alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In re Ted A. LANDRY.

No. 89-OB-0227.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 30, 1989.

In re Landry, Ted A.; — Plaintiff(s); applying for permission to Take the Louisiana State Bar Examination.

Granted. Relator shall be permitted to take the February bar examination. The issue of relator’s moral character shall be pretermitted for the present, but shall be resolved prior to relator’s admission to the bar.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>              5
<LEGEND>               This schedule contains summary financial information
                       extracted from Scotsman Industries, Inc. Consolidated 
                       Balance Sheet as of December 31, 1995 and Scotsman 
                       Industries, Inc. Consolidated Statement of Income for 
                       the Twelve Months Ended December 31, 1995 and is
                       qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
                       statements.
<MULTIPLIER>                      1000
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                    JAN-02-1995
<PERIOD-END>                      DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     12-MOS
<CASH>                            15,808
<SECURITIES>                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                     54,500
<ALLOWANCES>                      2,960
<INVENTORY>                       52,251
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  131,342
<PP&E>                            46,373
<DEPRECIATION>                    39,531
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    275,943
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             76,514
<BONDS>                           74,719
<COMMON>                          915
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>             0
<PREFERRED>                       2,000
<OTHER-SE>                        109,404
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      275,943
<SALES>                           324,291
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  324,291
<CGS>                             236,402
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     236,402
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                6,326
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   28,128
<INCOME-TAX>                      12,720
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               15,408
<DISCONTINUED>                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                   0
<CHANGES>                         0
<NET-INCOME>                      15,408
<EPS-PRIMARY>                     1.61
<EPS-DILUTED>                     1.45

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Petition of William W. Farley, as State Commissioner of Excise, Respondent, *v.*John W. Sage et al., Comprising the Firm of Jones & Maloney, Appellants.

*Matter of Farley*v. *Sage,*164 App. Div. 911, affirmed.

(Argued February 25, 1916;

decided March 14, 1916.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered July 13, 1914, which affirmed an order of Special Term *685canceling and revoking a liquor tax certificate upon the ground that the owner permitted the premises to become disorderly and the resort of disorderly persons.

*David E. Powers*for appellants.

*Louis M. King*and *A. M. Sperry*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs. The errors in the admission of evidence are disregarded as not affecting the substantial rights of the defendants (Code Civ. Pro. § 1317); no opinion.

Concur: Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddebaok, Seabury and Pound, JJ. Dissenting: Cardozo, J.
#### MEETING MAKERS, INC., Appellant, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Appellee.

No. 86-2798.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 8, 1987.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 26, 1987.

Proenza, White, Huck & Suarez, P.A., and Robert C. Tilghman, Miami, for appellant.

Steel Hector & Davis and Kathleen A. Monahan and Peter M. Kramer, Miami, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART and JORGENSON, JJ.

JORGENSON, Judge.

Meeting Makers, Inc., appeals from a final order of the trial court dismissing with prejudice their second amended complaint against American Airlines, Inc., for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. We affirm the order of dismissal upon our finding that the warranty disclaimers contained in the contract are valid under Florida law and that these dis*701claimers clearly obviate American’s liability.

Meeting Makers had entered into written contracts with American for the lease of a modem and the purchase of a computer system. The contracts contained conspicuous disclaimers of all warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.1 The disclaimers fully complied with the requirements of sections 672.-316(2), 672.302, Florida Statutes (1985). The trial court properly dismissed with prejudice Meeting Makers’ second amended complaint against American where American’s liability was controlled entirely by the limitations expressed in the contract. *See Earman Oil Co., Inc. v. Burroughs Corp.,*625 F.2d 1291 (5th Cir.1980); *Hi Neighbor Enter., Inc. v. Burroughs,*492 F.Supp. 823 (N.D.Fla.1980); *Rudy’s Glass Constr. Co. v. E.F. Johnson Co.,*404 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

Meeting Makers’ argument that the contract was one of adhesion and was unenforceable due to unconscionability is without merit. As the party asserting the claim of unconscionability, Meeting Makers bore the burden of proof. *Earman Oil,*625 F.2d at 1299. Meeting Makers completely failed to substantiate its allegations that the parties were of unequal bargaining power. Indeed, the record reveals that several amendments were made to the stock contract offered by American at Meeting Makers’ request, thereby belying the adhesion contract claimed by Meeting Makers.

Accordingly, the trial court’s order is

AFFIRMED.

1

. The contracts contained the following disclaimers:

> Seller represents and warrants to Buyer that Seller will have good and marketable title to any Equipment delivered hereunder. Seller further represents and warrants to Buyer that the Equipment delivered hereunder will be in working order when installed. EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED IN THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH, SELLER MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS AS TO THE MATERIAL, WORKMANSHIP OR MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OF THE EQUIPMENT PROVIDED HEREUNDER NOR SHALL SELLER HAVE ANY LIABILITY IN NEGLIGENCE OR TORT WITH RESPECT TO THE EQUIPMENT. BUYER AGREES THAT SELLER SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR CONSEQUENTIAL OR SPECIAL DAMAGES UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
#### STATE ex rel. Clauzel B. CHENIER v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 89-KH-0048.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1989.

In re Chenier, Clauzel B.; — Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court, Div. “F”, No. 16164084; to *1209the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW88-1176.

j)enje(j
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned hereby certifies that,
to his or her knowledge, (i) the Form 10-Q filed by Cape Fear Bank Corporation (the Issuer) for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in that report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer on the dates and for the periods presented therein.



|                        |  |                                      
|----------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: November 10, 2006 |  | /s/ Cameron Coburn                   
|                        |  | Cameron Coburn                       
|                        |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            
            
            U.S. Air Force
                    U.S. Air Force
        Search
                    Search AF.mil:
                        Search
                Search AF.mil:
                    Search
    Home





    News
    
        Commentaries

    Features

    Photos

    Art

    Air Force TV

    Radio

    Week in Photos





    About Us
    
        Air Force Senior Leaders    
        SECAF

    CSAF

    CMSAF

    Biographies

    Adjunct Professors

    Fact Sheets

    Commander's Call Topics    
        CCT Archive

    CSAF Reading List    
        2018 CSAF Reading List

    2017 CSAF Reading List

    2016 CSAF Reading List

    2015 CSAF Reading List

    2014 CSAF Reading List

    2013 CSAF Reading List

    2012 CSAF Reading List

    2011 CSAF Reading List

    2010 CSAF Reading List

    2009 CSAF Reading List

    2008 CSAF Reading List

    2007 CSAF Reading List

    2006 CSAF Reading List

    50 Years of the CMSAF

    The Book

    Speeches Archive    
        Former AF Top 3 Viewpoints and Speeches

    Air Force Warrior Games 2019

    Air Force Strategic Documents

    Desert Storm 25th Anniversary

    DoD Warrior Games

    Portraits in Courage    
        Portraits In Courage Vol. I

    Portraits In Courage Vol. II

    Portraits In Courage Vol. III

    Portraits In Courage Vol. IV

    Portraits In Courage Vol. V

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VI

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VII

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VIII

    Portraits In Courage Vol. IX

    Portraits In Courage Vol. X

    Chapman MoH

    The Air Force We Need

    Events 2020





    AF Sites
    
        Social Media Sites

    Site Registration





    AF Content Management





    Careers  
 Home
  News
  Photos
 Air Force Photos Search
 Search
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Full Size (1.2 MB)
 
 AFC16 B-21 AIR FORCE AFA
 Photo Gallery
 Quick Links
                            Join the Air ForceSite MapQuestionsContact UsRSSFOIAIGAF SitesAccessibilityEEOLink DisclaimerStrategic APRSuicide PreventionSAPRUSA.govNo FEAR Act
                    Connect
                    Official United States Air Force Website
                        Subscribe to USAF News and Information
          Submit
Open Literature Review Screen

Chemical Name: Atrazine

CAS No: 1912-24-9

Citation: Guasch, H., I. Munoz, et al. (1997). "Changes in atrazine toxicity throughout

succession ofstream periphyton communities." Journal of Applied Phycology 9(2): 137-

146. (ECOTOX #020359). (VVlKIP i..fb'l, f:. ill $""")

Date of Screen: 08/24/09

Rationale for Not Conducting a Full Open Literature Review Summary: The study

reported ranges for the a.i. concentrations employed in the study; therefore, the a.i.

exposure concentrations were not defined.

Primary Reviewer: Lisa Muto, Staff Scientist, Cambridge Environmental Inc.

Secondary Reviewer: Teri Myers, Senior Scientist, Cambridge Environmental Inc.

III1IIIIII

2087830
#### CHRYSLER CREDIT CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Norman LALIBERTY, Appellee.

No. BJ-189.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 29, 1987.

*68William D. Hall, Jr., of Pennington, Wilkinson, Dunlap, Butler & Gautier, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Conrad C. Bishop, Jr., Perry, for appel-lee.

SHIVERS, Judge.

The appellant in this case, Chrysler Credit Corporation (Chrysler), appeals the trial court’s denial of its motion to dismiss or to transfer venue. We affirm.

Appellee/plaintiff, a resident of Taylor County, Florida, purchased an automobile from Tallahassee Chrysler-Plymouth and financed it through the appellant, Chrysler Credit Corporation. Appellee later transferred the car to a third person, from whom it was eventually repossessed. On July 23, 1985, appellee filed a complaint against Chrysler Credit Corporation and the Credit Bureau of Tallahassee, Inc., in which he alleged that Chrysler reported to the Credit Bureau that it repossessed the car from appellee, and that the Credit Bureau in turn reported this information to other financial institutions, causing damage to appellee’s credit standing in the commu-mty. The complaint was filed in the Third Judicial Circuit, appellee alleging that he was a resident of Taylor County and that the cause of action arose in Taylor County. Ghrysler’s motion to dismiss or to transfer venue was denied, the trial court stating at the hearing that “whether founded in fact or not, the plaintiff did allege that the cause of action occurred in Taylor County.”

We agree with the trial court’s finding and affirm. It is the plaintiffs prerogative to initially select venue in accordance with the applicable venue statute.1 When venue is alleged in the initial pleading by the plaintiff, “it is sufficient if it is laid in the margin even though it is differently and erroneously laid in the body of the pleading.” Trawick, *Florida Practice and Procedure,*section 5-6 (1986). Once the plaintiff has selected venue, the burden falls on the party challenging venue to demonstrate by affidavit or sworn pleading that it is improper. *Perry Building Systems, Inc. v. Hayes & Bates, Inc.,*361 So.2d 443 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). *See also Eth-Wha, Inc. v. Blankenship,*483 So.2d 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Having failed to file an affidavit or sworn pleading, or to present any evidence to establish that the cause of action did not arise in Taylor County, Florida, the defendant in this case has failed to sustain its burden of challenging the plaintiff's venue. Accordingly, the trial court’s denial of Chrysler’s motion to dismiss or to transfer venue is AFFIRMED.

SMITH and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.

1

. The allegations contained in appellee's complaint appear to state a cause of action pursuant to section 559.72(5), Florida Statutes. According to section 559.77:

> A debtor may bring a civil action against a person violating the provisions of this part in the circuit court of the county in which the alleged violator resides or has his principal place of business or in the county wherein the alleged violation occurred.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2410 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 1,3-Benzenedicarboxamide, 

N, N′-bis-(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidinyl)-. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mrs. HAGAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 1,3- 

Benzenedicarboxamide, N, N′-bis-(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4- 

piperidinyl)-. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. 1,3-BENZENEDICARBOXAMIDE, N, N′-BIS-(2,2,6,6- 

4 TETRAMETHYL-4-PIPERIDINYL)-. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.04.11 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

7 1,3-Benzenedicarboxamide, N, N′-bis-(2,2,6,6-tetrameth8 yl-4-piperidinyl)-) is amended by striking the date in the 

9 effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2410 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2141 

To extend the duty suspension on 2,4-Xylidine. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. ALEXANDER (for himself and Mr. CORKER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the duty suspension on 2,4-Xylidine. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. 2,4-XYLIDINE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.10.43 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 2,4-Xylidine) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and 

7 inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

10 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2141 IS

1 the date that is 15 days after the date of enactment of 

2 this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### EDWARD BRENNAN *v.*BURGER KING CORPORATION

(SC 15777)

Callahan, C. J., and Norcott, Palmer, McDonald and Peters, Js.

Argued February 19

officially released March 24, 1998

*205
      *James P. Brennan,*for the appellant (defendant).

*Kie Westby,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

*Opinion*

PER CURIAM.

The sole issue in this certified appeal is whether the Appellate Court properly concluded that the plaintiff had proven his future medical expenses to a reasonable degree of medical probability. The plaintiff, Edward Brennan, slipped and fell on an icy section of the parking lot at the Burger King restaurant in Water-town. The parking lot was owned by the defendant, Burger King Corporation. The fall caused serious injuries to the plaintiff’s right leg, which resulted in it being two inches shorter than his left leg, leaving the plaintiff permanently disabled. Thereafter, the plaintiff brought an action for negligence against the defendant. The case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $199,500, of which $40,000 represented future economic damages.

The defendant moved to set aside that portion of the judgment representing future economic damages on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to prove his future medical expenses to a reasonable degree of medical probability. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion, and the defendant thereafter appealed to the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. *Brennan*v. *Burger King Corp.,*46 Conn. App. 76, 698 A.2d 364 (1997). We granted the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal, limited *206to the following issue: “Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the plaintiff had proven future medical expenses to a reasonable probability?” *Brennan*v. *Burger King*Corp., 243 Conn. 920, 701 A.2d 340 (1997).

Having examined the record on appeal, studied the briefs and heard the arguments of the parties, we conclude that the judgment of the Appellate Court should be affirmed. The issue on which we granted certification was properly resolved in the thoughtful and comprehensive opinion of the Appellate Court. It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained therein. See *Murphy*v. *Buonato,*241 Conn. 319, 321, 696 A.2d 320 (1997); *Gajewski*v. *Pavelo,*236 Conn. 27, 30, 670 A.2d 318 (1996); *Sharp*v. *Wyatt, Inc.,*230 Conn. 12, 16, 644 A.2d 871 (1994).

The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
<LEGEND>                           This schedule contains summary information
                                   extracted from the Consolidated Statements
                                   Operations and Consolidated Balance Sheets
                                   of EFTEK Corp. And is qualified in its
                                   entirety by reference to such financial
                                   statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                              0000846476
<NAME>                             EFTEK Corp.
<MULTIPLIER>                                1
       
<S>                               <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                    Jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                      Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          12-MOS
<CASH>                                 32,002
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                          65,598
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      137,634
<PP&E>                              4,830,629
<DEPRECIATION>                        133,537 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      5,056,209
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               1,109,380
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                               10,829
<OTHER-SE>                          3,295,738
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        5,056,209
<SALES>                               443,727
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      443,727
<CGS>                                 419,959
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       2,074,142
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      (57,525)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     58,314
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (1,687,940)
<INCOME-TAX>                              640
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (1,688,580)
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                       (1,688,580)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            (.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                            (.17)
#### STATE ex rel. Wilson DUGAR v. Frank BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 85-KH-2103.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 20, 1987.

In re Dugar, Wilson; applying for supervisory writs; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “D”, No. 251-453.

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SCOTSMAN
INDUSTRIES, INC. CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 28, 1997 AND SCOTSMAN
INDUSTRIES, INC. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED
DECEMBER 28, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1997
<CASH>                                          24,085
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  102,880
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,371
<INVENTORY>                                     75,350
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               227,096
<PP&E>                                          86,762
<DEPRECIATION>                                  50,866
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 660,124
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          147,947
<BONDS>                                        321,132
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,076    
<OTHER-SE>                                     141,578
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   660,124
<SALES>                                        571,588
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               571,588
<CGS>                                          429,598
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  429,598
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,358
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 37,561
<INCOME-TAX>                                    18,642
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             18,919
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (633)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,286
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.69
        

</TABLE>
#### Charles SMITH v. ALLIED CHEMICAL CORPORATION, et al.

No. 87-C-2670.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 8, 1988.

In re Smith, Charles; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CA86-1438; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “I”, No. 252-425.

Prior report: La.App., 517 So.2d 250.

Denied.

DENNIS and CALOGERO, JJ., would grant the writ.