text:
Divinity of Doubt: The God Question
Vanguard Press, Apr 12, 2011 - Religion - 256 pages
From the New York Times bestselling author of Helter Skelter comes a provocative book on agnosticism
What people are saying - Write a review
Unbelievable what Mr. Bugliosi has gotton away here - plagiarism of the first order. At best, 5 % original thinking on his part.
Q. So Vincent is branching out in his seniority? I believe he is mostly retired now?
A. Yes. This book covers his study of religion, mostly Christianity, though he briefly discusses other religions.
Q. What is the God question?
A. Vincent is an agnostic, neither believing nor entirely disbelieving in the existence of a God. But he makes it clear that he finds the Christian and Jewish God to be impossible, in the light of logic and reason. Also, he is not an atheist and thoroughly takes apart the leading atheist writers of today, Hitchins, Dawkins, and Harris.
Q. So he does a good job in the book, getting his points across?
A. He does. Logically and reasonably, his points are well-taken. I think what Vincent misses, probably because he had to limit his scope, is that people turn to religions not because they make sense but because they need something to cling to in their fear of death, illness, and so forth. In that respect, religion fills the bill: It offers hope beyond this life, and the big religions have many others believing the same thing. There is no wisdom in large groups but many find comfort in large groups, that others seem to believe the same thing they do.
Q. So do you recommend this book to the general reader?
A. Definitely. Vincent is an engaging writer, even out of his main field, law, and he is very funny in some of his sarcasm. This book is a good read. There are plenty of end notes to fill in some of the historical blanks.
Selected pages
4 Atheism and Its Current Leading Prolocutors
5 Darwin and Evolution
6 The Intelligence or Lack Thereof of Intelligent Design and First Cause
7 Genesis
8 BornAgain Christians and Their Remarkable Beliefs
13 If God Is AllGood Why Does He Put All of Us to Death?
14 Whats So Great Up There in Heaven?
15 A Brief Descent into Hell
16 Praying to a Tree Trunk
17 Between Morality and Religion Who Needs Whom?
18 Hey Look at Us Were Just as Silly as They Are
19 The Sense and Morality of Agnosticism


text: Linda P. Jones is America's Wealth Mentor. She is CEO of Be Wealthy & Smart, a business dedicated to teaching high income earners how to create high net worth by being prepared for the coming U.S. dollar devaluation, a result of the trillions of dollars being printed by the government. Linda became a millionaire at age 38 and mentors others about wealth building principles that are not widely taught. She also teaches how to identify fast growing trends to build wealth and invest like billionaires. Her sole purpose is to focus on how to make clients more wealth. She follows economic cycles, which are repeatable patterns that indicate future investment opportunities. Linda teaches how to identify financial bubbles early and the signs of a peak. Stock market cycles have secretly been used by billionaires to create wealth for decades. Linda graduated from the University of Washington with a Business degree and worked in the investment industry over 25 years, representing many of the industry's best money managers and overseeing institutional funds, mutual funds, and alternative investment sales in 8 states with over $200 million in sales annually. Sign up for Linda's blog and videos at: http://www.lindapjones.com Connect with her on: http://www.twitter.com/LindaPJones http://www.facebook.com/LindaPJonesFanPage http://www.linkedin.com/LindaPJones http://www.youtube.com/user/lindapjones

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Total Time
Prep 0 mins
Cook 1 hr
A lovely lentil rice dish that is easy to make and delicious
Ingredients Nutrition
- 1 cup green lentil (or brown)
- 1 cup basmati rice
- 1⁄2 teaspoon cinnamon
- 1⁄2 teaspoon allspice
- 1⁄4-1⁄2 teaspoon black pepper
- 3 teaspoons salt (to taste)
- 3 3⁄4 cups water
- 1 onion, chopped
- 7 -8 tablespoons olive oil
- Fry onion med heat in 3 T oil until soft and brown.
- Add lentils, water and spices (not salt and pepper)and bring to boil and simmer covered 20 minutes or until tender.
- Add salt and pepper and rice.
- bring to boil and reduce to lowest simmer covered for 20 minutes.
- Please note I use coffee mugs as my cups as I like big helpings.
- Serve with slow fried slivered onions that are caramalised and eyptian tomato sauce ( can post if anyones interested) and olive oil drizzled over (makes huge difference) and jajik yogurt and cucumber salad.
- Is really really delicious and have kids saying it is their favourite meal!
Most Helpful
Really simple and tasty. I cut the salt down by about a third and it was just fine for my taste. I topped with a small bed of fresh baby spinach and drizzled some olive oil and fresh ground pepper on top. Thanks for sharing!
A very good vegan meal! I used green lentils (for the first time), 1/2 tsp ground cumin following the lead of Shu Shu & sea salt. I served it with your Recipe #169113 & Balkan thick yogurt caramelized onions made with a little dark brown sugar in my cast iron frying pan and extra virgin olive oil drizzled over top. I would make this again if we are craving something vegetarian. Made for PAC Spring 2010.
This is really wonderful! One of the best lentil/rice dishes we have had. Made exactly as written...with one exception. For us...1 tsp of salt was sufficient. Served it with your "recipe #169113", and carmelized onions. MMMM gooda! Thank your for sharing. Made for African Recipe Fun.


text:
We like to think our heroes success is based purely on the sheer amount of badassery emanating from their balls of steel. Unfortunately, upon closer inspection, a lot of them just sort of fumble their way into succeeding.
With the help of illustrious image manipulator AuntieMeme, we present you the worst offenders ...
18Entry by AuntieMeme
by AuntieMeme
17Entry by AuntieMeme
by AuntieMeme


text:
Senior Banking Executive Jonathan Hughes Joins BRG as Board Advisor
Berkeley Research Group has added Jonathan P. Hughes as a special advisor to the board of BRG and BRG UK, based in the firm's New York office.
Hughes is a senior banking executive with 30 years of professional experience across jurisdictions in the Americas, Europe-Middle East-Africa, and Asia. He has held senior legal roles in the banking industry and private practice, most recently as a managing director and global general counsel at Barclay's Capital. He has strong relationships across industry and the regulatory community, with broad and deep experience advising and consulting with boards, CEOs, executive committees, and senior business leaders.
"Jonathan brings to BRG a wealth of relevant experience," said BRG Chairman and Principal Executive Officer David J. Teece. "As BRG continues to grow and make a significant impact in the marketplace, his expertise in areas such as governance and risk management, organizational change, and business growth will be invaluable."
"BRG is a dynamic and innovative organization, well positioned to continue its remarkable growth and reputation as one of the leading consulting firms in the world," said Hughes. "I look forward to my new role and contributing to the success of BRG."
Related Professionals
- 646.862.0957
- 510.285.3221


text: hey I just got a shuffle and since it was a present i don't have the receipt, i cant return it because it doesn't work!! I have never been so frustrated in my life and i know this is the wrong forum to say this and look for help but I just have a little tiny brick! It actually makes me feel bad against my ipod touch (which I love but is actually a second one because they had to replace my first one because of a manufactures defect) sorry for the rant but I am tired of giving up hours of my life to trying to fix things that should have been good in the first place!! Damn the shuffle and defective products! Thanks must go out for the jailbreakers of the ipod touch tho!


text:
25649 / 44153 Adverts
Charming Apartment 4th floor, separate entrance, in a town house, 4 floors
from £64/Night (rates)
4 people
1 guest room
Liveable floor area : 430 Sq.ft.
1 guest room
Liveable floor area : 430 Sq.ft.
- View : Panoramic, unobscured, not overlooked, dominant, country side
- Children welcome
- Setting : City, Romantic
- Bus stop / bus station at <165'
- Pets accepted
Touristic region : discover Roman Coast, Latium Countryside
Advert No. 37469
Contact the owner
For your guidance
44155 rentals over 177 countries
- Ad verified, documents requested
- Booking request in real time
- Lowest price, direct contact with the owner
- No commission is charged for the contact between proprietor and tenant or the transaction
Reviews about the Advert 37469
Be the first to provide a review about this advert!
The guest room
1. Charming Studio Flat
4 people 2 adults, 2 childrenLiveable floor area : 430 Sq.ft.Ideal for family
Description Charming Studio Flat
Interior layout at guests disposal : 1 bathroom, 1 shower room, 1 WC, Kitchen Area
Sleeps - bed(s) : 1 double bed(s), 2 possible extra bed(s)
View : Panoramic, unobscured, not overlooked, dominant, country side
Guest facilities and furnishings : T.V., electric kettle, electric hobs, oven, Hanging wardrobe, hair dryer, refridgerator, dish washer, fully air conditioned, electric heating, Curtains
Exterior private facilities : Terrace, sundeck, BBQ, garden table(s), garden seat(s), sun recliner(s)
Rates Calendar Availability Guest House - Bed & Breakfast in Rome
Seasons & Availability Charming Apartment in Rome
Rates Charming Apartment in Rome
Season Night Weekend week 2 weeks Month
Low season - - - - -
Mid season£69*£138*£481*£946* -
High season - - - - -
Festive specials - - - - -
Promotional period - - - - -
ServiceFrequencyIncluded / SuppliedSupplementRates
Cleaning on departure
For your guidance
Information :
Children welcome
Pets accepted
Mobile telephone network coverage
Water : hot/cold
Local voltage supply : 110-120V / 60Hz
Electricity supply : individual generator
Booking conditions
Reservation :
Payment made upon reservation : 50% of rental sum
Payment balance : on handing over the keys
rentals :
Anticipated supplement for : supplementary bed(s)
Accepted methods of payment :
Bank transfer (wire)
Theme break
Couples : Dolce Vita
£129 for 2 pers
2 min - 4 max
Indicated duration:
2 days
On request
Weekends only
All year
Advert details 37469
Assets Flat-Apartments
Parking : Parking uncovered : off road.
Leisure, Surroundings, Location Charming Flat - Apartment 37469
Leisure Rome - Province of Rome
SurroundingsCity - Province of Rome
Amenities :
Town centre at 3mi.
Bus stop / bus station at <165'
Breadshop at 330'
Supermarket at 660'
Hairdressing salon at 0.3mi.
Internet cafe at 660'
Bank at 0.3mi.
Chemist at 0.3mi.
Location AccessFlat-Apartments Rome
via bravetta 636
00100 RomeLatium (Lazio)
GPS coordinates of the city
Latitude 41°54'13.176"N
Longitude 12°29'43.152"E
Access routes Guest House - Bed & Breakfast 37469
at 3mi. / 20min.
Motorway (junction) grande raccordo anulare uscita nr.1 Aurelia
Rome, Province of Rome, Latium (Lazio), Italy
at 13,7mi. / 30min.
Airport Rome Fiumicino
Rome, Province of Rome, Latium (Lazio), Italy
at 4.5mi. / 30min.
Train station Roma Termini
Rome, Province of Rome, Latium (Lazio), Italy
Towns close by
Fiumicino (14,5mi.)
Internet Link : http://www.aromadiroma.net/it/link.php, nearby Monte Sterparo, Gabii, Monte Fagiolano, Colle Sant'Isidoro, Monte Croce, Fosso Prataroni, Fosso dell' Almone, Stazione Risaro, Rio Torto, Monte Calvello, Fosso Secco, Monte Peschio, Fosso la Galeria, Colle Quadri, Fosso Chiarone, Monte Carnale, Spina Santa, Fosso del Diavolo, Tor San Giovanni, Torrente l'Aia, Lago di Nemi
Towns close by
Nearby places
Photos Flat-Apartments 37469
Dolce Vita, Charming Apartment in Rome - Advert 37469 @cc
Return to the rental listingsContact


text:
just-food's ISM 2013 diary - 24 February
As just-food prepares to join companies and executives from across the confectionery sector in Cologne for this year's ISM exhibition, we share a few highlights of what you can expect from the event.
Get full access to all content, just $1 for 30 days
A Message From The Editor
just-food gives you the widest food market coverage.
Paid just-food members have unlimited access to all our exclusive content - including 16 years of archives.
I am so confident you will love complete access to our content that today I can offer you 30 days access for $1.
It's our best ever membership offer – just for you.
Dean Best, editor of just-food
Dean's offer to you
Risk-free, money-back guarantee
Most Popular
- Unilever 2016 investor day - the top takeaways
- The key questions for digital strategists in 2017
- Wessanen's move for Spain's Biogran - analysis
- Have food promotions reached tipping point?
- How Tyson's new CEO plans to grow the meat group
- General Mills jobs to go in business revamp
- Japan's Nagatanien buys Chaucer Food Group
- B&G acquires pasta sauce group Victoria Fine Foods
- Verlinvest, China Resources invest in Oatly
- Tyson sets up US$150m investment fund
Market research


text: Repeated moral hazard with effort persistenceArantxa JarqueJ. Economic Theory2010Nicola Pavoni and especially Hugo Hopenhayn and Iván Werning for very useful suggestions and discussions. I gratefully acknowledge …nancial support from the Banco de España and the hospitality of the Universidad Torcuato di Tella, were this research was started, as well as that of the UCLA Economics Department. Abstract We study a problem of repeated moral… (More)


text:
Slide to see the images
I'm a bit of a train wreck but if you decide to care for me you'll be
rewarded with all my love. Every day I'm happy to have my foster
family arrive home so I can sit near them all evening. I love to lie in the
sun when I'm feeling up to the walk outdoors. I suffer from extreme
allergies and my eyes and ears just aren't like they used to be. I walk
with much difficulty and need to have everything close by me. My
foster Mom has my needs figured out and can show you how to keep
me comfortable. I think cats are pesky creatures so foster Mom keeps
them far from me. My dog buddies that I boss around understand why
I'm sometimes cranky and give me my space. Foster Mom has learned
the hard way that I must eat a strict diet or my hair falls out in patches
and I get large sores. She orders me a special kibble and cooks me some
fabulous wet dog food that she sneaks my pills into. I do have several
pills and daily eye drops/ointments. I see special vets to get treatment
for my eyes, allergies and arthritis. Foster Mom tells me all the time
how beautiful I am and how she loves my snaggle tooth kisses, it makes
me feel happy and I wiggle my cute crooked tail at her. If you live in
Utah and think you might be interested in giving me all my special
needs and unwavering forever love, please apply.
If you are interested in adopting a CAWS pet, please fill out the Online Application!


text:
Catch all email newsletters about new products, promotions and offers. Register now.
Your data will not be disclosed to third parties. Unsubscribe anytime.
Product description for Vaude MENS BASODINO TIGHTS from our collection of Outdoor Sports & Fashion for Male:
For icy weather: The Mens Basodino Tights by VAUDE is a narrow, stretchy fleece pants by VAUDE made from comfortable breathable fabric.
The Green Shape quality label stands for environmentally friendly manufacturing under the strict bluesign® Standard.
Dear customers,
with us you can save quite a bit!
On current seasonal goods, like products whose price has not been reduced, you can also save money by using the payment methods Paypal or cash in advance. During the checkout process, you are reminded about current savings for the products in your shopping cart so you're guaranteed not to miss any of our discount offers!
For the chosen product, we offer a list of savings.
If no discount is displayed, then the displayed price already includes the maximum discount available for that item. This is especially true of already heavily discounted items from our outlet and SALE range. For these articles, further discounts are available only for owners of the eXXpozed loyalty card.


text:
Renault Zoe is a five-door supermini electric car to be manufactured by Renault. The Zoe is schedule for market launch in France by the third quarter of 2012. The Zoe has a 22 kWh lithium-ion battery pack that delivers a range of 210 km (130 mi) under the NEDC cycle. Renault had previously unveiled under the Zoe name a number of different concept cars. Initially in 2005 as the Zoe City Car and later as the Zoe Z.E. electric concept was shown in two different versions in 2009 and 2010 under the Renault Z.E. name. A production ready version of the Zoe was shown at the 2012 Geneva Motor Show with sales expected by Autumn 2012. The Renault Zoe City Car concept (or Z17) was shown at the 2005 Geneva Motor Show featuring 3 seats, the 3.45m long open top vehicle was proposed as an urban focussed car. This Zoe had no connection with the later electric Zoe concept to follow four years later.
Contributions by Mariordo, Nopetro, and Warren Whyte.


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.
filed: February 20, 1981.
KELMO ENTERPRISES, INC., GEORGE MOHANCO AND BRIAN KELLYv.COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY AND WILLIAM KITZMILLER, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LEE CLARK KITZMILLER, DECEASED. APPEAL OF COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY
No. 2324 October Term, 1978, Appeal from the Orders of the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, Civil Action-Law, at No. 5920 of 1976.
B. Todd Maguire, Wilkes-Barre, for appellant.
Donald H. Brobst, Wilkes-Barre, for Kelmo etc., appellees.
Charles A. Shea, III, Wilkes-Barre, for Kitzmiller, appellee.
Cercone, President Judge, and Watkins and Hoffman, JJ. Cercone, President Judge, files a concurring opinion. Watkins, J., files a dissenting opinion.
[ 285 Pa. Super. Page 16]
Appellant contends: (1) that it had no duty to defend appellees in an underlying tort action because the insurance policy issued by appellant denied coverage; and (2) that the lower court erred in awarding appellees attorneys' fees in this declaratory judgment proceeding. We disagree with both contentions and, accordingly, affirm the order of the lower court.
Appellees owned and operated the Mr. Bojangles Bar in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. On June 3, 1974, the bartender, Robert Donnelly, and/or his brother, Richard, hosted a private party at the bar. The party was conducted without the knowledge or permission of appellees on a day on which the bar was not open for business. After the party, a guest, Lee Clark Kitzmiller, remained with the Donnellys to clean the bar. Subsequently, Kitzmiller left the premises and was killed when he lost control of his motorcycle and struck a utility pole. On August 2, 1974, the administrator of the Kitzmiller estate commenced an action in trespass against appellees by issuing a writ of summons. On August 5, appellees orally notified appellant, their insurer, of the service of the writ. By letter dated August 9, appellees gave formal notice and requested appellant to undertake defense of the underlying tort action.*fn1
[ 285 Pa. Super. Page 17]
The insurance policy issued by appellant provided coverage for all bodily injury and property damage "caused by an occurrence and arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the insured premises and all operations necessary or incidental thereto." Additionally, the policy provided that appellant "shall have the right and duty to defend any suit against the insured seeking damages on account of such bodily injury or property damage . . . ." The policy contained an exclusion which purported to deny coverage for bodily injury arising from an illegal sale of alcohol, or from the sale to a minor or to a person under the influence of alcohol.*fn2 Notwithstanding the fact that no complaint had been filed, appellant denied coverage in a letter stating:
The allegations . . . set forth by the attorney for the Plaintiff in the action against you which has been filed by Writ of Summons in Trespass in the Luzerne County Courts, are that you are negligent by the serving of alcoholic beverages to a minor and serving of alcoholic beverages to a visibly intoxicated person.
The above mentioned policy which runs from the term of 7/8/73 to 7/8/74 does not provide any coverage regarding this claim.
[ 285 Pa. Super. Page 18]
I herewith return the Summons and respectfully decline any coverage under the aforementioned policy.
Because appellant repeatedly refused to undertake their defense, appellees engaged private counsel to defend the Kitzmiller action.
On June 17, 1976, while the Kitzmiller action was still pending, appellees filed a petition for declaratory judgment, seeking an adjudication of their rights under the policy and an award of counsel fees for the defense of the Kitzmiller action. On the basis of the pleadings and depositions, the lower court held that appellant was required to defend appellees.*fn3 After further proceedings, the lower court awarded appellees counsel fees and costs in the defense of the Kitzmiller action ($5,887.00) and in the prosecution of the declaratory judgment action ($12,024.25). This appeal followed.
Appellant contends that it had no duty to defend appellees in the Kitzmiller action because the policy excluded coverage for liability arising from the sale of alcohol to minors and persons under the influence of alcohol. Appellees argue, however, that even if the exclusion were applicable, appellant could not rely upon it because appellant failed to prove that appellees were aware of and understood the effect of the exclusion. We agree. In Hionis v. Northern Mutual Insurance Co., 230 Pa. Super. 511, 516-17, 327 A.2d 363, 365-366 (1974), we held that an insurer has the burden of establishing the insured's awareness and understanding of an exclusion regardless of the clarity or ambiguity of the policy language. Because the insurer in that case failed to prove that the insured, a restaurateur, was aware of and understood the effect of the exclusion in his fire insurance policy, we affirmed the order of the lower court directing a
[ 285 Pa. Super. Page 19]
verdict for the insured. In Klischer v. Nationwide Insurance Co., 281 Pa. Super. 292, 422 A.2d 175 (1980), the lower court had instructed the jury that the insurer had the burden of proving its insured's awareness and understanding of an exclusion in an accidental death benefit rider. The jury returned a verdict for the beneficiary. In affirming, we stated:
We adhere to our view expressed in Hionis. The major premise upon which Hionis rests is the vast inequality of bargaining power between the insurer and the typical purchaser of insurance. As a direct result of that disparity, the insurer may dictate the terms and conditions of the policy. Whether the policy is clear and precise or whether it is oblique and ambiguous, the disparity between the parties remains the same. Moreover, the insured's primary interest, which is obtaining the maximum coverage for his insurance dollar, is no less valid when the policy is unambiguous than it is when the policy is obscure. The policies served by Hionis are particularly pertinent when, as here, the insured buys insurance expecting to be covered for certain risks . . . . Insurers are not unduly burdened by a requirement that they explain the exclusions of their policies to insureds so that the insured can make an informed decision either to assume the excluded risks or to obtain additional insurance to protect against them.
Id., 281 Pa. Super. at 299, 422 A.2d at 178.
We conclude that appellant failed to meet its burden of establishing appellees' awareness and understanding of the exclusion. The record amply demonstrates that appellees Mohanco and Kelly, laymen with no special expertise in insurance matters, sought insurance which would provide full coverage for any liability that might arise from their operation of a tavern business. Moreover, the uncontroverted testimony of the agent who sold the policy reveals that appellant did not even attempt to call the exclusion to the attention of the appellees. Therefore, we hold that appellant cannot rely upon the exclusion to escape its duty to defend appellees in the underlying tort action.
[ 285 Pa. Super. Page 20]
Appellant contends that the lower court erred in awarding to appellees attorneys' fees and costs in the declaratory judgment action.*fn4 Appellant first argues that the Declaratory Judgments Act*fn5 contains no specific authorization for an award of attorneys' fees. While that is true, the Act has been "declared to be remedial . . . and is to be liberally construed and administered." 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 7541(a). Moreover, the Act provides for supplemental relief:
Further relief, based on a declaratory judgment or decree, may be granted whenever necessary or proper. The application therefor shall be by petition to a court having jurisdiction to grant relief. If the application be deemed sufficient the court shall, on reasonable notice, require any adverse party, whose rights have been adjudicated by the declaratory judgment or decree, to show cause why further relief should not be granted forthwith.
42 Pa. C.S.A. § 7538. Similarly, 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 7541(b) provides: "Where another remedy is available the election of the declaratory judgment remedy . . . shall not affect the substantive rights of the parties, and the court may . . . take such other action as may be required in the interest of justice." Thus, we hold that the mere fact that this is a declaratory judgment action will not preclude an award of attorneys' fees and costs.
Appellant next contends that, as a general rule, each party to adversary litigation is required to pay his own
[ 285 Pa. Super. Page 21]
counsel fees and costs in the absence of statutory or contractual obligation. See Chatham Communications, Inc. v. General Press Corp., 463 Pa. 292, 300-01, 344 A.2d 837, 842 (1975); Defulvio v. Holst, 239 Pa. Super. 66, 69-70, 362 A.2d 1098, 1099-1100 (1976). Accord, 16 G. Couch, Insurance 2d § 58:113 (1966). Another author has noted, however, that the general rule is unfair to the insured who is compelled to litigate the question of policy coverage.
[The general rule, that a litigant is to bear his own attorneys' fees,] still appears to be unfair to the insured. After all, the insurer had contracted to defend the insured, and it failed to do so. It guessed wrong as to its duty, and should be compelled to bear the consequences thereof. If the [general] rule . . . should be followed . . ., it would actually amount to permitting the insurer to do by indirection that which it could not do directly. That is, the insured has a contract right to have actions against him defended by the insurer, at its expense. If the insurer can force him into a declaratory judgment proceeding and, even though it loses in such action, compel him to bear the expense of such litigation, the insured is actually no better off financially than if he had never had the contract right mentioned above . . . .
7C J. Appleman, Insurance Law & Practice, § 4691 (Berdal ed. 1979). Accord, Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Pacific Indemnity Co., 557 F.2d 51, 60 (3d Cir. 1977); Security Mutual Casualty Co. v. Luthi, 303 Minn. 161, 169-171, 226 N.W.2d 878, 884-85 (1975); Motorists Mutual Insurance Co. v. Trainor, 33 Ohio St.2d 41, 46-47, 294 N.E.2d 874, 877-878 (1973). We agree that it would be anomalous to allow an insured attorneys' fees expended in defense of the underlying tort action but to deny the fees in an action brought to vindicate the contractual duty to defend.
Although federal courts, applying Pennsylvania law, have addressed this issue,*fn6 no appellate court of this Commonwealth
[ 285 Pa. Super. Page 22]
has considered the propriety of awarding attorneys' fees to an insured who brings a declaratory judgment action against his insurer to enforce the contractual duty to defend. There is, however, a split of authority among the jurisdictions which have addressed the question. Although several courts have denied recovery,*fn7 other courts, utilizing a variety of theories, have allowed the insured to recover his attorneys' fees for the prosecution or defense of a declaratory judgment action. In Morrison v. Swenson, 274 Minn. 127, 142 N.W.2d 640 (1966), an insurer refused to defend a tort action arising from an automobile accident. The insured brought a third-party action in the nature of a declaratory judgment. The lower court held that the insurer had a duty to defend the insured and awarded the insured attorneys' fees for the prosecution of the action against the insurer. In affirming, the Court acknowledged the general rule against recovering attorneys' fees absent specific statutory authority, but stated nonetheless:
[T]his action is in the nature of an action to recover damages for the breach of contract. Legal fees incurred in the declaratory judgment action were damages arising directly as the result of the breach. We think that the injured party in an action of this kind ought to be permitted to recover whatever expenses he has been compelled to incur in asserting his rights, as a direct loss incident to the breach of contract. See, 7A Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, § 4691.
[ 285 Pa. Super. Page 23]
Id. at 137, 142 N.W.2d at 640. Accord, New Hampshire Insurance Co. v. Christy, 200 N.W.2d 834, 843-44 (Iowa 1972); Bankers & Shippers Insurance Co. of New York v. Electro Enterprises, Inc., 287 Md. 641, 647-649, 661-662, 415 A.2d 278, 282-83, 289 (1980); Cohen v. American Home Page 23} Assurance Co., 255 Md. 334, 362-363, 258 A.2d 225, 239 (1969); Motorists Mutual Insurance Co. v. Trainor, supra, 33 Ohio St.2d at 46-47, 294 N.E.2d at 877-878; Gordon-Gallop Realtors, Inc. v. The Cincinnati Insurance Co., S.C. , , 265 S.E.2d 38, 40 (1980); Hegler v. Gulf Insurance Co., 270 S.C. 548, 549-550, 243 S.E.2d 443, 444 (1978).
In New Hampshire Insurance Co. v. Christy, supra, the Supreme Court of Iowa held that the mere showing of a breach of the insurance contract was not a sufficient justification for the award of attorneys' fees. The Court required additionally that the insured show that the insurer's denial was in bad faith. The Court stated:
We are convinced the true rule should be that an insurer who refuses, contrary to its contractual obligation, to defend a third-party action against its insured on the ground the policy involved affords no coverage is liable for attorney fees incurred by the insured in defense of the action brought against him. But, this general rule does not serve to sustain an award for expenses incurred in an action to establish insurance coverage unless there is a showing made in the declaratory judgment action that the insurance company has acted in "bad faith or fraudulently or was stubbornly litigious." . . .
200 N.W.2d at 845 (emphasis added). Accord, Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Pacific Indemnity Co., supra at 60; Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Riley, 380 F.2d 153, 156 (5th Cir. 1967); Mattocks v. Daylin, Inc., supra at 516; Maryland Casualty Co. v. Sammons, 63 Ga.App. 323, 326-27, 11 S.E.2d 89, 91-92 (1940); Glidden v. The Farmers Automobile Insurance Ass'n., 57 Ill.2d 330, 339, 312 N.E.2d 247, 252 (1974); American States Insurance Co. v. Walker, 26 Utah 2d 161, 164-165, 486 P.2d 1042, 1044 (1971).*fn8
[ 285 Pa. Super. Page 24]
We agree with the rationale of the Supreme Court of Iowa as stated in New Hampshire Insurance Co. v. Page 24} Christy, supra, and hold that an insured who is compelled to bring a declaratory judgment action to establish his insurer's duty to defend an action brought by a third party may recover his attorneys' fees incurred in the declaratory judgment action if the insurer has, in bad faith, refused to defend the action brought by the third party.*fn9 Because the lower court specifically found that appellant's refusal to defend the Kitzmiller action was unreasonable and in bad faith, the award of the attorneys' fees for the prosecution of the declaratory judgment action was proper.*fn10
Order affirmed.
CERCONE, President Judge, concurring:
I am in thorough agreement with the decision in this case; it correctly sets out the law in Pennsylvania on the questions before us today. I have my reservations, however, about Judge Hoffman's reliance on Klischer v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 281 Pa. Super. 292, 422 A.2d 175 (1980). In Klischer suit was brought by the decedent's beneficiary to a life insurance policy following accidental death in an airplane crash. The life insurance policy involved contained a clause excluding the insurer's liability in the case of injury or death in an
[ 285 Pa. Super. Page 25]
airplane accident. The plaintiff succeeded in having testimony admitted concerning statements the decedent made about the extent of his insurance coverage. The Klischer panel held that the lower court did not err in admitting this testimony since it violated neither the parol evidence rule nor the evidentiary rules barring hearsay. My concern is over the hearsay question.
Klischer holds that a hearsay declaration by a decedent concerning the extent of his coverage under an insurance contract is admissible to prove circumstantially that the decedent had no knowledge of an exclusionary provision in the contract based on the state of mind exception to the hearsay rules. I think this holding is erroneous. Of the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule, Professor McCormick says the following:
The substantive law often makes legal rights and liabilities hinge upon the existence of a state of mind or emotion in a person involved in the transaction in question. Where this is so, and a legal proceeding arises from the transaction, the pleadings may put in issue such mental state. To ascertain it becomes an ultimate object of search. The intent or ill-will or the like is not sought to be proved as circumstantial evidence of the person's earlier or later conduct but as an operative fact upon which a cause of action or defense depends. Ascertainment of the state of mind is an end in itself. McCormick on Evidence, 568.
The hearsay was admitted to prove not an operative fact but came in as circumstantial evidence to prove the decedent's lack of knowledge of the exclusionary provision and consequently, the insurance company's failure to inform him of the exclusion. Inasmuch as the case before us does not involve such a hearsay question, the majority's citation of Klischer should not be read as an endorsement of its hearsay analysis. In any event, my reservations as to the Klischer decision should in no way be understood to affect my support for the holding in the instant case.
[ 285 Pa. Super. Page 26]
WATKINS, Judge, dissenting:
This is an appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, Civil Division, involving the appellant insurance company's appeal from a declaratory judgment entered against it by the court below on December 22, 1978. The court below ruled that the insurance carrier was responsible for defending a claim against its insured in a tort action and awarded attorney's fees and costs to the insured in the amount of $5887 for defense of the tort action and $12,024.25 for the declaratory judgment action.
On June 3, 1974, one Robert Donnelly was employed by the petitioner, Kelmo Enterprises, Inc., as a bartender at the Mr. Bojangles' Bar operated by Kelmo. On said date Donnelly and his brother hosted a private party in the bar while the bar was not open for business. Apparently this party was conducted without the knowledge of Kelmo. After the party ended, one Lee Clark Kitzmiller, allegedly a guest at the party, remained with the Donnellys to clean up the bar. Upon leaving the premises Kitzmiller mounted his motorcycle and proceeded to drive away from the premises. Some time later Kitzmiller lost control of the motorcycle, struck a utility pole and died as a result of the accident.
On August 2, 1974, the Administrator of Kitzmiller's estate, commenced an action in trespass against Kelmo in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County. The action was commenced by the issuing of a writ which was served on Kelmo on August 5, 1974. Kelmo notified its insurance carrier of the writ on the same day. On August 9, 1974, the appellant insurance carrier was notified of the facts of Kitzmiller's death, as set forth above, by a letter written to it by Kelmo's attorney. The letter requested appellant to enter into and undertake the defense of the tort action on behalf of Kelmo. On August 16, 1974 a representative of appellant spoke by telephone with Kitzmiller's attorney and was advised that the plaintiff's cause of action was based upon allegations to the effect that Kitzmiller was served alcoholic beverages while he was a minor and was visibly intoxicated. On August 19, 1974 the appellant wrote to
[ 285 Pa. Super. Page 27]
Kelmo advising it that coverage was excluded under the terms of the insurance policy.
Plaintiff discontinued the lawsuit initiated by the summons on December 16, 1974 and on the same date filed a complaint against Kelmo. George Mohanco and Brian Kelly, owners of Kelmo were also sued. On October 17, 1975, plaintiff filed a second Amended Complaint adding a third cause of action which alleged that an agent of Kelmo's carried Kitzmiller from the premises, placed him upon his motorcycle and proceeded to start it for him.
On June 17, 1976, prior to the trial of the matter, Kelmo, Mohanco and Kelly (hereinafter referred to jointly as Kelmo) filed a petition for declaratory judgment against appellant alleging the facts recited above, and requesting an adjudication of their rights under the insurance policy and requesting an award of counsel fees and costs. Depositions were subsequently taken of various witnesses and on August 14, 1978 the court below ruled that appellant was required to provide a defense for Kelmo under the terms of the policy and awarded Kelmo the sum of $2,500 for counsel fees incurred. On August 23, 1978 the court below filed an amended Order revoking the Order of August 14, 1978 and establishing August 29, 1978 as the date for a hearing to determine the amount of the counsel fees to be awarded to Kelmo. On August 24, 1978 appellant took this appeal. On December 22, 1978 the court below modified its order regarding counsel fees and awarded Kelmo counsel fees in the amount of $5887.00 to defend the tort action and $12,024.25 for the declaratory judgment action.
The basis of the appellant's refusal to defend the tort action maintained against its insured is an exclusion in the insurance policy. The said exclusionary language provides as follows:
This insurance does not apply:
[ 285 Pa. Super. Page 28]
distributing selling or serving alcoholic beverages or
(2) if not so engaged, as an owner or lessor of premises used for such purposes, if such liability is imposed
(i) by or because of the violation of any statute, ordinance or regulation pertaining to the sale, gift, distribution or use of any alcoholic beverage, or
(ii) by reason of the selling, serving or giving of any alcoholic beverage to a minor or to a person under the influence of alcohol or which causes or contributes to the intoxication of any person;
but part (ii) of this exclusion does not apply with respect to liability of the insured or his indemnitee as an owner or lessor described in (2) above . . ." (Emphasis Ours)
Since plaintiff's cause of action alleged negligence on the grounds that Kitzmiller was served while visibly intoxicated and that he was a minor appellant takes the position that it was correct in refusing to extend coverage to Kelmo and that the lower court erred when it ruled otherwise and awarded counsel fees to Kelmo. Appellant also claims that the award of counsel fees was excessive, punitive, and was not supported by any statutory authority. Kelmo argues that the phrase in the insurance policy "if such liability is imposed" requires an adjudication of the matter on the merits before appellant may rely on the exclusion. Kelmo also argues that even if the exclusionary language clearly applies to the instant situation that it should not be given effect because there is nothing on record indicating that appellant brought the exclusion to the attention of Kelmo and that appellant failed to explain it to them. The court below ruled that "the phrase, If such liability is imposed, sets out a condition precedent which must be satisfied before the exclusion is operative." Thus, the court below held that before appellant could assert the exclusion there must have been an adjudication to the effect that the liability of the insured was predicated upon either of the conditions mentioned above. As such the court never addressed Kelmo's second contention.
[ 285 Pa. Super. Page 29]
Exceptions to a general liability insurance policy are to be strictly construed against the insurance carrier which wrote the policy. Frisch v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, 218 Pa. Super. 211, 275 A.2d 849 (1971). This is so because insurance contracts have been viewed under the law as contracts of "adhesion", where the insurer prepares the policy for a purchaser having no bargaining power. As such any ambiguity of language in the insurance contract is to be strictly construed against the insurer. Hionis v. Northern Mutual Insurance Company, 230 Pa. Super. 511, 327 A.2d 363 (1974). When a defense is based on an exception or exclusion in an insurance policy, such a defense is an affirmative one, and the burden is on the insurance carrier to establish it. Weissman v. Prashker, 405 Pa. 226, 175 A.2d 63 (1961). Kelmo also argues that even where a policy is written in unambiguous terms, the burden of establishing the applicability of an exclusion or limitation involves proof that the insured was aware of the exclusion or limitation and that the effect thereof was explained to him. Kelmo cites Hionis, supra, in support of this position. In Hionis, supra, however, the insurance carrier attempted to assert an exclusion to a general liability policy which covered improvements that the insured had made in a restaurant. The exclusion reduced the amount of the coverage thereto in the event that the insured failed to repair or replace those improvements within a reasonable amount of time after a loss. A fire completely destroyed the restaurant and the improvements. The insurance carrier then attempted to assert the exclusion thereby reducing the amount it would have to pay to the insured on the loss because the insured did not repair or replace the improvements. However, it was proven at trial that the insured had attempted to replace the improvements but could not obtain financing for same, that the agents who sold the insured the policies testified that the insured was a "reluctant buyer" of the policy, that the policy contained co-insurance provisions which further complicated the already confusing language of the insurance policy which covered the insured in the amount of $49,500 but reduced the amount of coverage if the premises were "not
[ 285 Pa. Super. Page 30]
repaired or replaced within a reasonable time after such loss" to the extent of "that portion of the original cost at the time of installation of the damaged or destroyed improvements and betterments, which the unexpired term of the lease at the time of the loss bears to the period(s) from the date(s) such improvements and betterments were made to the expiration date of the lease." Asserting this language the insurance carrier offered the insured $12,733.86 for the total loss, instead of the $49,500 amount. Under those circumstances we held that the insurance carrier had the burden of establishing that it had explained to the insured the type and amount of coverage that the insured was getting for his money. That case differs from the instant one, however, because in Hionis the issue at hand was the applicability of a very complicated formula (in the policy) for determining the amount of coverage that the insured had while in the instant case the issue is whether the insured had any coverage at all. The latter situation (assuming the insurance contract language to be unambiguous) is clearly more easily understandable to a layman than is the former. Thus, the burden on an insurance carrier of establishing an exclusion in an insurance policy contract diminishes as the subject matter of the insurance policy becomes more simple and more easily comprehended. I would refuse to impose a burden upon insurance carriers which requires them to affirmatively prove that the insured completely understood every provision in the insurance policy before an exclusion could be asserted because such a burden is an impossible one to carry in such a situation. All an insured has to do to extend the coverage for which he contracted beyond the terms of the policy is to feign ignorance of the exclusionary language's meaning for then the exclusion could not be asserted. Such a rule rewards ignorance and/or dishonesty since the exclusion applies only to insureds who admitted that they understood the insurance policy's terms. I also note that because of the varying degrees of human intelligence it is quite probable that some insureds may never be able to grasp the concepts set forth in their insurance contracts no matter how painstakingly the policy language is
[ 285 Pa. Super. Page 31]
explained to them. For these reasons I would hold that where the language of an insurance policy is unambiguous, deals with concepts which are relatively uncomplicated (e. g. whether damages inflicted by a particular understandable event or occurrence comes within the orbit of coverage offered under the policy), and is set forth in terms ordinarily understandable to the average person the insurance carrier may carry its burden of establishing an exclusion to the coverage merely by proving the existence of such language in the insurance contract.
Under the facts of the instant case I note that the exclusion is set forth in terms understandable to the average person and that the concept involved (excluding damages or injuries occasioned by reason of serving alcoholic beverages to minors or visibly intoxicated persons) is one which is relatively uncomplicated. Thus, the sole issue that I would consider is whether the exclusionary language was ambiguous.
The court below held that the phrase of the insurance policy contract wherein it is stated that the aforesaid exclusions apply "if such liability is imposed" by the reason of the serving of minors or visibly intoxicated person sets out a condition precedent which must be satisfied before the exclusion is operative. I do not agree. Under that interpretation of the contract language there would have to be an adjudication establishing that the insured's liability was predicated upon one of the sets of circumstances set forth in the contract as "exclusions" before the insurer could assert the exclusion. Such a situation places the insurance carrier in the untenable position of defending a case in which the imposition of liability upon the insured on the grounds asserted in the plaintiff's complaint would relieve the insurer of the duty to pay. This would place the insured in a vulnerable position as his best interests would not be served under such circumstances as it would be within the interests of his insurer, who is providing for his defense, to establish liability on any set of facts which would be covered by exclusionary language in the insurance contract. When the
[ 285 Pa. Super. Page 32]
basis of the plaintiff's complaint clearly asserts a theory of liability which would exclude insurance coverage the insurance carrier has no duty to defend the case as the obligation to defend suits against the insured extends only to situations where insurance against liability is covered by the terms of the policy. Wilson v. Maryland Casualty Company, 377 Pa. 588, 105 A.2d 304 (1954). An insurance carrier upon issuing a policy, does not agree to defend any and all types of claims which may be asserted against the insured but is only bound to defend suits and pay claims which are within the scope of the coverage provided by the insurance policy. The carrier may also exclude certain losses from coverage as long as the exclusionary language is clear and unambiguous. See Warner v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp., 390 Pa. 62, 133 A.2d 231 (1957); Dennis v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company, 216 Pa. Super. 320, 264 A.2d 436 (1970).
It is certainly clear that in the instant case the basis of the insured's liability, as set forth in the Complaint, is that the deceased, a minor, was served alcoholic beverages while visibly intoxicated. It is equally as clear that the exclusionary language of the insurance contract removes from coverage liability arising from the serving of alcoholic beverages to minors and/or visibly intoxicated persons. Thus, it is apparent that the insurance policy does not require the insurer to pay losses arising out of either such instance. To hold that the insurer is obligated to defend the suit but is not obligated to pay any losses arising therefrom would be to place both the insured and the insurer in the untenable situation discussed previously.
Turning to the phrase in question we note that Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition defines the word "impose" to means: "1. To charge; impute . . . 2.a to subject (one) to a charge, penalty or the like. b. To lay as a charge, burden, tax, duty, obligation, command, penalty, etc.; to enjoin, levy; inflict . . ."
The phrase does not establish a condition precedent (that being that there be an adjudication of liability) to the assertion of the exclusion. Had the phrase read "if such
[ 285 Pa. Super. Page 33]
liability has been imposed" it would convey the meaning attributed to it by the insured. Reading as it does I do not construe it to require an adjudication of liability before the exclusion may be asserted since the wording of the phrase does not specifically so provide and because there are valid policy reasons, as discussed above, for holding otherwise. I note that the instant case is not one where the language setting forth the acts which constitute the exclusion is alleged to be ambiguous but is a situation wherein the language setting forth the time when the exclusion may be asserted is questioned. For the reasons stated above I would hold that the insurer in the instant case had no duty to defend the suit. Nor would I hold that the insurer manifested bad faith when it refused to defend prior to the filing of the complaint as the record makes it clear that the insurer had a detailed knowledge of the basis of the action prior to that time which was acquired by its conversations with plaintiff's attorney and by the August 9, 1974 letter sent to it by Kelmo's attorney.
Finally, I fail to see how plaintiffs' amended complaint sets forth a new cause of action when it alleged that Donnelly helped the deceased onto the motorcycle and started it for him. Any negligence attributed to such an act draws its essence from the fact that the deceased was visibly intoxicated and was served alcoholic beverages in that condition, as was alleged in the Complaint. Helping a person onto a motorcycle and starting it for him are not negligent acts, in themselves. It is only when the plaintiff alleges that the decedent was visibly intoxicated at the time that the complaint alleges a possible negligent act. The Complaint also alleges negligence for serving the decedent alcoholic beverages as a minor and while he was visibly intoxicated. The decedent's allegedly visibly intoxicated condition, therefore, is inextricably intertwined with the acts which were subject to the exclusionary language of the insurance policy. For that reason I would hold that the Amended Complaint does not set forth a new cause of action which would remove the matter from the exclusionary clause.
[ 285 Pa. Super. Page 34]
For all the above reasons, I would distinguish this situation from the Hionis case and would reverse the decision of the court below granting the relief sought by the appellees in the declaratory judgment action and hold that the insurer, upon the face of the complaint, had no duty to either pay losses arising out of the decedent's death nor to defend the suit in trespass brought against the insured.
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:
Sweet Potatoes "a little tipsy"
Total Time
Prep 10 mins
Cook 20 mins
This recipe is great with Turkey, Chicken or Pork. Very nice flavor
Ingredients Nutrition
- 1 1⁄4 lbs sweet potatoes, peeled and cut into 1/4 " slices
- 1 teaspoon lite olive oil
- 3⁄4 cup chicken broth
- 1⁄2 cup fresh orange juice
- 2 tablespoons dark rum
- 1 1⁄2 teaspoons honey
- 2 teaspoons cornstarch
- salt and pepper
- 1 tablespoon fresh minced parsley (optional)
- Put oil and sweet potatoes in a skillet with a 1/2 cup of the chicken broth Bring to a boil, cover and simmer for 8 minutes, uncover and continue cooking until liquid has disappeared about 5 minutes.
- The potatoes should be slightly browned around the edges.
- Stir occasionally.
- In a bowl mix remaining broth,cornstarch, orange juice, rum, honey and salt& pepper.
- Add this mixture to the pan, bring to a boil, stirring until it has thickened.
- Serve.
Most Helpful
This is a good recipe for a "not-so-sweet" sweet potato. It brings out more of the flavor of the sweet potato which I don't really think is too sweet as its name implies(unless you throw in the typical marshmallows, brown sugar, etc.) I used pineapple juice instead of orange and light rum instead of dark. I had to remove mine from the heat at about 7 minutes and skip the extra 5 minutes. I just added my rum mix at that point because it would have burned otherwise for me. The sauce was nice and thick and a pretty brown glaze color. Thanks for a new and different way to cook sweet potatoes!
I love sweet potatoes and this recipe is an excellent and different way to use them. Just two changes, instead of cornstarch I used potato starch, which we find is lighter than the corn starch and makes a more flavorful gravy, doesn't mask the other ingredients. We also don't have any rum in the house, but we do have quite an impressive collection of "cooking" whisky, anything that isn't a single malt from Scotland is termed cooking whisky and we use it with impunity. This was a great side dish next to some soy/honey chicken and the leftovers heated up brilliantly in the office microwave the next day. Thanks Bergy!


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 McHenry County; the Hon.
Leonard Brody, Judge, presiding.
Plaintiffs, full-time deputy sheriffs, challenged the authority of the defendant, the McHenry County Sheriff's Department Merit Commission (the commission) to enact a rule pertaining to their secondary employment. In the circuit court plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, and from the granting of the commission's motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs appeal.
The statutes governing the sheriff's merit commission are found in the Sheriff's Merit System Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 125, par. 151 et seq.). Two statutes give guidance to the commission's authority to promulgate the type of rules at issue in this case. Section 7 of the Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 125, par. 157) provides:
"The Merit Commission shall have the duties, pursuant to recognized merit principles of public employment, of certification for employment and promotion, and, upon complaint of the sheriff or states attorney as limited in this Act, to discipline or discharge as the circumstances may warrant."
Also pertinent is section 9 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 125, par. 159), which provides in part:
"Pursuant to recognized merit principles of public employment, the Commission shall formulate, adopt and put into effect, rules, regulations and procedures for its operation and the transaction of its business."
The rules of the Commission here questioned are:
A. Section 15
"All full-time deputy sheriffs who desire to take upon themselves secondary employment, whether it be salaried or contractual, shall first seek the approval of the Sheriff for said employment. The Sheriff, upon written request of the deputy, shall make his recommendation of approval or disapproval in writing to the Merit Commission. The Merit Commission shall then act to approve or disapprove the request. The Merit Commission decision shall be final."
B. Section 16
"No full-time deputy sheriff shall perform while on or off duty any function or duty that is normally of the Sheriff's Department for his or her private gain or in exchange of any article of value."
"All extra off duty patrol or security services when performed for hire by any deputy, shall be done so only when authorized and approved by the Sheriff. All off duty special process service shall be performed by a deputy only when authorized and approved by the Sheriff. Said approvals shall be forwarded to the Commission."
Rules restricting the secondary employment of public employees have been interpreted and their enforcement has been upheld in a number of cases. (See Phillips v. Hall (1983), 113 Ill. App.3d 409, 447 N.E.2d 418; Weisenritter v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners (1978), 67 Ill. App.3d 799, 385 N.E.2d 336; Chigaros v. Murphy (1975), 27 Ill. App.3d 545, 327 N.E.2d 12; Hayes v. Civil Service Com. (1952), 348 Ill. App. 146, 108 N.E.2d 505.) However, in none of those cases was the express authority of the rulemaking body at issue. While many courts have upheld regulations aimed at curtailing secondary employment of public employees to avoid conflicts of interest, the plaintiffs in this case do not challenge the scope or application of these rules to their conduct. Instead, the plaintiffs challenge the merit commission's authority to promulgate these rules.
• 1 Administrative rules and regulations must be authorized by statute, and the statute may not be altered or added to by the making of administrative rules and regulations thereunder. (Northern Illinois Automobile Wreckers & Rebuilders Association v. Dixon (1979), 75 Ill.2d 53, 387 N.E.2d 320, cert. denied (1979), 444 U.S. 844, 62 L.Ed.2d 57, 100 S.Ct. 87.) Administrative agencies possess only the authority expressly conferred upon them by statute, or that which by fair implication and intendment is incident to the authority expressly conferred for the purpose of accomplishing the objectives of the agency. Fahey v. Cook County Police Department Merit Board (1974), 21 Ill. App.3d 579, 315 N.E.2d 573.
Plaintiffs argue that section 9 of the Sheriff's Merit System Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 125, par. 159) clearly refers only to the ability of the commission to set up rules for itself, not for the operation of the sheriff's office, while the commission contends that this language sanctions the subject rules.
Plaintiffs rely on another statute which provides, in part, that "[i]n counties of less than 1 million population, the sheriff shall control the internal operations of his office" (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 125, par. 14a) to support their argument that the sheriff, rather than the commission, may establish such rules of conduct.
• 2 Any express statutory provisions dealing with secondary employment of deputy sheriffs must be considered to ensure that the rules and regulations enacted do not conflict with express statutory intendment. (See Schrader v. Krok (1980), 88 Ill. App.3d 783, 410 N.E.2d 1013; Cook County Police & Corrections Merit Board v. Illinois Fair Employment Practices Com. (1978), 59 Ill. App.3d 305, 376 N.E.2d 11; Zurek v. Cook County Police & Corrections Merit Board (1976), 42 Ill. App.3d 1044, 356 N.E.2d 1079; Fahey v. Cook County Police Department Merit Board (1974), 21 Ill. App.3d 579, 315 N.E.2d 573.) The only statutory provisions found which refer to a deputy sheriff's secondary employment are sections 20 and 21 of "An Act to revise the law in relation to sheriffs" (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 125, pars. 20, 21), which provide that a deputy sheriff may not hold the office of county treasurer and shall not appear as an attorney for any party, or become security for any person in a civil or criminal action or proceeding.
In Fahey v. Cook County Police Department Merit Board (1974), 21 Ill. App.3d 579, 315 N.E.2d 573, the court held that the merit board had no authority to determine a compulsory retirement age of 60 for members of the Cook County police department. The court found a mandatory retirement age of 60 to be in direct conflict with the express statutory provisions which stated that removal was to be only for cause, and to be a departure from the customary approach of civil service legislation on the question of compulsory retirement. Moreover, the court did not find compulsory retirement to be part of the authority of the board to formulate rules pursuant to recognized merit principles of public employment.
The commission relies upon Schrader v. Krok (1980), 88 Ill. App.3d 783, where this court upheld the authority of a similar merit body to enact rules limiting the political activities of sheriff's personnel. The opinion in that case quoted with approval the following language from Fahey:
"`In Illinois, the boards and commissions regulating merit employment systems exercise purely statutory powers and must find within the governing statutes warrant for the exercise of any claimed authority. [Citations.] Administrative agencies possess only such authority as is legally conferred by express provision of law or such as, by fair implication and intendment, is incident to and included in the authority expressly conferred for the purpose of carrying out and accomplishing the objectives for which those agencies were created. [Citations.] Thus, it has been said that such bodies cannot extend the substantive provisions of a legislative enactment nor create substantive rights through exercise of their rulemaking powers. [Citations.] The restraint should apply with special force to rules enacted by civil service boards and commissions, since civil service statutes are deemed a necessary part of the contract of employment of each employee covered by them. [Citations.]' (21 Ill. App.3d 579, 583-84, 315 N.E.2d 573, 576.)" 88 Ill. App.3d 783, 786.
But Schrader distinguished and did not follow Fahey on the very significant basis that whereas in Fahey there were no statutory provisions analogous to the merit board rules, there were statutory enactments "to show that a rule limiting political activities is within `recognized merit principles of public employment.'" (Schrader v. Krok (1980), 88 Ill. App.3d 783, 787.) No such vital distinction is present here, for we find no statutory law whatsoever regulating deputies' off-duty employment.
• 3 Therefore, because there is no statutory provision authorizing the commission to adopt the subject rules, and because the rules do not relate to certification for employment or promotion, we reverse, and we remand the cause to the circuit court of McHenry County for the granting of the injunctive relief sought by plaintiffs.
Reversed and remanded.
REINHARD and HOPF, JJ., 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:
rded go to: http://www.ustagirlsnationals.com/about.html.
December 7, 2016
Tennis News and Information, Tournament Coverage and Features
rded go to: http://www.ustagirlsnationals.com/about.html.
San Diego, Calif. – (July 25, 2016) – Tournament officials have announced the field of competitors for the upcoming United States Tennis Association Girls' 16 & 18s National Championships, which are scheduled to be played August 6-14, 2016 at the Barnes Tennis Center, 4490 W. Point Loma Blvd., San Diego, CA, 92107.
Nearly 400 girls aged 16 and 18 and under from across the United States and Puerto Rico will compete for the title of National Champion. The tournament will feature the top junior players from each of the 17 USTA Sections.
Defending 18s singles champion Sofia Kenin of Pembroke Pines, Fla., is among the players entered in this year's event. Other entries in the Girls' 18s division include 2016 Wimbledon Girls' Singles semifinalist Kayla Day of Santa Barbara, Calif., and Usue Arconada of Rio Piedras, P.R. and Claire Liu of Thousand Oaks, Calif., who combined to win the Wimbledon Girls' Doubles title earlier this month.
The complete player entry list for the USTA Girls' 16s & 18s National Championships, can be viewed at: http://tennislink.usta.com/Tournaments/TournamentHome/Tournament.aspx?T=171037#&&s=5
The tournament also features a strong contingent of San Diego-area players. The following local competitors are entered in this year's USTA Girls' Nationals:
Julia Deming, Fallbrook, Calif. —Girl's 16s
Emily Dush, Chula Vista, Calif. — Girl's 16s
Elizabeth Goldsmith, Chula Vista, Calif. — Girl's 16s
Julia Haynes, San Diego, Calif. — Girl's 16s
Amy Huang, San Diego, Calif. — Girl's 16s
Cali Jankowski, Carlsbad, Calif. — Girl's 16s
Jennifer Kerr, Carlsbad, Calif. — Girl's 16s
Alexandra Kuo, La Jolla, Calif. — Girl's 16s
Nicole Mossmer, La Jolla, Calif. — Girl's 16s
Britt Pursell, Oceanside, Calif. — Girl's 16s
Jennifer Richards, San Diego, Calif. — Girl's 18s
Hannah Zhao, San Diego, Calif. — Girl's 18s
"We are very impressed with the depth of our player fields this year in the Girls' 16s and 18s divisions and are anticipating a very competitive tournament throughout the week." said Co-Tournament Director Liz Blum. "This is a great opportunity for fans to watch some great tennis as well as some future stars."
The Girls' 16s event will begin on Saturday, Aug. 6 and conclude with the singles and doubles finals on Saturday Aug. 13. The Girls' 18s tournament will get underway on Sunday, Aug. 7 and conclude with the 18s singles championship on Sunday, Aug. 14. Both divisions will feature 192-player singles draws and doubles draws with 96 teams.
In addition to the US Open wild cards that are traditionally awarded to the 16s and 18s singles champions and 18s doubles champions, additional wild cards for the US Open Junior Championships and wild cards to various USTA Women's Pro Circuit tournaments will also be awarded this year. For the complete list of wild cards to be awarded, go to: http://www.ustagirlsnationals.com/about.html.
The Opening Ceremony for the USTA National Girls' 16s & 18s National Championships is scheduled for 5 p.m. (PDT) on Saturday, Aug. 6 at the Barnes Tennis Center.
Early-round matches will also be played at San Diego State University's Aztec Tennis Center, 5375 Remington Rd., San Diego, CA, 92115, from Saturday, Aug. 6 through Tuesday, Aug. 9.
Admission and on-site parking at the Barnes Tennis Center is free each day of the tournament. For fans watching matches at SDSU, admission is free, but there is a nominal charge for on-campus parking. University parking regulations will be strictly enforced.
About USTA Girls' 16s – 18s Nationals:
The USTA Girls' 16 & 18s National Championships are the premiere hard court tennis tournaments for amateur and professional American girls aged 18 and 16 and under in the United States. In 2010, both age groups began playing their events concurrently at San Diego's Barnes Tennis Center. Tournament participants, who represent nearly every state in the United States, have been endorsed by their respective USTA Section or have received USTA special exemptions based on their results in qualifying tournaments, junior rankings, or results on the WTA Tour or International Tennis Federation Junior Circuit. Past tournament champions include Chris Evert, Tracy Austin, Andrea Jaeger, Zina Garrison, Mary Jo Fernandez, Jennifer Capriati and Lindsay Davenport.
(January 25, 2016) Hungarian duo Dalma Galfi, the 2015 ITF Girls World Champion, and Mate Valkusz, the current boys' world No. 1, head the entry for the 2016 ITF Junior Masters taking place at the Sichuan International Tennis Centre in Chengdu, China on 8-10 April.
The ITF Junior Masters, now in its second year, is an international event showcasing eight male and eight female players who qualify on the basis of their 18-and-under ITF Junior World Ranking at the end of the year. The ITF Junior Masters consists of two knock-out singles events, with each player guaranteed three matches to determine their final finishing position. Players will compete for a total prize fund of $160,000 in travel grants, and will also compete for wild cards into professional events.
The following players will contest the 2016 ITF Junior Masters:
Women's singles
Dalma Galfi (HUN)
Katie Swan (GBR)
Anna Blinkova (RUS)
Tereza Mihalikova (SVK)
Usue Arconada (USA)
Sofia Kenin (USA)
Charlotte Robillard-Millette (CAN)
Kayla Day (USA)
Men's singles
Casper Ruud (NOR)
Mate Valkusz (HUN)
Hong Seong Chan (KOR)
Marcelo Barrios Vera (CHI)
Orlando Luz (BRA)
Miomir Kecmanovic (SRB)
William Blumberg (USA)
Alvaro Lopez San Martin (ESP)
Galfi, the 2015 US Open junior champion, lines up alongside Australian Open junior champion Tereza Mihalikova and runner-up Katie Swan, and Wimbledon junior finalist Anna Blinkova. They will be joined by Sofia Kenin, a member of the United States' 2014 Junior Fed Cup by BNP Paribas winning team.
Valkusz, who took over the boys' No. 1 ranking at the start of 2016, heads up the men's entries alongside 2015 Orange Bowl junior champion Miomir Kecmanovic, Australian Open junior runner-up Hong Seong Chan and 2014 double Youth Olympic medallist Orlando Luz. They will be joined by 2013 Junior Davis Cup by BNP Paribas winner Alvaro Lopez San Martin.
The provision of travel grants is one of the ways in which the ITF Junior Masters assists these top juniors in making a transition from junior tennis to the professional game. Each player competing in the 2016 ITF Junior Masters will earn a minimum travel grant of $7,000, while the boys' and girls' champions will both be awarded $15,000 travel grants. Players will also compete for wild cards into professional events donated by National Associations, with further details to be confirmed later this year.
The Sichuan International Tennis Centre will host the event for the second year as part of the ITF's three-year agreement with the Chinese Tennis Association and the Chengdu Sport Bureau. The centre, which was built in 2008 and consists of 32 hard courts, has hosted several international events. The ITF Junior Masters will be staged on the centre's two show courts, including a 6,000-capacity centre court, with matches broadcast by Sichuan TV and streamed live over the three days of competition.
The ITF Junior Masters joins the ITF junior team competitions, the 14-and-under ITF World Junior Tennis competition, and 16-and-under Junior Davis Cup and Junior Fed Cup by BNP Paribas, as the premier junior events on the 2016 ITF calendar.
Related article:
A First Round Loss at US Open for Sofia Kenin Provides the "Best Experience"
By Dave Gertler
(August 25, 2014) FLUSHING MEADOWS – The achievements of USTA Eastern juniors in tournaments over the last 12 months, and the dedication of their families, was celebrated at the Billie Jean King USTA National Tennis Center before the first ball was struck at the US Open on Monday, at the 2014 Junior Awards Gala. Future stars of American tennis gathered to hear guest speakers, including former professional player and current Tennis Channel broadcaster Justin Gimelstob, honor the achievements of 30 junior players, as well as present awards to the top three in each age group.
"As you see out there today, for the next 15 days, this is an incredible sport," said Gimelstob, "This sport challenges you in a way physically, mentally, tactically, emotionally, that almost nothing else can compete with, in an individual way. To find enjoyment in that, you're a unique bunch."
First Vice President of the USTA, and former world No.8 doubles player Katrina Adams, also praised the dedication of the kids and their families. While the complete list of award-winners from each age group is listed below, there were a small group of players who won awards in multiple age categories.
"I play every day, try to get better every day," said Matthew Gamble, who was the top achiever in the 16s Boys category, as well as third overall in the 18s. "It's a big part of my life." Gamble cites the interaction with other players as an important part of the sport for him, saying, "Lately I've done more and more team events, so the team aspect and just playing your best, giving 100%."
The junior from Rochester doesn't want to stop here. While his favorite player, Rafael Nadal, was absent from the US Open this year, perhaps Gamble might one day find himself facing his idol at his home slam. "I obvioiusly want to play college tennis," said Gamble, "And then after college, I'm gonna try to go pro and make it on the pro tour."
The USTA Eastern Section, based in White Plains, N.Y., is a not-for-profit community service organization whose mission is to promote and develop the growth of tennis. The section encompasses all of New York State, Northern New Jersey and Greenwich, Conn. It is one of 17 geographic sections of the United States Tennis Association, the governing body of tennis in the United States, and supports more than 49,000 members.
Exceptional players recognized at the Awards Gala:
Boys' 10s:
1. Ty Switzer (New York, N.Y.)
2. Evan Wen (Morristown, N.J.)
3. Julian Wu (Tenafly, N.J.)
Girls' 10s:
1. Stephanie Yakoff (Fort Lee, N.J.)
2. Amaya Goulbourne (Pelham, N.Y.)
3. Hailey Stoerback (Saint James, N.Y.)
Boys' 12s:
1. Billy Suarez (Huntington, N.Y.)
2. Jeffrey Fradkin (New York, N.Y.)
3. Ronan Jachuck (Slingerlands, N.Y.)
Girls' 12s:
1. Rosie Garcia Gross (New York, N.Y.)
2. Gabriella Price (Montebello, N.Y.)
3. Alexa Noel (Summit, N.J.)
Boys' 14s:
1. Sean Wei (Yorktown Heights, N.Y.)
2. Ronan Jachuck (Slingerlands, N.Y.)
3. Michael Sun (Livingston, N.J.)
Girls' 14s:
1. Rachel Lim (Braircliff Manor, N.Y.)
2. Lea Ma (Dix Hills, N.Y.)
3. Anna Brylin (Short Hills, N.J.)
Boys' 16s:
1. Matthew Gamble (Webster, N.Y.)
2. Brenden Volk (Dix Hills, N.Y.)
3. Jordan Benjamin (Fairport, N.Y.)
Girls' 16s:
1. Stephanie Schrage (Millburn, N.J.)
2. Rachel Lim (Braircliff Manor, N.Y.)
3. Sabrina Xiong (Fresh Meadows, N.Y.)
Boys' 18s:
1. Daniel Grunberger (Great Neck, N.Y.)
2. Daniel Kerznerman (Brooklyn, N.Y.)
3. Matthew Gamble (Webster, N.Y.)
Girls' 18s:
1. Katharine Fahey (Fair Haven, N.J.)
2. Sabrina Xiong (Fresh Meadows, N.Y.)
3. Rima Asatrian (Tenafly, N.J.)
(August 27, 2013) FLUSHING MEADOWS, NY – Collin Altamirano is a 17-year-old junior tennis player from Yuba City, California who gained entry into the main draw through a wild card earned when he won the USTA Boys 18 National Championship earlier this month in Kalamazoo, Michigan.
Altamarino won Kalamazoo as an unseeded player.
"It was a big win at the biggest American tournament for juniors so it was fun. It was a nice for me to win that and obviously I get to play here," said the Californian who trains at Arden Hills.
"I was unseeded. I felt that I should have been but I just haven't played as many junior tournaments. I've played two this year. I did not get a high enough ranking."
"Going into Kalamazoo I knew I was one of the top five or six players with a chance to win it," he noted.
Altamirano took on 22nd seed Phillip Kohlschreiber of Germany in the first match on court 11 on Tuesday, and not surprisingly fell to the 29-year-old ATP World Tour veteran 6-1, 6-3, 6-1 in 85 minutes, in his very first main draw of a grand slam event.
Walking onto the court Altamirano said he felt relieved, despite a very probable outcome against him.
"This has been one of my goals in life to play here and to do it at a pretty young age," he said. "I felt pretty good about myself. I was pretty happy. It's nice to kinda get this out of the way be able to know that I can come back here and play again."
"It was a lot of fun," the Yuba City native continued. "First Grand slam I've ever played. Obviously he's a very good player.
"I knew there was going to be a big difference. There is a big difference between a guy who won juniors and someone 20 in the world.
"Big step up from juniors when playing challengers and futures events. It's been a good learning experience."
This young Californian began to learn the game at five, inspired by his mother Anne who played tournaments locally.
"She had big dreams for me and got me into this game. She did a very good job," he said with a smile.
As for Altamirano, what does the future hold for him? He intends to continue to play juniors, challengers and futures events. He'll be playing the California swing later this year.
"I like my chances to go pro, but this year is going to decide it for me," said Altamirano.
His US Open is not over yet, he'll be competing in the junior tournament in both singles and doubles.
Karen Pestaina for Tennis Panorama
San Diego, Calif. – (August 10, 2013) – After an exciting day of semifinal action at the Barnes Tennis Center, the stage has been set for Sunday's singles final at the USTA Girl's 18s National Championship, where a wild card into the women's main draw of the US Open awaits the winner.
On a cool Saturday morning under mostly sunny skies, second-seeded Alexandra Kiick of Plantation, Fla., defeated fourth-seeded Taylor Townsend of Boca Raton, Fla., 1-6, 6-4, 6-1. In the day's second semifinal, top-seeded Sachia Vickery of Miramar, Fla., continued her strong tournament run as she over-powered sixth-seeded Brooke Austin of Indianapolis, Ind., 6-1, 6-3.
Sunday's final, which will begin not before 11:30 a.m. (PDT) on Stadium Court, will feature two players who are ranked in the Top 300 in the Women's Tennis Association rankings. Vickery is ranked 230 in the world, while Kiick sits at 297 in the world.
"It's going to be tough. Obviously we're really good friends," Kiick said. "We just basically said, 'May the best person win tomorrow.' It's going to be a great experience for both of us, whoever wins or loses."
Following their semifinal singles victories, Vickery and Kiick teamed to play in the Girls' 18s doubles final on Saturday afternoon. The second seeds knocked off the top-seeded team of Townsend and Gabrielle Andrews of Pomona, Calif., 6-3, 6-4, to win the title and a wild card into the women's doubles draw at the upcoming US Open.
One year made all the difference for 16-year-old Katerina Stewart of Miami. Last year she lost in the Girls' 16s final, but on Saturday, the second-seeded Stewart captured the USTA Girls' 16 singles championship with a 6-4, 6-1 victory over top-seeded Ena Shibahara of Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif.
In addition to being awarded a USTA Gold Ball for winning the USTA Girls' 16s singles title, Stewart also earned a wild card into the US Open Junior Girls' singles competition.
Tournament officials named Megan McCray of Oceanside, Calif. as the Babolat Player of the Day. The 18-year-old local player, who was seeded 33rd, reached the fourth round of the main draw before dropping a hard-fought 6-4, 6-2 decision to top-seeded Sachia Vickery. McCray then entered the consolation draw where she reached Sunday's consolation final.
The award, which is presented to a player each day of the event, is based equally on competitive achievement and sportsmanship.
Nearly 400 girls aged 16 and 18 and under competed for the title of National Champion, as well as a Wild Card entry into the singles main draw of the US Open Women's Championships (for the 18s Champion) and a Wild Card into the US Open Junior Championships (for the 16s Champion). The 18s Doubles Champions also received a Wild Card into the main draw of the US Open Women's Doubles.
Spectator admission and on-site parking at the Barnes Tennis Center is free.
For Sunday's full order of play, go to: http://www.ustagirlsnationals.com/Home_Page.php
To view the complete tournament draws go to: http://tennislink.usta.com/Tournaments/TournamentHome/Tournament.aspx?T=121938
About USTA Girls' 16s – 18s Nationals:
The USTA Girls' 16s Nationals has been directed by Youth Tennis San Diego (YTSD) since 1990. This year will be the 24th anniversary of this event in San Diego, and 2013 marks the fourth year of the combined G16s – G18s event at the Barnes Tennis Center. As the largest and most prestigious junior girls' tennis event in the United States, the USTA National Championships field consists of two draws, 192 players in each, selected from the top players who enter the event. The participants represent every USTA Member Section and nearly every state in the United States.
About Youth Tennis San Diego:
The USTA Girls' Nationals is the most prestigious of over 40 tournament events held at the Barnes Tennis Center each year. The Center is owned and operated by Youth Tennis San Diego, a non-profit 501 (c)(3) organization that has been in existence since 1952. The YTSD Mission is: "To promote the educational, physical, and social development of all youth through organized tennis and educational activities. Our community programs encourage youth participation, personal integrity, leadership, and competitive spirit in a friendly environment that builds responsible citizens." For information on sponsoring the USTA Girls' Nationals or to be a tournament volunteer, please contact the Barnes Tennis Center at 619-221-9000.
San Diego, Calif. – (August 7, 2013) – Eighteen-year-old Sachia Vickery of Miramar, Fla. has played professional tennis tournaments in Mexico, France, Canada and around the United States this year as she recently established a career high singles ranking of 230 in the world.
This week, she is the top-seed at the USTA Girls' 18s National Championship at the Barnes Tennis Center where she reached the Round of Sixteen after getting past local entrant Megan McCray of Oceanside, Calif., 6-4, 6-2, in a fourth round match on Stadium Court.
"My opponent went out there with nothing to lose. She was hitting really big shots. I was just trying to make her play and find my rhythm," Vickery said after the match. "I've been playing pro tournaments all year, so obviously there is some pressure (as the top seed) from everyone here."
When asked about the wild card to the US Open that will be awarded to the Girls' 18s champion on Sunday, Vickery responded, "It's what I dreamed of all of my life, playing at the US Open. It would mean so much to me. I just want to do the best I can this week and hopefully that will be enough to win the tournament."
In other Girls' 18s tournament action, third-seed and defending champion Victoria Duval of Bradenton, Fla., eased past 17th seeded Kristin Wiley of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., 6-0, 6-0, to advance to the Round of 16. Also advancing was fourth-seeded Taylor Townsend of Boca Raton, Fla., a 6-4, 6-2 winner over 17th seeded Madison Westby of Tulsa, Okla.
San Diegan Christina Makarova thrilled local tennis fans as the tenth-seed in the Girls' 18s got past hard-hitting Gabrielle Andrews of Pomona, Calif., 6-4, 6-1 to advance to the Round of Sixteen. Makarova, a resident of the San Diego community of Scripps Ranch, will face second-seeded Alexandra Kiick on Thursday at 11 a.m. (PDT). Kiick is the daughter of former Miami Dolphins running back Jim Kiick.
Tournament officials named Cassandra Vazquez of Houston as the Babolat Player of the Day. On Tuesday, Vazquez ousted seventh-seeded Louisa Chirico of Harrison, N.Y., with a 6-3, 6-1 upset in a Girls' 18s third-round match. The award, which is presented to a player each day of the event, is based equally on competitive achievement and sportsmanship.
On Thursday night, the USTA Girls' 16s & 18s National Championships will continue its tradition of hosting a Final Eight dinner at the La Jolla Beach & Tennis Club, which will be attended by each of the singles and doubles quarterfinalists.
Nearly 400 girls aged 16 and 18 and under are competing for the title of National Champion, as well as a Wild Card entry into the singles main draw of the US Open Women's Championships (for the 18s Champion) and a Wild Card into the US Open Junior Championships (for the 16s Champion). The 18s Doubles Champions will also receive a Wild Card into the main draw of the US Open Women's Doubles competition.
Spectator admission and on-site parking at the Barnes Tennis Center is free.
For Thursday's order of play, go to: http://www.ustagirlsnationals.com/Home_Page.php
To view the complete tournament draws go to: http://tennislink.usta.com/Tournaments/TournamentHome/Tournament.aspx?T=121938
Tournament Information
Website – www.ustagirlsnationals.com/
Starting times – 8:30 a.m., Saturday, Aug. 3 – Thursday, Aug. 8
9 a.m., Friday, Aug. 9 – Sunday, Aug. 11
About USTA Girls' 16s – 18s Nationals:
The USTA Girls' 16s Nationals has been directed by Youth Tennis San Diego (YTSD) since 1990. This year will be the 24th anniversary of this event in San Diego, and 2013 marks the fourth year of the combined G16s – G18s event at the Barnes Tennis Center. As the largest and most prestigious junior girls' tennis event in the United States, the USTA National Championships field consists of two draws, 192 players in each, selected from the top players who enter the event. The participants represent every USTA Member Section and nearly every state in the United States.
About Youth Tennis San Diego:
The USTA Girls' Nationals is the most prestigious of over 40 tournament events held at the Barnes Tennis Center each year. The Center is owned and operated by Youth Tennis San Diego, a non-profit 501 (c)(3) organization that has been in existence since 1952. The YTSD Mission is: "To promote the educational, physical, and social development of all youth through organized tennis and educational activities. Our community programs encourage youth participation, personal integrity, leadership, and competitive spirit in a friendly environment that builds responsible citizens." For information on sponsoring the USTA Girls' Nationals or to be a tournament volunteer, please contact the Barnes Tennis Center at 619-221-9000.
MELBOURNE PARK, Australia – A pair of 15-year-olds from the United States, Taylor Townsend of Stockbridge, Ga., and Gabrielle Andrews of Pomona, Calif., captured the Australian Open junior girls' doubles title on Friday by defeating Irina Khromacheva of Russia and Danka Kovinic of Montenegro, 5-7, 7-5, 10-6.
Townsend and Andrews have known each other since they were 8-year-olds in tennis camp and have been friends since. "They used to bring us out into the Home Depot Center and they have the eight high-performance camps and so they brought people from all over,†Townsend said. "We just decided to play doubles. Easter Bowl was the first time when we were 14.â€
Earlier in the day Townsend advanced to the junior girls' final with a 7-6 (3), 6-4 win over Krista Hardebeck of Santa Ana, Calif., in a 90-minute slugfest.
"She played really well, I came out playing really well,†Townsend said. "I went up, 2-0, and then she came back and got up, 3-2, and then from there it was really tight and no one could really break serve. A lot of return errors really killed me because she was holding serve and holding serves at love, because I was missing my second serve returns.
"I stayed in the points and I was just fighting at the end. She gave me some free shots, I hit some good shots, good severs, when I needed them. I made sure to keep coming into the net. I couldn't stop doing that. And in the second set I think I did that more than in the first.â€
Hardebeck, 17, defeated Townsend last week in the Loy Yang Traralgon International quarterfinals, 6-4, 6-2, and went on to win the tournament.
"I was really excited about it,â€Â Hardebeck said of that win. "I actually played Taylor last week and I beat her there. It was a great match and a great week there. This week was pretty good as well, so I'm happy.â€
Townsend said: "The biggest thing for me was that I competed today. Last week, I feel like I kind of less settled because it was a warm-up tournament quarterfinals like. It was very very tough conditions. It was windy outside.â€
"But today I definitely came out really hard and that was the biggest thing keeping myself pumped.â€
Townsend led off the match with a break of serve and Hardebeck returned the favor in the fourth game. Both held serve until the tiebreak, which Townsend won, 7-3, by playing aggressive tennis. She ended the tiebreak with an ace.
The second set saw Hardebeck take a 4-2 lead and in the sixth game of the match she saved four break points. It looked as though Hardebeck was going to send the match to a third set. But Townsend picked up her game by mixing up baseline and net play and won the next four games in a row to win the match, 7-6, 6-4.
Towsend served seven aces in the match in contrast to Hardebeck's seven double faults.
"My serve was a little bit shaky today,†Hardebeck said. "It wasn't in its best form but Taylor played really well, so there really wasn't much I can do anyway.â€
Townsend will face the Russian Yulia Putintseva for the junior girls' title Saturday.
"She's a very tough opponent, very competitive,†Townsend said. "She tries to get in your head with 'c'mon's' to pump herself up. She kind of plays better when she's down. I'm going to have to keep the pressure on her and keep playing my game and being aggressive and, hopefully, I'll come out on top.â€
Karen Pestaina is the founder and editor of Tennis Panorama News.
This article originally appeared in the Straight Sets Tennis Blog of the New York Times.
Copyright © 2016 · Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in


text:
Antique Victorian Buckle Band Ring Wedding Vintage 1800
browse these categories for related items...
Directory: Estate Jewelry: Gold: Victorian: Pre 1900: Item # 1273720
Directory: Estate Jewelry: Gold: Victorian: Pre 1900: Item # 1273720
Please refer to our stock # aawsom003857 when inquiring.
Aawsomblei Antique and Vintage Jewelry
View Seller Profile
Guest Book
View Seller Profile
Guest Book
A Wonderful and Rare Antique Victorian Buckle Band Ring, Antique Gold Wedding Ring, Vintage 1800's. This beautiful antique ring is fashioned in a buckle motif, something that the Victorian designers were fond of. The ring is composed of antique gold with a bit of a Victorian rose hue (not the modern day pink gold). Overall the ring measures about 1/4 inch long by about 13/16 inch wide from side to side. Ring Size: about 10 1/2 (could be resized by your jeweler or ask me about using mine before shipping). This ring dates to the Victorian Era and is in lovely vintage condition.