alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1910.410 Qualifications of dive team. ( a ) *General.* ( 1 ) Each dive team member shall have the experience or training necessary to perform assigned tasks in a safe and healthful manner.
( 2 ) Each dive team member shall have experience or training in the following: ( i ) The use of tools, equipment and systems relevant to assigned tasks;
( ii ) Techniques of the assigned diving mode: and
( iii ) Diving operations and emergency procedures.
( 3 ) All dive team members shall be trained in cardiopulmonary resuscitation and first aid (American Red Cross standard course or equivalent).
( 4 ) Dive team members who are exposed to or control the exposure of others to hyperbaric conditions shall be trained in diving-related physics and physiology.
( b ) *Assignments.* ( 1 ) Each dive team member shall be assigned tasks in accordance with the employee's experience or training, except that limited additional tasks may be assigned to an employee undergoing training provided that these tasks are performed under the direct supervision of an experienced dive team member.
( 2 ) The employer shall not require a dive team member to be exposed to hyperbaric conditions against the employee's will, except when necessary to complete decompression or treatment procedures.
( 3 ) The employer shall not permit a dive team member to dive or be otherwise exposed to hyperbaric conditions for the duration of any temporary physical impairment or condition which is known to the employer and is likely to affect adversely the safety or health of a dive team member.
( c ) *Designated person-in-charge.* ( 1 ) The employer or an employee designated by the employer shall be at the dive location in charge of all aspects of the diving operation affecting the safety and health of dive team members.
( 2 ) The designated person-in-charge shall have experience and training in the conduct of the assigned diving operation.
#### BOBST etc v BOARD OF EDUCATION

Ohio Appeals, 4th Dist, Scioto Co

No 249.

Decided March 12, 1930

William J. Meyer, Portsmouth, for Bobsfc.

A. Z. Blair, Portsmouth, for Board.

BY THE COURT

While there are several grounds urged in support of the demand for an injunction we find but one of any merit, and that is the claim that the advertisement for bids for the contracts was made by the defendant board in but one newspaper of general circulation in said district. In answer to this claim it is contended that there was no other newspaper of general circulation in said district and that therefore the provisions of 7623 GC., requiring publication in two newspapers of general circulation if so many there were in said district, was and is not controlling. The provisions of said section are mandatory. Perkins v. Bright, 109 OS. 14. It follows that if there were two or more newspapers of general circulation in the school district when the advertisement for bids was made it was necessary to make that advertisement in two newspapers.

The evidence shows that the Wheelersburg Rural School District has a population of three thousand, that the County of Scioto in 1920 approximately sixty three htousand and that that population is now much greater. It shows further that the Portsmouth Morning Sun has a daily circulation, except on •Sunday, of ninety six papers in said district, thirty seven hundred in Scioto County, and further circulates generally in surrounding counties. The evidence shows that the single paper chosen for the advertisement was the Portsmouth Times. It is certainly apparent that under such admitted facts there is not room for much controversy. This is particularly true in view of the holding in the' case of State ex rel v. Commissioners of Wood County, 14 C. C. (n.s.) 531, affirmed without opinion 84 OS. 447. It is held in that case that

> “A newspaper having a circulation of eight hundred in a county containing a population of fifty thousand distributed over twenty townships, and in fifteen of those townships containing a population of thirty five thousand, a circulation of only thirty six, is a newspaper of general circulation within the meaning of the statute providing for the publication.”

In the instant case, as before observed, the evidence shows a circulation of ninety six in a distirct with a population of three thousand, and a much greater circulation in the surrounding county and adjoining counties. We have no difficulty in determining that the Portsmouth Morning Sun at the time the advertisement was made was a newspaper of general circulation not only in the district in question but also in all the surrounding territory, and that that newspaper met fully the requirements of the statute in respect to being a newspaper of general circulation in the district.

The injunction as prayed for will be allowed and a decree may be entered the same as was made in the Court of Common Pleas.

Middleton, PJ., Mauck and Blosser, JJ., concur.
[Cite as State ex rel. Berlingeri , 2014-Ohio-406.] 

# Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 100671



## STATE OF OHIO, EX REL.

DOMINIC BERLINGERI

RELATOR

vs.


## JUDGE BRIAN J. CORRIGAN

RESPONDENT



### JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED

Writ of Procedendo Motion No. 470804

Order No. 471571

RELEASE DATE: February 4, 2014FOR RELATOR

Dominic Berlingeri, Jr. Inmate No. A 583-358 Allen Correctional Institution Attn: Unit C 2338 North West Street Lima, OH 45801

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor BY: James E. Moss Assistant Prosecuting Attorney The Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.:

{¶1} On November 26, 2013, relator Dominic Berlingeri commenced this

procedendo action against Judge Brian Corrigan to compel him to rule on his petition to

vacate allied offenses of similar import in State v. Berlingeri , Cuyahoga C.P. No.

CR-527719-G, which was filed on March 29, 2013. On December 18, 2013, respondent

judge filed a motion for summary judgment, which Berlingeri has not opposed. The

motion for summary judgment is granted, and the petition is denied for the reasons that

follow.

{¶2} Attached to the motion for summary judgment is a copy of a journal entry that

indicates that on December 17, 2013, Judge Corrigan denied Berlingeri’s petition to

vacate allied offenses of similar import, rendering the petition for a writ of procedendo

moot. State ex rel. Gantt v. Coleman , 6 Ohio St.3d 5, 450 N.E.2d 1163 (1983); State ex

rel. Jerninghan v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas , 74 Ohio St.3d 278, 658

N.E.2d 723 (1996). Additionally, the petition does not comply with Loc.App.R.

45(B)(1)(a), which is a separate ground that warrants dismissal. State ex rel. Fuller v.

Friedland , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 76750, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 4856 (Oct. 14, 1999),

citing State ex rel. Sherrills v. Court of Common Pleas , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 69707

(Dec. 1, 1995) (“failure to provide this court with a supporting affidavit warrants

dismissal”).{¶3} Accordingly, we grant the respondent’s unopposed motion for summary

judgment. Respondent to bear costs, but costs are waived. It is further ordered that the

clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and date of entry pursuant to

Civ.R. 58(B).

{¶4} Writ denied.

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE

MARY J. BOYLE, A.J., and KENNETH A. ROCCO, J., CONCUR
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 0044 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JOSEPH RICHARD POLAK II,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including August 17 , 2020 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 10 2020

07/10/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0044
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP00-229-001]

Take notice that on May 9, 2000, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (Tennessee), tendered for filing the revised tariff sheets identified below for inclusion in Tennessee's FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, with an effective date of May 1, 2000:

Substitute Fourth Revised Sheet No. 328

Substitute Fifth Revised Sheet No. 329

Substitute Third Revised Sheet No. 336

Substitute Third Revised Sheet No. 337A

Substitute Third Revised Sheet No. 342

Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 342A

Substitute Fifth Revised Sheet No. 347

Tenth Revised Sheet No. 412

Tennessee states that this filing is in compliance with the Commission's April 26, 2000 Order Accepting Tariff sheets Subject to Conditions in the above-referenced docket (April 26, Order). Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, 91 FERC ¶ 61,098 (2000).

Tennessee further states that the April 26 Order required Tennessee to file revised tariff language that would (1) correct the Gas Industry Standards Board version reference in its tariff; and (2) specify the requirements of the waiver set forth in 18 CFR 284.8(i) of the Commission's regulations.

Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-12549  Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# C_2004201EN.01002201.xml

| 7.8.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/22

---

Action brought on 27 May 2004 by Madaus Aktiengesellschaft against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-202/04)

(2004/C 201/45)

Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure - language in which the application was submitted: English

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 27 May 2004 by Madaus Aktiengesellschaft, Köln, (Germany), represented by I. Valdelomar Serrano, lawyer.

The Optima Health Limited was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | recognise that the OHIM made a judicial error when issuing the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

recognise that the OHIM made a judicial error when issuing the contested decision;

| — | annul the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

| Applicant for Community trade mark: | Optima Healthcare Ltd, changed to The Optimal Health Ltd. |
| --- | --- |
| Community trade mark sought: | The word mark ‘ECHINAID’ for goods in class 5 (vitamins, food supplements, herbal preparations, pharmaceutical and medical preparations) (CTM application No 1666239) |
| Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Madaus AG |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | The international trade mark registration of the word mark ‘ECHINACIN’ for goods in class 5 (chemical pharmaceuticals) |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Rejection of the opposition |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Dismissal of the appeal brought by Madaus |
| Pleas in law: | The applicant submits that the Board of Appeal erred in applying the concept of relevant territory and relevant public. The applicant also claims that the prefix Echina is not descriptive and that there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks. |

Applicant for Community trade mark:

Optima Healthcare Ltd, changed to The Optimal Health Ltd.

Community trade mark sought:

The word mark ‘ECHINAID’ for goods in class 5 (vitamins, food supplements, herbal preparations, pharmaceutical and medical preparations) (CTM application No 1666239)

Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Madaus AG

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

The international trade mark registration of the word mark ‘ECHINACIN’ for goods in class 5 (chemical pharmaceuticals)

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Dismissal of the appeal brought by Madaus

Pleas in law:

The applicant submits that the Board of Appeal erred in applying the concept of relevant territory and relevant public. The applicant also claims that the prefix Echina is not descriptive and that there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks.

---
#### § 1202.9 Appointment of arbitrators.

Section 5, Third, (a) of the Railway Labor Act provides in the event mediation of a dispute is unsuccessful, the Board endeavors to induce the parties to submit their controversy to arbitration. If the parties so agree, and the arbitrators named by the parties are unable to agree upon the neutral arbitrator or arbitrators, as provided in section 7 of the Railway Labor Act, it becomes the duty of the Board to name such neutral arbitrators and fix the compensation for such service. In performing this duty, the Board is required to appoint only those whom it deems wholly disinterested in the controversy, and to be impartial and without bias as between the parties thereto.
#### PETERSON et v NEW YORK CENTRAL RD CO

Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist, Ottawa Co

No 125.

Decided April 7, 1930

True, Crawford & True, Port Clinton, for Peterson.

Graves & Duff, Port Clinton, for Railroad .

WILLIAMS, J.

The railroad company acquired title to the strip of land from Henry and Josephine Schumacher by deed dated June 22, 1872. We think it is a matter of no consequence whether there were two witnesses on the deed to the railroad company at the time it was recorded or not. It is not questioned that the grantor of the railroad company had a good record title, arid of that the plaintiffs and their predecessor in title had due notice. We find, .however, that the title of the railroad company to the strip of land is a valid and subsisting title. This strip of land has been travelled for nearly 50 years by the public, and the plaintiffs and many others owning land abutting upon it have built dwelling houses thereon,' and it has been treated as a public way and so used for much more than 21 years prior to the commencement of this action in the court below, and we do not hesitate to hold *315that the plaintiffs and the public generally have an easement over this strip of land known as South Railroad street. On the other hand, the railroad company acquired it for railroad purposes and has used it in connection with its railroad property for nearly 50 years and still has a right to so use it so long as it does not unreasonably interfere with travel by the public. The railroad1 company has a right to maintain the two sidetracks flush with the street, and may continue in the future to use the strip of land for railroad purposes and for sidetracks, provided always, that it does not unreasonably interfere with its continued use by the public as in the past for purposes of public travel.

Decree will be entered for the plaintiffs enjoining the railroad company from interfering with the plaintiff in the use and enjoyment of South Railroad street as a public way, but the railroad company shall be permitted to maintain its present tracks flush with the surface on South Railroad street and shall be per^ mitted to use South Railroad Street for railroad purposes in so far as such use does not interfere with the reasonable use thereof as a public way.

Lloyd and Richards, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP00-272-000]

Take notice that on May 5, 2000, Garden Banks Gas Pipeline, LLC (GBGP) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, revised tariff sheets listed in Appendix A to the filing, to be effective May 1, 2000.

GBGP states that the purpose of this filing is to update GBGP's Original Volume No. 1 FERC Gas Tariff to reflect references of Interactive Inernet Website.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-12231  Filed 5-15-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,864,315
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       1,123,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             6,686,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  3,099,000
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         630,476
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           635,344
<LOANS>                                    188,138,681
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,223,627
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             208,048,322
<DEPOSITS>                                 166,406,701
<SHORT-TERM>                                13,600,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,240,173
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  25,801,448
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             208,048,322
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             13,643,611
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              557,611
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               677,363
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            14,878,585
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           8,267,742
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           8,620,626
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        6,257,959
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              4,376,138
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,120,207
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   2,120,207
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,330,889
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.72
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.22
<LOANS-NON>                                  2,089,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,223,627
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,223,627
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,187,627
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         36,000


</TABLE>
§ 1988.102 Obligations and prohibited acts. ( a ) No motor vehicle manufacturer, part supplier, or dealership may discharge or otherwise retaliate against, including, but not limited to, intimidating, threatening, restraining, coercing, blacklisting or disciplining, an employee with respect to the employee's compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because the employee, or any person acting pursuant to the employee's request, has engaged in any of the activities specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section.
( b ) An employee is protected against retaliation (as described in paragraph (a) of this section) by a motor vehicle manufacturer, part supplier, or dealership because he or she: ( 1 ) Provided, caused to be provided, or is about to provide (with any knowledge of the employer) or cause to be provided to the employer or the Secretary of Transportation, information relating to any motor vehicle defect, noncompliance, or any violation or alleged violation of any notification or reporting requirement of Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code;
( 2 ) Filed, or caused to be filed, or is about to file (with any knowledge of the employer) or cause to be filed a proceeding relating to any motor vehicle defect, noncompliance, or any violation or alleged violation of any notification or reporting requirement of Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code;
( 3 ) Testified or is about to testify in such a proceeding;
( 4 ) Assisted or participated or is about to assist or participate in such a proceeding; or
( 5 ) Objected to, or refused to participate in, any activity that the employee reasonably believed to be in violation of any provision of Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code, or any order, rule, regulation, standard, or ban under such provision.