alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### TUCKER, etc. v FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, etc., et al.

Case No. 87-69 CA 10

Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County

April 29, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

John Rooney for defendants.

L. B. Vocelle, Jr., Moss, Henderson & Lloyd, P.A., for plaintiffs.

OPINION OF THE COURT

CHARLES E. SMITH, Circuit Judge.

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the plaintiffs Motion to Strike paragraph 3 of the Affirmative Defenses regarding the non use of a seat belt. This case involved a wrongful death action as a result of an automobile accident.

Plaintiff argues that the seat belt defense does not apply to bar recovery under the Florida Wrongful Death Act. Apparently, there are no Florida appellate decisions concerning this, but there is a U.S. District court decision applying Florida law that upholds plaintiffs *57contention. *England v. US,*632 Fed.Supp. 1340 (Middle District, Fla. 1986) held that the seat belt defense under Florida law does not bar recovery by a survivor. The reasoning of this case was based on the purpose of the Florida Wrongful Death Act, to prevent a tortfeasor from avoiding liability for his misconduct when such misconduct results in death. It is this court’s opinion that it was the legislature’s intent to prevent the common law application of a person’s right to sue for injuries terminating with the death. In other words, it was the legislature’s intent to essentially give the same rights and defenses available to the Personal Representative and survivors that existed as if a person had not died. However, it was not the legislature’s intent to give the Personal Representative and survivors greater rights than if a person survived. Therefore, the said seat belt defense for mitigation of damages as stated in *Insurance Company of North America v. Pasakarnis,*451 So.2d 447 (Fla. 1984) should be extended to wrongful death claims.

This accident occurred on August 2, 1986, after the effective date of the Florida Safety Belt Law, which became effective July 1, 1986. Florida Statute 316.614(10) provides that a violation of this law does not constitute negligence per say nor can such violation be used as prima facie evidence in such civil action. Therefore, the Safety Belt Law did not effect *Pasakarnis*decision for mitigation of damages. The legislature should have been aware of the *Pasakarnis*decision as it was returned on April 12, 1984 and if they wished to change the *Pasakarnis*decision as to mitigation of damages, they could have done so under the Florida Safety Belt Law or they could have amended the Florida Wrongful Death Act.

It is therefore order the the plaintiffs Motion to Strike Paragraph 3 of the Affirmative Defenses is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED at Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida this 29th day of April, 1987.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mark Fisher, Appellant.

[699 NYS2d 58]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County *309(DeRiggi, J.), rendered June 3, 1998, convicting him of assault in the second degree, resisting arrest, and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The court properly summarily denied the defendant’s oral motion to set aside the jury’s verdict of guilt on the basis of newly-discovered evidence since the defendant failed to comply with the requirements that the motion be in writing, upon reasonable notice, and supported by sworn allegations of fact *(see,*GPL 330.30 [3]; 330.40 [2] [a]). Additionally, the defendant failed to establish that the evidence “could not have been produced by the defendant at the trial” (GPL 330.30 [3]; *see, People v Salemi,*309 NY 208, *cert denied*350 US 950; *People v Rivera,*118 AD2d 877). Finally, the newly-discovered evidence alleged by the defendant, a blood-stained tee-shirt, would not have contradicted the People’s witnesses’ testimony that he sustained trauma to his nose *(see, People v Coleman,*142 AD2d 586).

The trial court also properly denied the defendant’s objection to testimony concerning statements that he allegedly made at the time of or immediately preceding the crimes charged *(see,*GPL 710.30; *People v Rodney,*85 NY2d 289; *People v Copes,*200 AD2d 680; *People v Wells,*133 AD2d 385; *People v Mayi,*198 AD2d 444; *People v Clark,*198 AD2d 46; *People v Holloway,*77 AD2d 122; *cf., People v Kirkland,*89 NY2d 903).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit *(see,*Penal Law § 205.30; *cf., People v Brown,*256 AD2d 414). Joy, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
§ 1910.9 Compliance duties owed to each employee. ( a ) *Personal protective equipment.* Standards in this part requiring the employer to provide personal protective equipment (PPE), including respirators and other types of PPE, because of hazards to employees impose a separate compliance duty with respect to each employee covered by the requirement. The employer must provide PPE to each employee required to use the PPE, and each failure to provide PPE to an employee may be considered a separate violation.
( b ) *Training.* Standards in this part requiring training on hazards and related matters, such as standards requiring that employees receive training or that the employer train employees, provide training to employees, or institute or implement a training program, impose a separate compliance duty with respect to each employee covered by the requirement. The employer must train each affected employee in the manner required by the standard, and each failure to train an employee may be considered a separate violation.
[73 FR 75583, Dec. 12, 2008]
EXHIBIT 21
  Name of Subsidiary
    
    State/Province of IncorporationLance Mfg. LLC (1)
    
    North CarolinaCaronuts, Inc. (1)
    
    North CarolinaVista Bakery, Inc. (1)
    
    North CarolinaCape Cod Potato Chip Company LLC (1)
    
    MassachusettsLanhold Investments, Inc. (1)
    
    DelawareTamming Foods Ltd. (2)
    
    OntarioFresno Ventures, Inc. (1)
    
    North CarolinaArchway Bakeries, LLC (3)
    
    North CarolinaBrent & Sams, Inc. (4)
    
    ArkansasNorth State Cookies, LLC (3)
    
    North Carolina
 
 (1)
    
    Lance, Inc. owns 100% of the outstanding voting equity securities.(2)
    
    Subsidiary of Lanhold Investments, Inc., which owns 100% of the outstanding voting equity
securities.(3)
    
    Subsidiary of Lance Mfg. LLC, which owns 100% of the outstanding voting equity securities.(4)
    
    Subsidiary of North State Cookies, LLC, which owns 100% of the outstanding voting equity
securities.
SERVED: FEBRUARY 18, 2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
INTHEMATTEROF SCHUMAN AVIATION COMPANY, LTD.

FAADOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA-2013-1080 

# RECEIVED F::3 202014 HEARiNG DOCKET

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2012WPI30065) has been assigned to Administrative LawJudge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, andthe otherpersons onthe attached Service List. ' ',,1 /

....-•"''" ----.,



## / /
........**j/~)**

# /k,___~'y(s;::**-:p~** Ronnie A. Yoder
.. )' ChiefAdministrative LawJudge
. / Attachment

- Service List**~-~-e'""'·"___./"**SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

### Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1 ONE COPY 

### Gustav Richard Schuman, President 

### SchumanAviation Company, Ltd., Respondent 

### 130 IolanaPlace Ho!lolulu, HI 96819 TEL: NOT PROVIDED FAX: NOT PROVIDED Christopher D. Ferrara, Respondent's Counsel 

### 3555 Harding Avenue, Suite 2F Honolulu, HI 96816 TEL: NOT PROVIDED FAX: 808-522-1661 DonBobertz, Complainant's Counsel 

### Office ofthe Regional Counsel, Western Pacific Region, AWP-7 Federal Aviation Administration P.O. Box 92007 Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 TEL: 310-725-3454 FAX: 310-725-6816 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

### Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2013-1080 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building--Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

### -2-
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.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [FRL-6703-9] 

Incorrect meeting dates were announced for one of the two Science Advisory Board Executive Committee (EC) meetings at 65 FR 30589-30591, dated May 12, 2000. The meeting was originally announced for Monday, June 12, 2000. The meeting should have been announced for Friday, June 16, 2000. There are no changes to the other EC meeting (scheduled for May 30, 2000) or the Drinking Water Committee meeting (scheduled for June 5-7, 2000) announced in that FR. 

The correct meeting announcement information is below. 

                    The Executive Committee (EC) of US EPA's Science Advisory Board will conduct a public teleconference meeting on Friday, June 16, 2000. Additional instructions about how to participate in the conference call can be obtained by calling Ms. Priscilla Tillery-Gadson no earlier than one week prior to the meeting (beginning June 9) at (202) 564-4533, or via e-mail at                     *tillery.priscilla@epa.gov.*

*Availability of Review Materials*                    —Drafts of the reports that will be reviewed at the meeting should be available to the public at the SAB website (http://www.epa.gov/​sab) by close-of-business on June 1, 2000.                 

Dated: May 16, 2000. 

Donald G. Barnes, 

Staff Director, Science Advisory Board. 

[FR Doc. 00-12793 Filed 5-22-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 213 (Tuesday, November 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65474-65475]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26186]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Application Of Gem Air, LLC for Commuter Air Carrier Authority

AGENCY: Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of Order to Show Cause (Order 2014-10-25); Docket DOT-
OST-2014-0020.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is directing all interested 
persons to show cause why it should not issue an order finding Gem Air, 
LLC fit, willing, and able, and awarding it commuter air carrier 
authority to conduct scheduled commuter service.

DATES: Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than 
November 13, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Objections and answers to objections should be filed in 
Docket DOT-OST-2014-0020 and addressed to Docket Operations, (M-30, 
Room W12-140), U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, and should be served upon the parties 
listed in Attachment A to the order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Snoden, Air Carrier Fitness

[[Page 65475]]

Division (X-56, Room W86-9721), U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-4834.

Susan L. Kurland,
Assistant Secretary, for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2014-26186 Filed 11-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
#### STATE ex UIBLE v HARLAN, Auditor

Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist, Butler Cq

No 462.

Decided May 12, 1930

P. P. Boli, Hamilton, for State ex.

Benjamin F. Primmer, Hamilton, for Harlan.

*570ROSS, J.

The facts presented by this case are of such nature as to appeal strongly to a sense of justice. It is manifest that all the parties involved proceeded under the assumption that the contract was upon a unit price basis, and that this conception continued until the Auditor insisted upon a strict application of the provisions of 6945 GC.

The County received full value for the excess material, the value of which is now sought to be secured by the relator through the process of mandamus. The contract itself uses language clearly indicating that unit prices were contemplated as ,a basis for estimates at least.

The previous section in the contract quoted hereinbefore under the well known rules of construction must be determined to have been modified by the latter section quoted, which contemplated unit prices. Certainly an ambiguity existed which common justice should resolve in favor of the contract- or under the circumstances outlined above.

The statute permits the commissioners to “order” the contract let upon either a lump sum bid or unit price bid. The resolution of the commissioners shows no reference to either lump sum or unit price except that ,a lump sum of $33,000 is mentioned in the resolution, it being obviously necessary to have some figure approximately the cost of the improvement.

It would seem strange that when all the county officers openly admit the mutual understanding that the contract was to be let upon a unit price basis, and there be-ing not the slightest question but that the County received full value for the excess amount requested, ,and there being not the slightest hint of fraud in the whole transaction, that the county should not in all justice pay for what it received, and be permitted to take advantage of an ultra-technical construction of 6945 GC. We can not conceive that the legislature intended any such result in enacting this provision. However, the act of the legislature in 1929, quoted hereinbefore, furnishes ample authority for the supplementary proceedings of the commissioners in doing justice to the relator. We consider the case of Spitzig v. State, 119 Ohio St., 117, controlling on all the objections urged by the respondent as against this legislation. Such being the case, the judgment of the court of common pleas will be reversed, and there being no dispute ,as to the facts involved in the case, the cause will be remanded to the court of common pleas of Butler County, with instructions to grant the writ of mandamus, as prayed for.

Cushing, PJ, and Hamilton, J, concur.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 99 (Monday, May 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32115-32116]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12750]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


Health Resources and Services Administration Advisory Council; 
Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Public Law 92-463), announcement is made of the 
following National Advisory body scheduled to meet during the month of 
June 2000.

    Name: Maternal and Child Health Research Grants Review 
Committee.
    Date and Time: June 14-16, 2000; 8 a.m.-5 p.m.
    Place: Doubletree Hotel, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 
20852.

[[Page 32116]]

    The meeting is open to the public on Wednesday, June 14, 2000, 
from 9 a.m.-10 a.m., and closed for the remainder of the meeting.
    Agenda: The open portion of the meeting will cover opening 
remarks by the Director, Division of Research, Training and 
Education, who will report on program issues, congressional 
activities, and other topics of interest to the field of maternal 
and child health. The meeting will be closed to the public on 
Wednesday, June 14, 2000, from 10 a.m., to the remainder of the 
meeting, for the review of grant applications. The closing is in 
accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), 
Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination by the Associate Administrator 
for Management and Program Support, Health Resources and Services 
Administration, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.
    Anyone wishing to obtain a roster of members, minutes of 
meetings, or other relevant information should write or contact 
Gontran Lamberty, Dr. P.H., Executive Secretary, Maternal and Child 
Health Research Grants Review Committee, Room 18A-55, Parklawn 
Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, or by telephone at 
(301) 443-2190.

    Dated: May 16, 2000.
Jane M. Harrison,
Director, Division of Policy Review and Coordination.
[FR Doc. 00-12750 Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-15-P
§ 2400.5 Special procedures for requesting medical records. ( a ) Upon an individual's request for access to any medical record about the requester, including any psychological record, the Privacy Officer shall make a preliminary determination on whether access to such record(s) could have an adverse effect upon the requester. If the Privacy Officer determines that access could have an adverse effect on the requester, OSHRC shall notify the requester in writing and advise that the record(s) at issue can be made available only to a physician of the requester's designation.
( b ) OSHRC shall forward such record(s) to the physician designated by the requester once the following requirements are met: ( 1 ) The requester has informed OSHRC of the designated physician's identity;
( 2 ) OSHRC has verified the identity of the physician; and
( 3 ) The physician has agreed to review the record(s) with the requester to both explain the meaning of the record(s) and offer counseling designed to temper any adverse reaction.
( c ) If, within 60 calendar days of OSHRC's written request for a designation, the requester has failed to respond or designate a physician, or the physician fails to agree to the release conditions, then OSHRC shall hold the records(s) in abeyance and advise the requester that this action may be construed as a technical denial. OSHRC shall also advise the requester of his or her rights to administrative appeal and, thereafter, judicial review in a district court of the United States.
#### § 37.77 Who is responsible for developing and publishing complaint processing procedures for service providers?

The Governor or the LWIA grant recipient, as provided in the State's Methods of Administration, must develop and publish, on behalf of its service providers, the complaint processing procedures required in § 37.76. The service providers must then follow those procedures.
STYLE:

AND D.

v.

RE: Case No. 15-0573

COA #: 12-15-00126-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF T. W

W., CHILDREN

TC#

C. w

"FlLiDlS COURT OF APPEALS

12thCoj^ofA|^a!BD^rict

FILE COPY

DATE: 8/3/2015

JR W. W S. W

Today the Supreme Court of Texas received and filed a

motion for extension of time to file petition for review

pursuant to Rule 53.7(f) in the above numbered and styled

case.

MS. CATHY S. LUSK

CLERK, TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

1517 WEST FRONT, SUITE 354

TYLER, TX 75702
S. Con. Res. 15 Agreed to March 6, 2007

One Hundred Tenth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,

the fourth day of January, two thousand and seven

Concurrent Resolution

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That the Rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be used

on March 29, 2007, for a ceremony to award a Congressional Gold

Medal collectively to the Tuskegee Airmen in accordance with Public

Law 109–213. Physical preparations for the ceremony shall be

carried out in accordance with such conditions as the Architect

of the Capitol may prescribe.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
----

Action brought on 14 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(Case C-254/04)

(2004/C 201/27)

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Georgios Zavvos and Michael Shotter, of its Legal Service.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of the directive into national law expired on 24 July 2003.

----

(1)OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 21.

----
EXHIBIT 32.2


                            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 Quarterly Report of Lite King Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 operation of the
Company.


Date:  March 22, 2006                           By: /s/ David L. Norris
                                                   ---------------------------
                                                Name:  David L. Norris
                                                Title: Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authentications, 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 Lite King Corporation
and will be retained by Lite King Corporation and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                  EXHIBIT 32.2