alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Florida DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellant, v. GRICE ELECTRONICS, INC., et al., Appellees.

No. EE-279.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 2, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 23, 1977.

Winifred Sheridan Smallwood, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Thomas E. Johnson and Richard H. Merritt, Pensacola, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an interlocutory appeal from an order awarding attorneys fee in a condemnation suit. We have considered the briefs, the record, and the oral arguments by attorneys for the respective parties and find no abuse of discretion by the trial judge.

The primary contention of appellant was that the trial court erred in allowing compensation to appellee’s attorneys for work performed before suit was filed but after condemnation was imminent. The trial judge did not err in so doing. See *Dade County v. Brigham,*47 So.2d 602 (Fla.1950); *Jacksonville Express. Auth. v. Henry G. DuPree Co.,*108 So.2d 289 (Fla.1958), and *Orange State Oil Co. v. Jacksonville Expressway Auth.,*143 So.2d 892 (Fla. 1 DCA 1962).

Affirmed.

McCORD, C. J., and BOYER and MILLS, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1



             [BROUSSARD, POCHE, LEWIS & BREAUX, L.L.P. LETTERHEAD]


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


As Independent Auditors, we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in
this Form 10-K of American Bancorp, Inc. for the years ended December 31, 1999,
1998 and 1997, of our report dated January 28, 2000, which appears on Pages 28
through 56 of the annual report to shareholders.



                                  /s/ BROUSSARD, POCHE, LEWIS & BREAUX, L.L.P.

Lafayette, Louisiana
January 28, 2000
#### Leo F. STONE, Appellant, v. Etta M. STONE, Appellee.

No. 76-1705.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 17, 1977.

R. J. Marshall, Palmetto, for appellant.

Clifford L. Walters and Robert E. Knowles of Knowles, Blalock, Coleman & Landers, Bradenton, for appellee.

SCHEB, Judge.

On appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, appellant/husband contends the trial court erred in its awards of alimony and attorney’s fees. During oral argument counsel for appellant abandoned his contention that the award of $350 for attorney’s fees was improper because it was not based upon expert testimony as to the reasonableness of this sum. Counsel for appellant continued to maintain that the appellee/wife was not entitled to attorney’s fees, or in the alternative that she had abandoned her claim thereto.

In the past we have repeatedly reversed awards of attorney’s fees not predicated upon expert evidence as to reasonableness. *See, e. g., Nivens v. Nivens,*312 So.2d 201 (Fla.2d DCA 1975); *Lyle v. Lyle,*167 So.2d 256 (Fla.2d DCA 1964). However, in view of appellant’s abandonment of any argument as to the reasonableness of the attorney’s fees, and finding appellant’s other points on appeal to be without merit, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

BOARDMAN, C. J., and GRIMES, J., concur.
Exhibit 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
Medical Nutrition USA, Inc.:

We consent to the  incorporation by reference to the Registration  Statements on
Form S-8 (No.  333-134678) of our report dated May 11, 2007, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Medical Nutrition USA, Inc. included in the
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended January 31, 2007.


/s/ Amper, Politziner & Mattia, P.C.


May 15, 2007
Edison, New Jersey
#### HOME FURNITURE AND APPLIANCE v. RED BALL MOTOR FREIGHT, INC.

No. 59737.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 27, 1977.

In re: Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, 343 So.2d 319, Second Circuit, Parish of Jackson.

Writ refused. Under the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in its judgment.

DENNIS, J., is of the opinion the writ should be granted.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2333 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain motor generator units. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 23, 2012 

Mr. LEVIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain motor generator 

units. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN MOTOR GENERATOR UNITS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 


PWALKER on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2333 IS

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Motor generator units with 

three-phase cable assembly, 

the foregoing designed to 

function as a starter motor 

and electric motor 

supplementing the gasoline 

internal combustion engine 

and as a generator for recharging vehicle batteries in 

regenerative braking mode; 

certified by the importer for 

use in hybrid electric vehicles 

(provided for in subheading 

8511.40.00) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

4 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


PWALKER on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### U.S. Underwriters Insurance Co., Appellant, v Manhattan Demolition Co., Inc., et al., Respondents.

[612 NYS2d 449]

—In an action for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff has no duty to defend or indemnify the defendant Manhattan Demolition Co., Inc. with respect to certain actions brought by the codefendants Joan Levey, Steven Auto Parts Distributing Co. and New York Property Insurance Underwriters Association, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), entered March 2, 1992, as granted those branches of the cross motions of the defendants Manhattan Demolition Co., Inc., and New York Property Insurance Underwriting Association which were to dismiss its first cause of action, and declared that the plaintiff could not disclaim coverage based upon a policy exclusion applicable to "demolition”.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The plaintiff issued a general liability policy of insurance to the defendant Manhattan Demolition Co., Inc. (hereinafter Manhattan). Effective September 25, 1987, an endorsement was issued in order to cover a job to be performed at 66 Rochester Avenue, Brooklyn. This job was described as "[ijnterior demolition—removal of non-bearing walls and debris”. At least 40 other endorsements have been issued under this policy, all relating to jobs involving "[ijnterior demolition”. During the course of the job at 66 Rochester Avenue, Manhattan’s employees allegedly caused a fire, which resulted in property damage for which Manhattan now seeks to obtain insurance coverage.

The plaintiff, in its first cause of action, alleges that its policy excludes liability in the circumstances outlined above; the plaintiff cites that part of its policy which states "[tjhis [ejxclusion is expressly intended to apply to Property Damage to any building * * * being demolished in whole or in part by the Named Insured which is damaged as a result of the insureds’ demolition operations”.

We agree with the Supreme Court that, as stated by our colleagues in the Appellate Division, First Department, "[tjhe plain meaning of this exclusion would apply only where there was a complete tearing down, razing, or destruction” *(Matter of Midland Ins. Co. v Dairyland Ins. Co.,*170 AD2d 243, 244). To hold that the exclusion relied upon by the plaintiff applies to property damage due to buildings being subject to "interior renovation”, that is, the removal of nonbearing walls, would *715be to say that defendant Manhattan repeatedly paid premiums for an insurance policy which covered virtually none of the risks to which it would be exposed during the course of its business.

For these reasons, the order should be affirmed insofar as appealed from. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Miller and Hart, JJ., concur.
!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

}"

Chatuge Dam

Clay

County

Park

Gibson

Cove

Campground

£¤64

£¤64

UV69

UV1307

4

5

3

108

109

1

!( !(107

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

}"

Chatuge Dam

Clay

County

Park

Gibson

Cove

Campground

£¤64

£¤64

UV69

UV1307

4

5

3

108

109

1

107

\\alismurphy\home\mprlm\projects\landplan\maps\Chatuge_land_plan\Chatuge_land_plan_for_Web.mxd

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet /

Chatuge Reservoir

Land Management Plan

Tile: A1

Jul 24, 2008
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2420 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2420

      To suspend temporarily the duty on certain surge protectors.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 26, 2012

  Mr. Schumer introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To suspend temporarily the duty on certain surge protectors.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CERTAIN SURGE PROTECTORS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Duplex surge        Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        protection                                                         31/2015.......
                        receptacles for a
                        voltage not
                        exceeding 250 V
                        alternating
                        current, each
                        with a monitor
                        light to indicate
                        the device is
                        protecting the
                        circuit (provided
                        for in subheading
                        8536.30.80)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
## CARB 134a use exem ption for HFC 134a dusting gas

The use of 134a is allowed under the exception in the definition stated below for Energized equipment

“Pressurized Gas Duster” means a pressurized product labeled to remove dust from a surface solel y b y means of mass air or gas flow, including surfaces such as photographs, photographic film negatives, computer key boards, and other t ypes of surfaces that c annot be cleaned with solvents. “Pressurized Gas Duster” does not include “Dusting Aid,” “General Purpose Cleaner,” “Electrical Cleaner,” “Electronic Cleaner,” “Energized Electrical Cleaner,” or “Anti

- Static Product.” “Pressurized Gas Duster” does not incl ude products labeled exclusively to remove dust from equipment where dust removal is accomplished when: electric current exists; residual electrical potential from a component such as a capacitor exists; or an open flame exists, as long as the “Principal D isplay Panel” clearl y display s the statement: “Energized Equipment use only .”
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 11 (Thursday, January 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 2928]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00700]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee Meeting on Transport 
Airplane and Engine Issues

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a public meeting via teleconference of 
the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) Transport 
Airplane and Engine (TAE) Subcommittee to discuss TAE issues.

DATES: The teleconference is scheduled for Monday, February 10, 2014, 
starting at 8:00 a.m. PST/11:00 a.m. EST. The public must make 
arrangements by February 5, 2014, to present oral statements at the 
meeting.

ADDRESSES: N/A.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ralen Gao, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-
209, FAA, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, Telephone 
(202) 267-3168, FAX (202) 267-5075, or email at ralen.gao@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. app. 2), notice is 
given of an ARAC Subcommittee meeting via teleconference to be held 
February 10, 2014.
    The agenda for the meeting is as follows:

 Flight Controls Working Group Report

    Participation is open to the public, but will be limited to the 
availability of teleconference lines.
    To participate, please contact the person listed in FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT by email or phone for the teleconference call-in 
number and passcode. Please provide the following information: Full 
legal name, country of citizenship, and name of your industry 
association, or applicable affiliation. If you are participating as a 
public citizen, please indicate so. Anyone calling from outside the 
Arlington, VA, metropolitan area will be responsible for paying long-
distance charges.
    The public must make arrangements by February 5, 2014, to present 
oral or written statements at the meeting. Written statements may be 
presented to the Subcommittee by providing a copy to the person listed 
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Copies of the documents 
to be presented to the Subcommittee may be made available by contacting 
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    If you need assistance or require a reasonable accommodation for 
the meeting or meeting documents, please contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    Issued in Washington, DC on January 10, 2014.
Lirio Liu,
Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-00700 Filed 1-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2400 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2400

To suspend temporarily the duty on sports footwear for men (other than 
ski-boots, cross-country ski footwear and snowboard boots), valued $12/
                      pair or higher, with spikes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 26, 2012

  Mrs. Murray introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on sports footwear for men (other than 
ski-boots, cross-country ski footwear and snowboard boots), valued $12/
                      pair or higher, with spikes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SPORTS FOOTWEAR FOR MEN (OTHER THAN SKI-BOOTS, CROSS-COUNTRY 
              SKI FOOTWEAR AND SNOWBOARD BOOTS), VALUED $12/PAIR OR 
              HIGHER, WITH SPIKES.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Sports footwear     Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        for men (other                                                     31/2015.......
                        than ski-boots,
                        cross-country ski
                        footwear and
                        snowboard boots),
                        valued $12/pair
                        or higher, with
                        spikes (provided
                        for in subheading
                        6402.19.90)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
123 STAT. 3492 PUBLIC LAW 111–133—JAN. 29, 2010 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3667: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 155 (2009): 

Dec. 1, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 21, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 111–133 

111th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 16555 

Springs Street in White Springs, Florida, as the ‘‘Clyde L. Hillhouse Post Office 

Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. CLYDE L. HILLHOUSE POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 16555 Springs Street in White Springs, Florida, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Clyde L. Hillhouse Post 

Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Clyde L. Hillhouse Post Office Building’’. 

Approved January 29, 2010. 

Jan. 29, 2010 

[H.R. 3667] 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1 with PUBLAW
Exhibit 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-50508) pertaining to the Maxicare Health
Plans, Inc. 1990 Stock Option Plan, the stock option agreement with Peter
J. Ratican dated December 5, 1990, and the stock option agreement with
Eugene L. Froelich dated December 5, 1990; the incorporation by reference
in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-12803) pertaining to
the Maxicare Health Plans, Inc. Outside Directors 1996 Formula Stock
Option Plan, the Maxicare Health Plans, Inc. Senior Executives 1996 Stock
Option Plan, the Maxicare Health Plans, Inc. 1995 Stock Option Plan, the
Restricted Stock Grant Agreement by and between Maxicare Health Plans,
Inc. and Peter J. Ratican dated as of February 27, 1995, the Restricted
Stock Grant Agreement by and between Maxicare Health Plans, Inc. and
Eugene L. Froelich dated as of February 27, 1995; and the incorporation
by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-___)
pertaining to the Maxicare Health Plans, Inc. 1999 Stock Option Plan of
our report dated March 24, 1999 with respect to the 1999 consolidated
financial statements and schedules of Maxicare Health Plans, Inc. in its
annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999.




		ERNST & YOUNG LLP




Los Angeles, California
March 24, 1999
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 151 (Wednesday, August 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 42245]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20704]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-395-001]

Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation; Notice of Compliance 
Filing

July 31, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 28, 1997, Texas Eastern Transmission 
Corporation (Texas Eastern) tendered for filing additional information 
requested by the Commission on Texas Eastern's June 12, 1997, filing in 
Docket No. RP97-395-000 to ultimately replace an exchange service 
currently provided by Koch Gateway Pipeline Company with firm and 
interruptible transportation service by PanEnergy Louisiana Intrastate 
Company pursuant to Section 311 of the NGPA.
    Texas Eastern asserts that the purpose of this filing is to comply 
with the Commission's letter order dated July 11, 1997, in Docket No. 
RP97-395-000 (July 11 Order). In the July 11 Order, the Commission 
accepted Texas Eastern's tariff filing subject to refund and subject to 
Texas Eastern's tariff filing subject to refund and subject to Texas 
Eastern providing further explanation of the proposed service.
    Texas Eastern states that copies of the filing were served on all 
firm customers of Texas Eastern and interested state commissions. Texas 
Eastern also states that it served copies on all parties to the 
proceeding and that the July 11, Order provided that parties are 
permitted to file comments within 10 days of this compliance filing if 
they continue to have concerns with the filing.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in 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 proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-20704 Filed 8-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
#### Nancy Arcieri, an Infant, by Lillian Hurst, Her Guardian ad Litem, Plaintiff, *v.*Michael R. Arcieri, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

February 10, 1966.

*Martha Prince,*guardian ad litem for defendant. *Halper, Passick, Prince & Weinstein*for plaintiff,

*224Louis B. Heller, J.

The guardian ad litem for the defendant in this annulment action, appointed two years ago by order of the court pursuant to CPLR 1201 and 1202 “ to conduct the defense for the said defendant,” an adult nonadjudicated incompetent, moves for an order relieving her of her duties as such guardian on the ground that the defendant, who is gainfully employed and is apparently fully aware of the precise nature of this action, does not wish to have either the guardian ad litem or anyone else defend the action on his behalf.

While the state of the record at the time the guardian was appointed indicated a necessity for the court to intervene for the defendant’s protection (see *Anonymous*v. *Anonymous,*3 A D 2d 590, 594), the court is satisfied that the duty imposed by CPLR 321 and 1201 has been fully discharged and no further useful purpose would be served by continuing the guardianship.

In the court’s view, the fact that defendant was heretofore a patient in an institution for the mentally ill (from which, according to a letter in the record, the patient received an “ outright discharge ” two years ago) is not evidence of an existing present inoompetency to attend to his affairs. (See *Scheuer*v. *Atlantic Milling Sales Corp.,*187 N. Y. S. 497.)

The motion of the guardian is granted and her fee will be fixed in the order. The cross application by the plaintiff that the action be restored to the calendar for trial on a date to be fixed in the order is also granted.