alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### George Marsh *et al. versus*Martin Day Junior.

*Sept. 30th.*

*Oct. 1st.*

Where a note was guarantied to be c< good and collectable two years,*' it was AfW. that the guarantee was liable upon his contract, at any time after the note became due within the two years.

Upon a case stated, it appeared, that this action was assumpsit against the defendant, as the guarantee of three promissory notes, payable to the plaintiffs, two of them made bv David N. Day, which were due before the 7th of August, 1833, and the third, which became due on the 7th of October, 1833, made by Day & Co. On each of these notes was an indorsement to the following effect : “ Westfield, August 7th, 1833. Received of Marsh, Gilbert & Co. [the plaintiffs] fifty cents, in consideration whereof, I hereby warrant this note good and collectable two years. Martin Day, jr.”

It was admitted, that previously to October 31st, 1834, which was the date of the writ in this action, the plaintiffs had commenced actions against the makers of the notes, but no property was found in their possession which could be attached.

At the trial, the defendant contended, that the action w'as prematurely brought ; but the judge overruled the objection, and ordered a default, subject to the opinion of the Court.

Blair, for the defendant.

*W. G.*Bates, for the plaintiffs,

cited *Norton*v. Eastman, 4 Greenleaf, 521.

Shaw C. J.

delivered the opinion of the Court. The only question is upon the construction of the defendant’s guaranty, which being given upon a pecuniary consideration, was a valid one. The obligation of a guarantor or surety, is not to be *322extended beyond the plain scope of his undertaking. The defendant’s undertaking is, in each case, to warrant the note good and collectable, two years. Two of the notes' were then due and payable ; the other was not due. The true construction of this contract, in the opinion of the Court, is, that the notes shall remain good and capable of being collected, for the erm of two years. If, therefore, upon taking proper measures to collect them, at any time after they were due, within two years, they could not be collected, it was a breach of the defendant’s promise, for which an action lies. The expression of the term of two years, we think, was to limit the extent of the guaranty, which would otherwise have been indefinite, and this construction is favorable to the guarantor.

*Defendant defaulted.*
Section 333 /Petition for Exemption Title 14 CFR 11.63

William P. Croom

Billcroom32@gmail.com

FAA Registration for UAV FA34X7ATW7

211 Big Tree Road

South Daytona, Florida 32119

540-220-8885

UAV: DJI Phantom 3 Advanced Professional Quadcopter

UAV Experience 2 Years

Current holder of Private Pilot Certificate 

Have Flight Operations Manual from DJI that include updates and safety operational, preflight 

recommendations. The DJI Professional Advance contains imbedded recording system detailing all 

flights and details of those flights.

Purpose: Recreational and for hire Aerial photography for local economic development:

Licensed Realtor/documentation and promotion of Real Estate

Construction and project management of new construction, inspection of projects.

Pilot in command: As pilot in command I employ the same regulations that govern my action during 

fixed wing flight according to FAA requirements. Safe flight operations apply in both applications.

I understand and agree that as the operator of an unmanned aircraft system, I will be 

solely responsible for understanding and abiding by all relevant rules and 

regulations. I also understand that I am ultimately responsible for the safety of every 

flight.
[No. 27460-4-II.

Division Two.

January 3, 2003.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Michael Jay Jackson, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 00-1-02632-5, Karen L. Strombom, J., entered June 1, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Hunt, C.J., concurred in by Bridgewater and Armstrong, JJ.
#### Sally S. Lindsay, Respondent, *v.*Morton H. Fry et al., Copartners Doing Business under the Name of Scholle Brothers, Appellants.

Argued June 11, 1937;

decided July 13, 1937.

*526
      *George H. Richards*and *Matthew Hale*for appellants.

*H. H. Nordlinger, Harold Riegelman*and *David B. Lefkowitz*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; ho opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch, «!,, Lehman, Hübbs# LqüghráN# Finch and RIpPey# JJ. Taking ho part: O’Brien, J.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. 24-0048

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JONATHAN DOUGLAS SHAW,

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 June 28, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 20 2024

05/20/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0048
Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants



KV Pharmaceutical Company
St. Louis, Missouri


We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (File Numbers 2-56793,  2-76173,  33-46400,  33-44927 and
333-199) of our report dated May 21, 1998 relating to the consolidated financial
statements of KV Pharmaceutical Company appearing in the Company's Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 1998.



                                        /s/ BDO SEIDMAN, LLP


St. Louis, Missouri
May 21, 1998
# App B.Phyto
A-AA+Skip to content

                  - Home
                  - Compendium Statistics
                  - Event
                  - Archives
                  - Glossary
                  - Help
                  - Contact
                  - Research on Disability

Annual Disability Statistics Compendium

              - Home /
              - Compendium Statistics /
              - Vocational Rehabilitation /
              - 12.2 Vocational Rehabilitation—Closures after Services Initiated or Completed

## Table 12.2: Vocational Rehabilitation—Closures after Services Initiated or Completed: Federal Fiscal Year 2011

----

----

 

----

#### 2012 Disability Compendium

                        - Home
                        - Compendium Statistics                           - Population and Prevelance
                          - Employment
                          - Time Trend Population Statistics
                          - Poverty
                          - Earnings
                          - Veterans
                          - Health Insurance Coverage
                          - Health
                          - Social Security Administration Programs
                          - Medicaid and Medicare
                          - Special Education
                          - Vocational Rehabilitation
                          - Federal Government Spending and Employment
                          - International Disability Statistics
                          - Population Statistics: Disability Type
                        - Event
                        - Archives                           - 2012 Compendium Statistics
                        - Glossary
                        - Help
                        - Contact
                        - Research on Disability

#### Funding for this project is made possible by:

 The Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics (StatsRRTC), which is funded by the U.S. Department of Education, National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research, under cooperative agreements H133B080012.

#### Stay Connected

**Institute on Disability**10 West Edge Drive, Suite 101Durham, NH 03824603.862.4320 | relay: 711 | [email protected]www.iod.unh.edu

© 2013. Institute on Disability.University of New Hampshire.
§ 1620.18 Jobs performed under similar working conditions. ( a ) *In general.* In order for the equal pay standard to apply, the jobs are required to be performed under similar working conditions. It should be noted that the EPA adopts the flexible standard of similarity as a basis for testing this requirement. In determining whether the requirement is met, a practical judgment is required in light of whether the differences in working conditions are the kind customarily taken into consideration in setting wage levels. The mere fact that jobs are in different departments of an establishment will not necessarily mean that the jobs are performed under dissimilar working conditions. This may or may not be the case. The term “similar working conditions” encompasses two subfactors: “surroundings” and “hazards.” “Surroundings” measure the elements, such as toxic chemicals or fumes, regularly encountered by a worker, their intensity and their frequency. “Hazards” take into account the physical hazards regularly encountered, their frequency and the severity of injury they can cause. The phrase “working conditions” does not encompass shift differentials.
( b ) *Determining similarity of working conditions.* Generally, employees performing jobs requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility are likely to be performing them under similar working conditions. However, in situations where some employees performing work meeting these standards have working conditions substantially different from those required for the performance of other jobs, the equal pay principle would not apply. On the other hand, slight or inconsequential differences in working conditions which are not usually taken into consideration by employers or in collective bargaining in setting wage rates would not justify a differential in pay.
§ 35.38 Procedure for disbursal of funds to an alternate recipient. ( a ) If funds are withheld from a recipient under this part, the Secretary may disburse the funds withheld directly to an alternate recipient.
( b ) The Secretary will require any alternate recipient to demonstrate: ( 1 ) The ability to comply with the Act and this part; and
( 2 ) The ability to achieve the goals of the Federal statute authorizing the Federal financial assistance.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 97 (Thursday, May 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31580]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12534]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant application, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome Research 
Review Committee.
    Date: June 15-16, 2000.
    Time: 8:30 am to 5 pm.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: The Governor's House Hotel, Cabinet Room, 1615 Rhode 
Island Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036.
    Contact Person: Paula S. Strickland, Phd, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural 
Activities, NIAID, NIH, Room 2156, 6700-B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7610, 
Bethesda, MD 20892-7610, 301-496-2550.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 10, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-12534 Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
§ 2570.47 Other hearings. ( a ) In its sole discretion, the Department may schedule a hearing on its own motion if it determines that issues relevant to the exemption can be most fully or expeditiously explored at a hearing. The Department shall publish a notice of such hearing in the Federal Register.
( b ) An applicant for an exemption must notify interested persons of any hearing on an exemption scheduled by the Department in the manner described in § 2570.46(c). In addition, the applicant must submit a certification subscribed as true and correct like that required in § 2570.46(d).
<PAGE>


                                                                 Exhibit 99.1



                          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, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Marc S. Hermelin, Vice Chairman 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:

    (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:  June 27, 2003                            /s/ Marc S. Hermelin
                                     ------------------------------------------
                                                  Marc S. Hermelin
                                     Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                                           (Principal Executive Officer)
§ 2570.169 Review by the Secretary. ( a ) The Secretary may review a decision of an administrative law judge. Such a review may occur only when a party files a notice of appeal from a decision of an administrative law judge within twenty (20) days of the issuance of such decision. In all other cases, the decision of the administrative law judge shall become final agency action within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 704.
( b ) A notice of appeal to the Secretary shall state with specificity the issue(s) in the decision of the administrative law judge on which the party is seeking review. Such notice of appeal must be served on all parties of record.
( c ) Upon receipt of a notice of appeal, the Secretary shall request the Chief Administrative Law Judge to submit to him or her a copy of the entire record before the administrative law judge.
#### COLE v BROWN

Ohio Appeals, 4th Dist, Scioto Co

Decided December 23, 1929

Messrs. Edgar G. Miller and Wm. J. Meyer, Portsmouth, for Cole.

Messrs. Miller & Searl, Portsmouth, for Brown.

MIDDLETON, PJ.

It is contended by the plaintiff in error in this proceeding that the trial court erred in giving to the jury before argument at the request of Brown the following special instruction:

> “I charge you as the law in this case that at the time plaintiff claims to have sustained the injuries set out in his petition that the Galena turnpike on which, defendant had placed sand and gravel, as set out in his answer, was a public highway of the State of Ohio, and

> That the law of the State of Ohio (Section 13421-11 GQ.) stipulates that whoever unlawfully places any obstruction in or upon a public highway shall be fined, etc. Thus prohibiting s.uch unlawful obstruction in said highway.

> That this law is one passed for the protection of the public and its violation is negligence per se.

> And placing an obstruction in or upon said highway, which would interfere with the lawful travel upon such highway by the public, which obstruction is not guarded with due care to prevent danger to the public in such use, constitutes an unlawful placing of an obstruction upon a highway.”

It is contended that in this instruction the court undertook to set up a standard by which the jury should determine the negligence of Cole under the facts in evidence, and that such standard should have been left to the determination of the jury alone on the question of whether it constituted negligence on the part of Cole.

Section 13421-11 GC. provides as follows:

> “Whoever unlawfully places .any obstruction in or upon a public highway shall be fined not more than fifty dollars nor less than five dollars.” .

The evidence shows that Cole placed the sand and graveljjpon the highway without any legal right so to do and that it extended from the west line of the highway *72across to the marked middle center of the paved road. It necessarily follows that Cole’s negligence was complete when he placed this obstruction on the highway and that the additional requirement mentioned in the instruction of guarding it in some way could not and did not impose ■upon Cole any legal additional burden. The placing of a guard upon said obstruction was as much for his jwn protection as that of the public. It could not avoid the illegal act on his part in the first instance but it might, however, prevent an injury to another and thus release him from liability for his illegal act, or it might impose upon some other party a charge of contributory negligence which would relieve or mitigate Cole’s liability. We conclude, therefore, that this instruction did not impose any duty upon Cole which could- legally increase his liability for his primary act in unlawfully placing an obstruction upon the highway of the character of that disclosed by the evidence.

We can not disturb the. verdict on the weight of the evidence, and as there are no further complaints made in the brief of the plaintiff in error we must affirm the judgment.

Mauck and Blosser, JJ., concur.
#### § 4007.4 Where to file.

See § 4000.4 of this chapter for information on where to file.

[71 FR 31081, June 1, 2006]
#### § 37.70 Who may file a complaint concerning discrimination connected with WIA Title I?

Any person who believes that either he or she, or any specific class of individuals, has been or is being subjected to discrimination prohibited by WIA or this part, may file a written complaint, either by him/herself or through a representative.
# EUR-Lex - 31997D0517 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31997D0517

**97/517/EC: Commission Decision of 1 August 1997 concerning certain protective measures with regard to certain products of animal origin, excluding fishery products, originating in Madagascar (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 214 , 06/08/1997 P. 0054 - 0054 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 1 August 1997 concerning certain protective measures with regard to certain products of animal origin, excluding fishery products, originating in Madagascar (Text with EEA relevance) (97/517/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 90/675/EEC of 10 December 1990 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (1), as last amended by Directive 96/43/EC (2), and in particular Article 19 thereof,

Whereas Community inspections in Madagascar have shown that there are serious deficiencies with regard to infrastructure and hygiene in meat establishments and that there are not enough guarantees of the efficiency of the controls carried out by the competent authorities; whereas animal health management in Madagascar shows severe deficiencies and non-application of Community rules; whereas there is a potential risk for public health with regard to the production and processing of animal products, excluding fishery products, in this country;

Whereas imports of products of animal origin, excluding fishery products, from Madagascar must not be allowed until it can be guaranteed that no more risk exists;

Whereas this Decision will be reviewed before 30 November 1997;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in conformity with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

This Decision shall apply to products of animal origin, excluding fishery products, originating in Madagascar.

Article 2

Without prejudice to Commission Decision 97/516/EC (3), Member States shall prohibit imports of products of animal origin.

However, consignments which left Madagascar prior to the entry into force of this Decision, and which are presented at the Community inspection post for importation before 15 August 1997, shall be submitted to a re-inforced physical examination and if appropriate, a microbiological examination for the detection, in particular, of Bacillus anthracis and Clostridium chauvoei.

Article 3

This Decision will be reviewed before 30 November 1997.

Article 4

The Member States shall modify the measures they apply in trade in order to bring them into line with this Decision. They shall immediately inform the Commission thereof.

Article 5

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 1 August 1997.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 373, 31. 12. 1990, p. 1.

(2) OJ No L 162, 1. 7. 1996, p. 1.

(3) See page 53 of this Official Journal.
#### Charles J. Fisher, Jr., an Infant, by Mary E. Fisher, His Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, *v.*Samuel P. Bartley et al., Appellants.

Argued June 1, 1937

decided July 13, 1937.

*470
      *Francis L. Driscoll*and *Lorenz J. Brosnan*for appellants.

*Frank P. Ufford*and *St. Clair Hertel*for respondent.

Judgments reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event. It was error to instruct the jury in the text of the memorandum decision of the Appellate Division rendered on the former appeal (246 App. Div. 609). These instructions in effect allowed the jury to find the defendants liable for a mere error of judgment. No opinion. (See 275 N. Y. 544.)

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien and Lough-ran, JJ. Dissenting: Hubbs, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
#### § 38.37 Notice requirement for service providers.

The Governor or the LWDA grant recipient, as determined by the Governor and as provided in that State's Nondiscrimination Plan, will be responsible for meeting the notice requirement provided in §§ 38.34 and 38.35 with respect to a State's service providers.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7040

PHILLIP A. GILLIAM,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

KATE SHELLMAN, Parole Officer; JOHN DOE; JANE

DOE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CA-02-105-3)

Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: September 9, 2002

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Phillip A. Gilliam, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Phillip A. Gilliam appeals the district court’s order

dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint

for failure to pay a partial filing fee. We have reviewed the

record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Gilliam v. Shellman, No. CA-02-105-3 (E.D. Va. June 21,

2002). 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