rent expense      (2)                         |   |   | 2,345  |   |   |   | 1,765  |   |   |   | 2,067  |   |   |   | 2,200  |   |   |   | 1,767 |   |
|       Capitalized      interest                                              |   |   | 155    |   |   |   | 282    |   |   |   | -      |   |   |   | -      |   |   |   | - |   |
| Total      Fixed Charges                                                                                   |   | $      | 5,853  |   |   | $      | 5,209  |   |   | $      | 4,950  |   |   | $      | 5,475  |   |   | $ | 4,240 |   |
|                                                                                                       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| (2)      One-third of total rent expense is the portion deemed representative of      the interest factor. |   |   |   |   |   |
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, David F. Hoffmeister, Chief Financial Officer of Invitrogen Corporation (the
Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

(2) the information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



|            |  |  |  |                             |  |                                             
|----------- |  |  |  | --------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------
|            |  | 
|May 7, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/    David F. Hoffmeister
|            |  |  |  |                             |  | David F. Hoffmeister Chief Financial
Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Invitrogen and will be retained by Invitrogen and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.