alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Michael Arcara, Respondent, v Dennis Whytas et al., Appellants.

[632 NYS2d 349]

Order unanimously reversed on the *872law without costs, motion granted, and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Plaintiff, an employee of National Fuel Co., entered the backyard of defendants’ premises to read the gas meter and was bitten by defendants’ dog, a mixed-breed German Shepherd. Thereafter, plaintiff commenced this action, alleging that defendants were aware of the vicious propensities of the dog and failed to take proper measures to control it. Supreme Court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We reverse.

Defendants established by undisputed proof in admissible form that the dog had never before bitten anyone and that it had never growled or bared its teeth when someone approached or otherwise exhibited vicious or dangerous propensities *(see,*CPLR 3212 [b]; *Iselin & Co. v Mann Judd Landau,*71 NY2d 420, 425; *Strunk v Zoltanski,*62 NY2d 572, 574-576; *Wilson v Bruce,*198 AD2d 664, *lv denied*83 NY2d 752; *Harris v Kasperak,*172 AD2d 1062).

We reject the contention of plaintiff that defendants’ violation of the Cheektowaga Town Ordinance requiring the leashing of dogs is some evidence of negligence. It is uncontested that the dog was tethered in the yard, and thus was restrained in compliance with the Town Ordinance. But, even if the manner in which the dog was tethered violated the Town Ordinance, that would not affect the essential issue whether the dog was vicious and, if so, whether defendants had knowledge thereof.

The posting by defendants of a "Beware of Dog” sign on their garage to deter intruders is also insufficient to preclude summary judgment. There is no proof that before this incident defendants’ dog was fierce, or hostile to strangers *(see, Ford v Steindon,*35 Misc 2d 339), or anything other than friendly and non-aggressive. Further, according to plaintiff, the dog had been sleeping and was startled by plaintiffs approach. The dog bit plaintiff once on the arm and then backed away. We, therefore, conclude that plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of fact regarding the dog’s vicious propensities *(see, Wilson v Bruce, supra; Harris v Kasperak, supra; Gill v Welch,*136 AD2d 940). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Michalek, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Fallon, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
#### Mannery, Plaintiff in error, vs. The State, Defendant in error.

*December 6, 1940*

January *7, 1941.*

*577
      *James W. Dorsey*of Milwaukee, for the plaintiff in error.

For the defendant in error there was a brief by the *Attorney General, Herbert J. Steffes,*district attorney of Milwaukee county, and *Gene L. Green,*assistant district attorney, and oral argument by *Mr. Green.*

RosenbeeRY, C. J.

Upon this review the defendant assigns three errors: (1) The court erred in denying the motion of the defendant to suppress the evidence procured pursuant to the search on the ground that the search warrant was unlawfully issued. (2) The court erred in overruling defendant’s objections to the introduction into evidence of the so-called “policy” paraphernalia for the same reason. (3) The court erred in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss, made after trial, for the reason that there was no competent admissible evidence introduced, the evidence having been wrongfully obtained by reason of the unlawful search made pursuant to an invalid warrant.

*578These assignments of error raise a single question,- — -Was there a sufficient showing of probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant? There was no renewal of the defendant’s claim with respect to the unlawful search upon the trial. The evidence referred to in the second assignment of error was with respect to the nature of the “policy” paraphernalia and not upon the ground that it had been obtained by an unlawful search. The evidence has already been set out in the statement of facts.

“Probable cause” is defined as such an apparent state of facts that a discreet and prudent man would be led to believe that the premises or place, sought to be searched, contained property of the character for which a search under a warrant could be lawfully made. That known “policy” players were known to be resorting to these premises and that as they entered they dropped slips bearing “policy” numbers would seem to be a state of facts sufficient to arouse in the mind of any prudent man a strong belief that the premises were resorted to for the purpose of playing the game known as “policy.” It is considered that this evidence was sufficient within the rule stated in *State v. Baltes*(1924), 183 Wis. 545, 198 N. W. 282, and *State v. Brockman*(1939), 231 Wis. 634, 283 N. W. 338. We need not repeat what was stated in those cases. No other question is presented by the record upon this review.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Available in Adams

# Publications Available in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) – 2014

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 2024
          - 2023
          - 2022
          - 2021
          - 2020
          - 2019
          - 2018
          - 2017
          - 2016
          - 2015
          - 2014
          - 2013
          - 2012
          - 2011
          - 2010
          - 2009
          - 2008
          - 2007
          - 2006
          - 2005
          - 2004
          - 2003
          - 2002
          - 2001
          - 2000
          - 1999
          - 1998
          - 1997
          - 1980-1996

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

#### Search NUREG Pubs

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
#### Abraham, Appellant, vs. Clark and another, Respondents.

*October 15*

November *11, 1930.*

*452
      *L. E. Vaudreuil*of Kenosha, for the appellant.

For the respondents there was a brief by Stephenson, *Fisher & Richardson*of Kenosha, and oral argument by *Chester D. Richardson.*

FowleR, J.

The appellant assigns as error the changing of the answers of the jury to the questions respecting defendant’s negligence and claims that judgment should have been entered for plaintiff upon the verdict. From the statement of facts above made we are of opinion that defendant’s *453negligence was a jury question. The jury might properly have inferred from the evidence that the Clark car was 160 feet from the Brown car when Brown started to turn left, and that had Mrs. Clark been driving at such speed and kept such control of her car as the circumstances required she would have avoided the Brown car and thus have avoided the collision in which plaintiff was injured. Abraham so turned to the right and reduced his speed as to avoid interference with the Brown car and was practically stopped when the Clark car collided with his car. The jury might properly have considered that Mrs. Clark should have been able to control her car and to reduce her speed likewise, and that had she done so she would have avoided both collisions.

The trial court should have entered judgment upon the verdict with provision that the amount paid by Brown pursuant to the covenant not to sue be applied towards satisfaction of the judgment.

*By the Court.*— The judgment is reversed, with directions to enter judgment for plaintiff as indicated in the opinion.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                R WIRELESS, INC.

                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350



         The undersigned, Mark S. Neuhaus, in his capacity as Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, and Ned Baramov, in his capacity as Treasurer and Chief
Financial Officer, of R Wireless, Inc. do each hereby certify that the Form
10-KSB of R Wireless, Inc. for the year ended September 30, 2003 fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in such
Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of R Wireless, Inc.

         This certification is given by the undersigned solely for the purpose
of 18 U.S.C. 1350 and is subject to the knowledge standard contained therein.


         Executed this 5th day of March, 2004.




/s/    Mark Neuhaus
-----------------------------------------------
Mark Neuhaus
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer



/s/    Ned Baramov
-----------------------------------------------
Ned Baramov
Chief Financial Officer
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

TENSION STEEL INDUSTRIES CO., LTD.,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant

MAVERICK TUBE CORPORATION,

Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant

UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, 

BOOMERANG TUBE LLC, ENERGEX TUBE (A 

DIVISION OF JMC STEEL GROUP), TEJAS 

TUBULAR PRODUCTS, TMK IPSCO, VALLOUREC 

STAR, L.P., WELDED TUBE USA INC.,

Intervenor-Defendants

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

MAVERICK TUBE CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant

BOOMERANG TUBE LLC, ENERGEX TUBE (A 

DIVISION OF JMC STEEL GROUP), TEJAS 

TUBULAR PRODUCTS, TMK IPSCO, VALLOUREC 

STAR, L.P., WELDED TUBE USA INC., UNITED

STATES STEEL CORPORATION,

Intervenor-Plaintiffs
 

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant

TENSION STEEL INDUSTRIES CO., LTD.,

Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee

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

UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION,

Plaintiff

MAVERICK TUBE CORPORATION,

Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellant

BOOMERANG TUBE LLC, ENERGEX TUBE (A 

DIVISION OF JMC STEEL GROUP), TEJAS 

TUBULAR PRODUCTS, TMK IPSCO, VALLOUREC

STAR, L.P., WELDED TUBE USA INC.,

Intervenor-Plaintiffs

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant

TENSION STEEL INDUSTRIES CO., LTD.,

Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2017-2526

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of International 

Trade in Nos. 1:14-cv-00245-LMG, 1:14-cv-00218-LMG, 

1:14-cv-00261-LMG, Judge Leo M. Gordon.

______________________ 
 3

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

ROBERT E. DEFRANCESCO, III, Wiley Rein, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by

ALAN H. PRICE, LAURA EL-SABAAWI, CYNTHIA CRISTINA 

GALVEZ, ADAM MILAN TESLIK. 

 KELLY ALICE SLATER, Appleton Luff Pte. Ltd., Washington, DC, argued for appellee.

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (LOURIE, CLEVENGER, and STOLL, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 June 6, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner 

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner 

 Clerk of Court
Docket Number FAA-2014-0143

Organization Person Contacted Date Response 

National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti 6/11/12

Regional Airline Association 6/11/12

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman 6/11/12

ATA M Lopez 6/11/12
Exhibit 23.2**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS**Cawley, Gillespie and Associates, Inc. hereby consents to the use of its name and the informationfrom its reports regarding estimated quantities of proved reserves, the future net revenues fromthose reserves and their present value as of January 1, 2008 in Foothills Resources, Inc.’s AnnualReport on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, and to the incorporation by referencethereof into Foothills Resources, Inc.’s previously filed Registration Statement No. 333-137925 onForm SB-2, as amended.      CAWLEY, GILLESPIE AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC StaffOffice of Investigations Annual Report (NUREG-1830)

# Office of Investigations FY 2013 Annual Report (NUREG-1830, Volume 10)

On this page: 
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract 

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1830, Volume 10 (PDF - 5.97 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published**: February 2014

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report provides the Commission with an overview of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Office of Investigations' (OI) activities, mission, and purpose, along with the framework of case inventory with highlights of significant cases that the NRC OI completed during Fiscal Year 2013 (reference SRM COMJC-89-8, dated June 30, 1989). This is the 25th OI Annual Report.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
NRR Document Issuing Form (DIF)

END
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage                     *de novo,*                     or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.                

Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than February 26, 2015.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Adam M. Drimer, Assistant Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:

                    1.                     *Live Oak Bancshares, Inc.,*                     Wilmington, North Carolina; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares Independence Trust Company, Franklin, Tennessee, a limited purpose savings association, through the merger of its parent company, Independence Holding Corporation, Franklin, Tennessee, and thereby engage in operating a savings association, and providing trust company and financial advisory services, pursuant to sections 225.28(b)(4)(ii), (b)(5), and (b)(6)(ii), respectively.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 28, 2015.

Michael J. Lewandowski,

Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2015-01903 Filed 1-30-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
No. 90-6269.

#### Khaliq *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# A Compilation of Reports of The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (NUREG-1125)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, July 21, 2021
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Quality Assurance Guidance for a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility (NUREG-1293, Revision 1)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1293, Revision 1 (PDF – 1.28 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** April 1991**Date Published:** April 1991

C. L. Pittiglio, Jr., D. Hedges

Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This document provides guidance to an applicant on meeting the quality control (QC) requirements of 10 CFR 61.12(j) for a low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) disposal facility. The QC requirements, plus audits and managerial controls requirements, establish the need for developing a quality assurance (QA) program and the guidance provided herein. The criteria developed for this document are similar to the criteria developed for Appendix B to Title 10 of the *Code of Federal Regulations* (10 CFR) Part 50. Although Appendix B is not a regulatory requirement for an LLRW disposal facility, the criteria that were developed for 10 CFR Part 50 are basic to any QA program. This document establishes QA guidance for the design, construction, and operation of those structures, engineered or natural systems, and components whose function is required to meet the performance objectives of Subpart C of 10 CFR Part 61 and to limit exposure to or release of radioactivity.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
Exhibit
      32





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**


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





The
      undersigned, Geoffrey Alison, the Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the
      Board
      of Directors, Treasurer and Secretary of SMI PRODUCTS, INC. (the "Company"),
      DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:





1.
      The
      Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31,
      2006 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this statement this 5th day of
      February, 2007.





/s/
      Geoffrey
      Alison


Geoffrey
      Alison


Principal
      Executive
      Officer and


Principal
      Financial
      Officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      SMI Products, Inc. and will be retained by SMI Products, Inc. and furnished
      to
      the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
No. 90-93.

#### Langenkamp, Successor Trustee of the Bankruptcy Estates of Republic Trust & Savings Co. et al. *v.*Culp et al.,

*ante,*p. 42. Petition for rehearing denied.

Justice Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsConference Proceedings Prepared by NRC Staff or Contractors

# Proceedings of the Environmental Software Systems Compatibility and Linkage Workshop (NUREG/CP-0177)

On this page: 
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CP-0177 (PDF 1.47 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** September 2001**Date Published:** May 2002

**Edited by:** Gene Whelan, PNNL

Thomas J. Nicholson, NRC

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, WA 99352

**Prepared for:** Division of Systems Analysis and Regulatory Effectiveness Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The NRC hosted a Federal interagency workshop on multimedia environmental software systems and data systems. The "Environmental Software Systems Compatibility and Linkage Workshop" was held at NRC 's Professional Development Center in Rockville, MD, on March 7-9, 2000. The environmental software systems that were discussed are used to evaluate contaminant release, transport and health effects through various media (hence multimedia refers to air, ground, and surface water) and environmental pathways to the public. A major motivation for the workshop was the desire of the participating Federal agencies to realize efficiencies and cost savings by utilizing existing models, systems, and databases developed in their programs, rather than developing totally new systems. Workshop participants for this inaugural gathering included Federal agencies, their cooperators and contractors (e.g., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, EPA's national exposure research laboratories, Offices of Research and Development, Radiation and Indoor Air, Solid Waste and Water, DOE, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Argonne National Laboratory, Golder Associates Inc., State of New Jersey and New Jersey Institute of Technology). The workshop objective was to facilitate communication between software products by focusing on standard attributes, protocols and specifications for linking environmental and risk models to databases and modeling systems. The workshop included presentations and demonstrations of current software systems (e.g., RESRAD, MEPAS, FRAMES, SEDSS, DandD, HWIR, LMS, WMS, etc.) used in site decommissioning assessments. The workshop attendees (1) reviewed detailed suggestions from system developers and users on attributes for linking the existing models, systems, Web-based, and GIS databases; and (2) discussed alternative software designs to ensure compatibility and linkage for future models, systems, and datasets. During an evening breakout session, the Federal agency representatives discussed the development of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for cooperating and coordinating research. Following the workshop, the MOU was developed and signed by NRC, EPA, DOE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Geological Survey, and USDA/Agricultural Research Service, and is now being implemented.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021