alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Suzanne SALOMON and Alan Salomon, her husband, Appellants, v. NATIONAL CAR RENTAL SYSTEM, INC., a Minnesota corporation, and Allstate Insurance Company, Appellees.

Nos. 70-756, 70-942.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 20, 1971.

High, Stack & Davis and George C. Bender, Miami, for appellants.

Weissenborn, Burr & Hyman, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and HEN-DRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, Suzanne Salomon, was allegedly injured in an automobile accident. She and her husband Alan sued the owner of the automobile which collided with the car in which she was riding as a passenger.

The jury verdict was adverse to plaintiffs and they appeal from the final judgment and denial of certain post trial motions. These appeals have been consolidated.

Plaintiffs’ first point is that the court erred in denying their motion to excuse a prospective juror for cause thereby requiring them to use one of their peremptory challenges. We have reviewed the testimony of this juror and find no abuse of sound judicial discretion by the trial judge in the denial of plaintiffs’ motion to excuse the prospective juror for cause.

Plaintiffs claim error in the trial court permitting the investigating officer, who was not an eye-witness, to give an opinion that the car in which plaintiff was riding as a passenger was backing up prior to the accident. Cf. Delta Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Rihl, Fla.App.1969, 218 So.2d 469.

The trial judge ruled that the officer was an expert in investigating accidents and could make reasonable deductions from what he observed. No objection was made to the ruling that the officer was an expert and it may not be raised for the first time on appeal. Upchurch v. Mizell, 50 Fla. 456, 40 So. 29 (1905); and Worcester Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Eisenberg, Fla.App.1962, 147 So.2d 575.

*102Plaintiffs’ point that the court erred in denying their motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of the case has been examined and found insufficient because the testimony of the plaintiff is not included in the record on appeal. Brown v. Householder, Fla.App.1961, 134 So.2d 801.

We have examined plaintiffs’ final point for reversal and find it to be insufficient to require reversal.

The final judgment is

Affirmed.
### Rob McKenna 

# ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON Ecology Division PO Box·40117 • Olympia WA 98504-0117 • (360) 586-6770


### M ·EMORANDUM DATE: TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT: May 19,2008 Mary Shaleen-Harisen Ecology HQ Water Quality Program 

### Sonia Wolfman, Assistimt Attorney



# Gener~ Ecology Division, MS 40117 

### Attorney General's Statement ofAuthority for Revised Underground Injection Control (VIC) Regulations In accordance

**wi~** Part C ofthe Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (SDWA), 42 U.S.C. 300(h) et 

### seq., as amended, and 40 C.ER. § 145.32(b)( 1), under the laws ofWashington State, the Washington State Department ofEcology (Ecology) has the authority to implement and enforce its UIC program, including amendments made to Ecology's rules in resp. onse to EPA's 1999 revisions to the federal UIC program. · In addition, the state ofW ashington has not enacted any environmental audit privilege and/or immunity laws. The authorities cited below are contained in promulgated regulations that have been in full force and effect since February 3, 2006. They include revisions to Washington's existing approved UIC program which were made so that Washington's program would remam cons1stent with the new minimum federal req uirements for state UIC programs. 1 These regulations are authorized by chapters 43.21A and 90.58 RCW. RCW 43.21A.445 authorizes Ecology "to administer all programs ofPart C ofthe federal Safe Water Drinking Act." Chapter 90.48 RCW contains numerous references to Ecology's authority to ena.ct and enforce regulations to protect groundwater, including but not limited to RCW 90.48.030, .035, :037, and .080.

1 The seope ofthis statemen t is limited to the 2006 revisions to Washington's UIC rules. For information regarding Ecology's authority to implement the UIC program as initially authorized, please see the Attorney General's statement dated February 28, 1984. CONFIDENTlAL ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVH.,EGED CO.MMUNICA TION DO NOT DISCLOSEMary Shaleen-Hansen May 19,2008 Page2

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON WAC 173-218-010 Purpose. WAC 173 - 218-020 Policy enunciated. WAC 173-218-030 Definitions . WAC 173 - 218 - 040 UIC well classification including allowed and prohibited wells. WAC 173 - 218 - 050 Exemptions from UIC well status. WAC 173-218 - 060 Requirements t o operatea UIC well. WAC 173 "' 218 - 070 Rule authorization and registration. WAC 173 - 218-080 The nonendangerment standard for UIC wells. · WAC 173-218-090 Specific requirements for Class V wells to meet the nonendang e rment standard. WAC**173-218~** 100 UIC wells that automatically meet the nonendangerment standard. WAC 173-218-110 Permit terms and conditions if a UIC well is not rule a uthorized. WAC 173-218 - 120 Decommissioning a UIC well. WAC 173-218-130 Enforcement. SAW:ndh
#### Orval E. ELLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-181.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 16, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 13, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Unassociated Document







Exhibit 10.31












Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc. FY 2016 Non-Employee Director Compensation Policy


 



	
·

	
Non-employee directors, other than the Chairman of the Board, shall each receive an annual cash retainer of $65,000 for their service as directors and shall not receive meeting fees for attendance at Board meetings; the Chairman of the Board shall receive an annual cash retainer of $135,000 for service as Chairman of the Board.







 



	
·

	
Each non-employee director, other than the Chairpersons of each committee, who is a member of the Audit, Compensation and Management Development Committee or Nominating/Corporate Governance, shall receive a $12,500, $7,500 and $5,000 annual retainer, respectively. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for any meeting of an ad hoc Committee of the Board that requires attendance in person or by telephone, the non-employee directors who attend, shall each receive a meeting fee of $1,500.







 



	
·

	
The Chairpersons of each of the Audit, Compensation and Management Development and Nominating/Corporate Governance Committees shall receive a $25,000, $20,000 and $15,000 annual retainer, respectively.







 



	
·

	
Non-employee directors who attend meetings of Committees of which they are not members shall receive no fees for their attendance.







 



	
·

	
Board and Committee retainers shall be paid in quarterly installments (with such quarterly installments to be paid on the first day of each quarter).







 



	
·

	
Each non-employee director shall be reimbursed for expenses incurred as a result of attendance at Board or Committee meetings.







 



	
·

	
Each non-employee director shall be awarded, on the first trading day following the close of each annual meeting of the Company’s shareholders, restricted stock units (otherwise known as deferred stock awards) valued at $160,000 on the date of grant under the Corporation’s Stock Incentive Plan; provided that the Chairman of the Board’s annual grant of deferred stock awards shall be valued at $200,000. Each deferred stock award granted to any non-employee director shall be for a number of shares of Common Stock determined by dividing (i) the indicated dollar amount by (ii) the average high and low prices of the Common Stock on the date of grant. Vesting for all such restricted stock units will occur on the later to occur of one year and one day from the date of the grant or the six month anniversary of the date that the applicable director ceases to be a member of the Board.
#### Felix HERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. Gladys GIRDLESTONE and the Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company, a Pennsylvania corporation, Appellees.

No. 70-647.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 20, 1971.

*92Ser, Greenspahn & Keyfetz, Miami, for appellant.

George C. Vogelsang and Daniel A. Sorrentino, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and BARK-DULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Rules 1.200 and 1.420 R.C.P., 30 F.S.A.
Case 05-11366-TPA Doc 32 Filed 06/14/06 Entered 06/15/06 10:59:04 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 1
#### Gordon MOORE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-50.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 11, 1971.

Walter R. Talley, Public Defender, and Edwin T. Mulock, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

LILES, Judge.

Appellant appeals the denial of his Rule 1.850, 33 F.S.A., motion to vacate and set aside judgment and sentence. He assigns as error the ineffectiveness of counsel and the fact that the public defender represented him and co-defendants, Charles White and Don Calmorgan.

Appellant was charged, along with his co-defendants, with three counts of robbery. He plead guilty and was sentenced to five years on each count to run concurrently. The trial judge denied his Rule 1.-850 motion and it is from this ruling that appellant appeals.

We do not believe that defendant was represented by ineffective counsel. The court went into great detail, as is supported by the record, before the court accepted appellant’s plea of guilty. Further, appellant did not request separate counsel. It has been held by the supreme court in State v. Youngblood, Fla.1968, 217 So.2d 98, and by this court in Dunbar v. State, Fla.App.1968, 214 So.2d 52, that if no request for separate counsel is made and the court permits trial of both defendants with single counsel, then reversible error does not occur unless the record shows prejudice. Here, the record shows no such prejudice.

In this instance, appellant’s plea of guilty was accepted only after the consequences of such plea were greatly and succinctly explained to him.

For these reasons, the denial of the motion to vacate and set aside the judgment and sentence is therefore affirmed.

PIERCE, C. J., and MANN, J., concur.
#### GREGG, GIBSON & GREGG, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. REEDY CREEK IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 70-848.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 31, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 189 (Tuesday, September 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 51131]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25833]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (5 U.S.C. App. I), this notice announces a meeting of the Klamath 
River Basin Fisheries Task Force, established under the authority of 
the Klamath River Basin Fishery Resources Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 
460ss et seq.). The meeting is open to the public.

DATES: The Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force (TF) will meet from 
9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 15, 1997 and from 8:00 
a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 16, 1997.

PLACE: The meeting will be held in the Windmill Ashland Hills Inn (2525 
Ashland Street), Ashland, Oregon.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Ronald A. Iverson, Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
P.O. Box 1006 (1030 South Main), Yreka, California 96097-1006, 
telephone (916) 842-5763.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The principal agenda items at this meeting 
will be (1) A decision on whether or how to proceed with the Upper 
Basin Amendment and assignments; (2) an update on Klamath Compact 
Commission water supply initiative; (3) an update on subbasin planning; 
(4) a report from National Marine Fisheries Service and Siskiyou County 
regarding the Five Counties Coho Initiative and Plan; (5) a report on 
the American Heritage Rivers Initiative; (6) private landowner awards; 
and (7) an update on scoping of the Klamath River Basin Instream Flow 
Incremental Methodology (IFIM) flow study.
    For background information on the TF, please refer to the notice of 
their initial meeting that appeared in the Federal Register on July 8, 
1987 (52 FR 25639).

    Dated: September 22, 1997.
Thomas J. Dwyer,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 97-25833 Filed 9-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
#### Tommie Lee McKENZIE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-517.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

May 2, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. James Eugene MATNEY and Leo Dean Welsh, Appellees.

No. M-76.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 9, 1970.

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1970.

*177Earl Fairclotli, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

Joseph A. St. Ana, Jacksonville, for ap-pellees.

PER CURIAM.

The State of Florida has appealed a final judgment dismissing the information filed against appellees herein and discharging them from custody because of the State’s failure or refusal to divulge the name of its confidential informant whose information was used in part as a basis for procuring a search warrant. The judgment is reversed upon the authority of the decision of this court in the companion case of State of Florida v. James Eugene Matney, Leo Schuty a/k/a Leo Dean Welsh, and Susan Lind Hyers a/k/a Susan F. Matney, Case No. M-82, opinion filed this date, 236 So.2d 166.

JOHNSON, C. J„ and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
#### William B. MILLS as Trustee under the Last Will and Testament and Codicils thereto of Alfred I. duPont, Deceased, Appellant, v. Edward BALL et al., as Trustees under the Last Will and Testament and Codicils thereto of Alfred I. duPont, Deceased, T. Edward Austin, Jr., State Attorney, etc., and the Nemours Foundation, etc., Appellees.

No. II-19.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 22, 1978.

*557John H. Wilbur, of Milam & Wilbur, Jacksonville, for appellant.

William L. Durden and Fred H. Kent, of Kent, Sears, Durden & Kent, F. J. Tassone, Jr., E. Earle Zehmer, of Bedell, Bedell, Ditt-mar & Zehmer, and A. August Quesada, Jr., of Wildt, Quesada, Brock & Skinner, Jacksonville, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Mills takes this timely interlocutory appeal to review the order of the trial court which granted appellees’ motion to strike appellant’s amended affirmative defenses to the Supplemental Petition of ap-pellees, plaintiffs below. We affirm, for the reason that the issues sought to be raised by such affirmative defenses are tendered by the appellees in their Supplemental Petition in the trial court and joined therein by appellant by his answer thereto. The material allegations of fact contained in the affirmative defenses which were stricken below may be proven under the general issues or denials raised by the answer of appellant. *(Tropical Exterminators, Inc. v. Murray,*171 So.2d 432 (Fla.2d DCA 1965)).

AFFIRMED.

McCORD, C. J., MILLS, J., and MASON, ERNEST E., Associate Judge, concur.
#### James E. MOORE, Jr. and Sally H. Moore, Petitioners, v. CONTROL ESCROW PAYMENT COMPANY, etc., Respondent.

No. 40994.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 6, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 244 So.2d 491.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA- 

## J,OL**~-** 

# 0' f'TJ

# lo/ Directo rate Identifier : 

### If

you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. 

### If they do not , click (or Tab) into and then out of th e changed c ell
. Estimated Costs: Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, propeller, appliance) (e
.g., Inspection, Work

-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost

replacement) (include cost (labor+ 

## u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered and close

- up) our) Products Determine origin of manufacture of lower fuselage tie 1.0 

## 68 rods and nuts, and time oflast replacement

The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for 

### U.S
. fleet: $5 ,780 Costs covered under warranty (if known) $
On

- Condition Costs:

## ~ Action Work-hours La bor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product (e
.g . , Inspection, (include access , (@$85/hour)

replacement) testing, and closeup)



### 9

### remove and replace lateral fuselage tie 30.0 $825 

### rods and attaching nuts


# . >t
.



### ' · 

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not b e obvious. Thisfield can also be used to explain warranty costs) : 

### Executive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"? 

## @ YES * 0**NO~** *Exp lanation: 

### DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: Is the AD significant? 

# 0 YES*0**NO~** *Explanation: 

### Regulatory Flexibility Act: Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for either a Yes o r No answer. 

# G YESD**NO~** Explanation: 

### Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: T his AD could affect intrasta te aviation in Alaska
. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? 

## G) YES*0**NO~** *Explanation:



### 10
Case 05-20864-MBM Doc 41 Filed 05/06/05 Entered 05/09/05 13:57:15 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 6
Case 05-20864-MBM Doc 41 Filed 05/06/05 Entered 05/09/05 13:57:15 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 6
Case 05-20864-MBM Doc 41 Filed 05/06/05 Entered 05/09/05 13:57:15 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 6
Case 05-20864-MBM Doc 41 Filed 05/06/05 Entered 05/09/05 13:57:15 Desc Main

Document Page 4 of 6
Case 05-20864-MBM Doc 41 Filed 05/06/05 Entered 05/09/05 13:57:15 Desc Main

Document Page 5 of 6
Case 05-20864-MBM Doc 41 Filed 05/06/05 Entered 05/09/05 13:57:15 Desc Main

Document Page 6 of 6
€ ‘ON (eHDOd UL) HS - O LOZLTE

OI IGVEi 1 ISM NI NANNY OF NUILVANGUANI AYIAM GUS 9 TISM UNV SS IVA GSAY1IV ONIVOU SIVINVY SNIMUES VUIAAIN NAAN AST IVIN

VIiloldW AV aVIN

i

I
Wayla Ly, NU GS ally firs
§ f

awou 40 “aquinu‘uoyoubisap ym ‘eb6!  dwnd usim paddinba jou ‘uojyobu4} 10} papuayul jam
“uoyowinpay jo nDAINg ‘s'7 40 SajoYy UO}OAJasqo Jebny "7

2
S||aM JazawDIp—abi0] 12yjO
e

pasnun ‘jam volo}
w

dwind yjjm paddinba jjam uoj06)44)

Apunog jo1448iq uoIYO6I4u) ang juoyda!3

NOILYNW1dxX4

& NY
¢ sy 7
. ¥

9b61 ‘uo!;DWDIIay 4O NDaNg’s’N Wo1y asog

qT
SONG

T T T

i fai Ihr

\j----

RS
I oT)

wos,

Pee a ,
a . fin pL
imp

y

a a

~

F bi, ~F

“mas

Tera 4inbson _ Sy
nT AR CL ro
TAN cael

Ha “happunog 49124810 uo}406 {44}
) ayyng puoude!a

ny

bay)

s

ls ae

2
is
§
SPR / fs We of #3 BS
— ain INE ON \ Ne
NVA ~ oy
Cay
~ 4
\ ce
%

buy bud O)
Maps

€ 3LWid O€ZT YadWd AlddNS-YSLYM

AIAUNS WO1901039
YOIUSLNI 3HL JO JN3WIY¥da0 S3LVLS G3LINN
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:Atlantic science year in review**
 
2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019
2020 | 2021
 
SuDoc Number:I 72.1/5:
Item Number:0671-C-06 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001053174
 
September 13, 2018
#### In re the JAFFE CORPORATION, INC. v. The BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF the CITY OF SHEFFIELD, Alabama, et al. Ex parte the Jaffe Corporation, Inc.

SC 2512.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

July 14, 1978.

*564B. T. Gardner, Jr., Tuscumbia, for petitioner.

Vincent McAlister, Sheffield, for respondents.

BEATTY, Justice.

Writ quashed as improvidently granted.

WRIT QUASHED.

All the Justices concur, except EMBRY, J., not sitting.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Thiscertification set forth below is hereby made solely for the purpose ofsatisfying the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002and may not be relied upon or used for any other purposes.

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Ezenia! Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Roger N. Tuttle,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that to my knowledge: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 orother document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.
| Date: March 30, 2007 |   | By:    |   | /s/ Roger N. Tuttle     |   |
|----------------------|--------|--------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|                 |   |   |   | Roger N. Tuttle         |
|                 |   |   |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
#### Willie Mae BAKER, Appellant, v. Novel BAKER and his wife, Cecilia Baker, Appellees.

No. K-486.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Dec. 16, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 14, 1970.

Gary C. Simons, of Savage & Krim, Ocala, for appellant.

Pattillo, MacKay & McKeever, Ocala, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment appealed is affirmed. See Quinn v. Phipps, 93 Fla. 805, 113 So. 419, 54 A.L.R. 1173; Old Equity Life Insurance Company v. Levenson (Fla.App. 1965), 177 So.2d 50.

JOHNSON, C. J., and WIGGINTON, and SPECTOR JJ., concur.
#### CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, INC. v. Jim McKAY and Charlie Rhodes, d/b/a Jim McKay Drywall Applicators.

No. 50384.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

June 7, 1978.

Jerome L. Lohrmann, Jackson, for appellant.

Johnston & Adams, Jerry T. Johnston, Brandon, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Madison' County; Rufus H. Broome, Judge.

Before SMITH, P. J., and WALKER and COFER, JJ.

AFFIRMED.