text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. David
J. Shields, Judge, presiding.
Plaintiff, Interstate Material Corporation (Interstate), an Illinois company that manufactures ready-mix concrete and supplies building materials, appeals from the trial court's denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction to bar defendant, city of Chicago (city), from revoking its certification as a minority business enterprise (MBE). Briefly stated, the issue presented for our review is whether the trial court erred in denying Interstate's motion for a preliminary injunction.
We reverse.
Interstate's complaint and attached documents represented the following. Interstate submitted an application to the city for recertification as an MBE on July 15, 1985. On July 19, 1985, Interstate received formal written notification that its recertification had been denied. The letter, which was attached to Interstate's complaint, stated that "[a]fter a careful review of your application, the City of Chicago [determines that] the firm does not meet the eligibility standards * * * that certified businesses [be] at least 51 percent owned and controlled by minorities or women
[that the] minority or women owners * * * direct the management, policies and daily operations of the firm [and that the] business [be] * * * independently operated." The city's letter noted that Interstate's "application and supporting documents [do] not indicate that our firm is at least 51 percent owned by minorities." The city stated that its own "investigation further disclosed that the organizational structure of your firm does not allow for minority control. Further, your firm has not demonstrated to be an independently operated business."
The city's letter advised Interstate that the city's decision was "final." It also informed Interstate, "if you feel that you were wrongly denied certification as a[n] * * * MBE, you may file an appeal in writing to the U.S. Department of Transportation. The appeal must be signed and dated no later than 180 days from the date of this denial."
Interstate subsequently requested that the city reconsider its decision, in a letter dated July 23, 1986. In that correspondence, also attached to its pleading, Interstate noted that it had been verbally advised, in a telephone conversation with a city MBE program official on July 18, of the reasons for the city's conclusion that Interstate was not an MBE. Interstate's letter responded to these telephonically transmitted reasons for denial of recertification. In a letter dated August 2, attached to Interstate's complaint, the city again denied Interstate's request for recertification, restating and delineating further its specific reasons for denial. Thereafter, on August 26, Interstate again responded in writing in greater detail to the city's conclusion that Interstate was not an MBE. This letter was also attached to Interstate's pleading. Interstate's complaint does not disclose whether the city responded to this correspondence.
In its complaint, Interstate alleged that when it applied for recertification, Interstate "requested the opportunity to address the committee [of the city which reviews MBE applications], present evidence in its own behalf, and to rebut unfavorable evidence
[and that] [t]hese requests were denied by the [city]." Interstate alleged that it also "requested the names of the committee members assigned to review the application, to assure itself of an impartial committee
[and that] [t]his request was summarily denied by the [City]."
Interstate's complaint further stated that when Interstate subsequently responded to the city's reasons for denial, Interstate "sought to be allowed to present further documentation. It further sought to address the committee in order to present the committee with information on the nature of the industry in which it is engaged to explain the documentation of its qualifications, to refute any adverse information received by the committee, and to address the standards to be applied by the committee in making its determination. The [city] persisted in denying Interstate any form of hearing before the committee." Interstate alleged that "[s]ubsequent to the August 2, 1985 letter [of the city], Interstate has persisted in its efforts to secure a hearing and establish its eligibility for continued certification as [an MBE], and [the city] ha[s] persisted in denying Interstate a hearing and certification."
Interstate filed a four-count verified complaint against the city on October 3, 1985. It alleged that the manner in which the city had denied Interstate's request for MBE recertification violated 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 (1985) and deprived Interstate of due process of law under the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., amend XIV) (count I); violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 1983 (1985) and various provisions of the United States Department of Transportation's (USDOT's) MBE regulations (49 C.F.R. sec. 23.1 et seq. (1985) (count II); violated Interstate's right to due process under the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, sec. 2) (count III); and contravened the city's executive order which established the city's MBE program (City of Chicago Executive Order 85-2 (April 3, 1985)) (count IV). Interstate requested a declaration that the city's action violated procedural due process and the city's executive order, injunctive relief to prevent the city from decertifying Interstate without a hearing pursuant to which uniform procedures and standards would be applied to determine Interstate's eligibility for recertification, and compensatory and punitive damages. Interstate also sought a mandatory injunction to compel the city's adoption of recertification procedures that comport with due process.
In its motion for a preliminary injunction, Interstate requested that the court enjoin the city "from any action which interferes with Interstate's ability to participate in federally assisted and other City of Chicago projects as a[n] [MBE], unless and until Interstate is properly found to be ineligible after being afforded due process," and that the court bar the city "from decertifying Interstate on the basis of unlawful, arbitrary and discriminatory standards." The trial court denied Interstate's motion on the ground that the administrative remedy of an appeal to USDOT "afford[s] substantial due process." Interstate appeals.
• 1 Inasmuch as the city did not file an answer to Interstate's verified complaint, the factual basis of Interstate's motion for preliminary injunction is derived from Interstate's pleadings and any verified supplement thereto. (H.K.H. Development Corp. v. Metropolitan Sanitary District (1964), 47 Ill. App.2d 46, 51, 196 N.E.2d 494, 496.) As a result the well-pleaded factual allegations of Interstate's complaint must be taken as true for the purposes of review of the trial court's denial of Interstate's preliminary injunction motion. (See City of Chicago v. Geraci (1975), 30 Ill. App.3d 699, 702, 332 N.E.2d 487, 490.) In addition, we note that in its complaint, Interstate alleged that it was certified as an MBE by the city in July 1983. It further stated that in July 1985, it submitted an application to the city for recertification. Thus, based on Interstate's verified complaint, we must assume it was certified as an MBE in July 1983, and that in July 1985 it was denied recertification as an MBE.
As currently structured, the city of Chicago's MBE program is patterned after USDOT regulations for the award to MBEs of government contracts funded by USDOT monies. (See 49 C.F.R. sec. 23.1 et seq. (1985); City of Chicago Executive Order 85-2 (April 3, 1985).) Under these regulations, recipients of USDOT funds are required, inter alia, to undertake a variety of measures to ensure that MBEs "have the maximum opportunity to participate in the performance of contracts financed in whole or in part" with USDOT funds. (49 C.F.R. sec. 23.43(a)(1) (1985).) Among the measures required, USDOT regulations call for a "set-aside" of a certain percentage of federally funded government contracts to MBEs. (49 C.F.R. sec. 23.45 (1985).) USDOT regulations define an MBE as "a small business concern, * * * which is owned and controlled by one or more minorities or women." (49 C.F.R. sec. 23.5(f) (1985).) USDOT defines "owned and controlled" as "at least 51 per centum owned by one or more minorities or women or, in the case of a publicly owned business, at least 51 per centum of the stock of which is owned by one or more minorities or women; and * * * management and daily business operations * * * controlled by one or more such individuals." 49 C.F.R. sec. 23.5(f) (1985).
In April 1985, the city of Chicago established a "set-aside" program that applies to the award of all city contracts, regardless of whether those agreements are fully or partially funded by USDOT grants. (City of Chicago Executive Order 85-2 (April 3, 1985).) Under the city's program, the "Purchasing Agent [of the City of Chicago] shall establish a goal of awarding not less that 25% of the annual dollar value of all City contracts to qualified MBEs." (City of Chicago Executive Order 85-2, sec. 2 (April 3, 1985).) The city program further requires that "[t]o the extent practicable, the Purchasing Agent shall award contracts requiring the expenditure of funds not exceeding $10,000 to qualified MBEs." (City of Chicago Executive Order 85-2, sec. 3(f) (April 3, 1985).) The city's definition of MBE is identical to that found in USDOT regulations. See City of Chicago Executive Order 85-2, sec. 1(b) (April 3, 1985); 49 C.F.R. sec. 23.5(f) (1985).
USDOT regulations recognize that "[s]ubstantial concern has been expressed about the infiltration of DOT-assisted programs by `fronts' businesses that claim to be owned and controlled by minorities, women, or other disadvantaged individuals, but which, in fact are ineligible for participation is [sic] DOT-assisted programs as MBEs, WBEs or disadvantaged businesses. The Department * * * believe[s] strongly that recipients should take prompt action to ensure that only firms meeting the eligibility criteria of 49 C.F.R. Part 23 participate as MBEs, WBEs, or disadvantaged businesses in DOT-assisted programs." (49 C.F.R. sec. 23 app. A, at 149 (1985).) To avoid difficulties of this nature which the city had apparently already begun to encounter, the city of Chicago's MBE program, as detailed in Executive Order 85-2, establishes the position of a contract compliance officer to oversee the city's program. (City of Chicago Executive Order 85-2, sec. 5 (April 3, 1985); see James H. Lowry & Associates, Study of Minority and Women Enterprises; Procurement Programs for the City of Chicago (March 1985).) The compliance officer is designated the duty to "[e]stablish uniform procedures to apply for certification as MBE * * * and to appeal from denial of certification as MBE." (City of Chicago Executive Order 85-2, sec. 5(b) (April 3, 1985).) The executive order specifies that an application for certification shall be in writing, executed under oath, and "shall contain such information as may assist the Contract Compliance Officer in determining the status of the applicant." (City of Chicago Executive Order 85-2, sec. 5(b) (April 3, 1985).) Certification, or its denial, "shall be completed no later than 60 days after receipt of bid or proposal for a contract or subcontract contemplating the applicant's participation as MBE." City of Chicago Executive Order 85-2, sec. 5(b) (April 3, 1985).
The executive order further states, without additional detail, that the contract compliance officer is designated the duty to "[e]stablish uniform procedures, consistent with the principles of due process of law, for the decertification of MBEs * * * which have been improperly certified or no longer qualify for certification, and for appeal from decertification." (City of Chicago Executive Order 85-2, sec. 5(g) (April 3, 1985).) It also obligates the officer to "[i]nvestigate the status of certified MBEs * * * to determine whether they should retain certification." (City of Chicago Executive Order 85-2, sec. 5(f) (April 3, 1985).) The executive order specifies that an investigation "of the status of all currently certified MBEs * * * shall be undertaken immediately after the effective date of this Order [April 3, 1985], with priority given to investigation of previously certified firms to which contracts or subcontracts are awarded after the effective date hereof." (City of Chicago Executive Order 85-2, sec. 5(f) (April 3, 1985).) It was apparently pursuant to his last requirement that the MBE certification of Interstate was reviewed by the city in July 1985.
Interstate contends that it has satisfied the requirements for preliminary injunctive relief because its complaint demonstrated that it was denied procedural due process by the city. The substance of this argument is apparently founded upon Interstate's complaint insofar as the pleading requested that the court enjoin the city's revocation of Interstate's MBE certification until Interstate has been afforded a hearing in accordance with due process. In response to Interstate's claims on appeal, the city argues that its denial of Interstate's MBE recertification without an opportunity for a hearing did not deprive Interstate of procedural due process. In light of these circumstances, we do not consider whether Interstate would be entitled to a preliminary injunction predicated upon other aspects of Interstate's pleading not pertinent to the arguments of the parties in this appeal, nor do we consider whether Interstate would be entitled to a preliminary injunction based upon its requests for declaratory or mandatory injunctive relief or for compensatory and punitive damages.
• 2 The "essential elements" for the allowance of preliminary injunctive relief are "the existence of a protectable interest in the plaintiff which will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not issued and the likelihood of plaintiff succeeding on the merits." (Buzz Barton & Associates, Inc. v. Giannone (1985), 108 Ill.2d 373, 387, 483 N.E.2d 1271, 1278.) In this regard, four factors are significant: (1) whether plaintiff possesses a clearly ascertained right in need of protection; (2) whether plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm without the injunction; (3) whether there is an adequate remedy at law for plaintiff's injury; and (4) whether plaintiff is likely to be successful on the merits of his action. 108 Ill.2d 373, 387, 483 N.E.2d 1271, 1278.
• 3 The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending a decision on the merits of the cause in order to maintain the last uncontested status which preceded the controversy. (Howard Schnepper v. American Information Technologies, Inc. (1985), 136 Ill. App.3d 678, 680, 483 N.E.2d 987, 989.) In the present case, the last uncontested status that preceded the instant controversy was the status of Interstate as a certified MBE.
Interstate contends that its clearly ascertained right in need of protection is Interstate's due process right to a hearing regarding its recertification as an MBE. This argument requires an analysis of the likelihood of Interstate's success on the merits of its underlying complaint, to the extent appropriate upon review of a trial court's denial of preliminary injunctive relief. Probable success on the merits will suffice to permit the allowance of preliminary injunctive relief. Buzz Barton & Associates, Inc. v. Giannone (1986), 108 Ill.2d 373, 387, 483 N.E.2d 1271, 1278.
Interstate's complaint is founded in pertinent part on the premise that the city's refusal to renew Interstate's certification as an MBE without providing it an adequate hearing constitutes a deprivation of due process. Interstate contends first that it has a property right in its recertification as an MBE. Since the city's MBE program applies to all city contracts, not simply those where USDOT funds will be utilized, Interstate's due process property claim relies upon the city's executive order which established the city's program, as well as USDOT MBE regulations.
• 4 A person's interest in a government benefit is recognized as a due process property interest where the individual has a legitimate claim or entitlement to the benefit upon the satisfaction of legally enumerated uniform criteria set forth in State or Federal law, local ordinances, or mutually explicit understandings. (See generally Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth (1972), 408 U.S. 564, 33 L.Ed.2d 548, 92 S.Ct. 2701; Graham v. Richardson (1971), 403 U.S. 365, 29 L.Ed.2d 534, 91 S.Ct. 1848.) Licenses or permits which entitle the holder to engage in certain business or professional activities have long been recognized as "property" protected by procedural due process. See, e.g., Reed v. Village of Shorewood (7th Cir. 1983), 704 F.2d 943 (liquor license); Board of Education v. State Board of Education (1986), 113 Ill.2d 173, 497 N.E.2d 984 (teaching certificate); Phillips v. Graham (1981), 86 Ill.2d 274, 427 N.E.2d 550 (harness horse trainer license).
• 5 Interstate's complaint contains allegations likely to establish that its MBE recertification may be a due process property interest. The city's program rules indicate to MBEs that they are entitled to the continuation of MBE certification so long as the firm continues to satisfy the city's uniform, enumerated standards. The executive order which establishes the city's MBE program sets forth specific criteria for MBE certification. (See City of Chicago Executive Order 85-2, sec. 1(b) (April 3, 1985); see also 49 C.F.R. sec. 23.53 (1985).) Once MBE certification is conferred by the city, this certification remains in full force and effect for an indefinite period of time, provided the firm continues to satisfy the city's specified criteria of what constitutes a "minority business enterprise." (See City of Chicago Executive Order 85-2, sec. 5(e) (April 3, 1985); see also 49 C.F.R. secs. 23.51, 23.53 (1985).) The holder of an MBE certification is entitled to separate consideration in the award of all city contracts. (See City of Chicago Executive Order 85-2, sec. 2 (April 3, 1985).) As a result, we conclude that when the trial court later adjudicates the merits of Interstate's complaint against the city of Chicago, Interstate will be likely to prove that its recertification as an MBE by the city of Chicago is a due process property interest. See Cornelius v. La Croix (E.D. Wis. 1983), 575 F. Supp. 1392.
• 6 Interstate also claimed in its complaint that the city's refusal to afford Interstate a prerevocation or post-revocation of MBE certification hearing denied Interstate due process of law. The essence of due process protection is notice of the pending government action and an opportunity to be heard with regard to that intended action. (Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. (1982), 455 U.S. 422, 434-35, 71 L.Ed.2d 265, 276-77, 102 S.Ct. 1148, 1156-57; Boddie v. Connecticut (1971), 401 U.S. 371, 379, 28 L.Ed.2d 113, 118, 91 S.Ct. 780, 785.) The particular nature and timing of the notice and opportunity to be heard depend upon the balancing of the competing interests at stake. (See Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill (1985), 470 U.S. 532, 84 L.Ed.2d 494, 105 S.Ct. 1487; Bell v. Burson (1971), 402 U.S. 535, 29 L.Ed.2d 90, 91 S.Ct. 1586; Goss v. Lopez (1975), 419 U.S. 565, 42 L.Ed.2d 725, 95 S.Ct. 729.) These interests include "the [nature of the] private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; [and] the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail." People ex rel. Eppinga v. Edgar (1986), 112 Ill.2d 101, 107, 492 N.E.2d 187, 189, quoting Mathews v. Eldridge (1976), 424 U.S. 319, 335, 47 L.Ed.2d 18, 33, 96 S.Ct. 893, 903; see also Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill (1985), 470 U.S. 532, 84 L.Ed.2d 494, 105 S.Ct. 1487.
• 7 At a minimum, the holder of a due process property right is entitled to notice of the government's decision and an opportunity to respond thereto prior to enforcement of the government's decision. In these circumstances, the holder is then entitled to a full hearing within a reasonable period of time following enforcement of the government's decision. (See e.g., People ex rel. Eppinga v. Edgar (1986), 112 Ill.2d 101, 107, 492 N.E.2d 187.) Where the interests of the property holder outweigh the concerns of the government, the individual must be afforded a hearing prior to deprivation of the property right. (Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill (1985), 470 U.S. 532, 542-45, 84 L.Ed.2d 494, 503-06, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 1493-95.) In fact, in certain circumstances procedural due process may require that this pretermination hearing include the opportunity to present witnesses and to confront and call into question the sufficiency of the government's basis for the intended deprivation of the individual's property right. (See Goldberg v. Kelly (1970), 397 U.S. 254, 25 L.Ed.2d 287, 90 S.Ct. 1011; see also Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill (1985), 470 U.S. 532, 548, 84 L.Ed.2d 494, 508, 105 S. Ct. 1487, 1496 (Marshall, J., concurring); 470 U.S. 532, 558, 84 L.Ed.2d 494, 410, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 1498 (Brennan, J., concurring).) Procedural due process is a flexible concept that eludes rigid and formalistic application. Nevertheless, the "root requirement" of due process mandates "that an individual be given an opportunity for a hearing before he is deprived of any significant property interest." (Emphasis in original.) 470 U.S. 532, 542, 84 L.Ed.2d 494, 503-04, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 1493, quoting Boddie v. Connecticut (1971), 401 U.S. 371, 379, 28 L.Ed.2d 113, 119-20, 91 S.Ct. 780, 786.
• 8 Assuming that Interstate's MBE recertification is a protected property interest, Interstate was entitled to a hearing to respond to the city's conclusions prior to revocation of Interstate's MBE certification. MBE certification is an extremely important asset to a minority business, and it is questionable whether a minority enterprise would be able to remain a viable competitor in its industry if MBE certification is revoked. (See, e.g., Federal Minority Business Development Program: Hearings Before the Senate Comm. on Small Business, 98 Cong., 1st Sess. (1983); Note, The Public Works Employment Act of 1977 and Minority Contracting, 28 Cath. U.L. Rev. 121 (1978); see also City of Chicago Executive Order 85-2 preamble (April 3, 1985); 49 C.F.R. secs. 23.1, 23.43 (1985).) Given these considerations, the city's interest to immediately terminate fraudulent or non-bona fide MBE certifications, and the administrative burden of a pretermination hearing, would not appear to clearly outweigh the substantial private interest of Interstate in this case.
• 9 Whether the pretermination hearing here should have included an opportunity to "present plausible explanations" or "dispute facts" is a question not properly considered in the instant appeal. (Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill (1985), 470 U.S. 532, 545-48, 84 L.Ed.2d 494, 506-08, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 1494-95.) It remains that Interstate in any event was entitled to a hearing and never received one. As alleged in Interstate's complaint and its supporting documents, Interstate received nothing more than an initial statement of the city's general "reasons" for denial after Interstate's MBE certification was revoked. Interstate later received a more detailed statement of reasons only when it disputed the city's determination. Interstate was never afforded an opportunity to respond to the city's concerns before it was denied MBE recertification. In addition, no hearing of any kind or degree was ever undertaken, either prior or subsequent to the city's "final" decision to revoke Interstate's MBE certification. Under these circumstances, we conclude that Interstate's complaint is sufficient to tend to establish that the city's actions deprived Interstate due process of law, and that Interstate is likely to succeed on the merits of its complaint against the city. See Cornelius v. La Croix (E.D. Wis. 1986), 631 F. Supp. 610.
Furthermore, it is readily apparent that Interstate will suffer irreparable injury if a preliminary injunction is not issued. Interstate alleged that the city's failure to recertify it as an MBE caused Interstate to lose substantial business opportunities, including the opportunity to serve as a certified minority subcontractor with regard to several pending city of Chicago contracts. A loss of business due to the city's alleged unjustified action is sufficient to show irreparable injury. (See Stout v. Reed (1980), 91 Ill. App.3d 123, 414 N.E.2d 211.) In view of minority businesses' needs for governmental aid in order to be able to compete effectively for government contracts, it is evident that a loss of such business could have a particularly adverse impact upon the viability of a minority business such as Interstate.
• 10 The city claims that Interstate is not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief because Interstate has not exhausted the administrative remedy of an appeal to USDOT. The argument does not persuade. The city's program, and thus its recertification of Interstate as an MBE, applies to all contracts of the city of Chicago, not simply those funded by USDOT monies. As a result, Interstate could not "appeal" to USDOT with respect to the city's determination that Interstate is not an MBE and therefore should be denied the opportunity to bid, as an MBE, on city contracts not funded by USDOT.
Furthermore, an "appeal" to USDOT would not permit Interstate a hearing wherein it could respond to the city's reasons for decertification, nor would it permit a stay of the city's decertification prior to USDOT's decision in the controversy between the parties. Thus the "appeal" would be futile and would fail to provide adequate relief. See Northwestern University v. City of Evanston (1978), 74 Ill.2d 80, 383 N.E.2d 964; Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. Allphin (1975), 60 Ill.2d 350, 326 N.E.2d 737; Sanders v. City of Springfield (1985), 130 Ill. App.3d 490, 474 N.E.2d 438.
USDOT's procedures for an appeal from denial of certification are set forth in section 23.55 of the agency's MBE regulations. (49 C.F.R. sec. 23.55 (1985).) Under this section, a company which is denied certification, or recertification, may "appeal" the denial to USDOT "in writing, signed and dated." (49 C.F.R. sec. 23.55(a) (1985).) Once the appeal is lodged, the "Secretary [of USDOT] ensures that a prompt investigation is made pursuant to prescribed DOT title VI investigation procedures." (49 C.F.R. sec. 23.55(b) (1985).) USDOT considers that the denial of certification, by USDOT or the municipal recipient of federal funds, "shall be final, for that contract and other contracts being let by the [municipal] recipient at the time of the denial of certification." (49 C.F.R. sec. 23.53(g) (1985).) The agency's regulations provide that a company denied MBE certification may apply for certification only for future contracts, provided the company "correct[s] deficiencies in their ownership and control." 49 C.F.R. sec. 23.43(g)(1985).
Appendix A to the USDOT MBE regulations states the agency's procedures once a firm appeals from a denial of certification or recertification. Under USDOT's policy, "Once a [municipal] recipient [of USDOT funds] has made a final decision on certification, that determination goes into effect immediately with respect to the recipient's DOT-assisted contracts (see sec. 23.53(g)). If a firm that has been denied certification or has been decertified appeals the recipient's action to the Department under sec. 23.55 * * *, the recipient's action remains in effect until and unless the Department makes a determination under sec. 23.55 reversing the recipient's action. The recipient's action is not stayed during the pendency of a sec. 23.55 appeal." 49 C.F.R. sec. 23 app. A, at 149 (1985).
As an example, USDOT states that "if a recipient has decertified a firm and the firm appeals the decertification to DOT, the firm remains ineligible for consideration as a disadvantaged business with respect to the recipient's DOT-assisted programs until and unless the Department finds that the firm is eligible. * * * The Department has followed this policy and interpretation of its regulations consistently under the existing rule, and we will continue to do so * * *." 49 C.F.R. sec. 23 app. A, at 149 (1985).
USDOT justifies this policy on the ground that it "believes that the award of contracts to ineligible firms is a very serious blow to the integrity of the Department's program." (49 C.F.R. sec. 23 app. A, at 149 (1985).) As a result, under USDOT's interpretation of its own regulations, section 23.55 "does not however authorize the Department to maintain a firm's certification in effect pending the outcome of the sec. 23.55 Appeal, when the recipient has refused to certify or has decertified the firm." 49 C.F.R. sec. 23 app. A, at 150 (1985).
As these statements of USDOT interpretation of its regulations make clear, an attempt by Interstate to "appeal" to USDOT would not afford Interstate procedural due process, and therefore would serve no useful or meaningful method for Interstate to redress its alleged injury. USDOT regulations and policy provide for no hearing wherein Interstate could present its claim that it is entitled to recertification. Instead they provide only that Interstate may submit its claim "in writing." (49 C.F.R. sec. 23.55(a) (1985).) In addition, no specification is made that the City must submit its position in writing to USDOT or that Interstate is entitled to a statement of the city's specific reasons for denial. The regulations further state no standard of review for an appeal to USDOT, not time limitations as to when USDOT must make a decision on the MBE's appeal, and no specified procedure for an appeal from the decision of USDOT, when that decision is announced. Furthermore, no provision is made for a stay of decertification pending USDOT review. In fact, USDOT has expressly and explicitly adopted the policy position that a stay is not proper in these circumstances. See 49 C.F.R. sec. 23 app. A, at 149 (1985).
In view of these considerations, we conclude that Interstate's complaint demonstrated that it has no adequate administrative remedy in an "appeal" to USDOT to redress its alleged injury, such that it is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. For the same reasons as stated above, we also find no legal basis for the city's claim that USDOT has "primary jurisdiction" over Interstate's claims against the city. See Car Carriers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. (N.D. Ill. 1984), 583 F. Supp. 221; Steward v. Allstate Insurance Co. (1980), 92 Ill. App.3d 637, 415 N.E.2d 1206.
The city's other arguments to support its view that the trial court properly denied Interstate's request for a preliminary injunction are equally insufficient to deny Interstate the interim relief it requests.
• 11 Since Interstate's complaint challenges the actions of the city of Chicago in the city's MBE set-aside program, and does not challenge the constitutionality or legality of the actions, procedures, or regulations of USDOT per se, USDOT has no material or substantial interest in the outcome of Interstate's litigation against the city of Chicago and is not a necessary and indispensable party to the instant action. (See, e.g., Lakeview Trust & Savings Bank v. Estrada (1985), 134 Ill. App.3d 792, 480 N.E.2d 1312, appeal denied (1985), 108 Ill.2d 567.) Interstate's complaint is not fatally deficient because it does not include a copy of Interstate's application for recertification, as Interstate challenges the city's failure to afford Interstate a hearing, rather than the city's factual determination that Interstate is not an MBE; further, any assumed deficiency could be remedied by amendment to Interstate's pleading. (See, e.g., Williams v. Northwestern University (1986), 147 Ill. App.3d 374, 497 N.E.2d 1226.) Because the trial court did not allow Interstate's request for a preliminary injunction, the city's claim that Interstate should have offered to post bond is misguided. See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 110, par. 11-103.
• 12 The fact that Interstate did not verify its motion for preliminary injunction is immaterial since the motion is not a "subsequent pleading." (See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 110, par. 2-605.) Nor is Interstate's failure to include a transcript of the parties' arguments before the trial court sufficient cause to affirm the trial court's ruling since the appeal presents legal issues decided without an evidentiary hearing. (See Venturini v. Affatato (1980), 84 Ill. App.3d 547, 405 N.E.2d 1093.) Whether Interstate's attorney should be disqualified on the ground that he may be a witness in the cause is more properly a matter for the trial court's consideration on remand (see generally, e.g., Leibowitz, The Illinois Lawyer as Witness, 74 Ill. B.J. 602 (1986)); this court has already denied the city's disqualification motion on appeal and need not reconsider it herein.
The city contends that the public will suffer if preliminary injunctive relief is granted in the instant cause because such relief will allow ineligible firms to obtain contracts which should have been awarded to bona fide MBEs. The public's legitimate interest in assuring that programs for minorities are not usurped by unqualified or "sham" firms is not compromised, in our opinion, when an administering municipality is preliminarily enjoined from denying recertification to a company which the municipality earlier found to be an MBE, until the court determines whether the municipality, in accordance with due process, should have afforded the MBE an opportunity for a hearing to respond to the city's determinations. The essence of procedural due process is to afford the city the opportunity to take a closer look at the circumstances of a particular MBE's situation prior to revocation of the MBE's certification, in order to promote the concern that qualified companies benefit from the city's laudable program whereby the city provides invaluable assistance to the efforts of minority business enterprises to compete effectively in their respective industries.
For the reasons stated, the order of the circuit court of Cook County is reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions that the court enter an order for the preliminary injunctive relief sought by Interstate in the case at bar.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
LINN, P.J., and McMORROW, J., concur.
© 2002 VersusLaw Inc.
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
Fresh Sauces
With Qtrove's pasta and pizza sauces, you no longer have to fork out for meal at a fancy Italian restaurant. The most tedious part of making homemade Italian food is putting together the star of the dish – the sauce. Our curated Italian sauces are made with fresh produce, with liberal handfuls of herbs, authentic seasoning and locally sourced vegetables, and have no artificial flavourings or preservatives.Host an Italian inspired dinner party without worrying about making the time-consuming sauces from scratch, because our vendors have done it for you. Go the whole hog and smear some tomato basil sauce atop your pizza, ladle the herby pesto over steaming penne, and sandwich your pasta sheets with our creamy bechamel sauce, for a lasagna that will make any Italian grandmother nod in appreciation.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
We offer a pre-finishing service with a 3-4 week lead time
Manufacturer Guarantee: 10 Year Guarantee
View this Internal Un-Finished Oak Palermo Fire Door right here at Leader Doors, from the Un-Finished Oak range by XL Joinery. Exhibiting a rich presence, the Internal Un-Finished Oak Palermo Fire Door is the superb choice for all internal décor. With a 44mm thickness, this Oak Palermo Fire Door boasts an FD30 fire rating, allowing for up to 30 minutes of coverage.
Take a look at the full pick of doors by XL Joinery, online now at Leader Doors. All with express shipping at unbeatable prices.
FREE Super Saver Delivery On ALL Orders Over £800
To take advantage of this amazing offer, simply add the items you wish to purchase into your basket your order total will be amended to show FREE Shipping if you exceed £800+VAT.
Express Service
Please refer to the stock message listed above for an estimated delivery lead time. We always recommend that you contact our Customer Services team before placing any orders. We will check each individual product's stock status to ensure that it can be delivered on time.
Delivery Service
For full details on our deliveries, please see our Delivery Service page.
Size Guide
Please Click Here to view our Door Size Guide
Returns & Cancellations
For full details on returns, please see our Returns page.


text:
Albany Leisure Centre - Fusion
Timetables and information
All open in new window
Key Facts
Albany Leisure Centre
505 Hertford Road
Enfield, Middlesex, EN3 5XH
Tel: 020 8804 4255
Make an enquiry
Map & Directions
Opening Hours
Mon to Fri: 07:00 - 22:00
Sat & Sun: 08:00 - 18:00
May bank holidays: 07.30-19.00
Please tell us what you think about your latest visit.
Jump back in to Swim School
Book online for your free assessment
Get your FREE pass today!
Access the class of your choice or bring in the family with our FREE one day pass
School's Out
Make our centre you first stop this Christmas holiday
Welcome to Albany Leisure Centre which has undergone extensive redevelopment and offers excellent health and fitness facilities and a wide range of activities. Whether you are looking for a high energy, calorie burning work out, a relaxing session to sooth the mind as well as body or a fun and social activity, there is something to suit you.
Our Choice membership offers unlimited access to all the facilities and classes on offer at Albany as well as our other centres in the borough. So why not make your local centre your first choice when you want to get active?
In the interest of hygiene we provide poolside overshoes which MUST be used if you need to walk on poolside in outdoor footwear. Overshoe dispensers can be found in the main pool changing areas.
Fusion, an experienced sport and leisure management organisation, works in partnership with Enfield Council to bring you sport and leisure facilities across Enfield. As a registered charity, Fusion continually reinvests to improve the sport and leisure in your community.
Our first choice facilities at Albany Leisure Centre offer you great surroundings, excellent equipment and an enjoyable atmosphere.
We have a huge variety of energetic and relaxing activities, sessions and courses for people of all ages and abilities.
Can't find what you're looking for? Please don't hesitate to Contact Us.


text:
A series of storm systems will continue bring heavy snowfall to much of the Inter-mountain West through the weekend. Snow will also spread onto the northern Plains, with travel difficulties possible. Heavy lake-effect snow will finally begin to diminish on Saturday in the Great Lakes where significant travel hazards have been observed. Read More >
Louisville, KY
Weather Forecast Office
Last Map Update: Sat, Dec. 10, 2016 at 7:37:18 am EST
Current Hazards
Hazardous Weather Outlook
Storm Prediction Center
Fort Knox
Fort Campbell
Latest Forecasts
1-Stop Winter Forecast Page
El Nino and La Nina
Spot Request
Fire Weather
1-Stop Drought Page
Balloon Forecast
Air Quality
Recreation Forecasts
Nationwide Weather Stories
Central U.S. Weather Stories
Past Weather
Daily Temp/Precip Maps
Local Climate Pages
Climate Prediction
Past KY Derby Weather
Past KY Oaks Weather
Tornado History
Local Information
Forecast Discussion
Hazardous Weather Outlook
Decision Support Page
Regional Weather Map
Text Products
2017 Solar Eclipse
Items of Interest
Science and Technology
Spotter Training
Photo Album
Local Climate Page
Football Weather
LMK Warning Area
About Our Office
Station History
Tornado Machine Plans
US Dept of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Weather Service
Louisville, KY
6201 Theiler Lane
Louisville, KY 40229-1476
Comments? Questions? Please Contact Us.


text:
My reservation was cancelled by the travel agency when I arrived.
People from hotel staff was very kind and I could find another room in the same dates.
Breakfast is not sophisticated but very good.
I stay again in this hotel in the future.
- Reservation Options:
- TripAdvisor is proud to partner with Booking.com, Orbitz, Expedia, Travelocity, LaQuinta, Priceline, Hotels.com and Odigeo so you can book your La Quinta Inn & Suites Miami Airport West reservations with confidence. We help millions of travelers each month to find the perfect hotel for both vacation and business trips, always with the best discounts and special offers.
- Also Known As:
- La Quinta Inn & Suites Miami Airport West Hotel Miami
- La Quinta Inn And Suites Miami Airport West
- La Quinta Miami
- Miami La Quinta


text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
April 21, 2008
MEDFORD TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,v.MEDFORD EDUCATION ASSOCIATION AND JAMES BAPTISTE, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Burlington County, Docket No. C-54-06.
Argued April 1, 2008
Before Judges Skillman, Winkelstein and LeWinn.
Defendant James Baptiste was employed by plaintiff Medford Township Board of Education (Board) as a custodian. Baptiste was not tenured in this position.
Baptiste had an individual employment contract covering the period from July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006 under which the Board could terminate him at any time by giving fourteen days notice. The pertinent part of the employment contract stated:
It is hereby agreed by the parties hereto that this contract may at any time be terminated by either party giving to the other, in writing, fourteen (14) days notice of intent to terminate this contract.
Baptiste's employment relationship with the Board was also governed by a collectively negotiated agreement entered into between his union, defendant Medford Education Association (Association), and the Board. That agreement contained a provision prohibiting the discharge of any employee "without just cause" and subjecting any such employment action to the grievance procedures of the contract, which provided in pertinent part:
No employee recognized by this agreement shall be reprimanded, disciplined, reduced in rank or compensation, or deprived of any professional advantage without just cause. . . . Any such action asserted by the Board, or any agency or representative thereof, shall be subject to the grievance procedure[.]
The grievance procedure article of the agreement stated in pertinent part:
A grievance shall mean a claim by a grievant that a loss or injury has been incurred as a result of the misinterpretation or misapplication of the terms of this Agreement, and shall be subject to binding arbitration.
On February 6, 2006, the Board terminated Baptiste, effective immediately. The letter informing Baptiste of this personnel action enclosed a paycheck for what the Board described as "Two Week Notice -- Severance Pay[.]"
The Association filed a grievance challenging Baptiste's termination under the just cause provision of the collectively negotiated agreement, which the Board rejected. The Association then filed a request for arbitration with the Public Employment Relations Commission. The Board responded by filing this action to restrain the arbitration, claiming that the matter was not arbitrable because Baptiste had been terminated pursuant to the fourteen-day notice provision of his individual employment contract.
The case was brought before the trial court by order to show cause. After briefing and oral argument, the court concluded that Baptiste had been properly terminated in accordance with the fourteen-day notice provision of his individual employment contract and entered an order restraining the arbitration.
The Association appealed. We subsequently entered an order staying the appeal until the Supreme Court issued its decisions in Pascack Valley Regional High School Board of Education v. Pascack Valley Regional Support Staff Association, 192 N.J. 489 (2007) and Northvale Board of Education v. Northvale Education Association, 192 N.J. 501 (2007). After the Court decided Pascack Valley and Northvale, we granted the parties leave to file supplemental briefs addressing those decisions.
In Northvale, the Court affirmed the decision of the Appellate Division by an equally divided three-to-three vote. 192 N.J. at 501. Such a decision "is not entitled to any precedential weight." Abbamont v. Piscataway Twp. Bd. of Educ., 314 N.J. Super. 293, 301 (App. Div. 1998), aff'd, 163 N.J. 14 (1999). Therefore, in considering this appeal, we have focused upon Pascack Valley, which was decided by a unanimous vote.
Pascack Valley also involved a custodian who was terminated by the employer board of education in accordance with his individual employment contract, which was identical to the individual contract involved in this appeal except that it provided for fifteen, rather than fourteen, days notice of termination. 192 N.J. at 492-93. The employment relationship of the custodian involved in Pascack Valley, as in this case, was governed by a collectively negotiated agreement between the custodian's union and the employer board of education. Id. at 491-92. That agreement contained a provision prohibiting the discharge of any employee "without just cause" and subjecting any such employment action to the grievance procedures of the contract. Ibid. The grievance provision of the collectively negotiated agreement involved in Pascack Valley was almost identical to the one involved in this appeal except that it contained an additional sentence, which we consider to be dispositive of this appeal and therefore underscore:
No custodian . . . shall be disciplined, reprimanded, reduced in rank or compensation or deprived of professional advantage without just cause. Any such action asserted by the Board, or any agent or representative thereof, . . . shall be subject to the Grievance Procedure herein set forth. Any dismissal or suspension shall be considered a disciplinary action and shall at the option of the custodian . . . be subject to the Grievance Procedure. [Id. at 492 (emphasis added).]
In concluding that the custodian involved in Pascack Valley was entitled to pursue a grievance, including arbitration of his termination for disciplinary reasons, the Court characterized the underscored sentence as "expansive in its scope." Id. at 499. The Court observed that this provision "specified that 'any dismissal' of a custodian would be considered to be a disciplinary action subject to a just cause analysis, and it gave the custodian the option to pursue a grievance and arbitration of 'any dismissal.'" Ibid. Under this provision and another section of the collectively negotiated agreement that is also not included in the agreement between the Board and the Association, the Court concluded that:
[T]he parties agreed that, notwithstanding the terms of the individual contracts and the employer's unfettered right to terminate [the custodian] on fifteen days' notice, where plaintiff did so only as a surrogate for a disciplinary proceeding, the act of termination became an act of discipline that the parties had specifically negotiated and agreed would be grievable at the custodian's option. In so concluding, we see harmony between the terms of the individual contract rights and the CNA's grievance provisions, in particular as they relate to custodians.
Under these circumstances, the use of the individual contract's termination clause was not a termination for reason other than one that falls, by agreement, within the terms of the CNA. Rather, it was an effort to use the individual contract to bypass the protections that the Board agreed in the CNA would apply to discipline of all employees.
As such, it was the disciplinary measure of dismissal that the CNA specifically gave the custodian the right to grieve through the arbitration mechanism.
The section of the collectively negotiated agreement between the Board and the Association prohibiting discharge without just cause and subjecting any such employment action to the grievance procedures of the agreement did not contain the additional provision the Court found to be critical in Pascack Valley -- that "[a]ny dismissal or suspension shall be considered a disciplinary action and shall at the option of the custodian . . . be subject to the Grievance Procedure." Id. at 492. In the absence of this provision or any comparable provision that confers upon an employee subject to an individual employment contract the right to grieve a termination in accordance with the terms of that contract, we conclude that the Board was entitled to terminate Baptiste on fourteen days notice without showing just cause or having its termination decision subject to the grievance procedures of the collective negotiating agreement.
Although Baptiste's termination was made effective immediately rather than on fourteen days notice and thus did not conform with the literal term of the termination provision of his individual employment contract, he was given two weeks severance pay upon his termination. Thus, the only difference between the terms of Baptiste's termination and a termination in strict conformity with his individual contract is that Baptiste received his last two weeks of compensation without being required to perform any work for those two weeks. Therefore, we are satisfied Baptiste was terminated in substantial conformity with the terms of his individual employment contract.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text: Home Gallery Print (image) In An Absolut World Absolut: In An Absolut World Published on Jul 31, 2007 Editor's Pick Rate this Ad You must be registered to rate the ad. Please Login or Register Now About CreditsDateJul 31, 2007Agency:TBWA/Chiat/Day New York Latest Creativity News on Ad Age 1stAveMachine, Click 3X, Humble Add Director Duos Lowe's Latest Spot Is 'Multi-Porpoise' Romance, Bromance Ruined by a Cheeky Skywriter in Slim Jim's New Spot Advertisement Ad Age Events Nov 02 Los Angeles, CA SummitAd Age Brand Summit The Ad Age Brand Summit in Los Angeles peels apart the layers of brand building with a carefully crafted roster of top marketing, technology, and creative leaders. Learn more Related work Absolut: Buddy Check JMW Stockholm Absolut: Unique -- Best of 2012 Integrated/IX #9 Family Business Absolut: Greyhound - Music Video TBWA/Chiat/Day Want to see your work in our gallery? Submit now


text:
The Meaning of KILLA
You have found the definitive source for the meaning of KILLA. This page contains all the definitions of KILLA, crowd sourced, moderated and curated by real people who care about the true definitions of KILLA.
The Top Definition of KILLA
The most popular meaning of KILLA is: Good quality weed
What Other Meanings of KILLA Are There?
There are no other definitions for KILLA at this time. Add your own definition of KILLA.
What is KILLA?
KILLA is Good quality weed
KILLA Means
The definition of KILLA is "Good quality weed".
KILLA Definition
The meaning of KILLA
KILLA means Good quality weed.
Now you understand the definition of KILLA - KILLA means "Good quality weed".
We're glad to be of assistance. Click here to thank us:
What does KILLA mean? KILLA is an acronym, abbreviation or slang word that is explained above. If you ever forget what KILLA means, just come back to Slang.org and we'll define any acronym you need help with.


text:
Mother JonesJul. 24, 2007 1:12 PM
Note the date on this Onion point-counterpoint. The humorists knew what was coming.
— Nick Baumann
Mother Jones is a nonprofit, and stories like this are made possible by readers like you. Donate or subscribe to help fund independent journalism.
Copyright ©2016 Mother Jones and the Foundation for National Progress. All Rights Reserved.
Terms of Service
Privacy Policy
Contact Us
We noticed you have an ad blocker on.
Support nonprofit investigative reporting by pitching in a few


text:
Top infoTECH News
Software News
Hardware News
Security News
Networking News
infoTECH Editor's Pick
infoTECH Awards
What's Hot in Information Technology?
infoTECH Services
infoTECH Media Kit
IP Phones
Power Protection
Software Licensing
Software Monetization
infoTECH News
[April 30, 2014]
Check Point a Leader in Enterprise Network Firewall Market Through Completeness of Vision and Ability to Execute
(Marketwire Via Acquire Media NewsEdge) SAN CARLOS, CA -- (Marketwired) -- 04/30/14 -- Check Point® Software Technologies Ltd. (NASDAQ: CHKP), the worldwide leader in securing the Internet, today announced that it has been positioned as a Leader in the Gartner Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Network Firewalls(1). Check Point has been positioned as a Leader in Enterprise Network Firewalls since 1999.
"The Next-generation Firewall market is one in which Check Point consistently demonstrates industry leadership, a credit to our focus on the unique combination of innovation and execution," said Gabi Reish, vice president of product management for Check Point Software Technologies. "Since pioneering the industry with FireWall-1 and our patented stateful-inspection technology, Check Point clearly has continued to innovate. We believe our longstanding position in the Leaders quadrant reaffirms that Check Point delivers market-leading products that protect against growing threats both simply and effectively." We believe Check Point is highly recognized by both customers and analysts for its unparalleled network protection through award-winning security solutions. Check Point security appliances start with the 600 appliances, offering big security to small businesses, up to the 61000 appliance model, the industry's fastest security system. Users are able to choose from a wide variety of advanced security capabilities as part of Check Point's industry-leading Software Blade Architecture�, with pre-defined security packages including Next Generation Firewall and Next Generation Threat Prevention.
"As a customer for several years now, I congratulate Check Point for its stellar record of leadership position in the enterprise firewall space," said Hank Kline, director, Internet services at Expedia, Inc. "I believe this kind of distinct history certainly reflects Check Point's continual commitment to delivering outstanding, simple and flexible firewall solutions that can be easily customized with software blades to meet the particular security needs of its customers." For more information about Check Point's appliance portfolio, visit:
For more information on the Gartner Enterprise Network Firewalls Magic Quadrant, visit:
Follow Check Point via: Twitter: www.twitter.com/checkpointsw Facebook:
About the Gartner Magic QuadrantGartner does not endorse any vendor, product or service depicted in our research publications, and does not advise technology users to select only those vendors with the highest ratings. Gartner research publications consist of the opinions of Gartner's research organization and should not be construed as statements of fact. Gartner disclaims all warranties, expressed or implied, with respect to this research, including any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.
About Check Point Software Technologies Ltd.Check Point Software Technologies Ltd. (www.checkpoint.com), the worldwide leader in securing the Internet, provides customers with uncompromised protection against all types of threats, reduces security complexity and lowers total cost of ownership. Check Point first pioneered the industry with FireWall-1 and its patented stateful inspection technology. Today, Check Point continues to develop new innovations based on the Software Blade Architecture, providing customers with flexible and simple solutions that can be fully customized to meet the exact security needs of any organization. Check Point is the only vendor to go beyond technology and define security as a business process. Check Point 3D Security uniquely combines policy, people and enforcement for greater protection of information assets and helps organizations implement a blueprint for security that aligns with business needs. Customers include tens of thousands of organizations of all sizes, including all Fortune and Global 100 companies. Check Point's award-winning ZoneAlarm solutions protect millions of consumers from hackers, spyware and identity theft.
(1) from the Gartner Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Network Firewalls by Greg Young, Adam Hils, Jeremy D'Hoinne, ID Number: G00258296 Source: Check Point Software Technologies Ltd.
InfoTech Spotlight's Homepage
comments powered by Disqus.
blog comments powered by
infoTECH Headlines
Three Ways to Automate Work On the Go
Napatech CEO Talks Telecom Trends
NFL Athletes as Metaphor for How to Get Business Accomplished
SMBs Buying IT at Fever Pitch
Here Are a Few Reasons Why Tenaya Hurst is So Excited about Arduino
Creating Good User Stories the First Time for Agile IT Delivery
Analyzing the Benefits of a HyperFlex Architecture
Software Solutions: Are They Really What They Say They Are?
How to Conquer IT Challenges and Reach Big Data Potentials This Cyber Monday
Is a Secure Website Possible in 2017?
Subscribe to InfoTECH Spotlight eNews
InfoTECH Spotlight eNews delivers the latest news impacting technology in the IT industry each week. Sign up to receive FREE breaking news today!
FREE eNewsletter
$4B Wireless Repair Market Event Comes to ITEXPO
Rich Tehrani
Ransomware Fog Rolls over SanFran Muni, SFMTA
Rich Tehrani
Go!Foton Hopes to Advance Data Center and Carrier Fiber Transformation
Rich Tehrani
After the Election: Getting Mac and PC to Start Talking
Rich Tehrani
Licensing Live 2016 Live Blog
Rich Tehrani
Rich Tehrani speaks with Jim Lochry of ConnectLeader
Rich Tehrani speaks with Jim Lochry of ConnectLeader
XKL at TEX 2016
TMC's Rich Tehrani speaks with Colleen Gallagher of XKL at TEX 2016
Richard McFarland of Voice4Net at Real Time Web Solutions 2016
Richard McFarland of Voice4Net talks WebRTC at Real Time Web Solutions NYC 2016
Bent Rye of Temasys at Real Time Web Solutions 2016
Bent Rye of Temasys talks WebRTC at Real Time Web Solutions NYC 2016
infoTECH Whitepapers
SAP Enterprise Mobility: Bringing a Cohesive Approach to a Complex Market
What is Your Mobile Content Policy? A Checklist for Content Risk Mitigation
SANS Whitepaper: Mobile Content and Document Management Best Practices and Decision Checklist
A Snapshot into Cloud Storage Adoption
What is Information Tehnology
What is Information Technology?
The History of Information Technology
Today's Most Desired Information Technology Skills
Information Technology Careers
Ten Information Technology Companies of 2011
Powered by
Technology Marketing Corporation,
800 Connecticut Ave, 1st Floor East,
Norwalk, CT 06854 USA
Ph: 800-243-6002, 203-852-6800;
Fx: 203-853-2845
Contact us
Technology Marketing Corp. 1997-<%= curyear %> Copyright.
infoTECH Resources
Editor's Pick
infoTECH News
Software News
Hardware News
Security News
Networking News
What's Hot
Media Kit
infoTECH Communities
Call Recording
SIP Trunking
Unified Communications
infoTECH Channels
IP Phones
Power Protection
Software Licensing
Software Monetization
Virtual PBX
Workforce Management
Power Protection
Other Industries
IP Communications
Cable Spotlight
Satellite Spotlight
Smart Grid
Sports Techy
M2M Evolution


text:
Author Topic: What purpose do thorns serve on berry bushes and roses other then protection? (Read 20131 times)
SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
© 2000–2016 - The Naked Scientists®
The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.


text:
Dodgers send 3rd straight lefty to mound vs. Reds
For the third straight game, the Dodgers trot out a lefthanded starting pitcher to face the Cincinnati Reds.
The Reds' top three home-run hitters - Jay Bruce, Joey Votto and Shin-Soo Choo - are lefties. They are also three of the top four Reds hitters in on-base percentage.
While this wasn't necessarily by design, the Dodgers' rotation has lined up nicely to neutralize a potent group of hitters. The Reds have just two runs and eight hits total in the last two games, with southpaws Clayton Kershaw and Hyun-Jin Ryu picking up wins.
Chris Capuano, who has just one win in his last five starts, will attempt to continue the trend Sunday.
"Cincinnati is a team that with Bruce and Votto, you like having some lefties," Dodgers Manager Don Mattingly said. "You like being able to match up a bit with your starter but also being able to match up out of the bullpen a little bit.
"If you can get a section where you can get a couple of lefties, two out of three or something, it's nice to have Paco (Rodriguez) and J.P. (Howell) out there."
Choo, Votto and Bruce have hit just 3 for 22 the last two nights, though Bruce did hit a home run off of Ryu in the second inning Saturday. Choo, who is 0 for 7 the last two games and is hitting .176 against lefthanded pitchers this season, is not in the lineup Sunday.
Capuano will be matched up against rookie lefthander Tony Cingrani, who has allowed three runs or less in 10 of 11 starts this season. Here are the rest of the lineups:
2B Mark Ellis
RF Yasiel Puig
1B Adrian Gonzalez
SS Hanley Ramirez
LF Jerry Hairston Jr.
CF Andre Ethier
3B Juan Uribe
C Tim Federowicz
LHP Chris Capuano (3-6, 5.03 ERA)
CF Derrick Robinson
LF Chris Heisey
1B Joey Votto
2B Brandon Phillips
RF Jay Bruce
3B Todd Frazier
SS Zack Cozart
C Devin Mesoraco
LHP Tony Cingrani (4-1, 3.18)
Most Popular
- Unidentified man and woman caught on camera taking packages from Yorba Linda home
- Metrolink train en route to Orange County strikes car in Corona
- Santa Ana is now a sanctuary city for undocumented residents
- Man arrested in Fountain Valley on suspicion of lewd behavior
- When is the best time to visit Disneyland?
User Agreement
Comments are encouraged, but you must follow our Privacy Policy Policy & Terms of Use
Keep it civil and stay on topic. No profanity, vulgarity, racial slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked. By posting your comment, you agree to allow Orange County Register Communications, Inc. the right to republish your name and comment in additional Register publications without any notification or payment.


text: Let's face it; Jessica Alba is one of my personal favorite ladies. She is classy and sexy- don't you wish you could be more like her Paris? I happen to love this lady's bags, and on her way to get her hair done she was carrying quite the cute bag. Who can Name Jessica Alba's New Bag?? This bag is on my wish list for spring!


text:
Naked guys Jesse Bryce the cockhungry hunk
Tags: gays hardcore
Mexican gay sex images Jesse Bryce the cockhungry hunk
Tags: amateur blowjobs gays group sex interracial mexicana twink
Gay porn movies uniform muscle Jesse Bryce the cockhungry hu
Tags: blowjobs gays group sex interracial uniform
Twinks XXX Hair-Raising Bukkake with Jesse James
Tags: bukkake gays jesse james twink
Twinks XXX Jesse Jacobs is peeping on Austin Parker as he sh
Tags: amateur blowjobs gays twink
Twinks XXX Just another day at the Teach Twinks office! Jaso
Tags: amateur european gays office twink
Cockhungry asian twinks golden shower action
Tags: asian blowjobs gays golden shower hd twink
Cockhungry muscle sucking hunk before anal
Tags: anal blowjobs kiss sucking
Tags: anal blowjobs gays hd sucking
Twinks XXX The act commences right away, with the older folk
Tags: amateur gays group sex twink
Twinks XXX The frustration that no one else arrived for the
Tags: amateur gays twink
Tags: blowjobs gays twink
Twinks XXX Blake Allen is the fresh boy around the studio an
Tags: boy gays twink
Twinks XXX Ace Sterling stands at the front of the classroom trying
Tags: classroom gays twink
Twinks XXX It's the thickest game of the year and this frat
Tags: amateur blowjobs cumshots game gays handjobs outdoor
Gay XXX The fellow is so turned on by the suited hunk he can
Asian Twinks Jesse and Ronny Fuck Bareback
Tags: asian gays hd twink
Twinks XXX It turns out the fellow has some very interesting ways to please the new
Tags: twink
Gay XXX Erik is the lucky one to be dual teamed by the other 2 twinks.
Tags: amateur anal fetish gays kiss toys twink
Twinks XXX Foot Loving Boys Go All The Way
Tags: cumshots fetish foot gays masturbation twink
Twinks XXX The Suite Life With Zack And Tyler
Tags: blowjobs gays handjobs twink
Twinks XXX These 2 twinks drill each other's brains out in t
Twinks XXX Surprisingly, Colin was getting right into the bl
TrafficHolder.com - Buy and Sell Adult Traffic|Trafficshop.com - Let your business grow|Contact Us|Webmaster
All content, including images, text, graphics, video and audio content contained in the website is protected under the laws of copyright, owned or under license to company or its designees,and represents proprietary and valuable intellectual property.
Contact Webmaster 18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement
Powered by Stream Rotator


text:
Last year, Quest Crew, delivered one of the most memorable performances in ABDC history during the Last Chance Challenge. It can even be argued that their cinematic, piano-inspired routine helped propel them to victory over the Beat Freaks, who -- up until the next-to-last episode -- were heavily favored to win. So how important is this week's competition for We Are Heroes?
"For America and ABDC, it's about putting on a show and entertaining," WAH's Riquel Olander told us shortly before taping. "We decided to go out there tonight and do us, but do us in a way that is still going to entertain. We know people in both top two crews from last season and we've had the chance to ask what they would -- and wouldn't -- do differently, so we're going to take their advice to heart."
That said, it's been a tough week for everyone so far. All the crews have been burning the midnight oil, hoping to lock in the win -- and learn two lengthy routines, although WAH still promises to deliver a killer set.
"As tired as we are and as sick as we are, we just have to follow through with a strong performance and not just give a dance show," Riquel declared.
And while the Heroes are looking to give audiences the show of their lives, they're not ready to hang up their dancing shoes just yet. "We wanna follow in Quest's footsteps," Riquel told us. "[W]e want to win the show."


text:
- Customized Interior Doors in Silverdale, WA
- Dedicated Silverdale Interior Door Specialists
- Free Estimates on Interior Doors in Silverdale
Interior Doors in Silverdale, WA
It is very important that you take the time to look into the variety of interior doors Silverdale, WA has to offer so you can select the right ones for your home. The Silverdale interior doors that you choose should be durable and secure so you can count on them to last a very long time. There are lots of different doors to choose from in a variety of materials and styles, so you will need to make a point of looking for ones that will look good in your home and stand the test of time.
Avg Costs for Interior Doors
Min Cost
Max Cost
Avg Cost
$1,040.54 - $1,504.78
Find the Best Quality Interior Doors - Silverdale, WA
You will find that Silverdale interior door contractors will be able to do the installation work you need so you don't have to worry about doing any of it yourself. Make sure that you look for doors that have just the right aesthetic so they don't stand out in your house too much. Quality interior doors in Silverdale, WA are very important, because the last thing you want is to have to keep getting your doors repaired or replaced over the years. With the right interior doors you will be able to get exactly what you want with regards to the right look as well as overall functionality.
Interior Doors Companies
Bell Homebuilding Inc
2909 Sheridan St
Poulsbo, WA 98370
Puget Sound Environmental Corp.
520 Burwell St
Bremerton, WA 98337
Big Daddy's Custom Builder's Inc.
7986 Vanessa Place N.W.
Silverdale, WA 98383
Steel Structures Nw
Po Box 4367
Bremerton, WA 98312
Vestman Construction, Inc.
16951 Lemolo Shore Dr Ne
Poulsbo, WA 98370
Sabelhaus West Inc
10880 Old Frontier Rd NW
Silverdale, WA 98383


text:
iOS 10 is now available, you may be eager to update your iPhone to iOS 10, but frustrated by the fact that iPhone have not enough storage? Don't worry, to release more space for iOS device, we have picked 5 simple tips, with which you are surly to get enough storage to upgrade to iOS 10. What's more, with more free iOS space, you can completely enjoy the attractive new features of iOS 10.
Five Tips to Get Enough Free Space for iOS 10
Tip 1. Remove Unnecessary Apps
The first thing you should do is to find out what's the Apps who taking up the most storage on your iPhone. Check your iPhone's total space in Settings > General > Storage & iCloud usage > Manage Storage, you can see how much storage you have used and how much is left.
You may have some old apps hidden on your iPhone that you seldom use or you don't use anymore. If you show no appreciation for them, to get free space for iOS 10, you can directly delete them in Manage Storage by tapping "Delete App".
Tip 2. Delete Cache Files on Your Apps
Tip 3. Restart Your iPhone after Upgrade
The other thing you need to heed is that when you update, deleted things such as the iOS 10 cache deleted can be synchronized from other iOS devices and iCloud automatically by the default setting. You'd better check the settings to prevent this from happening.
It's suggested to restart your iPhone after upgrade, and you can keep all your personal settings by restarting with apps on in background.
Tip 4. Back up to iCloud or other storage services
To release iPhone storage, it's advisable to store important files in some storage service servers rather than keeping them all in your iPhone.
Considering the safety of your iPhone, Apple will kindly suggest you to upload your data to iCloud. However, 5GB free storage seems too insufficient to save all the backups. You can also use other storage service like Dropbox and Google Drive to store big files of photos, music, and videos.
Tip 5. All-in-One iOS 10 Storage Solution: Delete All Junk & Temporary Files, Manage Apps/Photos/Videos
Have you ever thought to find a tool to do all the above for your, after you tried in many ways but are still not satisfied with the available iOS storage? iMyFone iOS Cleaner or iMyFone iOS Cleaner for Mac is a special tool for you to release huge space on your iOS device by just one click.
Manage Photos: For this function, you'll have 2 options to choose: photo compression & photo deletion. Photo compression can reclaim 75% of your photos' space, while mass deletion allow you to delete multiple photos in one click. All original photos will be automatically Backed up on your PC before compression and deletion.
Delete Large Files: Umate will scan your iOS 10 device and find all the large files above 5MB. You can filter videos by different sizes. Comparing with deleting large files directly, another advantage of iMyFone Umate is to back up the selected files to your computer before deletion.
Remove Unused Apps: All the apps will be listed according to the space they take up. Needn't to delete apps one by one, you can remove multiple apps by one click on the "Remove" button under the app list.
Permanently Erase Sensitive Data: Erase not only current personal files but also sensitive files deleted in the pass, and the erased data cannot be recovery by any data recovery software.
With five powerful iOS cleaning functions, the program can save huge storage for your iPhone. The only thing you need to do is to take three steps to complete the process in the instructions.
Step 1. Connect your iPhone to computer
Run the program on your computer, it will show the following interface prompting you to connect your iPhone with it. Please connect with an original cable.
Step 2. Scan your iPhone
After you connect your iPhone with iMyFone Umate on your computer, you will see its home interface. Click "Quick Scan" to analyze how much space can be saved by the five powerful functions.
Step 3. Free up space for your iPhone by clicking "Clean" button.
After the whole cleaning process finish, you will see the total storage saved. If you want to check your original photos, just click "Open Backup Folder" in the "Compress Photo" tab. And the similar situation is with the large files backup.
iMyFone Umate iPhone storage cleaner supports cleaning on various Apple devices, including iPhone, iPad, iPod. Free download and try it to get more space for your iPhone running iOS 10.
A number of unnecessary files consume up space that prevent you from storing more useful data. Some of the ways in which you can free up storage space include deleting apps, deleting history from Safari or using iCloud as your primary source. However, all of these methods are inefficient. Deleting apps is not a good idea as there is a limit to the number of apps that you can delete. Moreover, just by clearing the history of Safari you will not be able to boost the performance.
iMyFone Umate Pro might be the answer to your problems. Along with doing all of the above tasks, it will also allow you to delete other temporary files. You can also manage your apps efficiently. iMyFone Umate Pro also has features that will let you compress photos up to 75% of their original size thus allowing you to store more data without deleting anything.


text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
April 11, 1967
CONSOLIDATED-HAMMER DRY PLATE AND FILM COMPANY, PETITIONER,v.THE RENEGOTIATION BOARD, RESPONDENT
Knoch, Kiley and Swygert, Circuit Judges.
KNOCH, Circuit Judge.
The Renegotiation Board, respondent herein, decided that the petitioner, Consolidated-Hammer Dry Plate and Film Company, had realized $75,000 excessive profits on renegotiable contracts during the taxable year 1951. The Tax Court on appeal came to the same conclusion.
In this Court, the petitioner seeks review contending that the Tax Court erred in failing (1) to find the petitioner exempt from the Renegotiation Act of 1951, Title 50 U.S.C.A. App. § 1211 et seq.; (2) to exclude certain accruals; (3) to require proper burden of proof; and (4) to make proper findings and conclusions of law.
The Act provided that of the amounts received or accrued during a fiscal year by a contractor (and all persons under control of or controlling or under common control with the contractor) under contracts which were subject to renegotiation, if the aggregate was not more than $250,000, then the receipts or accruals from such contracts should not for that fiscal year be renegotiated under the Act, Title 50 U.S.C.A. App. § 1215(f) (1). (Contracts subject to renegotiation are contracts with the Departments of Defense, Army, Navy, and Air Force to the extent of amounts received or accrued by a contractor on or after January 1, 1951. Title 50 U.S.C.A. App. § 1212.)
If the aggregate of such amounts received or accrued was more than $250,000, then no determination of excessive profits for such year with respect to such contracts would be for more than the amount of the aggregate in excess of $250,000. Title 50, U.S.C.A. App. § 1215(f) (1).
If preliminary renegotiations between the Board and the contractor failed to result in an agreement, the Board would enter an order determining the amount of excessive profits. Absent a petition for review to the Tax Court, the Board's order would be conclusive subject to no review or redetermination. Title 50 U.S.C.A. App. § 1215(a).
An aggrieved contractor could petition the Tax Court for redetermination, posting bond to stay execution of the Board's order. Title 50 U.S.C.A. App. § 1218.
The petitioner here did not post such bond. A suit to recover $75,000 plus interest, Civ. No. 59 C 370, is pending presently in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
When a petition for redetermination is filed with the Tax Court, that Court may redetermine the amount of excessive profits, if any, in a de novo proceeding, and "such determination shall not be reviewed or redetermined by any court or agency." Title 50 U.S.C.A. App. § 1218.
Profits for purposes of the Act are defined as the excess of the amount received or accrued under the contracts with which the Act is concerned over the costs paid or incurred with respect to those contracts and determined to be allocable to them. The Act provides that costs shall be determined in accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the contractor in keeping his records unless the Board, or the Tax Court, finds that his method does not properly reflect his costs, Title 50 U.S.C.A. App. § 1213(f).
If the Board or the Tax Court finds the contractor's method improper, the Board or Tax Court will determine the method to be used. Title 50 U.S.C.A. App. § 1213(i).
The facts out of which this cause arose are largely undisputed. The Consolidated Photo Engravers and Lithographers Equipment Company (hereinafter called "Photo") was wholly owned by Benjamin Sugarman and his family. It made profits in fiscal years 1948, 1949 and 1950. Mr. Sugarman also owned 90% of Consolidated-Hammer Dry Plate and Film Company, the petitioner herein, which suffered losses during those same three years. On August 31, 1951, Photo was merged into petitioner, after which the Sugarman family continued to own 98.5% of the stock and Mr. Sugarman, who had been president and treasurer of both companies, continued to serve in those capacities for petitioner.
The substantial loss carry-forward of the petitioner was utilized in the petitioner's tax returns for 1951, and no taxable income was reported. The petitioner had no renegotiable contracts prior to the merger, but through the merger acquired profit-generating business with the Defense Department arising out of contracts subject to renegotiation.
The 1951 tax return showed net sales of about $609,000 and income of about $215,000. The Renegotiation Board, as indicated, found $75,000 excessive profits from renegotiable contracts.
In its petition for redetermination filed December 10, 1958, the petitioner asserted receipt or accrual of $343,200, under contracts subject to renegotiation, but indicated costs so great as to reduce profits to $28,214.97. That petition also stated that the petitioner's prior submission of the figure of $98,214.97 as renegotiable profit was in error and arose from a mistaken inventory and capitalization of certain prototypes produced for the government at a cost of about $100,000 in expectation of government reimbursement which was not forthcoming, and which should have been added to cost of goods sold.
Later, on December 21, 1964, the petitioner filed an amended petition asserting receipt or accrual of only $162,526.87 during 1951 from renegotiable contracts from which no profit at all was earned.
The petitioner explains its failure to amend its income tax returns for 1951, in the light of these alleged errors, on the ground that the various errors in the petitioner's books and records were not discovered until 1958 and later, too late to amend the income tax returns to secure any unused loss carryover for subsequent years.
The petitioner did attempt to show that no large profits had been made, but its records were incomplete in many respects. Some of the cost data referred to costs of Photo prior to the merger which were not attributable to the petitioner. It does not appear that the petitioner ever requested the Board to conduct renegotiation on a consolidated basis to reflect the excessive profits, if any, of the two related contractors as the Board is authorized to do in its discretion. Title 50 U.S.C.A. App. § 1215(a).
In the Tax Court and here, the petitioner contended that a figure of $140,000 for tooling was improperly accrued in 1951, as shown by its records and its tax return, because although this sum was billed to the Air Force in 1951, it had been rejected at that time and was not paid until 1952. The petitioner's accountant testified that this tooling may have been improperly retained in the inventory account, despite the fact that this was a sale, and would thus have resulted in an overstatement of profits. Mr. Sugarman testified that he thought that this tooling had been so retained in the inventory. The Tax Court rejected his conjecture that this error had been made. Apart from the inherent unlikelihood of such an error, the Tax Court noted that to reduce by $140,000 the closing inventory shown by the petitioner's records would produce the odd result that there would have been a lesser rate of increase in inventory following the merger when operations on government contracts were expanded than during the period preceding the merger, which would be extremely peculiar.
The case was complicated by the fact that the petitioner's books for 1951 did not segregate costs involved in sales on renegotiable government contracts from those on non-renegotiable contracts, so that complete cost data was not available as to each contract. The petitioner sought to cover this gap in evidence by production of various documents plus the testimony of Mr. Sugarman and his accountant.
The Tax Court found it unnecessary to determine the issue of the includability of the $140,000 in computing the petitioner's profits subject to renegotiation. The Tax Court held that the renegotiable sales of Photo in 1951 (in an amount in excess of $174,000) when combined with petitioner's own sales exceeded the requisite $250,000 even if the $140,000 were excluded.
The Tax Court found that the petitioner and Photo during 1951 were under common control within the meaning of the Act, § 1215(f) (1), so that the receipts and accruals of Photo could be combined with those of the petitioner to determine that the petitioner was subject to renegotiation by virtue of having met the jurisdictional amount set out in the statute.
We agree that the undisputed facts support the Tax Court's finding of common control. The jurisdictional requirements were met. Lowell Wool By-Prod. Co. v. War Contracts P. Adj. Bd., 1951, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 281, 192 F.2d 405.
As indicated, the statute makes proceedings to determine the amount, if any, of excessive profits, a hearing de novo, not a review of the Board's determination. Under Rule 32 of the Tax Court's Rules of Practice, the burden of proof is on the petitioner, who was here called upon to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that its renegotiable profits in 1951 were reasonable. Boeing Airplane Co. v. Renegotiation Board, 1962, 37 T.C. 613, 635.
The Tax Court's calculations left the petitioner with a profit of $70,568.04 on renegotiable sales of $238,726.44, which was substantially higher than that on non-renegotiable sales and several times that made by Photo, as disclosed by the evidence. The petitioner itself had never previously shown a profit according to the record.
The Renegotiation Act allows appellate review of the Tax Court's determination on constitutional and jurisdictional issues only. United States Electrical Motors v. Jones, 1946, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 329, 153 F.2d 134, 136-137; United States v. California Eastern Line, 1955, 348 U.S. 351, 354-355, 75 S. Ct. 419, 99 L. Ed. 383.
The petitioner contends that the holdings of the Tax Court were so arbitrary and capricious as to raise a constitutional issue. A similar argument was raised without success in Boeing Co. v. Renegotiation Board, 9 Cir., 1963, 325 F.2d 885, cert. den. 377 U.S. 923, 84 S. Ct. 1220, 12 L. Ed. 215.
The individual rulings to which the petitioner refers all present questions of fact and law entering into determination of the amount, if any, of excessive profits, which are not subject to review by this Court. Further, although not obliged to do so, we have studied the evidence in the record before us and we cannot agree that the various rulings and findings of the Tax Court, some of which turned purely on credibility and the weight to be assigned to testimony heard by the Tax Court, were either arbitrary or capricious.
The decision of the Tax Court is affirmed and the petition is dismissed.
© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
Prices, promotions, styles and availability may vary by store and online.
Action - Pump Action
Gauge - 12 Ga.
Chamber - 2-3/4" & 3"
Barrel Length - 18-1/2"
Weight - 6.8 Lbs.
With its rock solid reputation on the streets and on the battlefield, the Mossberg 590A1 has become the choice for the modern duty shotgun. Men and women in uniform need a rugged, dependable firearm they can rely on day in and day out, no matter the conditions. Mossberg's 590A1 shotguns have posted the credentials and track record over several decades to earn their trust. This shotgun features an aftermarket synthetic stock, a ghost ring rear sight, a tang-mounted safety, and a fixed cylinder choke. Its stock and bore are in very good condition and its metal is in good condition.


text:
MainStay Suites Mount Pleasant (South Carolina)
400 McGrath Darby Blvd, Charleston, United States Show Map
Check in from 3:00 PM / Check out prior to 12:00 AM
MainStay Suites Mount Pleasant (South Carolina): Find photos, reviews, information, amenities and compare prices for 3 stars hotels in Charleston, United States.
Situated in Charleston, this 3-star property is spacious and charming. It features a fitness centre, as well as a swimming pool, an outdoor pool and free Wi-Fi.
Hotel description
This historic hotel provides a number of amenities, including a 24-hour reception, a BBQ/picnic area and an express check-in and check-out feature. It also offers a laundry service, a safe and a shopping mall.
MainStay Suites Mount Pleasant features spacious rooms equipped with a refrigerator, cable/satellite channels and a washing machine. All individual bathrooms provide a hair dryer.
A satisfying breakfast is available each morning at MainStay Suites Mount Pleasant, and there are numerous cafés and eateries close by.
MainStay Suites Mount Pleasant provides an ideal place to explore nearby The Citadel and College of Charleston, as well as everything the local area has to offer. The hotel also offers parking for guests with a vehicle.
Hotel features
Air Conditioned, Refrigerator, Cable / Satellite TV, Hair Dryer, TV, En suite, Private Bathroom, Vending Machines
Business Center, Elevator / Lift, 24 Hour Reception, Safe-Deposit Box, Wake-up Service, Laundry service, Photocopier, Facsimile, Express Check-In/Check-Out
Fitness Room/Gym, Swimming pool, Pool Outdoor
High-speed Internet, Internet Connection (wireless)
Picnic Area/Tables
Availability and Prices
Booking Site
Room Type
Per room
Per night
Per night
Users who viewed MainStay Suites Mount Pleasant (South Carolina) also viewed these 3 stars Charleston hotels:
Courtyard by Marriott Charleston-Mount Pleasant
1251 Woodland Ave, Charleston
1251 Woodland Ave, Charleston
Comfort Inn Charleston
144 Bee Street, Charleston
144 Bee Street, Charleston
Staybridge Suites North Charleston
7329 Mazyck Road, Charleston
7329 Mazyck Road, Charleston
Search hotels
based on
507 reviews
Nearest hotels
- Sleep Inn Mount Pleasant (South Carolina)
0.1 miles
- Extended Stay America - Charleston - Mt Pleasant
0.1 miles
- Masters Inn Mt Pleasant
0.1 miles


text:
Send Hilarious e-cards for Birthdays, Anniversarys, Holidays & More
Over 250 Personalizable Birthday eCards
25% off Justin Bieber's Hit Video
25% off Speedo Shaking Hit Video
eCards & Videos Subscription Now : $1.50/Month
25% off Vanilla Ice's Superhit Ice Ice Baby Subscription
25% off Star in Britney Spears Catchy Chart Topping Super Hit
These offers have not been verified to work. They are either expired or are not currently valid.
Discounted 1 Year Membership with Code
$12.00 $10.80
10% off Membership for New Customers
10% off First Year Memberships
Found a great deal or code? Share the savings!Get Started
68 Promo Codes
Used in the Past Month
JibJab is fun worth sharing, with videos and e-cards available for less thanks to JibJab coupons.
You can't help but laugh when you create personalized eCards and videos at JibJab.com. Upload your own pictures to create personalized greetings for friends and family, and do it for less with JibJab promo codes.
With a JibJab subscription, you'll have access to:
You can even link JibJab to your Facebook account to receive birthday notifications so that you never miss a big date.
JibJab cards will get your whole office talking, or create a new inside joke between you and your loved ones. They're perfect for any occasion, so use JibJab promo codes to save on greetings for holidays, birthdays, anniversaries, and more.
From: Big Lots
$29 96ct K-Cup Packs - 30¢/Pod
From: Raise
Up to 10% off Wingstop gift cards from Raise.com
From: Newegg
Free $10 Nike Gift Card w/ Nike $50 Gift Card
From: Dorco
50% off Dorco Pace Trial Pack + Free Shipping


text:
We experimentally demonstrate a high resolution integrated spectrometer on silicon on insulator (SOI) substrate using a large-scale array of microdonut resonators. Through top-view imaging and processing, the measured spectral response of the spectrometer shows a linewidth of ~0.6 nm with an operating bandwidth of ~50 nm. This high resolution and bandwidth is achieved in a compact size using miniaturized microdonut resonators (radius ~2μm) with a high quality factor, single-mode operation, and a large free spectral range. The microspectrometer is realized using silicon process compatible fabrication and has a great potential as a high-resolution, large dynamic range, light-weight, compact, high-speed, and versatile microspectrometer.
© 2011 OSAFull Article | PDF Article
Related Articles
Zexuan Qiang, Weidong Zhou, and Richard A. Soref
Opt. Express 15(4) 1823-1831 (2007)
Qing Li, Mohammad Soltani, Siva Yegnanarayanan, and Ali Adibi
Opt. Express 17(4) 2247-2254 (2009)
Bernardo B. C. Kyotoku, Long Chen, and Michal Lipson
Opt. Express 18(1) 102-107 (2010)


text:
Chris Low discusses the challenge facing LSU defensive coordinator John Chavis after losing seven starters off last season's defense.
What happened to the SEC Heisman Trophy contenders in 2016?
1dGreg Ostendorf
How game film would decide CFB award winners
2dSteve Muench and Kevin Weidl
Why records don't tell the real stories about these bowl teams
3dAdam Rittenberg
Alabama leads way with eight players on ESPN.com All-SEC team
4dESPN.com staff
Report card: Grading the first-year coordinators in the SEC
4dGreg Ostendorf


text:
|This is a discussion on 5nl at pokerstars (Did I do ok?) within the online poker forums, in the Cash Games section; So after playing with PKR poker for nearly a year and a bit I got fed up of the low traffic, My play was not
5nl at pokerstars (Did I do ok?)
So after playing with PKR poker for nearly a year and a bit I got fed up of the low traffic, My play was not consistant because I got fed up waiting for sng's to start. Was a regular sng player on PKR when I wasnt working.
So I thought id try my hand at at 0.02c/0.05c 6 max on stars.
Put 50 euro on yesterday morning, ($68) played for 4 hours yesterday (2hr and 2hr sessions) and 2hrs this morning, finished up in all three sessions with $97.44 which im happy enough with, up just shy of 30 bucks
Was actually fun to play cash, some good players, but mostly spewing russians and other eastern european countries (not a generalisation)
Just wondering if this is a good return for my time at this level.
(note, was running ok but nothing special, got AA 4 times today but got folded to 3 times)
Oh and I was two tabling.
re: Poker & 5nl at pokerstars (Did I do ok?)
you'd need samples of thousands of games before you could determine accurately if you're winning, winning 30bucks in 6 hours is all well and good but do you really think that's sustainable, yup report back in a month, that will give you a better idea, look forward to hearing back and hope you kick some ass!!
So you probably played around 1k hands. Sample sizes that START to produce reliable information start at 50k hands. I know you're new, im not giving you a hard time . Just don't get ahead of yourself.
Btw, getting dealt aces 4 times and having them folded to you 3 times is running well, I assume you won a pot with the other?
GL and welcome to cash
The longer you play on a table the easier it`s for you to win cash.
I noticed that when I play cash tables I make less mistakes after 30 min on it. Folding enough hands results in learning how your opponents play their hands. Ofc this is abit harder on multi-tables.
re: Poker & 5nl at pokerstars (Did I do ok?)
Something very pure about cash compared to tourneys,
kinda finding cash to be more creative which is my thing as im quiet good at drawing and making things (no ebrag)
played the sunday storm tourney (my once a week treat instead of drinking or smoking/ getting take out) and ran like poo and managed to atleast come 8 thousandth of 35 thousand, which I thought ok considering I was dealt K2 J4 93 82 Q6 and so on for most of it.
But yeah, one step at a time dont wanna jump the gun.
its just playing $1.50 sngs on pkr took forever to go up 30 dollars.
I mean literally more than a week, not to mention just waiting to play ,
I guess I ran well in 6 hr cash session, but I hope its not a case of the cards made me win and not my play, I mean I did pull off some good preflop resteals against an aggro russian a few times with complete trash :P
Hope to stick to my morning poker schedule, 2 hours of play have lunch study the hand history threads and my hand history and then play for 2 more hours.
anyways thanks for the warm welcome!
(ps I used to be a hit and run cash game player when I first tried it, but Im finding sticking around after doubling up much more fun as people play passively against you and you can take advantage of this, also helps that my style is TAG and lets me pull some good bluffs vs the thinking players (few and fair between at 5nl) )
Going to play a 2 hour session now will report back at my lunch break.
Yeah I was running well but for a lot of my hands I didnt have the best of it,
Ill try find my hand history from yesterday as examples.
Grats on winning but if you want some real feedback on how you have played you would need to post some hands of some big pots you played (won or lost)
Don't post like coolers or bad beats though which can't really be avoided, post some interesting hands that you found tricky to play or was unsure of the right action and you will get some really good feedback.
Best of luck in the games.
Actually, interesting thought, the maximum theoretical win rate in a heads up game in 100bb stack is actually 9950bb/100 hands, but it requires maximum collusion and a willing losing party. Pointless thoughts FTL
re: Poker & 5nl at pokerstars (Did I do ok?)
Welp I ran like a god for 1 hour and then in the last hour got coolered JJ vs 88 and villian hit an 8 on the river, all in on 10 high uncoordinated board.
first hour
table 1 ; start stack $5, up to $12
Table 2 ; start stack $5, up to $6.50
so up 8.50 when both tables become empty lol (is that good or bad?)
open two new tables, and run crap, I get coolered with my Jacks one table for $5 , and just drop a bit over a $2 on another against a good aggro russian. (quickly realised no point in trying to make money off a solid player plus the second hour was up so left)
So after two hours bank roll has gone from $97.44 to $98.79
up $1.35.
Would have been better stopping after 1 hour when I was up $8.50 but
like they say, set a time of play and stick too it whether it's going great or going shit.
I think my problem and something I just learned is then when I opened the new table I played like it was the same tables as before and didnt adjust to think these guys dont have an image of me, so basically it looked like a new guy joined the table and came out guns blazing so my raises dont get respect. plus it was a looser two tables than the other.
Lesson learned, should have just tightened up again until I got used to how they were playing.
Atleast I finished after 2 hours, old me would chase that money even though im still up (however small it may be )
Play in such a manner that you try and focus on making smart decisions on the table rather than trying to make a profit every session. If you just try to eek out profits every session you might end up giving more action on the table than you normally would. So you are doing well, my advice would be when you encounter variance where you start loosing still concentrate on playing solid poker and not get affected by it. If you are able to manage that and your bankroll management is good the you should be doing alright.