alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Richard KEYSER, Appellant, v. PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY, a Florida corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 73-408.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 19, 1973.

13. Clarke Nichols, Carroll, Vega, Brown & Nichols, Naples, for appellant.

Daniel A. Carlton, Dart, Dickinson, O’Riorden, Gibbons & Quale, Sarasota, for appellee Metropolitan Petroleum Co.

Ray A. Morrissey, Jr., Naples, for appel-lee Charlie Yearty.

GRIMES, Judge.

The plaintiff appeals an order dismissing his second amended complaint with prejudice. The second amended complaint al*365leged that the defendant Yearty kept a collection of snakes for public display at his service station. The plaintiff put his hand in the unlocked box of snakes and was bitten by a rattlesnake. The other defendants are alleged to be vicariously liable. In his order, the Circuit Judge recited that the second amended complaint failed to state a cause of action and reflected negligent conduct by the plaintiff precluding his recovery as a matter of law.

While one might reasonably question the judgment of a person who puts his hand in a box of snakes, we must reverse. The second amended complaint alleges that in putting his hand in the unlocked box, the plaintiff did not realize the dangers involved. For the purposes of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, allegations of the complaint are assumed to be true and all reasonable inferences are allowed in favor of the plaintiff’s case. Orlando Sports Stadium, Inc. v. State ex rel. Powell, Fla. 1972, 262 So.2d 881. Therefore, we cannot say with certainty that the plaintiff could not succeed.

Under the doctrine of strict liability established for wild animals in Isaacs v. Powell, Fla.App.1972, 267 So.2d 864, the plaintiff is not required to allege specific acts of negligence on the part of the defendant. In that case, this court adopted § 515 of the Restatement of Torts which stated:

> “‘(1) A plaintiff is not barred from recovery by his failure to exercise reasonable care to observe the propinquity of a wild animal or an abnormally dangerous domestic animal or to avoid harm to his person, land or chattels threatened by it.

> (2) A plaintiff is barred from recovery by *intentionally and unreasonably*subjecting himself to the risk that a wild animal or an abnormally dangerous domestic animal will do harm to his person, land or chattels.’ (Italics supplied)”

As the facts of the case are developed, it may appear as a matter of law that the plaintiff’s conduct falls within the scope of section (2) quoted above. However, at this juncture, the second amended complaint reflects no more than the conduct deemed by section (1) as insufficient to bar a recovery.

The order of dismissal with prejudice is hereby reversed.

MANN, C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
J~~~ ED STq rFs 

r UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

PROt w 

0 z 

JUL 1 5 2014 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Mr. J. R. Stroble, Manager 

National TRtJ Program 

Carlsbad Field Office 

U.S. Department of Energy 

P.O. Box 3090 

Carlsbad, New Mexico 88221-3090 

Dear Mr. Stroble: 

This letter provides the results of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) continued 

contpliance (CC) inspection of the Central Characterization Project (CCP) at the Idaho National 

Laboratory (INL) near ldaho Falls, Idaho. CCP is responsible for implementing transuranic 

(TRU) waste characterization (WC) program for contact-handled (CH) and remote-handled (RH) 

transuranic (TRU) waste at INL. In November 2005 and January 2007, respectively, EPA first 

approved INL-CCP's CH (A-98-49; Il-A4-59) and RH (A-98-49: II-A4-72) TRU waste 

characterization programs. Since then, INL-CCP continues to characterize CH and RH waste 

containers for disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. On May 6-8, 2014, EPA conducted the 

CC inspection in accordance with Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 194.24(h). 

The enclosed report presents the results of the inspection (EPA Air pocket No. A-98-49; II-A4- 

190). 

As a result of this CC inspection, EPA confirms that the TRU waste characterization activities 

and processes listed below are, as implemented by INL-CCP, technically adequate and compliant 

with 40 CFR 194.24 requirements. 

• Acceptable knowledge (AK) for CH and RH wastes 

• Three Nondestructive Assay (NDA) Systems for CH TRU waste 

• Dose to Curie process for RH TRU waste 

• Real-time radiography (RTR) for RH TRU waste 

• Visual Examination (VE) for CH and RH TRU debris waste 

During the inspection, EPA did not identify any findings. EPA, however, identified one concern 

not requiring a response regarding documentation of formal and informal NDA equipment 

calibration verifications. 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclabte • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100 % Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper 
Since the initial CH and RH baseline approvals, EPA has approved nine (9) CH Tier 1(T1) 

changes and 16 RH Tl changes. In addition, EPA conducted three continued compliance and two 

unannounced inspections to confirm on-going compliance. Also, since initial approvals, EPA has 

concurred on all quarterly Tier 2 changes that INL-CCP made to the approved CH and RH 

programs. 

If you have any questions, please contact Rajani Joglekar (202-343-9462). 

Sinc , 

 p4lr-~ 

Tom Peake, Director 

Center for Waste Management and Regulations 

Enclosure 

cc: electronic distribution 

Alton Harris, DOE EM 

Joe Franco, CBFO 

Marcus Pinzel, CBFO 

Thomas Morgan, CBFO 

Norma Castaneda, CBFO 

Trais Kliphuis, NMED 

Site Documents, CBFO/LANL 

Jon Edwards, EPA
#### Ada M. Chidester ROBICHAUX v. Eugene Godfrey ROBICHAUX.

No. 5378.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

April 17, 1973.

*333Gibson Tucker, Jr., Tucker & Schonekas, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.

Richard J. McGinity, Jr., of McGinity & Wootan, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

Before REGAN, GULOTTA and BOU-TALL, JJ.

BOUTALL, Judge.

Mrs. Ada M. Chidester Robichaux filed suit for separation from bed and board from her husband and as an incident thereto sought alimony pendente lite. The trial court rendered judgment ordering the husband to pay $740.00 per month alimony and the husband appeals, seeking a decrease in the award.

In his judgment the trial judge stated that his determination of alimony pendente lite is predicated on the wife’s needs and the husband’s ability to pay. It thus appears that there is no basic legal issue here. LSA-C.C. art. 148; Stansbury v. Stansbury, 258 So.2d 170 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1972); Small v. Small, 173 So.2d 854 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1965). The basic issue on this appeal is whether the trial judge committed manifest error in determining the amount of the award.

It is elementary that the trial judge who heard the witnesses and considered the respective questions of the wife’s needs and the husband’s ability to pay is in a better position to find the facts necessary upon which to base such an award. His findings cannot be overturned unless there is manifest error apparent, and he is granted wide discretion in determining the amount. The trial judge in this case gave detailed and well considered reasons for his decision. He found that the income of the husband was nearly $32,000 in 1970 and was computed to be something more than $30,-000 in 1971, dependent upon the amount of return from some investments, which had been reinvested to create a greater return thereon. Balanced against this, Mrs. Robi-chaux’s expenses, according to her testimony, amounted to $908.00 per month. The trial judge eliminated some of the inflated figures and concluded that she should be awarded the sum of $740.00 per month. Without discussing in detail the various items, the record clearly reflects that the trial judge very carefully considered each individual item of expense and income in arriving at his conclusion, and we are in agreement with the award he made.

For the foregoing reasons it is ordered that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Appellant to pay all costs of the appeal.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED

PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



The Board of Directors

Conolog Corp:



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference
into the Company’s previously filed Registration Statements (Nos. 333-164610 filed February 1, 2010, 333-152183 filed July
8, 2008 and 333-143262 filed on May 25, 2007) on Form S-8, of our report dated November 30, 2010, relating to the consolidated
financial statements of Conolog Corporation as of and for the year ended July 31, 2010, which appear in Conolog Corporation’s
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended July 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 30,
2010,  included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended July 31, 2011.











|                      
|----------------------
|WithumSmith+Brown, PC 
|Somerville, New Jersey
|                      
|November 15, 2011     









CHDS01 KERICKSON 556462v1
1 

### Sutton, Tia

From: Timothy.Mullins@dot.gov Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 3:57 PM To: Chandana_L._Achanta@omb.eop.gov; Chad_A._Lallemand@ omb.eop.gov Cc: james.tamm@dot.gov; Sutton, Tia; Hengst, Benjamin; Spears, Matthew Subject: FW: NHTSA and EPA Response to Verbal Interagency Co mments on Rebound Attachments: NHTSA EPA Response to OMB verbal comments on Reboun d 150617.docx



### Chad and Chandana, A 

### ttached please find our responses to your verbal co mments on Preamble Section IX Rebound from earlier today. Thanks, Tim
Form 15-6
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE—BUREAU OF THE CENSUS

state. MINNESOTA __-_ Incorporated place _MIN NEAPOLIS = Crvy __ FIFTEENTH CENSUS OF THE UNITED STATES: 1930

(tosert proper name and also name of class, as city, village, town, or borough. See instructions.)

County... HENNE PIN Widdy 5. _.. Block No... (9G POPULATION SCHEDULE

Township or other ;
division of county -.......... AB Ssduaaineasinhce coaRationdis seeing aacsmaaane Sect Unincorporated place _....____. a a Institution____. . Enumerated by me on Goprih. 22, 1930, __..—

(insert proper name and also name of class, as township, town, precinct, district, etc. See instructions) (Enter name of any unincorporated place having appraximataly £00 inbabitants or more. 8ee jastructions.) (lasert name of institution, if any, and indicate the lines on which the entries are made. See instructions.)

0
PLACE OF ABODE NAME HOME DAT. PERSONAL DESCRIPTION | EDUCATION PLACE OF BIRTH MOTHER TONGUE (OR NATIVE | CITIZENSHIP, ETC. OCCUPATION AND INDUSTRY
, RELATION LANGUAGE) OF FOREIGN BORN

Num- of each person whose place of abode on 8 pee 2 Place of birth of each enumerated and of his or her parents. If born in
F Quast | Ree. April 1, 1930, was in this family Relationship of i “ sf the United State ¢ State or Territory. If of foreign give country in 5. ee
i| 3
fi

OCCUPATION INDUSTRY

profession, or particular | Industry or business, cot-
TM=* of work, Po apinner, ton rf ‘Y

3
«
2
oo eture,
i saleaman, riveter, teach- pe echool,

PALES TIERS USPS TRITON Babe rec Fa ere EL

tasally this person to which birthplace is now situated. (See Instructions.) Distinguish Canada- | -a0guage spoken | (For office use oxly.

French from Canada-English, and Irish Free State from Northern Ireland ——— ag these columns)

United States | seat.

irthday
dition
Age at first

~— oon ee een nop nal the head of the

F
Z
3 pad famil
of vic- y
H Include evr peroma living April 1,130. Omi j

since Sept. 4.1929
Year of immigra-

college any time
tien to the
United States

marriage
Attended school or

er, ete. ote.

Color or race

o| iF

1 6 7

rH \ieed 1! 1O%2

24

» | Marital con-

= es at last
ee

|
Hi PERSON FATHER MOTHER

18

Eee

z|

H
H

SR UVET RY

DPN eget <A
SO a i Mt pn!

Pat

Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau.

Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here.

.@))

NICOLLET AVENUE

FIRST AVEWUE

——

by

t- 1 06| ob\V GOFb!
114 |? y ; | D1 RI Wet. ; ) | 7 4 ee ae (Ee | mrthar | book Lead

|
|
|

T

ABBREVIATIONS TO BE USED " ; ‘
Negro. Meg = =, a ENTRIES ARE REQUIRED IN THE
IN COLUMNS INDICATED poe $A : We SEVERAL COLUMNS AS FOLLOWS:

the
no abdrevistioas for State or country of
Sie eottoaes (Catncoas 16 19, 20, ond 2} SSS

LO MIE Re te or eer <n

ST TRAN RES REL SSS STEN tT tree ay OS LOS
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

/ AUSTIN 

j GROVLR SLLLII1* 

ATIO”*mG.IIC ” ”AL 

BonoraI@e Chae.‘A. Tomb, 

Oounty Auditor 

Records Building 

Dallas, Texas 

-. Dear Ibr. Tosohr 

tion with the 

State Highway 

h has been reoeived, 

ssioner Lyqn Lamther to cppeer 

Production Board in Tashingt2e interest of the couple- .~ 

i?hrray Eio. 183, which is ale North Ft. Forth Eoad. This 

been held up by the Tar Proafter the contract m20 let 

by the State Rightiey Conmission -- and oonalderable amount of gork had already Bean 

dono. 

"1 would like an opinion Prom your department as to whether or not the expense 

,of this trip can be paid by’ Liallas County,, 

and if eo, out of which fund.” 
/ 

. 

: 

e 

~ 

Honorable Chas. A. Tosoh - page 2 . . 

ebuthorizes 

Article 6875 of the Revised Civil Statutes 

the State Bighway Commission of Texas to 

take over and nainta$ the various State highways in 

TeX89. The first serjtenoe of said Artlole reads: 

aThe dommiseion is authorized to take 

owe and maintain the various State highrays 3.n Texas, and the counties throu@~ 

mh.lch said highway passes shall be free 

from any aoet;, 

suoh highways.* 

expense or supervision of 

In Iverson vi Dallas County, 110 s. w. 12) 235, 

.the oourt inconatrulng the above Article and ~the other 

statutes relative to the powers end organizakion~ol’ the 

State Bighway ConmrLsslon, held that when the State~Blghway Department took over the control, management and maintenanoe of a State hLghv3y, the county lost control thereof inso.far as' Its main~enemce and upkeep are concerned. 

It appears froy,your letter that the State Highway Co~!&esioa has taken charge of the road project in 

queetion,.end has let the oontract,for ths building there-, '~

of.~, tee presume.that said hl~hway i.3 fioa a partof the 

State highwey system. If ne are correct'in thie essumption, then the maintenance and upkeep 'the~reof 13 not 

county business. 

Based upon the above assumption, itis our optiIon that the expenses of the County Judge and County Corn-~ 

missioner ingoing to F;ashJ.ngLon for the purpose named cmnot be paid out of the Road and Bridge Fund, or emy other 

fund, of Dallas county. 

SInme Dallas County Is not required to build or 

maintain the road in queetlon, the proposed trip to Cash-, 

ington rould not be in furtherance of county road husinees. 

pry truly'yours 

Geo. I?. Bsroue 

AsBi8ta.nt
Table 6.  Homeownership Rates by Area:  Third Quarter 2000 and 1999




                                     Third      Third     Standard    Standard
Area                                quarter    quarter    error on    error on
                                     2000       1999     2000 rate  difference

United States.....................      67.7       67.0        0.2         0.3

  Inside MAs......................      65.8       64.9        0.2         0.3
   In central cities..............      51.9       50.5        0.3         0.5
   Not in central cities (suburbs)      74.2       73.7        0.2         0.3
  Outside MAs.....................      75.5       75.8        0.4         0.5

 Northeast........................      63.9       63.6        0.4         0.6
 Midwest..........................      72.9       72.1        0.4         0.5
 South............................      69.7       69.3        0.3         0.4
 West.............................      62.2       60.8        0.4         0.5
#### James O. DAVIS and Roy Davis v. Steven MOORE and Aetna Casualty and Surety Co.

No. 61580.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 17, 1978.

In re: Steven Moore and Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to ' the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Jefferson. 353 So.2d 740.

Writ denied.
#### Anthony Theodore BELL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 66-880.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Oct. *24,*1967.

Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender, and Marvin J. Emory, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Arden M. Siegendorf, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of Simpson v. State, Fla.App.1964, 165 So.2d 195; Taylor v. State, Fla.App.1966, 183 So.2d 865.
#### Robert L. SJOSTROM and R. L. Sjostrom *Company,*a Florida corporation, Appellants, v. JENSEN MACHINERY, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 71-409.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 9, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; Joseph P. Metzger, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
No. 11300.

#### McGinniss et al. *v.*Dickson.

Decided November 23, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Crawford county.

*Mr. S. L. Americas,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Mr. B. T. Long,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Davis, Shauck and Price, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Cone Mills Corporation consolidated financial statements dated December
29, 1996, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-29-1996
<CASH>                                           1,018
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   52,073
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,000
<INVENTORY>                                    139,533
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               204,418
<PP&E>                                         454,342
<DEPRECIATION>                                 203,664
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 529,986
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          119,571
<BONDS>                                        149,968
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     38,395
<COMMON>                                         2,630
<OTHER-SE>                                     169,226
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   529,986
<SALES>                                        745,939
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               745,939
<CGS>                                          641,525
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  641,525
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,897
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,074)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,311)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,221)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,221)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.19)
        

<PAGE>

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000948929
<NAME>                        $rhnbiw9
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-26-1998
<CASH>                                         10,512
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  82,287
<ALLOWANCES>                                    2,491
<INVENTORY>                                   115,543
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              231,305
<PP&E>                                        184,884
<DEPRECIATION>                                 73,173
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                464,610
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         206,236
<BONDS>                                       134,160
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          324
<OTHER-SE>                                     78,813
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  464,610
<SALES>                                       401,574
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              401,574
<CGS>                                         264,683
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 264,683
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              249,560
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             15,824
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (128,493)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (13,238) 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (115,255)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (1,660)
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (116,915)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.78)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.78)
        



</TABLE>