alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### TROPIC-AIR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, Appellant, v. Paul ROSEN, Appellee.

Nos. 70-635, 70-636.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 25, 1971.

Rehearing Denied June 16, 1971.

Richard L. Lapidus, Bolles, Goodwin, Ryskamp & Ware, Miami, for appellant.

Smith, Mandler, Smith & Parker and Joe N. Unger, Miami Beach, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, HEN-DRY and SWANN, JJ.

*538HENDRY, Judge.

Defendant-appellant Tropic-Air Development Company (seller) seeks review of a final decree granting specific performance of a written contract to purchase an apartment building in Dade County. The cause was tried without a jury. Appellant filed an interlocutory appeal and an appeal from a final decree, which have been consolidated for appellate purposes. There was a prior interlocutory appeal taken by the parties, Tropic-Air Development Company v. Rosen, Fla.App.1969, 222 So.2d 290.

Defendant-appellant contends that the court erred in granting specific performance. The grounds argued for reversal are: (1) the contract was ambiguous as to the assets being sold; (2) plaintiff came into equity with unclean hands because of an alleged fraudulent misrepresentation made to the intervenor-broker respecting this transaction; and (3) the court deferred consideration of the intervenor-bro-ker’s claim and refused to admit evidence as to that claim.

A provision in the contract was that: “this property being sold furnished as per the attached and accepted inventory.” Another clause provided that: “all 43 apartments fully furnished.” There was no inventory prepared.

As to the first point, under the circumstances of this case, the contract was not ambiguous, particularly where the parties examined the three types of apartments and their furnishings.

The record reveals a conflict in testimony as to the alleged unclean hands. The record similarly reveals substantial, competent evidence to support the chancellor’s resolution of that issue adverse to the appellant.

As to the third point, the chancellor did defer the intervenor’s claim until after a resolution of the merits. We cannot say that this was so unusual as to constitute reversible error, particularly in view of the chancellor’s statement that the appellant-seller would not be liable for real estate brokerage fees if the intervenor prevailed upon his claim. We therefore express the view that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in deferring the inter-venor's claim. Rule 1.270(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A.

For the reasons stated, the final decree herein appealed is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                                     <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-START>                         DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                           SEP-27-1997
<CASH>                                   3,876,000
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                           20,741,000
<ALLOWANCES>                               377,000
<INVENTORY>                             10,744,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        40,179,000
<PP&E>                                  52,946,000
<DEPRECIATION>                          37,513,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          56,631,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   17,115,000
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                   558,000
<OTHER-SE>                              35,912,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            56,631,000
<SALES>                                 93,522,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        93,522,000
<CGS>                                   68,786,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           68,786,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        15,955,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         173,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          8,608,000
<INCOME-TAX>                             3,190,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      5,418,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                             5,418,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 0.96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0.96
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 5, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 10050]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4884]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[PF-579A; FRL-5587-1]


Novartis; Pesticide Petition Withdrawal

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of withdrawal of pesticide petition.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is withdrawing a pesticide petition from Novartis 
(formerly known as Ciba-Geigy Corporation) for the combined residues of 
the insecticide cyromazine, (N cyclopropyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-
triamine plus its major metabolite, melamine, 1,3,5-triazine-2,4-6-
triamine) for use in or on certain commodites.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George T. LaRocca, Product Manager 
(PM) 13, Registration Division, (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M. St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. 
Office location, telephone number and e-mail address: Rm. 200, CM#2, 
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA; 703-305-6100; e-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#93fff2e1fcf0f0f2bdf4f6fce1f4f6d3f6e3f2fef2faffbdf6e3f2bdf4fce5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="adc1ccdfc2cececc83cac8c2dfcac8edc8ddccc0ccc4c183c8ddcc83cac2db">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA in a notice issued in the Federal 
Register of August 18, 1993 (58 FR 43892), announced that Novartis, 
P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419, had filed a pesticide petition 
(PP) 6F3422 proposing to amend 40 CFR part 180.414 to establish 
tolerances for the combined residues of the insecticide cyromazine, (N 
cyclopropyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-triamine plus its major metabolite, 
melamine, 1,3,5-triazine-2,4-6-triamine) for use in or on cabbage, 
sweet potatoes, sugar beets (roots and tops), and sorghum (grain, 
forage and fodder). The tolerances were to cover residues resulting 
from the planting of these crops as rotational crops following the 
harvest of cyromazine treated crops. On August 26, 1996 Novartis 
notified EPA that it requests that the petition be withdrawn without 
prejudice to future filing. The Agency has withdrawn the subject 
pesticide petition.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Agricultural Commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 17, 1997.

Stephen L. Johnson,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 97-4884 Filed 3-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Jimmie BOWENS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-820.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 16, 1972.

Walter R. Talley, Public Defender, and D. Turner Matthews, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

*24Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Warren H. Petersen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, *ihr*appellee.

PIERCE, Chief Judge.

Appellant Jimmie Bowens was informed against in the Court of Record for Lee County charged with the sale of narcotic drugs, to-wit: marijuana. Upon trial by a jury he was found guilty as charged and, upon being accordingly adjudged guilty by the Court, he was sentenced to ten years imprisonment in the State Prison. Upon denial of motion for new trial duly filed, he has taken a direct appeal to this Court. His assignments of error raised substantially only the question as to sufficiency of the evidence to convict.

In the brief filed in this Court in his behalf by Court-appointed counsel, it is stated that “the evidence appears to be abundant for a jury to have reached the conclusion that the Appellant was guilty of the crime charged”, and that for such reason counsel “requests that he be allowed to withdraw as Attorney of Record”, citing Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493. After said brief was filed, this Court on July 20, 1971 entered order granting Bowens thirty days therefrom within which to file an additional brief in his own behalf as he might be advised. No such further brief has been filed.

Notwithstanding, we have carefully considered and examined the entire record filed here and find it abundantly sufficient to sustain the judgment of conviction entered. Accordingly, the judgment appealed is—

Affirmed.

HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
254 La. 856

#### Dianne RIDGE, Aaron Prescott v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD CO. et al.

No. 50135.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 12, 1969.

In re: Dianne Ridge and Aaron Prescott applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 225 So.2d 704 ; 225 So.2d 707.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there appears no error of law in its judgment.
1

EPA Action on Previous 

HSRB Recommendations
2

October 2009 HSRB Reviews

 Review of 2 published studies concerning the effects 

of exposure to pyrethrins/pyrethroids on asthma and 

other allergies 

 Final paper will summarize studies, note their limitations, 

and cite HSRB review

 Weight of evidence not affected by these studies

 AEATF aerosol protocol 

 Amended to incorporate EPA and HSRB comments

 To be executed soon
3

Repellent Protocol Reviews

June 2009

 LNX-002 Field Repellency of 2 Picaridin 

Formulations to Biting Flies

October 2009

 LNX-003 Laboratory Repellency of 2 

Picaridin Formulations to 2 Tick Species
#### Phillip M. SLEET d/b/a Phil Sleet Realtor v. John L. GRAY et al.

No. 61191.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 13, 1978.

In re: John L. Gray et al. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          29,393
<SECURITIES>                                   215,056
<RECEIVABLES>                                  131,048
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  5,120,948
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,291,445
<PP&E>                                       1,990,738
<DEPRECIATION>                                 145,050
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,497,239
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,069,856
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        2,688,605
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,497,239
<SALES>                                        610,800
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               686,116
<CGS>                                          530,934
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  639,244
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                93,161
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,149
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 46,872
<INCOME-TAX>                                    34,844
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,028
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00


</TABLE>
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 08353

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 08353\08353_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

08353\08353_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

x 08353\08353_Followup Questions.xls Draft Questions for Follow Up

x 08353\08353_Followup Response1_JSM.xls Draft Questions for Follow Up

x 08353\08353_Followup Response2_JSM.xls Draft Questions for Follow Up

x 08353\08353_Followup Response2_Part C_JSM.pdf Draft Questions for Follow Up

08353\08353_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 08353\08353_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 08353\08353_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 08353\08353_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 08353\08353_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 08353\08353_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 08353\08353_telecon1.pdf Draft Questions for Follow Up

x 08353\08353_telecon2.pdf Draft Questions for Follow Up

x 08353\08353_telecon3.pdf Draft Questions for Follow Up

x 08353\08353_telecon4.pdf Draft Questions for Follow Up

x 08353\08353_telecon5.pdf Draft Questions for Follow Up

x 08353\08353_telecon6.pdf Draft Questions for Follow Up

08353\Certification Statement Plant ID 08353.pdf Plant certification statement

x 08353\Supplemental Documents\08353_Antidegradation report.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 08353\Supplemental Documents\08353_Engineering Study 1Feb10.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

08353\Supplemental Documents\08353_FGD Final Report.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ORIGINAL
 FEDERAL TRADE COMMisSION , ;' '~

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRA TIVE ~W JUGES ,­ '.... , 

, ,
 

In the Matter of 

) 

) 

) 

McWANE, INC., ) 

a corporation, and ) DOCKET NO. 9351 

STAR PIPE PRODUCTS, LTD., 

a limited parnership, 

) 

) 

) 

Respondents. ) 

) 

ORDER DESIGNATING ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

Pursuant to authority vested in the Federal Trade Commission and delegated to 

the Chief Administrative Law Judge, 

IT IS ORDERED that D. Michael Chappell, Chief Administrative Law Judge of 

this Commission, be, and hereby is, designated and appointed to take testimony and 

receive evidence in this proceeding and to perform all other duties authorized by law. 

ORDERED: -JM~.¡t
 D. Michael CliapìJ 1
 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: January 5, 2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ORIGINAL 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

)
 In the Matter of
 ) 

)


McWANE, INC.,
 )
 a corporation, and DOCKET NO. 9351
 ) 

)


STAR PIPE PRODUCTS, LTD.,
 )
 

a limited partnership,
 )


Respondents.
 ) 

) 

ORDER ON NON-PARTY SIGMA CORPORATION'S
 

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR IN CAMERA TREATMENT
 

i. 

Pursuant to Rule 3.45(b) of the Commission's Rules of 
 Practice, non-party Sigma 

Corporation ("Sigma"), on November 7, 2012, fied a motion for in camera treatment for two 

additional designated hearing exhibits. Sigma states that it has conferred with Complaint 

Counsel and Respondent, and that neither party opposes Sigma's request. As set forth below, 

Sigma's Motion is GRANTED. 

II. 

The standard for evaluating Sigma's motion for in camera treatment is set forth in the 

Order on Non-Parties' Motions for In Camera Treatment, issued on August 17,2012. Sigma 

seeks in camera treatment for portions of two documents, designated as CX 1002 and CX 

1745. Sigma supports its motion with a declaration from its Chairman and Chief 
 Executive Officer. The declaration describes in detail the highly sensitive and confidential nature of 
 the 

information related to Sigma's financial information and strategic planning. The declaration 

also describes in detail the measures that Sigma has taken to protect the confidentiality of the 

documents for which it seeks in camera treatment and explains the competitive harm Sigma 

would suffer if such documents were made publicly available. Accordingly, Sigma has met 

its burden of demonstrating that the materials for which it seeks in camera treatment should 

be given 
 such protection. 

Although Sigma requests in camera treatment for a period of only two years, in order 

to make the expiration date of in camera treatment consistent across exhibits provided by 

non-parties, which establishes consistency and furthers administrative efficiency, in camera 
treatment for a period of five years, to expire on September 1, 2017, is GRANTED for the 

documents identified as: CX 1002 and CX 1745. 

ORDERED: :DYh~~¿l

D. Michael Chap e I 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: November 8,2012 

2
**Exhibit 23**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

Wehereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statementson Form S-8 (Numbers 333-135857, 333-122201, and 333-105005) of Family DollarStores, Inc., of our report dated March 28, 2007, relating to the financialstatements, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal controlover financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting, which appears in Family Dollar Stores., Inc.’s AnnualReport on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended August 26, 2006.

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Charlotte, North Carolina

March28, 2007

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 38 (Wednesday, February 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8740-8741]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4776]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[OPP-00468; FRL-5587-4]


Pesticide Product Label System; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of the new Pesticide 
Product Label System on CD ROM which supersedes and replaces the 
Compact Label File on microfiche.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: BeWanda Alexander, Office of 
Pesticide Programs (7502C), Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., 
SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location for commercial courier 
delivery and telephone number: Rm. 700N, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 
Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, (703) 305-5259.

ADDRESSES: For specific address and price information, refer to Unit 
II. of this document.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    The Pesticide Product Label System (PPLS), a software product 
developed by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), contains images 
of registered pesticide product labels submitted by pesticide 
registrants and accepted by OPP since 1971.
    The label images have been indexed by company, product, and date. 
The retrieval program allows the user to search by registration number, 
which is a combination of company number and product number. Searches 
can be conducted based on partial numbers if

[[Page 8741]]

the complete number is unknown. Search results are displayed in full 
screen format and single or multiple pages can be printed.

II. Ordering Information

    The CD ROM collection is available as an ongoing subscription from: 
The National Technical Information Service (NTIS), ATTN: Order Desk, 
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, Telephone: (703) 487-4630. 
Approximate annual cost for the new base set each year and three 
quarterly updates is $640; outside U.S., Canada, and Mexico, $1,280. 
Price for base set of about 25 CDs is $388; outside U.S., Canada, and 
Mexico $776. Each update includes a new index CD and a labels CD, price 
is $84 each. When requesting the PPLS from NTIS, use the Order Number 
PB97-594040.

    Dated: February 12, 1997.
Linda A. Travers,
Director, Program Management and Support Division, Office of Pesticide 
Programs.

[FR Doc. 97-4776 Filed 2-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Office of the Secretary

November 10, 2014

Vo

State of California

Re: In the Matter of Made in the USA Brand, LLC

File No. 142 3121, Docket No. C-4497

Thank you for commenting on the Federal Trade Commission’s proposed consent agreement in 

the above-referenced proceeding. The Commission has considered your comment and placed it on the 

public record pursuant to Rule 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, 16 C.F.R. §

4.9(b)(6)(ii).

In your comment, you state that “Made in the USA” should mean that “the particular product is 

100% made in the USA,” and request that the Commission require marketers to substantiate their U.S.-

origin and other claims. You do not propose any revisions to the draft complaint or the consent 

agreement.

Section 5 of the FTC Act requires companies to possess substantiation for their marketing 

claims, and the Commission’s Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S.-Origin Claims provides specific 

guidance to marketers on how to substantiate those claims.1

 In particular, the Policy Statement provides 

that when a marketer makes an unqualified “Made in USA” claim, the marketer should – at the time the 

representation is made – possess and rely upon a reasonable basis establishing that the product is “all or 

virtually all” made in the United States. In this case, Section II of the consent agreement specifically 

requires Made in the USA Brand, LLC either to possess competent and reliable evidence substantiating 

its representations that products are made in the USA, or to disclose that it relies on self-certification to 

substantiate its clients’ claims.

Therefore, after considering your comment, the Commission has determined that the relief set 

forth in the consent agreement is appropriate and sufficient to remedy the violations alleged in the 

complaint. At this time, the Commission has determined that the public interest would best be served by 

issuing the Decision and Order in final form without modification. The final Decision and Order and 

other relevant materials are available on the Commission’s website at http://www.ftc.gov. It helps the 

Commission’s analysis to hear from a variety of sources in its work, and we thank you again for your 

comment.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark

Secretary

 

1 See 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) and Federal Trade Commission, Issuance of Enforcement Policy Statement on 

“Made in USA” and Other U.S. Origin Claims, 62 Fed. Reg. 63756, 63766 (December 2, 1997), 

available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/fedreg/1997/december/ 971202madeinusa.pdf.
#### Charles E. BOOTH, as Executor of the Estate of Florence I. Herlan, Petitioner, v. Walter A. SHELLEY, as Administrator Ad Litem of the Estate of Florence I. Herlan, Respondent.

No. 43187.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 22, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 271 So.2d 188.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.