alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Lilia SABUGO, Appellant, v. GDS DRUGS, INC., Appellee.

No. 76-711.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 13, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 13, 1977.

Corlett, Merritt, Killian & Sikes and Donald W. Hardeman, Jr., Miami, for appellant.

Knight, Peters, Hoeveler, Pickle, Niem-oeller & Flynn, Jeanne Heyward, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HAVERFIELD and HUBBART, JJ.

HUBBART, Judge.

The plaintiff (Lilia Sabuto) appeals from an adverse summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant (GDS Drugs, Inc.) in a slip and fall negligence action before the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida. The law is clear that if a dangerous condition on the floor of a business establishment is created by (1) a servant or agent of the owner or (2) an outsider and the condition is one which has existed for sufficient length of time that the owner should have known of it, the owner is liable for any ensuing injuries proximately caused by the dangerous condition when sustained by a business invitee. *Food Fair Stores, Inc.*v. *Trusell,*131 So.2d 730, 732 (Fla.1961); *Food Fair Stores of Florida, Inc. v. Patty,*109 So.2d 5, 6 (Fla.1959); *Carls Markets, Inc.*v. *Meyer,*69 *23So.2d 789, 791-92 (Fla.1953); *Haley v. Harvey Building, Inc.,*168 So.2d 330, 332 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964).

The evidence [viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party on the motion for summary judgment], establishes that the plaintiff while shopping at the defendant’s store slipped and fell on some paper debris on the floor of the store at a place where there had not been an inspection by store employees for at least 3V2 hours prior to the accident. This constitutes sufficient evidence to preclude the entry of a summary judgment for the defendant based on the following authorities: *Ferguson v. Kress and Co.,*253 So.2d 472 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); *Matarese v. Leesburg Elks Club,*171 So.2d 606 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965); *Jenkins v. Brackin,*171 So.2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965).

The summary judgment entered for the defendant in this case is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1456 

To suspend temporarily the duty on XAMA 7. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 21, 2005 

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

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on XAMA 7. 

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

3 SECTION 1. XAMA 7. 

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: 

‘‘ 9902.09.09 Polyfunctional aziridine 

(CAS No. 57116–45–7) 

(provided for subheading 

2933.99.97) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 

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

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
2 

•S 1456 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           77906
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2536042
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1487172
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2686128
<PP&E>                                         3008465
<DEPRECIATION>                               (1197268)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 8555588
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5512070
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        655636
<OTHER-SE>                                     1744630
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   8555588
<SALES>                                        1869374
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1869374
<CGS>                                              619
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      619
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3069407
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               1341551
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              269851
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (2833850)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (2833850)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (2833850)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.93)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.93)
                                                

</TABLE>
Exhibit 3.3THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS CERTIFICATE MAY NOT BE OFFERED FOR SALE, SOLD OR OTHERWISETRANSFERRED EXCEPT PURSUANT TO AN EFFECTIVE REGISTRATION STATEMENT UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933(“THE ACT”), OR PURSUANT TO AN EXEMPTION FROM REGISTRATION UNDER THE ACT THE AVAILABILITY OF WHICHIS TO BE ESTABLISHED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COMPANYTHE OFFER, SALE, TRANSFER, OR OTHER DISPOSITION OF THE SHARES REPRESENTED BY THIS CERTIFICATE ISRESTRICTED BY AND SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THAT CERTAIN SHAREHOLDER AGREEMENT INCLUDING ANYAMENDMENTS THERETO, AND MAY NOT BE AFFECTED IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SUCH AGREEMENT ACOPY OF SUCH AGREEMENT WILL BE FURNISHED TO THE HOLDER HEREOF BY THE SECRETARY OF THE COMPANY UPONWRITTEN REQUEST       NUMBER [EAGLE] #. SHARESHUDSON VALLEY HOLDING CORP.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2311 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on waste of camel hair. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 19, 2012 

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

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on waste of 

camel hair. 

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

3 SECTION 1. WASTE OF CAMEL HAIR. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.12.21 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 waste of camel hair) is amended by striking the date in 

7 the effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

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

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


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2311 IS

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

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

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### INTERNATIONAL FUNDING CORPORATION, a Florida Corporation, Appellant, v. ALEXANDER GRANT & COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, Appellee.

No. 77-74.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 13, 1977.

John A. Ritter of Ritter & Ritter, Coral Gables, for appellant.

Earle W. Peterson, Jr. of McCune, Hiaa-sen, Crum, Ferris & Gardner, Fort Lauder-dale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ALDERMAN, C. J., and ANSTEAD and LETTS, JJ., concur.
Posting an FDMS Docket Without a Federal Register Notice 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Posting EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0889 to Regulations 

TO: 

THRU: 

This memorandum authorizes the posting ofEPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0889 to 

Regulations.gov for public access. 

Background: The Agency received an application from Dow AgroSciences to register 

the new active ingredient sulfoxaflor for control of piercing/sucking insects such as 

aphids, mealybugs, psyllids, plant bugs and whiteflies on commercial ornamentals and 

turf grass, barley, triticale, wheat, brassica leafy vegetables, bulb vegetables, leafy 

vegetables and watercress, leaves and roots of tuber vegetables, berries (grape, blueberry, 

cranberry), canola, fruiting vegetables (tomato, pepper, eggplant) and okra, pome fruit, 

potato, stone fruit, succulent and dry beans, tree nuts and pistachio. The purpose of 

soliciting public comment is to give the public an opportunity to provide questions or 

concerns so the Agency may properly address them. 

The following documents will be available for a 30-day public comment from May 17, 

2016 to June 17, 2016: 

• Proposed Registration of Sulfoxaflor for Use on Agricultural Crops, Ornamentals 

and Turf 

• 2016 Addendum for the Proposed Section 3 Registration of Transform WG and 

Closer SC (Sulfoxaflor) for use on various crops, turf, and ornamentals 

• Closer SC (draft label) 

• Tranform WG (draft label) 

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0889, by one 

of the following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: EPA-HQ-OPP-201 0-0889 Environmental Protection Agency, 28221 T 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: Environmental Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution Ave., N.W., 

WJC West Rm. 3334, Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should 

be made for deliveries of boxed information. 
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider 

to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied 

by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the 

full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and 

general guidance on making effective comments, please visit: 

http://www .epa. gov I dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                     ORGANIZATIONAL LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES,
                           MAXUS ENERGY CORPORATION

MAXUS ENERGY CORPORATION
     Diamond Shamrock Europe Limited
     Maxus Gas Marketing Company
     Maxus Indonesia, Inc.
          Maxus Northwest Java, Inc.
               YPF Java Baratlaut B.V.
          Maxus Southeast Sumatra Inc.
               YPF Sumatera Tenggara B.V.
     Maxus Offshore Exploration Company
     Maxus (U.S.) Exploration Company
     Wheeling Gateway Coal Company (Partner of Gateway Coal Company)
     MAXUS INTERNATIONAL ENERGY COMPANY
          Diamond Shamrock China Petroleum Limited
          Maxus Aru Inc.
          Maxus Bulgaria, Inc.
          Maxus China (C.I.) Ltd.
          Maxus Colombia, Inc.
          Maxus Energy Global B.V.
          Maxus Energy Trading Company
          Maxus Fifi Zaitun, Inc.
          Maxus International Services Company
          Maxus Southeast Asia New Ventures, Inc.
          Maxus Spain, Inc.
          Maxus Tunisia Inc.
          YPF Ecuador, Inc.
     MIDGARD ENERGY COMPANY
     MAXUS CORPORATE COMPANY
          Diamond Gateway Coal Company  (Partner of  Gateway Coal Company)
          Diamond Shamrock Venezolana, S.A.
          Greenstone Assurance Ltd.
          Leon Properties, Inc. (d/b/a Riverside Farms)
          Maxus Realty Company
          V.E.P. Corporation

PARTNERSHIP
Gateway Coal Company
Exhibit 10.16

 

SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE

EXTERRAN HOLDINGS, INC. DIRECTORS’ STOCK AND DEFERRAL PLAN

 

This Second Amendment to the Exterran Holdings, Inc. Directors’ Stock and Deferral Plan (this “Second Amendment”), is made and adopted by the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Exterran Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), effective as of the Effective Date (as defined below).

 

RECITALS

 

WHEREAS, the Company maintains the Exterran Holdings, Inc. Directors’ Stock and Deferral Plan (as amended from time to time, the “Plan”);

 

WHEREAS, pursuant to paragraph 8 of the Plan, the Board has the authority to alter or amend the Plan at any time;

 

WHEREAS, it is anticipated that the Company will spin-off Exterran Corporation, a Delaware corporation, into a new publicly-traded company (the “Spin-Off”);

 

WHEREAS, in connection with the Spin-Off, the Company will change its name to Archrock, Inc.; and

 

WHEREAS, the Board desires to amend the Plan in order to reflect the new name of the Company following the Spin-Off, effective as of the date of the consummation of the Spin-Off (the “Effective Date”).

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Plan is hereby amended as follows, subject to, and effective as of the Effective Date:

 

AMENDMENT

 

1.             Name of Plan.  The name of the Plan shall be amended to “Archrock, Inc. Directors’ Stock and Deferral Plan.”

 

2.             References.  All references in the Plan to (i) “Exterran Holdings, Inc.” shall be amended to refer to “Archrock, Inc.” and (ii) “Exterran Holdings, Inc. Directors’ Stock and Deferral Plan” shall be amended to refer to “Archrock, Inc. Directors’ Stock and Deferral Plan.”

 

3.             General.  This Second Amendment shall be and hereby is incorporated into and forms a part of the Plan, and except as expressly provided herein, all terms and conditions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.

 

*              *              *

 











 

 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Second Amendment was duly adopted by the Board of Directors of Exterran Holdings, Inc. on October 30,2015.

 

Executed on this 3rd day of November, 2015.

 

 

	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   D. Bradley Childers
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
D.   Bradley Childers
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
President
    


 

Signature Page to Second Amendment to the

Exterran Holdings, Inc. Directors’ Stock and Deferral Plan
#### Ex parte James Howard ROGERS.

SC 77-128.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Dec. 22, 1977.

ALMON, Justice.

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C. J., and BLOODWORTH, FAULKNER and EMBRY, JJ., concur.
#### Rose Mary Ronan, Respondent, v Glenn E. Waldron, Appellant.

[614 NYS2d 957]

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs for reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court, Graney, J. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Genesee County, Graney, J.—Set Aside Verdict.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1339 Referred in House (RFH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1339

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 12, 2005

                 Referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To reauthorize the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program 
                              Act of 1994.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Junior Duck Stamp Reauthorization 
Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION.

    The Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program Act of 1994 
(16 U.S.C. 719 et seq.) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating the first section 6 (16 U.S.C. 719c), 
        relating to authorization of appropriations, as section 7 and 
        moving the section so as to appear at the end of the Act; and
            (2) in section 7 (as redesignated by paragraph (1)) by 
        striking ``2001 through 2005'' and inserting ``2006 through 
        2010''.

            Passed the Senate September 9, 2005.

            Attest:

                                             EMILY J. REYNOLDS,

                                                             Secretary.
```
UNITED
STATES


SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Washington,
D.C. 20549





FORM
8-K





CURRENT
REPORT


Pursuant
to Section 13 OR 15(d) of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934





Date
of Report (Date of earliest event reported): April 15, 2008


__________________________________________





Lakeland
Industries, Inc.


(Exact
name of registrant as specified in its charter)





Delaware
            0-15535
            13-3115216(State
      or other jurisdiction
            (Commission
            (IRS
      Employerof
      incorporation)
            File
      Number)
            Identification
      No.)





701 Koehler Avenue, Suite 7,
Ronkonkoma, New York 11779-7410


(Address
of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)





Registrant’s
telephone number, including area code: (631)
981-9700





Not
Applicable


(Former
Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)





Check the
appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously
satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following
provisions:





o
            Written
      communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR
      230.425)


ý
            Soliciting
      material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
      240.14a-12)


o
            Pre-commencement
      communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
      240.14d-2(b))


o
            Pre-commencement
      communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
      240.13e-4(c))








Item  8.01
            Other
      Events.





On April
16, 2008, Lakeland Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) issued a press release
calling on Seymour Holtzman to withdraw his notice of nomination, dated March
17, 2008, in connection with the Company’s 2008 Annual Meeting of Stockholders,
and terminate his proxy contest against the Company.  A copy of the
Company’s press release is included as Exhibit 99.1 hereto and is incorporated
herein by reference.




Item
9.01
            Financial
      Statements and Exhibits.




(d)
            Exhibits.




The
following have been filed as exhibits to this Form 8-K:




99.1
            Press
      Release dated April 16, 2008.















SIGNATURES





Pursuant
to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has
duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto
duly authorized.








LAKELAND INDUSTRIES,
      INC.Date   April
      16, 2008
            /s/ Christopher J.
      RyanChristopher
      J. RyanPresident
      & CEO








EXHIBIT
INDEX





Exhibit
              Number
            Description99.1
            Press
      Release dated April 16, 2008.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the annual report of Sterling Drilling Fund 1983-2 (the
Partnership) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Charles E. Drimal Jr., Chief Executive Officer of PrimeEnergy Management
Corporation, the Managing General Partner, 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 result of operations of the
Partnership. /s/ Charles E. Drimal Jr.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                      SUBSIDIARIES OF IRONSTONE GROUP, INC.

AcadiEnergy, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a 100%-owned subsidiary of the
Company.

Belt Perry Associates, Inc., an Arizona corporation, ("BPA") is a 100%-owned
subsidiary of the Company.

Belt Perry Associates, Inc., a California corporation, is 83.33% owned by BPA
and 16.67% owned by the Company.

DeMoss Corporation, a California corporation, is a 100%-owned subsidiary of the
Company.

TaxNet, Inc., an Arizona corporation, is a 100%-owned subsidiary of BPA.
#### Cory PEE, By and Through his parent and next friends, Dovie MILTON and Dovie Milton, individually,, Petitioners, v. Arnold H. AARON, D.O., individually and Arnold H. Aaron, D.O., P.A., a Professional Association, d/b/a Family Medicine Associates and City of Pompano Beach, Florida, d/b/a Pompano Beach Fire-Rescue and Health Options, Respondents.

No. 98-2554.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 21, 1998.

David Krathen of The Law Offices of David Krathen, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioners.

Elizabeth M. Rodriguez of Kubicki Draper, Miami, for respondents.

KLEIN, Judge.

The trial court granted a motion filed by the defendants to “compel plaintiff to accept faxed transmissions.” We grant plaintiffs’ petition for writ of certiorari and quash the order.

. Defendants’ motion alleged that when defense counsel attempted to fax a letter to plaintiffs’ counsel, defense counsel was advised that plaintiffs’ counsel does not accept faxes from opposing counsel. The motion further alleged that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.080(b) authorizes service by fax and requested that the court either compel plaintiffs’ counsel to accept faxes and correspondence, or in the alternative be prohibited from sending faxes to counsel in this case.

In his petition for certiorari, plaintiffs’ counsel alleges that he has a policy of not utilizing his fax machine for transmitting or receiving documents from opposing counsel in all cases because of “counsel constantly and continually sending argumentative letters, non-emergency pleadings, and other materials over the fax, which constantly and continuously interrupted his working day.” We conclude that the order compelling plaintiffs’ counsel to accept faxes is a departure from the essential requirements of law for which there will be no adequate remedy by appeal from final judgment.

Although it is true that rule 1.080(b)(5) authorizes service by fax, the rule only authorizes it if copies are also served by some other method permitted by the rule. Service by fax alone is not authorized. .The defendant has provided us with no authority, nor any other reason, why counsel who do not wish to send or receive documents by fax should be compelled to receive them. Clearly a court could not require counsel who does not have a fax machine to obtain one. By like token, we see no reason why counsel who has a machine, but does not wish to use it to send or receive in a lawsuit, should be compelled to do so. We therefore quash the order.

POLEN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.