alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
J-S66029-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

JAMES RYAN AND KRISTINA RYAN IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellants

v.

BAKER PET HOSPITAL, DANIEL L. 

BAKER, AND JOHN M. JONES

Appellees No. 790 WDA 2015

Appeal from the Order Entered April 14, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County

Civil Division at No: 2014-3023

BEFORE: OLSON, STABILE, and STRASSBURGER,*JJ.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY STABILE, J. FILED MARCH 21, 2016

Appellants, attorneys James Ryan and Kristina Ryan, appeal from the 

order entered on April 14, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer 

County. Upon review, we find we must dismiss Appellants’ appeal. 

Appellants filed a complaint asserting a professional liability claim 

against Appellees. In compliance with Pa.R.C.P. 1042.6, Appellees filed a 

notice of intent to seek a judgment of non pros for failure to file a certificate 

of merit. Pa.R.C.P. 1042.6. Appellants then untimely filed certificates of 

merit stating expert testimony is unnecessary.1 In response, Appellees filed 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1

Pa.R.C.P. 1042.3 requires that, in professional liability actions, a certificate 

of merit be filed with or within sixty days of the complaint. Pa.R.C.P. 

1042.3(a).
J-S66029-15

- 2 -

preliminary objections and a motion for a court order of dismissal for non 

pros for failure to file a certificate of merit. A hearing was held on April 6, 

2015. The trial court entered an order granting Appellees’ motion for non 

pros and dismissed Appellants’ complaint with prejudice. Appellants then 

appealed to this Court.2 

We note that Appellants filed the instant appeal instead of initially 

petitioning the trial court to open the judgment of non pros. Pursuant to 

Pa.R.C.P. 3051, “[r]elief from a judgment of non pros shall be sought by 

petition. All grounds for relief, whether to strike off the judgment or to open 

it, must be asserted in a single petition.” Pa.R.C.P. 3051(a). Failure to file a 

petition to open the judgment of non pros with the trial court results in 

waiver of any claims of error concerning the judgment of non pros. 

Pa.R.C.P. 3051; Sahutsky v. H.H. Knoebel Sons, 782 A.2d 996, 1001 (Pa. 

2001); Womer v. Hilliker, 908 A.2d 269, 277 (Pa. 2006). Regrettably, 

since Appellants failed to petition to either strike or open the judgment of 

non pros, we are unable to review Appellants’ claims. Accordingly, we 

dismiss Appellants’ appeal.

Appeal dismissed. 

____________________________________________

2 Notice of the trial court’s April 14, 2015 order was not given until April 15, 

2015. Appellants’ appeal, filed May 15, 2015, is therefore timely. See

Pa.R.C.P 236; Pa.R.A.P. 108(b), 903(a). 
J-S66029-15

- 3 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/21/2016
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       137,401,716
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                   2,566,023
<MORTGAGE>                                  13,058,464
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                             161,329,996
<CASH>                                       2,417,375
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                              79,430
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                      28,260,113
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             208,045,116
<POLICY-LOSSES>                            155,182,145
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                          6,512,362
<POLICY-OTHER>                               1,665,949
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                        2,100,363
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       811,128
<OTHER-SE>                                  23,830,412
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               208,045,116
<PREMIUMS>                                  33,061,376
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                         10,674,159
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                              29,898
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 239,178
<BENEFITS>                                  17,291,402
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                  1,104,957
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                        24,794,496
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                813,756
<INCOME-TAX>                                    19,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            794,756
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                239,824
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   554,932
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
§ 1953.6 Review and approval of plan supplements. ( a ) OSHA shall review a supplement to determine whether it is at least as effective as the Federal program and meets the criteria in the Act and implementing regulations and the assurances in the State plan. If the review reveals any defect in the supplement, or if more information is needed, OSHA shall offer assistance to the State and shall provide the State an opportunity to clarify or correct the change.
( b ) If upon review, OSHA determines that the differences from a corresponding Federal component are purely editorial and do not change the substance of the policy or requirements on employers, it shall deem the change identical. This includes “plain language” rewrites of new Federal standards or previously approved State standards which do not change the meaning or requirements of the standard. OSHA will inform the State of this determination. No further review or Federal Register publication is required.
( c ) Federal OSHA may seek public comment during its review of plan supplements. Generally, OSHA will seek public comment if a State program component differs significantly from the comparable Federal program component and OSHA needs additional information on its compliance with the criteria in section 18(c) of the Act, including whether it is at least as effective as the Federal program and in the case of a standard applicable to products used or distributed in interstate commerce, whether it is required by compelling local conditions or unduly burdens interstate commerce under section 18(c)(2) of the Act.
( d ) If the plan change meets the approval criteria, OSHA shall approve it and shall thereafter publish a Federal Register notice announcing the approval. OSHA reserves the right to reconsider its decision should subsequent information be brought to its attention.
( e ) If a State fails to submit a required supplement or if examination discloses cause for rejecting a submitted supplement, OSHA shall provide the State a reasonable time, generally not to exceed 30 days, to submit a revised supplement or to show cause why a proceeding should not be commenced either for rejection of the supplement or for failure to adopt the change in accordance with the procedures in § 1902.17 or Part 1955 of this chapter.
**EXHIBIT      21.1**

**KEYSTONE        CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIES, INC.**

**AND        SUBSIDIARIES**

**SUBSIDIARIES        OF THE REGISTRANT**

| **Name                  of Corporation**                    | **Jurisdiction                  of****Incorporation****or                  Organization** | **Percent                  of****Voting                  Securities**** Held****(1)** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                        |                                                                                      |                                                                                       |
|   FV                  Steel and Wire Company(2)   | Wisconsin                                                                                 | 100.0%                                                                                     |
|                                                        |                                                                                      |                                                                                       |
|   Engineered                  Wire Products, Inc. | Ohio                                                                                      | 100.0%                                                                                     |
|                                                        |                                                                                      |                                                                                       |
|   Keystone                  Wire Products, Inc.   | Delaware                                                                                  | 100.0%                                                                                     |
|                                                        |                                                                                      |                                                                                       |
|   Keystone                  Energy Resources, LLC | Delaware                                                                                  | 100.0%                                                                                     |

**(1)**

**(2)**
#### COX v STATE

Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist, Summit Co

No. 1785.

Decided March 17, 1930

Lloyd R. Reed, Akron, for Cox.

Don D. Isham, Prosecuting Attorney and George R. Hargreaves, Asst. Prosecuting Attorney, both of Akron, for State.

PARDEE, J.

The part of the foregoing ,as to the alibi is erroneous, as It first placed upon the defendant the burden of proving his alibi beyond a reasonable doubt, and then, at the suggestion of the prosecuting attorney, said charge was modified to state that defendant’s alibi should be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.

It has long been the rule in this state that an alibi is not an affirmative defense, and it has been frequently held that the defendant is not required to prove it by any degree in the minds of the jury as to his guilt. The charge in the instant case placed an undue burden upon the accused, and that part of the charge of the court immeditaely following the erroneous part hereinbefore quoted does not overcome the prejudicial part thereof. These parts of the charge are inconsistent, and the jury did not understand, them, as is evidenced by their later return into court and the request they made to the court in regard thereto. At that time the court. had the opportunity of clearing up this inconsistency in the minds of the jury but it did not do so.

We do not know, of course, what the jury thought about the charge as given. It may have thought that inasmuch as the defendant did not prove his alibi by the greater weight of the evidence he therefore was not entitled to any benefit from it, .although his evidence as to alibi might have raised a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury as to his guilt.

The Supreme Court in a recent case stated the proposition in the following language:

(Here follows quotations).

Marcoguiseppe v. State, 114 OS 299, at p. *301.*

*We*/are therefore unanimously of the opinion that the error of the court in stating the rule of evidence as to alibi was prejudicial to the accused, which requires a ■ reversal of the judgment.

FUNK, P. J., and WASHBURN, J., concur.
STATE OF DELAWARE 

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

& ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL 

DIVISION OF AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT 

AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT 156 S. STATE STREET TELEPHONE: (302) 739 - 9402 

SECTION DOVER, DELAWARE 19901 FAX No.: (302) 739 - 3106 

CERTIFICAnON 

May 26,2009 

I hereby certify that a public hearing was held July 31, 2008, on the State of Delaware State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Attainment and Maintenance of the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Ozone. The revisions are to 36 regulations, which have already 

been approved by EPA, and include making administrative and non-substantive changes to all 

Delaware SIP Regulations and to make the regulations consistent with the 2006 Delaware 

Manual for Drafting Regulations. The effective date of these revisions is September 11, 2008. 

I further certify that the hearing was held in accordance with the notice required by Subsection 

51.102 of 40 CFR 51. 

PRINTED ON
 

RECYCLED PAPER
§ 2570.33 Applications the Department will not ordinarily consider. ( a ) The Department ordinarily will not consider an application that fails to include all the information required by §§ 2570.34 and 2570.35 (or fails to include current information) or otherwise fails to conform to the requirements in this subpart.
( b ) An application for an individual exemption relating to a specific exemption transaction or transactions ordinarily will not be considered if the Department has under consideration a class exemption relating to the same type of transaction or transactions. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the Department may consider such an application if the issuance of the final class exemption is not imminent, and the Department determines that time constraints necessitate consideration of the exemption transaction on an individual basis.
( c ) If a party, excluding a Federal, state, or other governmental entity, designates any information submitted in connection with its exemption application as confidential, the Department will not process the application unless and until the applicant withdraws its claim of confidentiality. By submitting an exemption application, an applicant consents to public disclosure of the entire administrative record pursuant to § 2570.51.
( d ) The Department will not engage a pre-submission applicant or its representative, whether through written correspondence or a conference, if the pre-submission applicant does not: ( 1 ) Identify and fully describe the exemption transaction; and
( 2 ) Set forth the prohibited transactions that the applicant believes are applicable.
No. 07-14-00011-CR

Michael Chamberlain

Appellant

v.

The State of Texas

Appellee §

§

§

§ From the 100th District Court

of Carson County

April 16, 2015

Opinion Per Curiam

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated April 16, 2015

, it is ordered, adjudged

and decreed that the judgment of the trial court is reformed as set forth in the opinion

and affirmed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis

, no costs beyond those that

have already been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o
§ 1903.12 Inspection not warranted; informal review. ( a ) If the Area Director determines that an inspection is not warranted because there are no reasonable grounds to believe that a violation or danger exists with respect to a complaint under § 1903.11, he shall notify the complaining party in writing of such determination. The complaining party may obtain review of such determination by submitting a written statement of position with the Assistant Regional Director and, at the same time, providing the employer with a copy of such statement by certified mail. The employer may submit an opposing written statement of position with the Assistant Regional Director and, at the same time, provide the complaining party with a copy of such statement by certified mail. Upon the request of the complaining party or the employer, the Assistant Regional Director, at his discretion, may hold an informal conference in which the complaining party and the employer may orally present their views. After considering all written and oral views presented, the Assistant Regional Director shall affirm, modify, or reverse the determination of the Area Director and furnish the complaining party and the employer and written notification of this decision and the reasons therefor. The decision of the Assistant Regional Director shall be final and not subject to further review.
( b ) If the Area Director determines that an inspection is not warranted because the requirements of § 1903.11(a) have not been met, he shall notify the complaining party in writing of such determination. Such determination shall be without prejudice to the filing of a new complaint meeting the requirements of § 1903.11(a).
# g:~ 

# ..-**="'"·~**

# ..... NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Air Quality Michael F. Easley, Governor

James Palmer Regional Administrator USEPA Region 4 AtlantaFederal Center 61 Forsyth Stree!, SW Atlanta, GA 30303-8960 Dear Mr. Palmer: Williarn G. Ross, Jr., Secretary B. Keith Overcash, P.E., Director June 15, 2007

I am pleased to submit the 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration for the North Carolina portion ofthe Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, North Carolina-South Carolina 8-hourozone nonattainment area (referred to as the MetroI ina area). The State's public hearing took place on April 26, 2007, in Charlotte, North Carolina. The attaimnent demonstration documents that the Metrolina area will attain the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), fulfilling requirements ofSection 172(c), 182(a) and 182(b) ofthe Federal Clean Air Act as amended. Enclosed is the complete package containing the narrative and all ofthe appendices with the supporting documentation and the complete hearingrecord. I respectfully request that you commence the federal approval process for the CharlotteGastonia-Rock Hill, North Carolina-South Carolina 8-hour ozone nonattaimnent area attainment demonstration. Ifyou should have any questions, please contact Laura Boothe ofmy staffat (919) 733-1488 or laura.boothe@ncmail.net.

BKO:lab Enclosure
cc: Kay Prince, USEPA Dick Schutt, USEPA NacostaWard, USEPA 1641 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1641 2728 Capital Blvd., Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 Phone: 919-715-6232 I FAX 919-715-7175 I Internet: www.ncair.org Brock Nicholson, NCDAQ Sheila Holman, NCDAQ Laura Boothe, NCDAQ

An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

# N~rthCarolina 

# Naturall!f
Exhibit 32.1

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 K-V Pharmaceutical Company (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Gregory J. Divis, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

|                        |  |  |  |  |  |                                                       
|----------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------
|                        |  |  | 
|Date: December 23, 2010 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Gregory J. Divis                                  
|                        |  |  |  |  |  | Gregory J. Divis President and Chief Executive 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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as our exhibit to the Form 10-K and shall not be deemed to be considered filed as part of the Form 10-K.
EXHIBIT 32
                                                                     ----------



           CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
                         PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



     Pursuant  to  18   U.S.C.ss.1350,   as  created  by  Sectionss.906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, the  undersigned  officers of Equity One, Inc. (the
"Company"),  who act in such capacity for IRT Partners L.P., hereby certify,  to
such officers' knowledge, that:

     (i)  The  accompanying  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
          September 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
          of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,  of the Securities  Exchange
          Act of 1934, as amended; and

     (ii) The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of IRT Partners L.P.



      May 12, 2004                     /s/  CHAIM KATZMAN
                                       ---------------------------------
                                       Chaim Katzman
                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                       Equity One, Inc., general partner





      May 12, 2004                    /s/  HOWARD M. SIPZNER
                                      -----------------------------------
                                      Howard Sipzner
                                      Executive Vice President and
                                      Chief Financial Officer
                                      Equity One, Inc., general partner




A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to LP and will be retained by LP and  furnished to the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The  foregoing  certification  is being  furnished  as an  exhibit to the Report
pursuant  to  Item   601(b)(32)  of  Regulation  S-K  and  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002  and,  accordingly,  is not  being  filed  with  the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  as  part of the  Report  and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of LP under the Securities Act of 1933
or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of
the Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such
filing).