alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James E. Duffy et al., Respondents, v Liberty Machine Co., Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, et al., Defendant, and GAF Corporation, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. Tarkett, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 389]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries based upon negligence and strict products liability (1) the defendant GAF Corporation appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Silverman, J.), dated February 14, 1994, as denied the branches of its motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ first, third, and fourth causes of action and all cross claims based on those causes of action, and (2) the third-party defendant Tarkett, Inc., separately appeals from so much of the same order as denied the branches of its separate motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ first, third, and fourth causes of action insofar as they are asserted against the defendants GAF Corporation and Liberty Machine Co., Inc.

Ordered that the appeal of Tarkett, Inc., is dismissed as withdrawn; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which denied the branch of GAF Corporation’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ first cause of action based upon strict products liability, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of GAF Corporation’s motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from and reviewed; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendant GAF Corporation is awarded one bill of costs.

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s conclusion, the evidence demonstrates that neither the defendant GAF Corporation (hereinafter GAF) nor its predecessor in interest, the defendant Ruberoid Company, were anything more than casual sell*614ers of planishing machines such as the one involved in plaintiff’s accident, and that neither was engaged in the business of manufacturing or selling such machines. Therefore, GAF cannot be held liable to users of the product in strict products liability *(see, Stiles v Batavia Atomic Horseshoes,*81 NY2d 950; *Sukljian v Ross & Son Co.,*69 NY2d 89; *Fadale v Allegheny Ludlam Steel Corp.,*139 AD2d 902; *see also,*Restatement [Second] of Torts § 402A, comment *f).*However, we are in agreement with the Supreme Court that an issue of fact has been presented concerning the nature of the alleged defective condition such that GAF Corporation may be liable in negligence for a failure to warn *(cf., Sukljian v Ross & Son Co., supra; Marte v Hickok Mfg. Co.,*159 AD2d 316; *Ruggiero v Braun & Sons,*141 AD2d 528). Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT
32





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. §1350





In connection with the report on Form
10-K of  Janel World Trade, Ltd. for the fiscal year ended September
30, 2007, as filed with the SEC on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the
undersigned officers of the registrant certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350 that:





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 registrant.





Dated:
      January 14, 2009
              /s/ James N. JannelloJames
      N. Jannello, ExecutiveVice
      President and ChiefExecutive
      OfficerDated:
      January 14, 2009
              /s/Stephan P. CesarskiPresident
      and ChiefOperating
      OfficerDated:
      January 14, 2009
              /s/Linda BielerController
      and ChiefFinancial
      and AccountingOfficer
#### In re Robert Leon MAYBERRY. Herschel A. GENTRY, Trustee, Plaintiff, v. MONTGOMERY WARD & CO., INC., Defendant.

Bankruptcy No. B79-1712-M.

United States Bankruptcy Court, W. D. Louisiana.

Oct. 27, 1981.

Louis D. Smith, Hayes, Harkey, Smith & Cascio, Monroe, La., for Montgomery Ward.

Chet Harrod, Blackwell, Chambliss, Hobbs & Henry, West Monroe, La., for Herschel Gentry, Jr., trustee.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

LeROY SMALLENBERGER, Bankruptcy Judge.

The Trustee in Bankruptcy filed a complaint seeking to nullify the defendant’s judicial lien under Section 67(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Act. The following dates and events are pertinent to the issues herein:

> August 2, 1979 — A judgment was recorded by Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. against Robert Leon Mayberry in Morehouse Parish

> September 20, 1979 — Mayberry filed a Chapter XII petition

> October 1, 1979 — The Bankruptcy Code became effective

> November 9, 1979 — A Motion and Order was signed adjudicating Mayberry a Bankrupt and converting from a Chapter XII

The trustee alleges that because the judgment was recorded within four months of the filing of the petition, that it may be’ avoided under Section 67(a)(1). The defendant argues that because of the conversion on November 9, 1979, a new case was commenced which would fall under the Bankruptcy Code and Section 547(b). Under Section 547(b) a lien may be avoided if it was recorded within 90 days of the petition, and because there are more than 90 days between August 2, and November 9, the judgment may not be avoided.

The defendant’s position is untenable under the Savings Provision of the Bankruptcy Reform Act. Act Nov. 6, 1978, P.L. *12295-598, Title IV, Section 403, 92 Stat. 2683, provided:

> “(a) A case commenced under the Bankruptcy Act (former 11 USCS Sections 1 et seq.), and all matters and proceedings in or relating to any such case, shall be conducted and determined under such Act as if this Act had not been enacted, and the substantive rights of parties in connection with any such bankruptcy case, matter, or proceeding shall continue to be governed by the law applicable to such case, matter, or proceeding as if the Act had not been enacted.”

Thus it is irrelevant that Chapter XII was not continued under the Bankruptcy Code as was alleged in the defendant’s brief, and it is likewise irrelevant that the case was converted to a straight bankruptcy, as the Savings Provision states that the case shall continue as if the Reform Act had not been enacted. Thus the case is governed by the Bankruptcy Act and Section 67(a)(1). Since all of the other facts required under Section 67(a)(1) were stipulated to in open court, the judicial mortgage is hereby declared null and void.
### Martin, Michael (OST)
From: Sent: To: Subject: gpburk@comcast.net Wednesday, June 04, 2014 8:58AM Martin, Michael (OST) preferred choice ofairline- Tupelo
My choice is Aerodynamics, Inc. with service to Atlanta. The number ofconnection options out of Memphis is insufficient. The reason SilverAirlines toAtlanta was not utilized more was because of their reliability. Glenda P. Burk

1
**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**





In
      connection with the accompanying Annual Report of The KingThomason Group, Inc.
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 (the
“Report”), I, T.E. King III, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
      certify that to my knowledge:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78o(d)); 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:
      April 16, 2007


*/s/
              Thomas E. King III*T.E.
                King III
              Chief
                Financial Officer




The
      above
      certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB
      or as a separate disclosure document.


Exhibit
        32.1
 Page
        1 of
        1 Page
Argued and submitted February 27,

reversed December 10, 1979

#### DUFFY, *Petitioner, v.*STATE ACCIDENT INSURANCE FUND, *Respondent*- *Cross-Petitioner.*

(No. WCB 77-18, CA 12147)

603 P2d 1191

Sharon C. Stevens, Albany, argued the cause for titioner. On the brief were J. David Kryger, and nmons, Kyle, Kropp & Kryger, Albany.

Lawrence J. Hall, Associate Counsel, State Acci-nt Insurance Fund, Salem, argued the cause for spondent - cross-petitioner. With him on the brief ire K. R. Maloney, Chief Counsel, and James A. evins, Chief Trial Counsel, State Accident Insur-ce Fund, Salem.

*494Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Buttler and Joseph, Judges.

SCHWAB, C. J.

*495SCHWAB, C. J.

Claimant had suffered from coronary artery dis-ase of long standing. The mental and physical stress f his employment, superimposed upon his underlying eart ailment, caused attacks of angina pectoris to the xtent that he was required to stop work. The State .ccident Insurance Fund accepted the claim for the urpose of treatment of the angina pectoris, but denied isponsibility for the underlying heart condition.1 The sferee entered an order, with which the Board agreed, [firming the Fund’s denial of the responsibility of the nderlying heart disease, but making a permanent irtial disability award for the angina condition, laimant contends he is entitled to a larger permanent sability award; the Fund contends that he suffered o permanent disability arising out of his employ-ent. We agree with the Fund.

We are satisfied from the medical evidence that all tat happened to claimant as a result of his work were smporary episodes of angina pectoris which stopped hen he quit his work and did not affect in any way Le severity or progress of his underlying heart disuse.

Reversed.

1

 The Fund does not say that it should not have accepted responsibility the angina attacks, *but see Weller v. Union Carbide,*288 Or 27,602 P2d 259 (1979); *Gibson v. SAIF,*288 Or 45, 602 P2d 266 (1979).
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsInspection ManualChange Notices1999

# Change Notice 99-003

Issue Date: 03/09/1999

NRC INSPECTION MANUAL IIPB

 

----

 

END

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, April 17, 2020
No: IV-19-016 September 30, 2019

Contact: Victor Dricks, 817-200-1128

NRC Names New Resident Inspector at the Wolf Creek Nuclear Power Plant

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has selected John Vera as 

the new resident inspector at the Wolf Creek Nuclear Power Plant in 

Burlington, Kan.

Vera joined the NRC in 2008 as a structural engineer in the 

Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards at NRC 

headquarters in Rockville, Md. He transferred to the NRC’s Region IV 

office in Arlington, Texas, in 2018, and has served as acting resident 

inspector at the Columbia Generating Station in Washington and the 

Waterford nuclear power plant in Louisiana.

Vera holds bachelor’s, master’s and doctorate degrees in civil engineering from the 

University of Puerto Rico and is a graduate of the NRC’s nuclear safety professional development 

program.

Each U.S. commercial nuclear power plant site has at least two NRC resident inspectors, 

who serve as the agency’s eyes and ears at the facility, conducting inspections, monitoring 

significant work projects, and interacting with plant workers and the public. Vera joins acting senior 

resident inspector Mike Stafford.
No: III-19-021 October 8, 2019

Contact: Viktoria Mitlyng, 630-829-9662

 Prema Chandrathil, 630-829-9663

NRC Issues Confirmatory Action Letter to Fermi Nuclear Power Plant

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a Confirmatory Action Letter to the 

operator of the Fermi 2 nuclear power plant, documenting the company’s commitment to address 

degrading coatings in a portion of the plant’s reactor containment.

The plant, operated by DTE Electric Company, is located in Newport, Mich., approximately 25 

miles northeast of Toledo, Ohio.

The NRC raised questions regarding the degradation of the coating inside the torus, a donutshaped component of the reactor containment located below the reactor vessel, during a May 2019

engineering inspection. In July, the NRC initiated a special inspection to conduct an in-depth review of

the issue. The NRC’s conclusions will be documented in a publicly available inspection report.

The torus is designed to absorb energy from the reactor or supply water to safety systems during 

an accident. Partially filled with water, the inside of the torus is coated with paint to prevent corrosion.

If the coating were to separate from the torus wall, the resulting debris could potentially affect the flow 

of water to safety-related equipment.

The NRC continues to ensure the licensee is operating the plant safely.

As a result of the questions raised during the NRC’s inspections and subsequent DTE reviews, 

the company submitted a letter to the NRC committing to mitigate the degraded coating in the torus

during the next refueling outage, to begin no later than April 30, 2020.

The NRC will review and evaluate DTE’s actions in response to the CAL to make sure they are 

thorough and complete.

The CAL can be found on the NRC website.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 17-1902

Filed January 24, 2018

IN THE INTEREST OF H.S.,

Minor Child,

D.F., Mother,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Joseph W. Seidlin, 

District Associate Judge.

A mother appeals a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to 

her child. AFFIRMED. 

John C. Heinicke of Kragnes & Associates, P.C., Des Moines, for 

appellant mother.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee State.

Kayla A. Stratton of Juvenile Public Defender Office, Des Moines, 

guardian ad litem for minor child.

Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.
2

MULLINS, Judge.

A mother appeals a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to 

her child, born in 2016. She does not challenge the State’s establishment of the 

statutory grounds for termination. Instead, she contends the juvenile court erred 

in failing to consider whether termination was in the best interest of the child and 

declining to apply a statutory exception to termination. 

At the termination hearing, the mother testified to her agreement that her 

parental rights should be terminated as to the child involved in this appeal, H.S. 

She only requested and argued that her rights should not be terminated as to 

another of her children, A.S. The juvenile court noted in its ruling that the mother 

“recognizes the barriers to maintaining her parental rights as to [H.S.], and does 

not contest the termination of her rights as to that child. She does, however, 

seek to maintain her parental rights as to [A.S].” Under these circumstances, the 

mother cannot be heard on appeal to complain about a ruling she agreed was 

appropriate. See, e.g., Jasper v. State, 477 N.W.2d 852, 856 (Iowa 1991) 

(noting a litigant “cannot deliberately act so as to invite error and then object 

because the court has accepted the invitation”); Odegard v. Gregerson, 12 

N.W.2d 559, 562 (Iowa 1944) (same); State v. Campbell, No. 16-0550, 2017 WL 

2464070, at *9 (Iowa Ct. App. June 7, 2017) (same). We therefore affirm the 

termination of her parental rights. 

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ANDCHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED UNDERSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002.**

 

I, Mark Hoffman, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted under Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Commerce One, Inc. onForm 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairlypresents in all material respects the financial condition and operations ofCommerce One, Inc.

 

 
|   |   |   |   |   | By:    | /s/ Mark  Hoffman        |   |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   |   |   |   |   | Name:  | Mark Hoffman             |
|   |   |   |   |   | Title: | Chief  Executive Officer |
|   |   |   |   |   |   |                     |
|   |   |   |   |   | Date:  | March 28,  2003          |

 

 

I, Charles Boynton, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted under Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Commerce One, Inc. onForm 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairlypresents in all material respects the financial condition and operations ofCommerce One, Inc.

 

 
|   |   |   |   |   | By:    | /s/ Charles  Boynton     |   |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   |   |   |   |   | Name:  | Charles  Boynton         |
|   |   |   |   |   | Title: | Chief  Financial Officer |
|   |   |   |   |   |   |                     |
|   |   |   |   |   | Date:  | March 28,  2003          |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1525 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1525

    To prohibit Federal officials and employees from entering into 
settlements that provide for payment of attorney's fees by the Federal 
             Government in certain environmental law cases.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 13, 2017

Mr. Smith of Missouri (for himself, Mr. McKinley, Mr. Brat, Mr. Mullin, 
Mr. Luetkemeyer, and Mr. Bost) introduced the following bill; which was 
  referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the 
Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, Natural Resources, and 
Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To prohibit Federal officials and employees from entering into 
settlements that provide for payment of attorney's fees by the Federal 
             Government in certain environmental law cases.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Stop Taxpayer Funded Settlements 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON SETTLEMENTS PROVIDING FOR PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY'S 
              FEES BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL 
              LAW CASES.

    (a) Prohibition.--No Federal official or Federal employee may enter 
into a settlement in any environmental law case in which the Federal 
Government is a party if the settlement provides for payment of 
attorney's fees by the Federal Government.
    (b) Definition.--In this Act, the term the ``environmental law 
case'' means a case arising under--
            (1) the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.);
            (2) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 
        et seq.); or
            (3) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
        seq.).
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 99.8

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Stantec Inc. (the
Company) is filing its annual report on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012 (the Report) with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

I, Daniel J. Lefaivre, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as enacted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of 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:  February 20, 2013 |  |  |  | /s/ Daniel J. Lefaivre                          |  | 
|                         |  |  |  | DANIEL J. LEFAIVRE, FCMA                        |  | 
|                         |  |  |  | Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer |  |
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                                  CERTIFICATION


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, the undersigned officer of Tollgrade
Communications, Inc. (the "Corporation"), hereby certifies that the
Corporation's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 29, 2003
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Corporation.

Dated:  May 13, 2003

/s/ Christian L. Allison
------------------------
Name:  Christian L. Allison
Title:  Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Open Text
Corporation (the Company) for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Alan Hoverd, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    Alan Hoverd

Alan Hoverd

Chief Financial Officer



Dated:
November 10, 2003