alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### George E. Swanton, Appellant, *v.*Hastings Pavement Company, Respondent.

Second Department,

December *30,*1908.

Negligence — injury to car inspector by obstruction on highway — contributory negligence — concurrent negligence of fellow-servant.

Although an inspector who boarded a trolley car and stood on the running board could by looking some distance ahead have seen a concrete mixer used by the defendant in repairing the adjoining highway, by which machine he was afterwards struck and injured owing to its closeness to the track, he was not guilty *of negligence as a matter of law, for he was not*bound *to*anticipate such obstruction near the track and his duties required his attention to be directed elsewhere.

Even if said injury was caused by the concurrent negligence of the defendant and that of the motorman, a fellow-servant, the defendant is liable nevertheless.

Appeal by the plaintiff, George E. Swanton, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Richmond on the 3d day of June, 1908, upon the dismissal of the complaint by direction of the court at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence upon a trial at the Richmond Trial Term.

*Frederick F. Fishel [Francis F. Leman*with him on the brief], for the appellant.

*George M. Pinney, Jr. [James B. Henney*with him on the brief], for the respondent.

*554Hooker, J.:

The plaintiff, an inspector in the employ of a trolley road, was riding on the running board on one of its open cars, and was hit and thrown therefrom by a projecting part of a concrete mixer, which was being used by the defendant in the repair of the highway. It seems to be undoubted that there was sufficient evidence to establish the negligence of the defendant. The nonsuit was granted on the ground that the plaintiff had not shown himself free from contributory negligence. Admitting that when he boarded the car he could have seen the mixer for a distance ahead, and, had he seen it, supposed that it was too near the track; and admitting that the mixer was in plain view from the time he boarded the caito the time he was thrown off the running board, yet he was not guilty of negligence on his part, as a matter of law, for the reasons: *First,*that he was under no legal obligation to look ahead before getting upon the car to anticipate possible obstructions in the track or near it; and, *second,*he had his duties to perform, which he was doing after he boarded the car; these duties required his attention elsewhere than to the track ahead, and he had a right to rely upon other users of the highway performing the duty they owed to the trolley company and to passengers upon its cars, not dangerously to obstruct their passage.

If the thing was caused by the negligence of both the defendant and the motorman, a fellow-employee of the plaintiff, the defendant would still be liable.

The judgment must be reversed and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event.

Jenks, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NOS. WR-87,260-01 & WR-87,260-02

EX PARTE RONALD T. SPRIGGS, Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS AND MANDAMUS

CAUSE NO. 71,817-E IN THE 108 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM POTTER COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Applicant has filed an application for writ of mandamus and/or habeas corpus pursuant to

this Court’s authority to issue extraordinary writs. TEX. CONST. art. V, § 5(c). He challenges the

order finding him in contempt of court. The Court denies leave to file applications for mandamus

and habeas corpus and lifts the stay of the underlying order of contempt and commitment. 

Filed: June 27, 2018

Do not publish
226 So.2d 90

#### Julius HANNON v. STATE of Alabama.

2 Div. 521.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Aug. 14, 1969.

' O. S. Burke, Jr., Centreville, for appellant.

MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., John A. Lockett, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

SIMPSON, Justice.

This appeal is from a verdict and judgment of guilty of robbery and a sentence of 20 years and one day in the penitentiary.

Appellant contends only that the trial court erred in refusing to grant his request for a continuance because a witness who had been subpoenaed was not present, there being no return made of the subpoena.

We have repeatedly held that whether a continuance in a criminal case should be granted for absent witnesses is within the discretion of the trial judge. 6A Ala.Dig. Criminal Law "^594, et seq.

*488We have reviewed the record before us and cannot conclude that the trial judge abused his discretion.

Affirmed.

COLEMAN, HARWOOD, and BLOOD-WORTH, JJ., concur.
(No. 23846.

#### Eugene Kaufman *et al.*Appellants, *vs.*Community High School District No. 83 of the County of Alexander, Appellee.

*Opinion filed December 10, 1936.*

Lansden & Lansden, for appellants.

Dewey & Cummins, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Shaw

delivered the opinion of the court:

Seven petitioners, residents of Community High School District No. 83, Alexander county, filed their petition in the circuit court of Alexander county contesting and seeking to annul an election of October 19, 1935, authorizing a bond issue of $29,000 for building a new school house. The circuit court declared the election valid, the bond issue carried, and dismissed the petition. This appeal is from that final judgment.

The petition alleges that the resolutions of the board of education preliminary to the calling of the election were insufficient and void ; that the notice of election was irregular and void for numerous alleged errors and omissions; that the proposition submitted was not in accord with 'the notice; that the ballots were not in proper form; that the *87officers in charge of the election were not properly chosen or qualified; that the election was not legally called, held or conducted; that the ballots were not properly canvassed; that the poll-books, tally papers and other records of the election were not lawfully returned by the officers of the election, and that no special tax for building purposes has been levied in time to produce funds to pay bonds maturing January 1, 1937.

This contest is filed under section 117 of the Election act, and, since election contests are purely statutory, it must come within the provisions of that act or fail. *(O’Connor*v. *High School Board,*278 Ill. 618; *Cipowski*v. *City of Calumet City,*322 id. 575.) A reference to the section in question shows that it permits a contest of the result of the election but confers no jurisdiction on the court to inquire as to its validity nor as to the regularity of any of the steps preceding it. To question those matters resort must be had to some other form of remedy. The points involved were fully discussed and decided in the *Cipowski case, supra,*which is controlling of this one.

It is true that the complaint contained a general allegation that the results were not properly canvassed and returned, but there is no evidence to sustain it. The ballots were received in evidence and counted by the trial court, but none are preserved in the record or shown by the abstract, nor was there anything other than a general objection to a few of them and therefore nothing for us to review.

It is urged that the ballots were not properly preserved, but the court found that they were, and the point could not avail the petitioners in any event, because if not admissible in evidence there could be nothing to impeach the returns of the officials.

The decree will be affirmed.

*Decree affirmed.*
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.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### International Trade Administration

This is a decision consolidated pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Room 2104, U.S. Department of Commerce, and Constitution Avenue., NW., Washington, DC.

*Docket Number:*                     08-033. Applicant: University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269-3136. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model Tecnai G2                     Spirit TWIN. Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech Republic. Intended Use: See notice at 73 FR 42549, July 22, 2008.                

*Docket Number:*                     08-034 Applicant: Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model Tecnai G2                     F20. Manufacturer: FEI Company, The Netherlands. Intended Use: See notice at 73 FR 42549, July 22, 2008.                

*Comments:*                     None received.                     *Decision:*                     Approved. No instrument of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such purposes as these instruments are intended to be used, was bing manufactured in the United States at the time the instruments were ordered.                     *Reasons*: Each foreign instrument is an electron microscope and is intended for research or scientific educational uses requiring an electron microscope. We know of no electron microscope, or any other instrument suited to these purposes, which was being manufactured in the United States at the time of the order of each instrument.                

Dated: August 11, 2008.

Faye Robinson,

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff, Import Administration.

[FR Doc. E8-18847 Filed 8-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 21.1

                              List of Subsidiaries
                                 March 28, 2000

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     State or Jurisdiction
Name of Subsidiary                                   of Incorporation          % of ownership
------------------                                   ----------------          --------------

<S>                                                  <C>                       <C>
Selfcare Europe Ltd                                  England (U.K.)            100%(no operations)
Selfcare International GmbH                          Germany                   100%
Selfcare Development Verwaltungsgesellschaft GmbH    Germany                   100%(sub of SC International)
Selfcare Development GmbH & Co. KG                   Germany                    70%(sub of SC International)
Bvba Selfcare Benelux sprl                           Belgium                   100%(sub of SC International)
Cambridge Diagnostics Ireland Ltd.                   Ireland                   100%
Cambridge Affiliate Corporation                      State of Delaware          49%
Selfhelp Israel, Ltd.                                Israel                    100%(no operations)
Inverness Medical Limited                            Scotland (U.K.)           100% of common/voting stock (1)
Orgenics, Ltd. (2)                                   Israel                    100%(direct & indirect)
Orgenics International Holdings B.V.                 The Netherlands           100%(3)
Enviromed, plc                                       England (U.K.)             29.9%
Inverness Medical, Inc. ("IMI")                      State of Delaware         100%
Can-Am Care Corporation                              State of New York         100%(sub of IMI)
Selfcare Technology, Inc.                            State of Delaware         100%(4)
Storebrands.net                                      State of Delaware         100%
Selfcare Pty Limited                                 Australia                 100% (no operations)
</TABLE>

Note: Each subsidiary does business under its own name, as listed above.

----------
(1)   preferred stock owned by Inverness and Nairn Enterprise (a Scottish
      development agency)
(2)   Orgenics, Ltd has subsidiaries in France (Orgenics France S.A., 100%
      owned), Brazil (Orgenics Do Brasil Ltda, and Orgenics Reagentes para
      Laboratorios Ltda -both 100% owned), Columbia (Orgenics Columbia-branch,
      100% owned) and Israel (Orgenics Biosensors Ltd, and Orgenics O.S.A.
      (1997) Ltd, both 100% owned).
(3)   Only material assets are the shares of Orgenics Ltd. that it owns.
(4)   Owns 50% (Joint Venture) of PBM-Selfcare, LLC
#### H. L. Loomis v. Arthur G. Lewis, County Auditor of Cass County.

Appeal from District Court, Cass county; Pollock, J.

Action by H. L. Loomis against Arthur G. Lewis, county auditor of Cass oounty. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

*Morrill &*Engerud, for appellant. *Emerson H. Smithj*State’s Attorney, for respondent.

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the district court of Cass county, dismissing a special proceeding by mandamus to compel the county auditor to execute a tax deed. The same attorneys appear in this case as in Patton v. Cass County, 102 N. W. 174, in which an opinion has just been handed down. *639The attorneys each agree and state in the briefs on file that the questions involved in this case are identical with those presented in Patton v. Cass County. Following the conclusion announced in that case, the judgment is affirmed.

(102 N. W. 1134.)

Engerud, J., having been of counsel, took no part in the above decision.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONPursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350
(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with this Amendment No. 1 to our
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of WORLD SERIES OF GOLF, INC. (the
Company) for the period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Joseph F.
Martinez, as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
pursuant to §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; 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: August 5, 2009 | By: | /s/ Joseph F. Martinez                                         
|                     |     |                                                                
|                     |     | Joseph F. Martinez                                             
|                     |     | Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and
 Principal
|                     |     | Accounting Officer                                             
|                     |     |                                                                
|                     |     |                                                                

This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent
required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 478 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 478

  To amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Federal government from 
       requiring State plans to mandate trip reduction measures.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 11, 1995

  Mr. DeLay introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Federal government from 
       requiring State plans to mandate trip reduction measures.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF CLEAN AIR ACT TO REMOVE TRIP REDUCTION MANDATE.

    Section 182(c)(5) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 and 
following) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following: ``No 
revision of a State implementation plan to include provisions specified 
in this paragraph shall be required to include measures described in 
section 108(f)(A)(iv).''.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Vaseska, Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 66-27. (Abstract of Decision.)

Fifth District.

September 7, 1966.

Alan J. Dixon, of Belleville, for appellant; Floyd E. Crowder, State’s Attorney of Monroe County, of Waterloo, for appellee.

Opinion PER CURIAM. Not to be published in full.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.16.2



                                 FIFTH AMENDMENT

                                     TO THE

                                 TRANSTAR, INC.

                            SALARIED RETIREMENT PLAN
               (As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 1989)

         Effective January 1, 1998, the following revision is adopted by the
Transtar, Inc. Salaried Retirement Plan.

         APPENDIX A, Subsection (a) shall be amended as follows:

         (a)      Normal wages and salaries for services performed, including 
                  incentive, shift differential, out-of-line differential, and
                  Sunday, holiday and overtime premium payments applicable to
                  such services, but excluding any cost-of-living payment and
                  the amount resulting from a Cost-of-Living Adjustment included
                  in the base hourly or salary rates on or after May 1, 1974
                  other than the first thirty-nine cents ($.39) per hour for
                  hourly paid employees and the first sixty-eight dollars ($68)
                  per month for salaried employees. Effective January 1, 1997,
                  Participants whose rolled into base Cost-of-Living Adjustment
                  excluded from Pensionable Earnings prior to January 1, 1997
                  exceeds six hundred dollars ($600.00) per month shall have
                  such exclusion reduced prospectively to six hundred dollars
                  ($600.00) per month. EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1998, PARTICIPANTS
                  WHOSE ROLLED INTO BASE COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT EXCLUDED FROM
                  PENSIONABLE EARNINGS PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1998 EXCEEDS FOUR
                  HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS ($450.00) PER MONTH SHALL HAVE SUCH
                  EXCLUSION REDUCED PROSPECTIVELY TO FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS
                  ($450.00) PER MONTH. The preceding shall be modified for
                  Participants covered by a collective bargaining agreement that
                  provides for a deviation in the method of determining normal
                  wages and salaries. Effective August 11, 1986, the amount of
                  any temporary reduction in any Participant's salary will be
                  included in Pensionable Earnings for pension purposes;
                  provided, however, that the temporary reduction included in
                  Pensionable Earnings shall be reduced by any subsequent salary
                  increase.


                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Transtar, Inc. has caused this Amendment
to be executed by its duly authorized officers this 24th day of March, 1998.


ATTEST:                                     TRANSTAR, INC.


By  /s/ R. N. GENTILE                       By /s/ J. W. SCHULTE
    --------------------                       ---------------------
        R. N. Gentile                              J. W. Schulte
#### Norvell A. MEGGINSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 49141.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Dec. 13, 1994.

Gary E. Brotherton, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Becky Owenson Kilpatrick, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before ULRICH, P.J., and KENNEDY and BERREY, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from denial of Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 715

To amend the Central Bering Sea Fisheries Enforcement Act of 1992 to

prohibit fishing in the Central Sea of Okhotsk by vessels and nationals

of the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 26, 1995

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska (for himself, Mr. SAXTON, and Mr. STUDDS) introduced

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources

A BILL

To amend the Central Bering Sea Fisheries Enforcement

Act of 1992 to prohibit fishing in the Central Sea of

Okhotsk by vessels and nationals of the United States.

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 ‘‘Sea of Okhotsk Fish5 eries Enforcement Act of 1995’’.

6 SEC. 2. FISHING PROHIBITION.

7 The Central Bering Sea Fisheries Enforcement Act

8 of 1992 (16 U.S.C. 1823 note) is amended—
2

•HR 715 IH

1 (1) in section 302, by inserting ‘‘and the

2 Central Sea of Okhotsk’’ after ‘‘Central Bering

3 Sea’’; and

4 (2) in section 306—

5 (A) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3),

6 (4), (5), and (6) in order as paragraphs (3),

7 (4), (5), (6), and (7); and

8 (B) by inserting after paragraph (1) the

9 following:

10 ‘‘(2) CENTRAL SEA OF OKHOTSK.—The term

11 ‘Central Sea of Okhotsk’ means the central Sea of

12 Okhotsk area which is more than two hundred nau13 tical miles seaward of the baseline from which the

14 breadth of the territorial sea of the Russian Federa15 tion is measured.’’.

Æ