alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ren MORRIS, as Director, State Beverage Department of Florida, and Clyde H. Simpson, as Tax Collector in and for Duval County, Florida, Appellants, v. James B. BRYAN, trading and doing business as the Candy Cane and the Forest Inn, Appellees.

No. 35811.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 19, 1967.

Thomas F. Woods, Tallahassee, for appellants.

Arthur T. Boone and William C. Guthrie, Jr., Jacksonville, for appellees.

THOMAS, Justice.

This appeal constitutes a challenge of a decision in a final decree entered by the Circuit Court of Duval County declaring unconstitutional Chapter 65-2426, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1965. It is plain from the record that no attempt whatever was made to comply with the mandate of Sec. 21, Art. Ill of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A., with reference to the enactment of special or local laws. Therefore the validity of the Act must be tested by the law relating to general acts based on population of the area affected.

By its title the Act in question relates to so-called bottle clubs and requires their licensing, and their taxing, in any county of the State having a population of not fewer than 400,000 and not more than 900,-000. Parenthetically, we are told in the brief of the State Beverage Department that the businesses of the appellee had as their “primary purpose of existence * * * the mere establishment and operation of a drinking location as contemplated by Chapter 65-2426 * * This definition is a simplification of the one in Sec. 3 of the Act. But there is no need to dwell upon the nature of bottle clubs for the issue pinpointed in the briefs and in the final decree is whether or not the purpose sought to be accomplished by the laws bears a reasonable relationship to the population bracket.

The chancellor thought it was obvious that the only design in regulating “bottle clubs” was the protection of the health, morals and welfare of the public. Adopting that premise, which we consider a sensible one, we meet an unsurmountable difficulty in attempting to reason that such protection should be afforded once a county reaches the lower population only to be lost when the population becomes 900,000, and more, it would never have the benefit of the law if, by chance, the population increased from 399,999 to 900,001 between a given census and a census ten years later, a situation not inconceivable. And if there happened to be fluctuation at either limitation, the benefit of the Act could apply and be withdrawn census by census.

We commented on such contingencies in Waybright v. Duval County, 142 Fla. 875, 196 So. 430, a decision rendered 27 years ago, and we adhere to that opinion.

*19The chancellor gave the controversy painstaking consideration and we think arrived at a just conclusion when he held, in effect, that the suspect Act was a special law enacted under the guise of a general one and, therefore, invalid because of disregard of the restrictions in Sec. 21, Art. Ill, supra. We will not disturb his ruling.

Affirmed.

THORNAL, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, O’CONNELL, CALDWELL, and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
#### Arnold RAYBURN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 7501.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Oct. 20, 1967.

*213Joseph G. Spicola, Jr., Public Defender, and Richard C. Edwards, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert R. Crittenden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

ALLEN, Acting Chief Judge.

The appellant, Arnold Rayburn, has appealed an order entered by the Criminal Court of Record of Hillsborough County, Florida, denying his motion for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. Ch. 924 Appendix. We are of the opinion that the allegations in appellant’s motion to vacate the judgment and sentence have not been refuted by the record. We refer especially, to appellant’s allegation that at the time of his trial certain of the testimony adduced was perjured and that the State was aware, at the time, that the testimony given was of that character.

The court in its order pointed out that appellant has previously appealed to this court and that we affirmed the judgment and sentence rendered against the appellant. See Rayburn v. State, Fla.App.1966, 188 So.2d 374. On that appeal the issues here raised were not before us, nor were the allegations contained in appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief presented for our consideration.

We therefore reverse the cause with instructions to conduct a full evidentiary hearing into the allegations contained in the appellant’s motion, determine the issues and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto’, in accordance with the views expressed in Austin v. State, Fla.App.1964, 160 So.2d 730; Gammage v. State, Fla.App.1964, 162 So.2d 529; and Smith v. United States, 9th Cir. 1958, 259 F.2d 125.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

SHANNON and HOBSON, JJ., concur.
#### Charles Edward CRUMP, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 7273.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

March 22, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
An official website of the United States government                

----

end of header

Census.govNewsroomReleases2010 Census

# Newsroom Archive

Skip left menu navigation                          - About the Newsroom
                          - Facts for Features
                          - **News Releases**
                          - Press Kits
                          - Tip Sheets

### Release Information

**CB08-CN.72 **REVISED****
**Contact:**  Megan KindelanPublic Information Office(301) 763-3030 (phone)(301) 763-3762 (fax)(301) 457-1037 (TDD)PIO@census.gov

## FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  TUESDAY, OCT. 21, 2008

## Media Advisory — Census Bureau Director to Visit Anchorage 2010 Census Office

CONNECT WITH US**********

                            - Information Quality
                            - Data Linkage Infrastructure
                            - Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                            - Accessibility
                            - FOIA
                            - Inspector General
                            - No FEAR Act
                            - U.S. Department of Commerce
                            - USA.gov

----

Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy

Is this page helpful?
YesNo

NO THANKS

255 characters maximum255 characters maximum reached

Thank you for your feedback.Comments or suggestions? 

PIO@census.gov
# C_2012202EN.01000302.xml

| 10.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6529 — ABB/Thomas & Betts)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 202/03

On 11 May 2012, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6529. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6529. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
#### Harold J. LANNING, Appellant, v. Robert M. ESTES, as Ancillary Administrator cum testamento annexo of the Estate of Charles O. Lanning, deceased, et al., Appellees.

No. 71-840.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 9, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**Appe.c~l** 

### JJumbe.r ;**I~-** 

## Ls- 003So 

# -Ge
Trial Numbt..r: 007-oqol-f:S


### Stafe.. 

### of Texa**~** 

## v. Davon**On~y** 

### I**Grave..~** 

### 1:..rt The.. 

## I 

## ·;x**'t~ f)/~ff'ic.f**  

### Cour-1- 

## 0t Cr/minal Appe.al! 

## ot the.**.Stat~** 

## of Te..xas

1 o 

### th((.. 

### Honora hie. ::::5 

### udges: 

### cl-fhe.. Court 

### of Gdmina 

### I 

### Appe.als**~** 

### Com e..s: 

### naw Davon 

### Otl**~yl** 

### Gra11**e~,** 

### {) 

### pplic.ant in**-fh~** abtJve.-**~nfii-Jed** 

### a11d flumbe.re.d
C.ctu.se. J afld**r~pe.c.,+Fu!Jy** 

### movu 

### fhir**Gou~f-** pursuclt11- 

### fo Jexas. 

### Rule. -oF 

### Appe.llafc: 

### PrtJce.okrn:**7~,J** 

### fo 

## eranf le.ave. 

## io 

## file. fhe. OLCOrtlranyil'lCj lafc.. t"c..Spon.te..**~e.spe.c+f** 

### ufly submifle.dt 

## 8" f2/VrJ7l-

### ~ 

## .J!i.ll.dAJe11.

OatJon 

### On 

### e..y I Grave..s: Bradshaw .Sfafc.. 3ai 

## I
Po &ox 

## qooo He.11der-so11 1 

### Tx 75{,5 

### 3 ACCEPTED 12-13-00350-CR TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS 1/11/2015 2:47:02 PM CATHY LUSK CLERKCe..rf,'f.

· c..o+c... 

### of**S.Q~I'r.JJt:..e..** j_ \ 

### D o.von 

### On e.. yl Grave-s. 1 d o h e-re.b y 

### C..e,rhfy th a f a +ru e. and c.orre.cf copy 

## ot the. 

### A

pp/
, c..ant's. M o+tofl 

### for- 

## Lea vi!.. 

### -1-c**~~** f o_ 

### La+ '"'**t:~pon.ic_** 1 

### hal 

### be_e..l"l f orwar d e- d 

### by Un,-lc.r l S..fafu



### .... 

### .**~~** 

### . MD
, 

### I,**po ta9** **e-** prc.po,·cJ. 'hr.s+ c. leu-r) 

### fo fhi!.. 

# J J. L.ourf**o~** Cr,mlllal 

### Appwf.s 111 

## Ty l e 

### c T 

### e-xa.s 1 

### on fh ,.s. fhQ.. 

# g •" Jay 

## ot :)anuary J J.O 1 5.
cf:YQN-o-n_ 

# rYmu;-**~** Davon Onayl Grave1**TOe~** 

### No · J $/9!f8'3J
Uni t :**fSro ~hwJ**  Sfa + e- "Ja 

### i 

### I 7c.>..os. 

### D c. p(lrirn e. n+ of t: r irnlf l c

d**3u~ t/** **c.o_** 

### PO Box 

### 9ooo
H

cn d <!. r S()n J T exa.s. 

### 7 S**~** 

### S"**~**
#### STATE of Louisiana v. McArthur JOHNSON.

No. 62477.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1978.

In re: McArthur Johnson applying for Remedial Writs. Parish of Bossier.

Motion denied.
#### Nina BLOWERS, Appellant, v. Ann L. WILLIAMS, Appellee.

No. II-301.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 18, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 21, 1978.

Chester J. Trow, of Pattillo, MacKay & McKeever, P.A., Ocala, for appellant.

Young J. Simmons, of Green, Simmons, Green & Hightower, P.A., Ocala, for appel-lee.

SMITH, Judge.

Substantial competent evidence supports the trial court’s finding that appellee established a prescriptive easement along the border of appellant’s grove, for access to appellee’s interior land and grove. *Downing v. Byrd,*100 So.2d 57 (Fla.1958); *City of Daytona Beach v. Tona-Rama, Inc.,*294 So.2d 73 (Fla.1974). The trial court evidently found that appellee’s additional use of the easement, for access to and from a proposed dwelling, would not unreasonably increase the burden of the easement established for grove maintenance. *Crutchfield v. F. A. Sebring Realty Co.,*69 So.2d 328 (Fla.1954). On this record we find no error in that decision, although neither the trial court’s judgment nor this one should be read as authorizing appellee to pave or otherwise improve the easement way in a manner detrimental to appellant’s adjacent grove. See *Choctawhatchee Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Moore,*220 So.2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969); *Corrigans v. Sebastian River Drainage District,*223 So.2d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969).

AFFIRMED.

BOYER, Acting C. J., and BOOTH, J., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT MARCH 31, 1999 (UNAUDITED) AND THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31,
1999 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000949244
<NAME> ALTERNATE MARKETING NETWORKS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             645
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,238
<ALLOWANCES>                                       275
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,167
<PP&E>                                             746
<DEPRECIATION>                                     501
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,655
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,039
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,204
<OTHER-SE>                                     (4,589)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,655
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,935
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,480
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  10
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    152
<INCOME-TAX>                                         2
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                150
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       150
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
        

</TABLE>
#### Reese SCOTT, Appellant, v. VANDERGRIFT-WILLIAMS FARMS, INC., a Florida corporation, and Lizzy Mae McKinney, Appellees.

Nos. 2458, 2459.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Sept. 30, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2012220EN.01000901.xml

| 25.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 220/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/9

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6620 — Platinum Equity/Caterpillar Logistics Services)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 220/03

On 19 July 2012, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6620. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6620. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE EARNINGS STATEMENT AND THE BALANCE SHEET AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             893
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,673
<ALLOWANCES>                                        96
<INVENTORY>                                      1,005
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,882
<PP&E>                                           6,045
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,582
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,880
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,535
<BONDS>                                            568<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        286
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,687
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,880
<SALES>                                          1,635
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,662
<CGS>                                              503
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      503
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   283<F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   7
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    294
<INCOME-TAX>                                       100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                194
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       194
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .37
<FN>
<F1>EXCLUDES COMPANY'S GUARANTEE OF ESOP DEBT:  240
<F2>ONLY INCLUDES R&D EXPENSE.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases 2010 Census
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB12-CN.11 **Contact:**  Public Information Office
301-763-3030
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  THURSDAY, FEB. 9, 2012 Note to Correspondents — SAS Code Now Available for Summary File 2 The Missouri State Data Center has released SAS code for 2010 Census Summary File 2, which can be accessed from the Missouri State Data Center website. Summary File 2 provides a new layer of detail to the population and housing topics released last year from the 2010 Census.  The SAS code can be downloaded and adapted by users who want to convert the Summary File 2 information, available on the Census Bureau's FTP site, to SAS datasets. SAS is a statistical software package used in social sciences. Summary File 2 is being released on a state-by-state flow basis through April. Information, such as age, relationship and homeownership, previously available only for an area's entire population is now available for specific race and ethnic groups in that community. States already released are Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon and Washington. The District of Columbia has also been released. Microsoft Access users can find Microsoft Access 2003 and 2007 table shells on the press kit page for Summary File 2. In addition, Summary File 2 statistics are available from American FactFinder.
  CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
# C_2013132EN.01001001.xml

| 9.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 132/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 132/10

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

8 May 2013

2013/C 132/05

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3135 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 129,89 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4535 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84690 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,5402 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2336 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,5910 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,862 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 293,31 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7000 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1361 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,3123 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,3570 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,2873 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3190 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,1934 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5629 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6138 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 421,55 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,9058 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,0665 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5710 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 779,48 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 3,8903 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 53,520 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 40,9017 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,551 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,6347 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 15,8073 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 71,0930 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3135

JPY

Japanese yen

129,89

DKK

Danish krone

7,4535

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84690

SEK

Swedish krona

8,5402

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2336

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,5910

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,862

HUF

Hungarian forint

293,31

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7000

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1361

RON

Romanian leu

4,3123

TRY

Turkish lira

2,3570

AUD

Australian dollar

1,2873

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3190

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,1934

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5629

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6138

KRW

South Korean won

1 421,55

ZAR

South African rand

11,9058

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,0665

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5710

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 779,48

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

3,8903

PHP

Philippine peso

53,520

RUB

Russian rouble

40,9017

THB

Thai baht

38,551

BRL

Brazilian real

2,6347

MXN

Mexican peso

15,8073

INR

Indian rupee

71,0930

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---