alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Michele Peppers, Respondent, v Donald Peppers, Appellant.

[697 NYS2d 666]

—In an action to recover damages for breach of a separation agreement, the defendant former husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), entered March 31, 1999, as granted that branch of the plaintiff former wife’s motion which was to compel him to answer her interrogatories 4 through 32.

Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to compel the defendant to answer interrogatories 4 through 32, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion only to the extent of compelling the defendant to answer interrogatories 4 through 14, 16 through 19, 21, 22, and 25 through 32, and otherwise denying that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The parties were married in 1973 and had two children. In 1983, the parties executed a separation agreement which was incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce. Among other terms, the separation agreement required the defendant to pay $3,500 per month for maintenance and support until both children were emancipated. Pursuant to the separation agreement, the defendant was also required to pay the plaintiff 25% of any increase in his gross annual income above $100,000 and 10% of any increase above $150,000. In December 1997 the plaintiff commenced this action to recover the arrears allegedly due under the separation agreement since 1992. In May 1998 she served a set of 32 interrogatories about the defendant’s finances. Although the defendant answered the first three interrogatories and provided copies of his personal income tax returns, he refused to answer the remaining 29 interrogatories on the ground that the plaintiff waived her right to any further discovery and, in any event, the interrogatories were irrelevant, overbroad, and unduly burdensome.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plaintiff did not *194waive her discovery rights in this post-judgment action to enforce the separation agreement. Moreover, his personal tax returns were not necessarily conclusive on the issue of his gross annual income *(see, Silvan v Silvan,*93 AD2d 790; *Legname v Legname,*43 AD2d 543). Although interrogatories 15, 20, 23, and 24 request information that is not material or necessary to this action, the remaining 25 unanswered interrogatories are sufficiently narrow and germane to the issue of the defendant’s income so that he should be compelled to answer them *(see, Albert v Time Warner Cable,*255 AD2d 248; *Briger v Briger,*110 AD2d 526). Bracken, J. P., S. Miller, Krausman and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 34 (Thursday, February 20, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 9742]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03637]

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

FEDERAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS EXAMINATION COUNCIL

[Docket No. AS14-02]

Appraisal Subcommittee; Rules of Operation; Amendment

AGENCY: Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions 
Examination Council.

ACTION: Notice of amendment to rules governing frequency of regular 
meetings of the Appraisal Subcommittee.

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

SUMMARY: The Appraisal Subcommittee (ASC) of the Federal Financial 
Institutions Examination Council is amending the following section:
    Section 3.06(e) of the Rules of Operation, which addresses the 
scheduling of regular meetings of the ASC. As amended, the ASC will 
meet at least once every two months (bi-monthly) instead of monthly.

DATES: Effective Date: Immediately.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James R. Park, Executive Director, at 
(202) 595-7575, or Alice M. Ritter, General Counsel, at (202) 595-7577, 
via Internet email at jim@asc.gov and alice@asc.gov, respectively, or 
by U.S. Mail at Appraisal Subcommittee, 1401 H Street NW., Suite 760, 
Washington, DC 20005.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The ASC, on May 29, 1991, adopted Rules of 
Operation, which were published at 56 FR 28561 (June 21, 1991). The 
Rules of Operation describe, among other things, the organization of 
ASC Meetings, notice requirements for Meetings, quorum requirements and 
certain practices regarding the disclosure of information. The ASC, at 
its December 11, 2013 Meeting, voted to approve bi-monthly Meetings of 
the ASC beginning in February 2014 rather than monthly Meetings.
    The ASC is publishing amended Section 3.06(e) to conform with 5 
U.S.C. 552(a)(1)(C), which requires the publication of agency rules of 
operation in the Federal Register. The notice and publication 
requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553 do not apply to the adoption of Section 
3.06(e) because it is a ``rule of agency organization, procedure, or 
practice'' exempt from the public notice and comment process under 5 
U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A).
    Based on the foregoing, the ASC adopts amended Section 3.06(e) of 
the Rules of Operation, as follows, effective immediately:

Rules of Operation

    * * *

Article III Organization and Operation of the ASC

    * * *

Section 3.06.  Organization of Subcommittee Meetings.

    * * *
    (e) Regular meetings of the ASC shall be held at least once every 
two months (bi-monthly), unless not practicable, at the call of the 
Chairperson. Special meetings shall be held as provided in section 
3.07(b) below.
    * * *

    By the Appraisal Subcommittee.

    Dated: February 12, 2014.
Arthur Lindo,
Chairman.
[FR Doc. 2014-03637 Filed 2-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 3 - 0 220 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 3 - CE - 0 02 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


K-V 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,
333-00199, 333-48252 and 333-85516) and Registration Statement on Form S-3
(File Number 333-87402 and 333-106294) of our reports dated May 23, 2003,
relating to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of K-V
Pharmaceutical Company appearing in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K
as of and for the year ended March 31, 2003.


/s/ BDO SEIDMAN, LLP

Chicago, Illinois
June 26, 2003
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit (21)


                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

The following is a list of all subsidiaries, including the jurisdiction under
which each was organized:


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
         Subsidiary                                         Jurisdiction
         ----------                                         ------------
<S>                                                   <C>
Lindal Homes South Pacific, Inc. (a)                  Hawaii
Lindal Cedar Homes, M.W., Inc. (a)                    Michigan
Justus Log Homes, Inc. (a)                            Washington
Lindal Holdings, Inc. (a)                             British Columbia, Canada
Lindal Cedar Homes, Ltd. (d)                          British Columbia, Canada
New Vision Log Sales, Ltd. (e)                        British Columbia, Canada
Camida Timber Ltd. (c)                                British Columbia, Canada
WindowVisions, Inc. (a)                               Washington
WDK, Ltd. (b)                                         Washington
</TABLE>


(a)    Wholly-owned subsidiary

(b)    Wholly-owned subsidiary of Justus Log Homes, Inc.

(c)    50% owned subsidiary of Lindal Cedar Homes, Ltd.

(d)    Wholly-owned subsidiary of Lindal Holdings, Inc.

(e)    Wholly-owned subsidiary of Lindal Cedar Homes, Ltd.



                                      -41-
#### HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION CO. v EBER

Ohio Appeals, 8h Dist, Cuyahoga Co.

No. 8649.

Decided Dec. 24, 1928.

SHIELDS PJ, HOUCK and LEMERT, JJ of the 5th Dist sitting.

Baker, Hostettler & Sidlo, Cleveland, for Constr. Co.

Anderson & Lamb, Cleveland, for Eber.

SHIELDS, PJ

Following the course of argument of counsel for plaintiff in error in their brief, and stating our conclusion without extended discussion of the same, we find the first assignment is that “the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.”

Assuming that the jury was properly instructed as to the law of the case, under the testimony given, upon the trial of the case we are of the opinion that the verdict of the jury was warranted in favor of defendant in error by both the testimony and the law.

Second “that excessive damages appear to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice.”

While there is no testimony before the court that any outside matter influenced the action of the jury, the presumption is that the verdict rendered was the unbiased judgment of the jury.

True, the verdict is large and the trial judge who was familiar with the facts of the case, ordered the remittitur mentioned, but in the testimony showing the character and extent of the defendant in error’s injuries, and keeping in mind that the jury is the judge of facts, we 'do not feel disposed to disturb the verdict on this ground.

Third “misconduct of opposing counsel.” This is recognized by our courts generally as a proper ground for a new trial where the same is clearly shown to have abused its discretion by an act done or language used during the trial of a case wherein the legal rights of the parties offended against are prejudiced thereby.

St. Bernard vs Cohman, 31 O C A 273. Palmer vs Peck, 104 O S 603.

This incident in the trial appears to have occurred in the testimony of a witness or witnesses upon the trial as to the relation of a certain insurance company to the ¡case in whose behalf it is claimed the defense was really being made.

> “Voir dire examination of a juror is allowed by courts with more or less freedom in testing his or her qualifications to act as such juror.” • See Lish vs Denny, 23 O L R 229.

Bowman vs Silberman, 16 O App 236. Cohen v Smith, 5 Abs 325, May 21 1927.

*59In an examination of this record we are unable to reach any other conclusion than that the plaintiff in error by its witness first introduced this subject thus opening the way for his cross-examination by defendant in error.

We have examined this entire record with no little care, including the request to charge submitted on behalf of plaintiff in error, and finding no error in the proceedings of the court below, its judgment will be affirmed. Exceptions.

Houck and Lemert JJ, concur.
#### § 1984.113 Judicial enforcement.

Whenever any person has failed to comply with a preliminary order of reinstatement, or a final order, including one approving a settlement agreement, issued under section 18C of the FLSA, the Secretary may file a civil action seeking enforcement of the order in the United States district court for the district in which the violation was found to have occurred or in the United States district court for the District of Columbia. Whenever any person has failed to comply with a preliminary order of reinstatement, or a final order, including one approving a settlement agreement, issued under section 18C of the FLSA, a person on whose behalf the order was issued may file a civil action seeking enforcement of the order in the appropriate United States district court.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

TEIAS PEATENLANE

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 22

- 682

[ July 28, 2022 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Michael Usan , Judge;

L.T. Case No. 12

- 10182CF10A

.

Robert David Malove of The Law Office of Robert David Malove, P.A.,

Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

M AY

, D AMOORGIAN and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### § 1602.29 Applicability of State or local law.

The requirements imposed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in these regulations, subparts D through G, supersede any provisions of State or local law which may conflict with them. Any State or local laws prohibiting inquiries and recordkeeping with respect to race, color, national origin, or sex do not apply to inquiries required to be made under these regulations and under the instructions accompanying Reports EEO-2 and EEO-3.

[32 FR 10652, July 20, 1967]
#### Elite Limousine Plus, Inc., Appellant, v Allcity Insurance Company, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[698 NYS2d 251]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to compel the defendant Allcity Insurance Company to defend and indemnify the plaintiff pursuant to a policy of automobile liability insurance in an action entitled *Mihailovich v Elite Limousine Plus, Inc.,*pending under Index No. 97/86616 in the Supreme Court, Queens County, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.), dated February 25, 1999, as denied its motion for leave to enter a judgment against the defendant Allcity Insurance Company upon its failure to appear or answer, granted that branch of the cross motion of the defendant Allcity Insurance Company which was for leave to vacate its default in serving an answer, and directed the plaintiff to accept service of an answer from that defendant.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and that branch of the cross motion which was to vacate the default is denied.

Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, the defendant Allcity Insurance Company (hereinafter Allcity) completely failed to establish the requisite reasonable excuse for its failure to timely serve an answer in this action *(see,*CPLR 3012 [d]; *Iovine v Caldwell,*215 AD2d 977). Indeed, only after the plaintiff moved for leave to enter a judgment against Allcity upon its failure to appear or answer did Allcity proffer its counsel’s unsubstantiated “surmise” that the failure to appear or answer might possibly have been caused by an error of a former Allcity employee in neglecting to transmit the pleadings to Allcity’s attorneys. This wholly conclusory assertion was inadequate to excuse the default, and the Supreme Court erred in directing the plaintiff to accept late service of the answer and in denying the plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter a default judgment *(see generally, Gurreri v Village of Briarcliff Manor,*249 AD2d 508; *Matthew v H&R Executive Towers,*244 AD2d 302; *Miles v Blue Label Trucking,*232 AD2d 382). O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Goldstein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 99.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

     Pursuant  to  Section  906 of the  Public  Company  Accounting  Reform  and
Investor  Protection  Act of 2002 (18  U.S.C.ss.  1350,  as adopted),  I, Dianne
Hatton-Ward, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge:

     1. The Company's  Quarterly Report on Form 10QSB for the period ended March
31,  2003,  and to which this  Certification  is attached  as Exhibit  99.1 (the
"PERIODIC  REPORT")  fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  of the Company at the end of the
period  covered by the Periodic  Report and results of operations of the Company
for the period covered by the Periodic Report.

Dated: May 2, 2003


S/ Dianne Hatton-Ward
---------------------
Dianne Hatton-Ward
CEO & CFO

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

THIS  CERTIFICATION   ACCOMPANIES  THIS  REPORT  PURSUANT  TO  SS.  906  OF  THE
SARBANES-OXLEY  ACT OF 2002 AND SHALL NOT BE DEEMED  "FILED" BY THE  COMPANY FOR
PURPOSES OF SECTION 18 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 97 (Thursday, May 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31538-31539]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12471]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP99-513-003]


Questar Pipeline Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

May 12, 2000.
    Take notice that on May 8, 2000, Questar Pipeline Company (Questar) 
tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised 
Volume No. 1, Third Revised Sheet No. 7, with an effective day of May 
8, 2000.
    Questar states that the filing is being made to implement a 
negotiated-rate contract as authorized by Commission orders issued 
October 27, 1999, and December 14, 1999, in Docket Nos. RP99-513, et 
al. The Commission approved Questar's request to implement a 
negotiated-rate option for Rate Schedules T-1, NNT, T-2, PKS, FSS and 
ISS shippers. Questar submitted its negotiated-rate filing in 
accordance with the Commission's Policy Statement in Docket Nos. RM95-
6-000 and RM96-7-000 (Policy Statement) issued January 31, 1996.
    Questar further states that the tendered tariff sheet revises 
Questar's Tariff to implement a new negotiated-rate transportation 
service agreement between Questar and Texaco Natural Gas, Inc., 
executed May 1, 2000, with service commencing May 8, 2000.
    Questar states that a copy of this filing has been served upon 
Questar's customers, the Public Service Commission of Utah and the 
Public Service Commission of Wyoming.
    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,

[[Page 31539]]

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with 
sections 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).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-12471 Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6786** 

OSCAR ANDREWS , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis trict of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5:10

- hc

- 02160

- FL )

Submitted : November 17, 2011 Decided: November 23, 2011

Before KING, DAVIS, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Osc ar Andrews, Appellant Pro Se. William Ellis Boyle, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Oscar Andrews , a federal prisoner, appeals the
d istrict court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2011) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Andrews v. United States ,
No . 5:10

- hc

- 02160

- FL (E.D.N.C. June 3, 2011) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED