alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jessie BURKETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. R-364.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 13, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
[Cite as Kuebler v. Columbus Dept. of Public Safety, 2021-Ohio-647.]

{¶1} On December 30, 2020, a special master issued a report and 

recommendation (R&R) in this public-records case. The special master recommends 

denying requester’s claim for production of withheld portions of requested records. The 

special master further recommends that court costs be assessed to respondent 

because respondent did not disclose non-exempt headers, signature blocks, and 

disclaimers until after litigation had commenced. 

{¶2} Neither party has filed timely written objections to the R&R. Pursuant to 

R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), if neither party timely objects to a special master’s report and 

recommendation, this court is required to “promptly issue a final order adopting the 

report and recommendation, unless it determines that there is an error of law or other 

defect evident on the face of the report and recommendation.” 

{¶3} The court determines that there is no error of law or other defect evident on 

the face of the R&R of December 30, 2020. The court therefore adopts the special 

master’s R&R. Judgment is rendered in favor of respondent. Court costs are assessed 

against 

KENNETH J. KUEBLER 

 Requester 

 v. 

COLUMBUS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC 

SAFETY 

 Respondent 

Case No. 2020-00525PQ 

Judge Patrick E. Sheeran 

JUDGMENT ENTRY 
Case No. 2020-00525PQ -2- ENTRY 

respondent in accordance with the special master’s recommendation. The clerk shall 

serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. 

 

 PATRICK E. SHEERAN 

Judge 

Filed February 25, 2021 

Sent to S.C. Reporter 3/8/21
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

December 27, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129869 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 129869 

 COA: 253396 

Kent CC: 02-002085-FC 

JAMES EARL MCRAE, JR., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 15, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s1219 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 27, 2005 

Clerk
#### Thomas DAVIS, Jr., et al., Appellants, v. James A. KILLEN et al., Appellees.

No. 73-559.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 31, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
p.1 

OAR Box 1384 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

58) ll-E-18 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:05 AM Sheet 58 of 264 
P.2 

%2 ,., r. ^7~~9^^"^\ 

CONTACT REPORT 

From: Madeleine Strum, US EPA, OAQPS/ESD, Coatings and Consumer Products Group 

Date of Contact: February 6, 1995 

Contact: Mr. Robert Leitzman 

Company/Agency: Cytec Industries, Perrysburg Plant, Perrysburg, Ohio 

Telephone Number: 419 872 1411 

CONTACT SUMMARY: 

I contacted Mr. Leitzman with regard to a source reduction technique that was reported on 

Cytec's 1993 Screening Survey Response for the composite plastics industry. The survey 

response reported that Cytec had plans to enclose the mixing tanks in which bulk molding 

compound (BMC) is produced and recycle evaporative styrene emission losses back to the 

mixer

- . . b 2 o^.-rmec/bmiiii /* e*f**«< 

Mr. Leitzman indicated that thisvtechnique has already been instituted on a number of new 

•mix tanks, and that its effect has-been to reduce the quantity of styrene needed for BMC 

production (due to the decrease, in loss of styrene). The next step which is being worked on 

now is to E©weftt existin existingg mix tanks to-install the recycle lints. Tl mix tanks to-install the recycle lints. This is more complicated 

due to the difficulty in getting a complete seal on the existing mix equipment. These changes 

to the mix equipment are being instituted as a cost-saving measure that would both reduce 

styrene emissions and reduce the styrene, needed for BMC production. 

Mr. Leitzman indicated that there would still be emissions;fass'(5'ciated~with BMC production 

during the transfer of the BMC from the mix tanks into bag's/and/o'r cpntkiriersftcTibe shipped. 

ii'lli OCT i 0 po- •'/! 

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS: i I ^ i}j\ 

What is the range of the size capacity of mixing tanks and-tfie4ni3cing0^1& jtiriie* for which 

the styrene recycling technique is being utilized? "*--" 

5d>-Zr#- _' £,00 /--•/W-

£jc/e 7/'*'•-'• • tAc-r***3 fA> 

Have you investigated the feasibility of various size/mixing times for which the technique is 

technically or economically feasible (or not feasible), and if so, what were the results? 

fLn.cr,-e^ ;%. Irx „'l*-cce ii 

Have you replaced some/all of the methylene chloride (used for cleaning) with a non-HAP 

cleaning material? If so, what quantity was replaced and what cleaning operation is the 

methylene chloride still needed for? 

/Lyre, x.^Jefy S-O'is rtf ic <.**/>. At e&y /#«• Ck/vr. tO 

; s, stil l us a J in c*-e* s r «-g "*'<•*'<•"*> yu<ek i-x.'^-n^o.t.t/ 

) n C I e& n^t, n a • 

w?< 

/
#### Matias SILVA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-488.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

March 26, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2015088EN.01000301.xml

| 14.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/3

---

Notice for the attention of the persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/432, and in Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/427 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine

(2015/C 88/02)

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons and entities that appear in the Annex to Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP (1), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/432 (2), and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 (3), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/427 (4) concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine.

1

2

3

4

The Council of the European Union has decided that the persons and entities that appear in the abovementioned Annexes should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2014/145/CFSP and in Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine. The grounds for designations of those persons and entities appear in the relevant entries in those Annexes.

The attention of the persons and entities concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated in the websites in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 4 of the Regulation).

The persons and entities concerned may submit a request to the Council, before 1 July 2015, together with supporting documentation that the decision to include them on the abovementioned list should be reconsidered to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| DG C 1C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |
| E-mail: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

DG C 1C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

E-mail: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

The attention of the persons and entities concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council’s decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 78, 17.3.2014, p. 16.

1

(2)  OJ L 70, 14.3.2015, p. 47.

2

(3)  OJ L 78, 17.3.2014, p. 6.

3

(4)  OJ L 70, 14.3.2015, p. 1.

4

---
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 163 (Wednesday, August 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 42519]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18049]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel; RFA Panel: Tobacco Regulatory Science--Behavioral.
    Date: September 24, 2018.
    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military 
Road NW, Washington, DC 20015.
    Contact Person: Wenchi Liang, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Room 3150, MSC 7770, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-
0681, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#573b3e36393020641734242579393e3f79303821"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="731f1a121d140440331000015d1d1a1b5d141c05">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: Cardiovascular and Respiratory Sciences 
Integrated Review Group; Lung Cellular, Molecular, and Immunobiology 
Study Section.
    Date: September 25-26, 2018.
    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Bahia Resort Hotel, 998 West Mission Bay Drive, San 
Diego, CA 92109.
    Contact Person: George M. Barnas, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of 
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2180, MSC 7818, Bethesda, MD 
20892, 301-435-0696, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#096b687b67687a6e496a7a7b27676061276e667f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bbd9dac9d5dac8dcfbd8c8c995d5d2d395dcd4cd">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 16, 2018.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
 Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-18049 Filed 8-21-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF BREVARD COUNTY, Florida, et al., Petitioner, v. James P. MARIELLI, Respondent.

No. 39773.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 7, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 30, 1970.

Certiorari denied. 234 So.2d 383.

DREW, Acting C. J., and THORNAL, CARLTON and ADKINS, JJ., concur.

BOYD, J., dissents.
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3197 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.3197

                       One Hundred Third Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America


                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
 the twenty-fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-
                                  four


                                 An Act

  
 
  To redesignate the postal facility located at 2100 North 13th Street 
in Reading, Pennsylvania, as the ``Gus Yatron Postal Facility''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

    The postal facility located at 2100 North 13th Street in Reading, 
Pennsylvania, and known as the Reading General Mail Facility, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Gus Yatron Postal Facility''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the postal facility referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the Gus Yatron Postal 
Facility.







                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.







                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.`
# C_2018066EN.01005901.xml

| 21.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 66/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 66/59

---

P8_TA(2016)0138

EU-Georgia Common Aviation Area Agreement (accession of Croatia) ***

European Parliament legislative resolution of 28 April 2016 on the draft Council decision on conclusion, on behalf of the European Union and its Member States, of a Protocol amending the Common Aviation Area Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Georgia, of the other part, to take account of the accession to the European Union of the Republic of Croatia (12227/2014 — C8-0035/2015 — 2014/0134(NLE))

(Consent)

(2018/C 066/08)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (12227/2014), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (12227/2014),

| — | having regard to the draft Protocol (12226/2014), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Protocol (12226/2014),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 100(2) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0035/2015), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 100(2) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0035/2015),

| — | having regard to Rule 99(1), first and third subparagraphs, Rule 99(2), and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 99(1), first and third subparagraphs, Rule 99(2), and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A8-0128/2016), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A8-0128/2016),

| 1. | Gives its consent to conclusion of the protocol; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Gives its consent to conclusion of the protocol;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of Georgia. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of Georgia.

---
#### Pavloff, Admx. *v.*Clairton, Appellant.

Argued April 30, 1941.

Before Keller, P. J., Baldrige, Stadteeld, Rhodes, Hirt and Kenworthey, JJ.

*Charles A.*Lewis, for appellant.

*159October *2,*1941:

*Benjamin L. Steinberg,*with Mm *David S. Palkovitz,*for appellee.

Opinion by

Kenwokthey, J.,

This is an action in trespass to recover for the loss of certain personal property destroyed when the building in which plaintiff was a roomer collapsed, due to the alleged negligence of defendant in conducting an excavation project. The verdict was for plaintiff in the amount of $2,300 and the appeal is from the refusal of the defendant’s motion for new trial. Plaintiff himself was the only witness as to the identity and value of the articles lost; the question is whether the court erred in permitting him to state his opinion of the value of a number of them.

The articles concerning which the testimony of value is challenged are two violins, several articles of jewelry, two pairs of eye-glasses, some scientific books, two fountain pens, a camera, some pictures in frames, some china and glassware, a radio, a pair of field glasses, a typewriter, some paintings and a few other minor items.

Plaintiff was permitted, without objection, to state his opinion of the value of the clothing which was lost and defendant now concedes that the admission of this evidence was proper. In our opinion, plaintiff was qualified to give an opinion of the value of all the articles involved. The owner is deemed qualified, by reason of his relationship as owner, to give estimates of the value of what he owns regardless of his knowledge of property values, and the weight of such evidence is for the jury. *Czerwinski v. National-Ben Franklin Fire Ins. Co.,*138 Pa. Superior Ct. 84, 89,10 A. (2d) 40; *Esper v. Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co.,*113 Pa. Superior Ct. 243, 173 A. 724. The rule has even been applied to real estate. *Chauvin v. Superior Fire Ins. Co.,*283 Pa. 397, 129 A. 326.

*160There are several items, such as the scientific books, some pictures in frames and some paintings, which plaintiff had bought in Eome and had never unpacked from the containers in which they had been delivered to this country, the values of which were lumped. This was improper. *Di Foggi v. Commercial Union Assurance Co.,*83 Pa. Superior Ct. 518. But no specific objection was made to the admissibility of those items on that ground.1 Further, since the total values submitted to the jury by plaintiff on all the articles amounted to |2,388, and since the court, without objection, permitted the jury to add to their finding of value an additional amount as detention money calculated at the rate of 6% per year, the jury may very well have disregarded these items in arriving at their verdict, and, under the circumstances, the error would not, therefore, be reversible. See *Gearhart v. A. & L. Val. Elec. Rwy. Co.,*93 Pa. Superior Ct. 503, 507.

Defendant had ample opportunity to cross-examine plaintiff and, in our opinion, the motion for new trial was properly overruled

Judgment is affirmed.

1

*Murray v.*Frick, 277 Pa. 190, 121 A. 47.
#### Jerome BAIN, Appellant, v. ROMA FINANCIAL, INC., Biltmore Motors Corp., Marie Bain Halfon, Esther Bain Fusso and Kay Bain Weiner, Appellees.

No. 77-1690.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 3, 1978.

Stone, Sostehin & Gonzalez and Gisela Cardonne, Miami, for appellant.

Arango & Galarraga and Jorge Sanchez-Galarraga, Coral Gables, for appellees.

Before HAVERFIELD, C. J.*, and HEN-DRY and KEHOE, JJ.

*

 Chief Judge Haverfield participated in the decision in this case but did not hear oral argument.

KEHOE, Judge.

Appellant, plaintiff below, brings this appeal from an amended final judgment and order taxing costs. We affirm.

Appellant brought an action against ap-pellee Roma Financial, Inc., for having entered into a lease with his sisters, without his permission, for a parcel of property of which he was a co-owner as tenant in common. Thereafter, he filed an amended complaint and joined his sisters as co-defendants. Appellant sought, among other things to have the lease declared null and void. Subsequently, the matter proceeded to a jury trial, and, pursuant to appellees’ motion for a directed verdict, the trial court ruled that as a matter of law the lease was not void as a matter of law by the failure to join appellant in the lease. The jury, as to the other questions presented, returned a verdict in appellant’s favor, but found no damages due. Thereafter, the trial court *1028awarded an order of costs in favor of appel-lee Roma Financial, Inc., and entered an amended final judgment holding, among other things, that the lease was not void as a matter of law because of the failure of appellant to join in its execution.

Appellant phrases one of his points on appeal as follows: “Whether defendant’s [appellees] summary judgment motion should have been denied where the non-consenting plaintiff [appellant], co-owner, has a right to eject the lessees.”

Both appellant and appellees state that there are no Florida cases directly in line with the point on appeal. However, we have found persuasive authorities from other jurisdictions cited in an Annotation, 49 A.L.R.2d 797 (1956), that support the trial court’s finding that the lease agreement was not void as a matter of law for the failure to join appellant in the lease. Accordingly, we hold that this point is without merit. We note that appellant has neither sought ejectment of the lessees nor attempted to gain possession of the property.

We have carefully reviewed appellant’s other two points on appeal and find them to be without merit. See, e. g., *Huffman v. Peek,*102 So.2d 641 (Fla.2d DCA 1958); and § 57.041 Fla.Stats. (1977).

Affirmed.
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

Summary of 2014 Cash Bonus Plan 
 Target
bonuses for named executive officers of AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) under the 2014 Cash Bonus Plan (the “Plan”) will range from 35% to 50% of such executive’s 2014 base salary. The amount of cash bonus, if
any, for each named executive officer will be based on both the named executive officer achieving his or her individual performance goals and on the Company meeting the 2014 corporate objectives approved by the Board. The 2014 corporate objectives
are primarily related to product development, including regulatory approval of Zalviso and related commercial preparation and financial objectives. The target bonuses for the Company’s named executive officers for 2014 are as follows: 

 

					
	 Named Executive Officer
	  	Target Bonus
(as a percentage of
FY 2014 Base Salary)	 
	 Richard A. King
	  	 	50	%
	 James H. Welch
	  	 	37.5	%
	 Pamela P. Palmer
	  	 	37.5	%
	 David H. Chung
	  	 	37.5	%
	 Lawrence G. Hamel
	  	 	35	%
	 Badri Dasu
	  	 	35	%

 Mr. King’s cash bonus under the Plan shall be based 100% on the achievement of the 2014 corporate objectives. The
cash bonus for all other named executive officers shall be based 40% on the achievement of his or her individual performance goals, as determined by the Board, and 60% on the achievement of the 2014 corporate objectives. The named executive
officers’ actual bonuses may exceed 100% of target in the event performance exceeds the predetermined goals.