alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### AMFAC DRUG SUPPLY CO. v. William A. DRAGO, d/b/a Nottingham Pharmacy, et al.

Nos. 11818, 11833.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Dec. 2, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 23, 1978.

Writ Granted March 2, 1978.

*963Robert F. Fadaol, Gretna, for appellant.

Patrick F. McGrew, Baton Rouge, for ap-pellees.

Before LOTTINGER, EDWARDS and PONDER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is being dismissed because of appellant’s failure to pay court costs and filing fee in accordance with the last paragraph of LSA-C.C.P. 2126, as amended, not for failure to pay the estimated costs under the first two paragraphs.1 Appellant has been given benefit of these delays; the transcript was prepared and filed in the record on August 16, 1977, without waiting for the payment of the estimate of costs. These omissions on the clerk’s part are therefore irrelevant. On September 20, well before the return day of October 4, the clerk called Amfac’s attorney’s office and left a message with his secretary giving the amount of costs. Appellant had failed to pay on October 4, so the clerk in accordance with the duty imposed on him, asked the court for an extension. The court denied the request. On these facts we cannot say the court abused its discretion.

Appellant knew of the return date and of his duty under LSA-C.C.P. 2126 to pay all costs prior to that time. Even at that the clerk attempted to secure an extension and failed.

This is not a case like *Davidge v. Magliola,*La., 346 So.2d 177, or *Hawthorne v. Slaydon,*351 So.2d 1231 (La.App. 1st Cir., 1977), reversed La., 353 So.2d 286 (1977). The clerk here has presented the matter to the court.

REHEARING DENIED.

1

. LSA-C.C.P. Art. 2126

> “The appellant shall pay to the clerk of the trial court, not later than twenty days after the granting of the order of appeal, all costs as estimated by said clerk for the preparation of the record on appeal, and the filing fee required by the appellate court to lodge the appeal.

> “The twenty-day limit may be extended once for not more than twenty additional days by the district judge. Such extension shall be in written form.

> “Any difference between the estimated costs and the actual costs shall be remitted by the clerk of the trial court or paid by the appellant, as the situation may require, not later than three days prior to the return day or extended return day.

> Amended by Acts 1976, No. 708, § 2.”
#### Eleanor F. STOKES, Petitioner, v. George C. CREWS, Respondent.

No. 43072.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 22, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 265 So.2d 741.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
[Cite as Reywal Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Dublin, 128 Ohio St.3d 270, 2010-Ohio-5949.] 

REYWAL CO. LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ET AL., APPELLEES, v. CITY 

OF DUBLIN, APPELLANT. 

[Cite as Reywal Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Dublin, 

128 Ohio St.3d 270, 2010-Ohio-5949.] 

Discretionary appeal accepted on Proposition of Law No. I, judgment of the court 

of appeals affirmed in judgment only on the authority of Campbell v. 

Carlisle, and cause remanded to the trial court for application of 

Campbell v. Carlisle. 

(No. 2010-1435 — Submitted November 16, 2010 — Decided 

December 9, 2010.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 09AP-522, 

188 Ohio App.3d 1, 2010-Ohio-3013. 

__________________ 

{¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is accepted on Proposition of Law No. I. 

{¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed in judgment only 

on the authority of Campbell v. Carlisle, 127 Ohio St.3d 275, 2010-Ohio-5707, 

939 N.E.2d 153, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for application of 

Campbell v. Carlisle. 

 LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, and LANZINGER, JJ., 

concur. 

 BROWN, C.J., and PFEIFER and CUPP, JJ., dissent and would not accept the 

discretionary appeal. 

__________________ 

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, L.L.P., Bruce L. Ingram, Joseph R. 

Miller, and John M. Kuhl, for appellees. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

 Schottenstein, Zox & Dunn, L.P.A., Alan G. Starkoff, and Jeremy M. 

Grayem, for appellant. 

______________________
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We have issued our reports dated May
19, 2006, accompanying the consolidated financial statements and Schedule II and
managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting
included in the Annual Report of Bradley Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005. We hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of Bradley Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
on Form S-3 (No. 333-75997), Form S-3 (No. 333-74724), Form S-3 (No. 333-110312) Form S-3
(333-111078), Form S-8 (No. 333-75382), Form S-8 (No. 333-112456) and on Form SB-2 (No.
333-60879).

/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP

New York, New York 
May 19, 2006

| | 1 | 
| | - | 

---
1The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-2831

___________

Kendrick Lee Harris, *

 *

Appellant, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Eastern District of Missouri

Unknown Mack, Officer #976 *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: July 5, 2000

 Filed: July 24, 2000

___________

Before McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and MORRIS SHEPPARD

ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

Kendrick Lee Harris appeals from the final judgment entered in the District

Court1 for the Eastern District of Missouri, dismissing his action with prejudice under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d) for twice failing to appear at his deposition. For reversal, Harris

argues the district court erred in dismissing the action because he provided good cause

for his failure to appear, namely, he had been out of town when defendant requested
-2-

the depositions. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district

court.

Under Rule 37(d), if a party fails to appear for a deposition after being served

with proper notice, the district court “may make such orders in regard to the failure as

are just,” including an order dismissing the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C) and

(d). We review Rule 37 dismissals for abuse of discretion and the district court’s

factual findings for clear error. See Boogaerts v. Bank of Bradley, 961 F.2d 765, 768

(8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam); Avionic Co. v. General Dynamics Corp., 957 F.2d 555,

558 (8th Cir. 1992). 

Although dismissal with prejudice is an “extreme sanction,” see Hunt v. City of

Minneapolis, 203 F.3d 524, 527 (8th Cir. 2000), we conclude the district court did not

clearly err in finding that Harris had deliberately failed to attend the two scheduled

depositions and did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case. The evidence

showed Harris’s counsel received notice of the depositions and appeared at both.

Harris’s counsel mailed correspondence relating to the depositions to Harris, but

received no response. After the date of the noticed depositions, some additional

correspondence counsel mailed to Harris was returned as undelivered, but other

correspondence--which counsel mailed to the address Harris claimed as his correct

address--was not. 

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

 CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF FARREL CORPORATION AS OF MARCH 30, 1997 AND
FOR THE THREE MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US$
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           4,363
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,406
<ALLOWANCES>                                       326
<INVENTORY>                                     20,664
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,250
<PP&E>                                          17,820
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,931
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  52,050
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,561
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            61
<OTHER-SE>                                      27,895
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    52,050
<SALES>                                         16,123
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,123
<CGS>                                           12,785
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,785
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,946
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (136)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  44
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (172)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        66
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (106)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (106)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  ($0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  ($0.02)
        

</TABLE>
#### Robert N. ROCKWOOD and Elizabeth A. Rockwood, his wife, Appellants, v. Frank DeROSA and Doris DeRosa, his wife, et al., Appellees.

No. 72-94.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 8, 1973.

William F. Hunter, Jr., Hollywood, for appellants.

No appearance for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant sued to accelerate and foreclose a mortgage from appellees to him. Although the mortgagors were technically in default under the circumstances of this case, Schechtman v. Grobbel, Fla.App.1969, 226 So.2d 1, foreclosure and acceleration were properly denied.

The mortgage here provided that the mortgagors would be liable for costs, including attorney fees due to their failure to comply with the mortgage terms. Appellants’ actions were precipitated by ap-pellees’ default; therefore, appellants were entitled to reasonable attorney fees. Schechtman v. Grobbel, supra.

We reverse and remand with instructions to award appellant reasonable attorney fees.

Reversed and remanded.

WALDEN and OWEN, JJ., and DOWNEY, JAMES G, Associate Judge, concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 8456]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4552]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[CA-060-07-1990-00]


Notice of Public Meeting

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, in accordance with Public Laws 92-463 
and 94-579, that the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Army have 
scheduled an additional public meeting in Barstow, California on 
Thursday, March 6 on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the 
Army's proposed expansion of the National Training Center at Fort 
Irwin. The meeting will begin at 7 p.m. in the Barstow Holiday Inn, 
located at 1511 East Main Street.

    The meeting is scheduled to provide the public who attended the 
Tuesday, February 18 meeting in Barstow additional opportunity to 
comment on the DEIS. Army and BLM representatives will present an 
overview of the DEIS and provide attendees the opportunity to ask 
questions prior to the formal public meeting. A court reporter will 
record all comments, which will become part of the record.
    Meetings also are scheduled for Thursday, February 20 at 2 p.m. in 
the Baker Community Center, in Baker and in Sacramento on Monday, 
February 24 at 2 p.m. and 7 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, located 
at 915 ``I'' Street.
    The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Army's 
proposed Land Acquisition Project for Fort Irwin was released for 
public comment January 3 and comments will be accepted through April 4. 
The DEIS addresses the proposed withdrawal of approximately 310,000 
acres of public lands currently managed by BLM from entry under public 
land laws.
    Public comments will be accepted through April 4, 1997. Send 
written comments to the Bureau of Land Management, Attention: Mike 
Dekeyrel, Project Manager, 150 Coolwater Lane, Barstow, California 
92311.

FOR MORE INFORMATION: Contact Mike Dekeyrel at (619) 255-8730 or BLM 
public affairs in Riverside at (909) 697-5215 for more information or 
to request a copy of the Fort Irwin DEIS, executive summary or 
technical appendices.

    Dated: February 19, 1997.
Jo Simpson,
Assistant. District Manager, External Affairs.
[FR Doc. 97-4552 Filed 2-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 2 (Friday, January 3, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 372-373]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-49]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 96-259; RM-8970]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Moscow, ID

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition for rule making 
filed by Darin L. Siebert requesting the allotment of Channel 277A to 
Moscow, Idaho, as that community's second local commercial FM service. 
Coordinates used for Channel 277A at Moscow are 46-42-24 and 116-55-08. 
As Moscow, Idaho, is located within 320 kilometers (199 miles) of the 
Canadian border, the Commission must obtain the concurrence of the 
Canadian government to this proposal.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before February 18, 1997, and reply 
comments on or before March 5, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, 
D.C. 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested 
parties should serve the petitioner, as follows: Darin L. Siebert, S. 
605 Grand Ave., Pullman, WA 99163.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 
418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 96-259, adopted December 
20, 1996, and released December 27, 1996. The full text of this 
Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during 
normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M 
Street, NW, Washington, DC The complete text of this decision may also 
be purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International 
Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 
140,Washington, DC 20037.
    Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply 
to this proceeding.
    Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to 
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are 
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve 
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing 
permissible ex parte contacts.

[[Page 373]]

    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, 
See 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 97-49 Filed 1-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
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
 
 Each
undersigned officer certifies to the best of his knowledge based on a review of
the annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2009 of Command
Security Corporation (the “Report”):
 
 (1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 (2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the
 Company.
 
 Date:  June
26, 2009
 
 By:  /s/ Edward S.
Fleury
 
 Edward
S. Fleury
 Chief
Executive Officer
 (Principal
Executive Officer)
 
 
 By:  /s/ Barry I.
Regenstein
 
 Barry
I. Regenstein
 President
and Chief Financial Officer
 (Principal
Financial Officer)
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 35 (Friday, February 21, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 7950]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4409]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 1997 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 7950]]

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food Safety and Inspection Service

9 CFR Parts 304, 308, 310, 320, 327, 381, 416, and 417

[Docket No. 93-016-12N]

Publication of Salmonella Testing Data

AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Meeting notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) will hold a 
meeting regarding the publication of Salmonella testing data. 
Participants will discuss methods of making available to the public 
FSIS-generated testing data on the prevalence of Salmonella found on 
inspected products.

DATES: The meeting will be held on March 6, 1997, from 8:30 a.m. until 
11:30 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in Room 107A, Jamie L. Whitten 
Federal Building, 12th and Jefferson Dr. SW, Washington, DC 20250-3700.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To register for the meeting, call 
(202) 501-7136, FAX (202) 501-7642, or E-mail usdafsis/
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 25, 1996, FSIS published a final 
rule, ``Pathogen Reduction; Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point 
(HACCP) Systems'' (61 FR 38806). The rule established that FSIS will 
obtain samples from slaughter establishments and establishments 
producing raw ground product or fresh pork sausage and test those 
samples for Salmonella to ensure that pathogen reduction performance 
standards are being met. As stated in the rule, the test results will 
be available to the public.
    FSIS is considering making the test results available via the 
Internet on the FSIS Homepage. FSIS also is interested in receiving 
public input on other methods for making the test results available. 
Therefore, the Agency will hold a public meeting regarding the 
publication of Salmonella testing data.

    Done at Washington, DC, on: February 18, 1997.
Thomas J. Billy,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-4409 Filed 2-18-97; 4:42 pm]
BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P
```
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Donald Ray BROWN.

No. 53627.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 6, 1973.

In re: Donald Ray Brown applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and habeas corpus.

Application denied. The showing made is insufficient to warrant the exercise of our jurisdiction.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 United States Code § 1350 and

Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

The Undersigned hereby certifies that to his knowledge the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Federal-Mogul Corporation (the Company) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that
appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Date:    May 2, 2006



By:

/s/ José Maria AlapontJosé Maria
Alapont Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer


By:

/s/ G. Michael LynchG. Michael
Lynch Chief Financial Officer




59
Exhibit 21

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF FGI                        


FARMERS GROUP, INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION, DOING BUSINESS AS FARMERS 
UNDERWRITERS ASSOCIATION 


         Truck Underwriters Association, a California corporation

         Fire Underwriters Association, a California corporation

         F.I.G. Holding Company, a California corporation  (1)

         Farmers New World Life Insurance Company, a Washington corporation
 
         The Ohio State Life Insurance Company, an Ohio corporation

         Investors Guaranty Life Insurance Company, a California corporation

         FIG Leasing Co., Inc., a California corporation  (2)

         Prematic Service Corporation, a California corporation  (3)

         Prematic Service Corporation, a Nevada corporation  (4)

         Farmers Group Capital, a Delaware statutory business trust

         Farmers Group Capital II, a Delaware statutory business trust

         Farmers Investment Management & Research, a California corporation

         Farmers Investment Management & Research, a Nevada corporation

         Farmers Underwriters Association, a California corporation (inactive)

         F.I.G. Travel, a California corporation (inactive)

	Farmers Services Corporation, a Nevada corporation

	Farmers Financial Services Corporation, a Nevada corporation

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

(1)            Truck Underwriters Association and Fire Underwriters Association
               own 30% and 70%, respectively, of the equity of F.I.G. 
               Holding Company.

(2)            FGI, Truck Underwriters Association and Fire Underwriters 
               Association own 95.2%, 3.1% and 1.7%, respectively, of the 
               equity of FIG Leasing Co., Inc..

(3)            FGI, Truck Underwriters Association and Fire Underwriters 
               Association own 38%, 53% and 9%, respectively, of the 
               equity of Prematic Service Corporation, a California 
               corporation.

(4)            Prematic Service Corporation, a California corporation, owns 
               100% of the equity of Prematic Service Corporation, a Nevada 
               corporation.