alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Mary E. Conrad et al., Respondents, v Child’s Hospital, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

—Mercure, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Harris, J.), entered March 28, 1990 in Albany County, which denied a motion by defendant Child’s Hospital for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it.

Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover for defendants’ claimed medical malpractice in causing blisters on plaintiff Mary E. Conrad’s right thigh during the course of arthroscopic surgery performed at defendant Child’s Hospital (here*953inafter defendant). Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it and now appeals Supreme Court’s order denying its motion.

We affirm. There is no question that Conrad’s skin was clear at the commencement of the surgical procedure and that blisters were present on her upper right thigh thereafter. It is also undisputed that, prior to surgery, a tourniquet was placed on Conrad’s upper right thigh and that a physician’s assistant employed by defendant elevated her leg and bathed the area immediately below the tourniquet with Betadine. In opposition to defendant’s motion, plaintiffs presented the affidavit of Albert Schein, an orthopedic surgeon, who opined, based upon his review of Conrad’s medical records, that the blistering could only have resulted from excessive puddling of the Beta-dine solution into the soft padding underneath the tourniquet and that the failure to take known and accepted precautions to avoid such an occurrence constituted a deviation from standard and accepted medical practice and led directly to Conrad’s injuries. Contrary to defendant’s assertion, Schein’s affidavit was adequate to demonstrate the meritorious nature of plaintiffs’ claim *(see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 326-327; *Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center,*64 NY2d 851; 76 NY Jur 2d, Malpractice, § 316, at 325-326; *cf., Amsler v Verrilli,*119 AD2d 786, 787) and was, therefore, sufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment. Finally, on this record we see no basis for a grant of partial summary judgment. Accordingly, the order of Supreme Court should be affirmed.

Casey, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr. and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1331 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize certain 

programs relating to nonpoint source management, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 25, 2019 

Mrs. CRAIG (for herself and Mr. MAST) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize certain programs relating to nonpoint source 

management, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Local Water Protection 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS. 

7 Section 319(j) of the Federal Water Pollution Control 

8 Act (33 U.S.C. 1329(j)) is amended by striking ‘‘sub9 sections (h) and (i) not to exceed’’ and all that follows 

10 through ‘‘fiscal year 1991’’ and inserting ‘‘subsections (h) 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1331 IH

1 and (i) $200,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2020 

2 through 2024’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

MOBILE SCANNING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

Appellant

v.

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Appellee

______________________ 

2014-1720

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, in No. IPR2013-

00093.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

CHARLES JOHN ROGERS, Conley Rose, P.C., Houston, 

TX, argued for appellant.

MITCHELL S. FELLER, Gottlieb Rackman & Reisman, 

P.C., New York, NY, argued for appellee.

NATHAN K. KELLEY, Office of the Solicitor, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for 

intervenor Michelle K. Lee. Also represented by JEREMIAH 

HELM, MOLLY R. SILFEN, THOMAS W. KRAUSE. 
 

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (WALLACH, MAYER, and CHEN, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

April 13, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

Date Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court
Date: July24, 2014 Document Control Officer 7407M 

## RECEIVED OPPTCBIC 

## 2014AUG -4 AM 10:

## 52

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, DC 20460 Attention: TSCA Section 4 CFR 40.799 (Docket# EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0112) 

# ••• DyStar®/•• 209 WatlingtonIndustrialDrive ReidsvilleNC27320 USA Tel: 336-342-6631/800-443-8814 Fax: 336-634-3324 CBIC Control Number 

# 361245

This letter is to request exemption from testing requirements forthe substance listed below as required under Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0112. CAS number: 127-68-4 (Benzenesulfonic acid, 3-nitro-, sodium salt) Test requirements: A3, F2 This material is not manufactured by DyStar nor is it used in any production processing. It is re-packed only (from bags to drums) as a sourced product. Projected amountto be re-packed is not expected to exceed 25,000 lbs peryear. Sandy S. DyStar LP. '

209 Watlington Industrial Dr. Reidsville, NC 27320 336-342-6631 ext 398



# /} VI L} 

# ;rvw o 

### -I
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of the President and Chief Executive Officer


pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the


Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002








In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Capital Southwest Corporation (the "Company") for the year ended March 31, 2022 (the “Report”), I, Bowen S. Diehl, President and Chief Executive Officer of Capital Southwest Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:





1 the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and


2 the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:  May 24, 2022By:/s/ Bowen S. DiehlBowen S. DiehlPresident and Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 23.1** **CONSENT    OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     The Board of Directors    Bowne & Co., Inc.:     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration    statements (Nos.    333-102046,333-64836,333-79409,333-81639,    2-96887,    33-48831,33-35810 and    333-57045)    on    Forms S-8    and in the registration statements (Nos.    333-109810,333-25861,333-25849,    and    333-18629)    on    Forms S-3    of Bowne & Co., Inc. and subsidiaries of our reports    dated March 14, 2007, with respect to the consolidated    balance sheets of Bowne & Co., Inc. and subsidiaries as    of December 31, 2006 and 2005, and the related consolidated    statements of operations, stockholders’ equity, and cash    flows, for each of the years in the three-year period ended    December 31, 2006, and the related financial statement    schedule, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of    internal control over financial reporting as of    December 31, 2006 and the effectiveness of internal control    over financial reporting as of December 31, 2006, which    reports appear in the December 31, 2006 annual report on    Form 10-K    of Bowne & Co., Inc.     As discussed in our report dated March 14, 2007, the    Company adopted the provisions of Statement of Financial    Accounting Standards No. 123 (Revised 2004),    “Share-Based Payment” as of January 1, 2006,    Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 158,    “Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and    Other Postretirement Plans”, as of December 31, 2006,    and Securities and Exchange Commission Staff Accounting Bulletin    No. 108, “Considering the Effects of Prior Year    Misstatements when Quantifying Misstatements in the Current Year    Financial Statement”, as of December 31, 2006.     /s/ KPMG LLP     New York, New York    March 14, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 76 (Thursday, April 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 23476]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9387]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-1470-000]


Energia Sierra Juarez U.S., LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Energia Sierra Juarez U.S., LLC's application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is May 2, 2012.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC Online service, please email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3a7c7f687975545653545f694f4a4a55484e7a5c5f4859145d554c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="94d2d1c6d7dbfaf8fdfaf1c7e1e4e4fbe6e0d4f2f1e6f7baf3fbe2">[email protected]</span></a>, or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: April 12, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-9387 Filed 4-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
CASE NO: 01-15-00224-CV

IN THE 1st COURT OF APPEALS

AT HOUSTON

TODD DAVID ROGERS , APPELLANT

V.

GINA MARIE ROGERS, APPELLEE 

From the 434TH District Court

Trial Court Case number 12-DCV-199022

Fort Bend County, Texas

APPELLANT’S REQUEST TO ABATE 

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS:

Appellant’s Counsel respectfully requests that the Court to enter an order abating the 

pending appeal and in support of that request would show unto this Court as follows:

I.

Appellant filed Notice of Appeal on the day before the case was set for entry of judgment 

in the trial court. On the day in question the final decree of divorce was not entered or signed by 

the court. The proceeding were reset to another date for entry and due to unforeseen 

circumstances that entry also did not occur. The case was then reset to April 17th, 2015 for the 

entry of a final judgement but unfortunately that entry date was also reset to May 15th, 2015. 

ACCEPTED

01-15-00224-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

4/15/2015 6:42:14 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/15/2015 6:42:14 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
II.

As a result of the above described issues a final appealable judgment has not been entered by the

trial court at this time. Appellant reasonably anticipated the entry of the judgement based upon

the trial court’s rendition but to date the judgment is not final. It is Appellant’s belief that upon

entry of the final judgment he will be seeking immediate temporary relief from this court and as

a result of that concern, is requesting that this honorable court abate this pending appeal pending

the entry of a final judgement.

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Appellant respectfully requests that this court enter an order

abating this appeal pending further notice from the parties and action from the trial court.

Respectfully Submitted,

The Mahoney Law Firm

3668 Burke

Pasadena, Texas 77504

Phone 281-998-9450

Fax 281-998-9430

E-Mail trip888@aol.com

/s/ Walter P. Mahoney Jr.

Walter P. Mahoney Jr.

Attorney for Appellant
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I Walter P. Mahoney Jr. do hereby certify that on the 15th day of April I forwarded the foregoing

Motion to Marlene Zinsmeister to attempt to resolve this issue. Marlen Zinsmeister has not yet 

advised me of her position. As soon as she does that information will be provided to this Court.

/s/Walter P. Mahoney Jr.

Walter P. Mahoney Jr.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Walter P. Mahoney Jr. do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion was duly and

properly served upon opposing counsel on the 15th day of April both before and after it was filed.

In addition I made phone calls to his office to seek her position.

 /s/ Walter P. Mahoney Jr.

Walter P. Mahoney Jr.
|Exhibit 21                                                                          
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Subsidiaries                                                                        
|Avcon Industries, Inc., a Kansas Corporation                                        
|Butler National Services, Inc., a Florida Corporation,                              
|BCS Design, Inc., a Kansas Corporation                                              
|Butler National, Inc., a Nevada Corporation                                         
|Butler Temporary Services, Inc., a Missouri Corporation                             
|Butler National Corporation, a Nebraska Corporation, formerly Woodson Avionics, Inc.
|Kansas International Corporation, a Kansas Corporation                              
|Butler National Service Corporation, a Kansas Corporation                           
|AVT Corporation, a Texas Corporation                                                
|Indian Gaming Corporation, a Kansas Corporation
Exhibit 32.2





Certification required by Rule 13a-14(b) or


Rule 15d-14(b) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code





In connection with the Quarterly Report of OHA Investment Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Cory E. Gilbert, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





|    |                                                                                                                                  
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

|    |                                                                                                                                                     
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:May 10, 2016/s/ Cory E. GilbertCory E. GilbertChief Financial Officer and Treasurer
<PAGE>
 
                                                                 Exhibit 10.15.1
 
                        FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT

NESTAWAY DIVISION OF AXIA INCORPORATED ("Seller") and MAYTAG CORPORATION
("Buyer") mutually desire their Purchasing Partnering Agreement (the
"Agreement" effective January 1, 1996) concerning dishwasher racks be amended as
follows (hereinafter the "Amendment"). This Amendment shall be effective as of
the date of signing (the "Effective Date").

Page 2, Section III of the Agreement is amended to strike the following:

     "In the event, during any 12 month period beginning January 1, 1998 (the
     "second period") Purchaser's orders with Seller are less than the
     Purchasing Goal, Seller may continue the relationship on the terms stated
     herein, or terminate this Agreement with six (6) months written notice. The
     preceding sentence states the sole recourse of Seller for any inability by
     Purchaser to meet the stated Purchasing Goal."

Page 2, Section IV of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and the following
shall be inserted in its place:

     "The Agreement, as amended from time to time, shall expire as of the close
     of business on December 31, 2003 unless earlier terminated as provided in
     the Agreement."

Page 3, Section VII (l) of the Agreement is changed to read as follows:

     "Nestaway will change the dishrack selling prices to Maytag from the prices
     in effect on Sept. 8, 1997 as follows:

          A. Reduces selling prices by       as of the Effective date.

          B. Nestaway will reduce its selling prices thru providing cost
             reductions each year beginning in 1998. A minimum         annual
             reduction in selling price is guaranteed.

Page 4, Section IX of the Agreement is changed by deleting the existing language
in its entirety and replacing it with the following:

     "For each year during the time of this Agreement, or any extension thereof,
     Seller will pay Purchaser a volume rebate on the annual net shipment of
     Racks to Maytag Jackson Dishwashing Products for its McKenzie, TN plant. A
     rebate in the amount of        per Rack will be paid on all Racks shipped
     above an annual volume based on       per day 



<PAGE>
 
           for       days, or         racks. Payment of the earned discount will
be made prior to March first of the following year."

Signed this 11th day of September, 1997.

NESTAWAY DIVISION AXIA INCORPORATED

By /s/ David H. Chesney    9/17/97
  --------------------------------
       David H. Chesney
       President & General Manager

MAYTAG CORPORATION

By /s/ B.C. Fowler
  --------------------------------
       B.C. Fowler
       Vice President & General Manager
       Jackson Dishwashing Products
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7554

CASEY RAFAEL TYLER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

OLIVER WASHINGTON,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,

Senior District Judge. (5:14-ct-03126-H)

Submitted: March 30, 2015 Decided: April 10, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Casey Rafael Tyler, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Casey Rafael Tyler appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b) (2012), and its subsequent order denying his motion 

to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Tyler v. Washington, No. 5:14-ct-03126-H (E.D.N.C. July 

9, 2014 & Oct. 9, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
' ' 3ql~-~ 

-· . . .o c2_6_~ ~0/5 li::jj -*k.:1- . Gtc./. ~_;u_ ~L/lJ ~ RECEIVED IN 

IPJ o; Uc~-7JZ-7_S_lo_L~~ 3() 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAlS 

MAY 28 2015 

erwct . ~ i ~ F'-~0:(~ A5el Acosta, Cter~ j2t2__&c;;C /cfl30?f~ I _ _ 

~./L}kJ 78_2ll! 

riJ.eaL_L_L_CL_; 

.JAL1~A.Lc;_q_..7- l{:J..':t_ ... _a 'l~ -~ a&zff 

LL' 6_iZ/Cl,_d!_tf_:3_'J7 _3_g_lo__::_0-2.. .• 

1- I 

~ 

oL. ~ {!CL4..Q. :&_12~~~iutt-~£ r (7 ___, . ( 

-· 

17 

J.' -, .~~f'I]!La. Po~b~~~ ~~ LL. ' la.M.e ~ dl~~e_ 

~';/Lit/' ~-f-4t ~ .9-50 at~ ??/ tt_L~~ _, _, 

~#A 

/~ ~ lv Ia£ j w _HJ.u)~ ( / . 

d;;;f13_leM;_ 

-· -
PACKAGED SYSTEM CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONERS: COST AND EFFICIENCY DATA - Reverse EngineeringTotalTotal% Over Manufacturer's Cost Multiplier Manuf. Equip. Install. Installed Annual Annual Compr. Compr.Level DescriptionBaseline ARI mean Reverse Engr Cost Price Price Price Repair Maint. SEER Mfg. Cost PriceSEER Split Packaged Split Packaged(1998$) (1998$) (1998$) (1998$) (1998$) (1998$) (Btu/Whr) (1998$) (1998$)0 Baseline (SEER=10) 0% 100% 100% 100% 100%$511 $1,240$1,367 $2,607 $34 $36 10 $122 $2781 10% Impr. (SEER=11) 10% 116% 119% 112% 109%$557 $1,329$1,367 $2,696 $34 $36 11 $152 $3322 20% Impr. (SEER=12) 20% 136% 130% 128% 116%$593 $1,398$1,367 $2,765 $34 $36 12 $153 $3343 30% Impr. (SEER=13) 30% 163% 163% 144% 143%$731 $1,665$1,367 $3,032 $35 $36 13 $167 $3604 40% Impr. (SEER=14) 40% 203% 187% 182% 174%$889 $1,971$1,367 $3,338 $54 $36 14 $167 $3605 50% Impr. (SEER=15) 50% 240% 223% 199% 187%$956 $2,099$1,367 $3,466 $57 $36 15 $221 $4586 80% Impr. (SEER=18) 80% 240% 223% 199% 187%$956 $2,099$1,367 $3,466 $57 $36 18 $221 $458Split PackagedBaseline Mfg Cost $394 $511Installation Price $1,279 $1,367Distributior MarkupDealer MarkupMarginal MarkupsCumulativeCumulativeNew Retrofit Wt.Avg / BaselineMarkup ProbabilityMarkup Probability34% 66%Sampled Markup1.027 1%1.050 1%Manufacturer Markup 1.23 1.23 1.23 1.231.056 10%1.150 10%Distributor Markup 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.371.069 20%1.190 20%Dealer Markup 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.271.077 30%1.219 30%Builder Markup 1.26 1.00 1.09 1.09Sales Tax Distribution for Retrofit1.084 40%1.244 40%10% 30% 38% 22%1.091 50%1.267 50%Sales Tax 1.00 1.07 1.04 1.041.05 1.06 1.07 1.081.098 60%1.290 60%1.105 70%1.314 70%Service Cost $361.114 80%1.343 80%1.126 90%1.384 90%New/Retrofit Group1 1=New, 2=Retrofit1.155 99%1.483 99%
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART THREE

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

TITLE II

FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS

FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS

CHAPTER 3

PROHIBITION OF QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS BETWEEN MEMBER STATES

Article 34

(ex Article 28 TEC)

(ex Article 28 TEC)

Quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between Member States.

---