text:
Anne Frank died of typhus at Bergen-Belsen in March 1945 before the Germans handed the camp over to the British on April 15, 1945.
This fact didn't stop Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Jack Anderson in 1968, from quoting Anne Frank on the infamous Dr. Joseph Mengele. Unsurprisingly he doesn't provide a source for his assertion.
"... the tall, handsome, greying Mengele, described by the little Jewish girl Anne Frank as the "angel of extermination"
Parade Sunday Press (Magazine), Binghampton N.Y. February 18, 1968. p.12-13.


text:
- News
- Gambling News
- PlayNow.com Shut Down Over Privacy Breach
PlayNow.com Shut Down Over Privacy Breach
21 July 2010
Though we thought it was the high demand of players that were trying to access the B.C. Lottery Corporation's new gambling site Playnow.com that had it shut down Thursday morning shortly after a much heralded launch. We find out now it was a privacy breach that was the cause of the shut down.
It was revealed that the breach was pretty significant as some players were able to see personal information of other players such as names, contact information and even credit card and bank information. Some even reported the ability to gamble with other player's money.
The Lottery Corporation however blamed the shut down on high demand and made no mention of any security breach at all publically till four days later. The BCLC CEO Michael Graydon knew about the security breach Friday, the day after the site was shut down. It was revealed that 134 gamblers had their privacy breached and were contacted by BCLC officials. Graydon said he didn't feel going public at the time with this information was necessary.
He told CBC Radio on Wednesday,
"As we continued to investigate after the site was shut down we found that the data crossovers had happened in a number of locations. The first thing that we did was contact the privacy commissioner and let them know that there may have been a privacy problem.
At that point, our public became our players, and not the general public. The site was closed down. There was no ability for further transaction and we felt it important that we communicated directly with our players with the level of detail they expect from us in regards to what had happened."
You can read here that during the launch on Thursday that the site was being heralded as a safe and secure option for B.C. residents to gamble online. Currently there has been no word on when the PlayNow.com site will be re-opened.
Related News
24 July 2010North American Online Gamblers Still Waiting for PlayNow.com
After the crash of the first North American online gambling site, PlayNow.com and the final admission of the B.C. Lottery Corporation that it had a privacy breach where over 130 players had their private information seen by other players, the government today said they have no idea when the site will reopen for business. Rich Coleman, the Housing and Social Development Minister did not give a timeline has to when the problem would be fixed and players could return to play.Read full article
23 August 2010PlayNow.com Re-Launches for Online Gamblers
After more than a month of being shut down due to a security breach just hours into their launch, PlayNow.com re-launched right before the weekend under much less fan fair. According to the British Columbia Lottery Corporation CEO Michael Graydon, the approval was given following a review by consulting firm Deloitte and the site had permission to be back online at 7p.m Thursday.By 10 p.m., the site was still not online however and a check at 2a.m. Friday found it still not online.Read full article
16 February 2011PlayNow.com Security Investigation Complete
The investigation into the Canadian online gambling site PlayNow.com by the B.C. Information and Privacy Commissioner Elizabeth Denham has concluded and said that the site had not taken sufficient steps to protect its player's privacy when it launched July 15th. The PlayNow site was shut down within hours of its initial launch. It was said at the time that it was a server overload but later the B.C.Read full article

subset: commoncrawl


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.
May 10, 1984
INDIANAPOLIS AIRPORT AUTHORITY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,v.AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. No. 80 C 1228 -- Cale J. Holder, Judge.
Posner, Coffey, and Flaum, Circuit Judges.
POSNER, Circuit Judge.
The Indianapolis Airport Authority appeals from a decision invalidating the user fees that it imposes on airlines; the appellees are six airlines that among them carry more than 90 percent of the passengers who use the Indianapolis International Airport. The 15-year leases under which each of the airlines operated expired on August 31, 1980, and because the parties had been unable to agree on terms for new leases, the airport authority -- a local governmental body established pursuant to the Indiana Airport Authorities Act, Ind. Code §§ 8-22-3-1 et seq. -- enacted an ordinance (later amended) setting new fees effective September 1, 1980. When the airlines refused to pay the new fees, which were almost double those in the expired leases, and continued paying at the old level, the Authority brought this diversity action to collect the difference between the new fees and the old -- some $2 million. In the district court the airlines successfully defended their refusal to comply with the ordinance on the ground that the fee schedule in the ordinance was unreasonable under a variety of statutory (state and federal) and constitutional grounds, and they also persuaded the court that they were holdover tenants entitled under Indiana law to continue paying at the old lease rate until the Authority stopped accepting payments at that rate.
The main issue is whether the airport authority, in setting a new schedule of fees for the airlines, could disregard the revenues it obtains from airport concessionaires, in particular several car rental agencies and the operator of the airport's parking lot. The ordinance allocates the annual costs of operating the airport among the different classes of user -- mainly interstate airlines, operators of private planes ("general aviation"), and concessionaires -- largely on the basis of how much runway, hangar, terminal, and other indoor and outdoor airport space each class uses. (For services such as firefighting that have no fixed locale -- obviously, the firemen and their equipment go wherever the fire is -- a different method of allocation is used that we discuss later.) Since the concessionaires use much less space than the airlines, only a modest fraction of the aiport's costs was allocated to them -- in round numbers, $100,000 to the car rental agencies and $900,000 to the operator of the parking lot -- compared to $3 million to the airlines. The ordinance requires the airlines to pay landing fees and other charges calculated to yield the full $3 million, even though the airport gets from its concessionaires a rental income that greatly exceeds the costs allocated to the concessionaires -- about $3.5 million from the car rental agencies and the parking lot alone, compared to costs as we have said of about $1 million. The ordinance thus is calculated to yield the airport a total income substantially greater than its total costs, the excess being approximated by the difference between the airport costs allocated to the concessionaires and the airport rentals they pay.
The reasonableness of the concession rentals themselves is not in issue in this case -- only the reasonableness of the fees charged the airlines. The basis of the airlines' complaint about those fees, however, is that the airport is required to and has failed to take its concession rentals into account in determining what fees to impose on the airlines.
The Indiana Airport Authorities Act authorizes airport authorities, such as the appellant, "To adopt a schedule of reasonable charges and to collect them from all users of facilities and services within the [airport] district." Ind. Code § 8-22-3-11(9). However, reasonableness is not defined in the statute, and the statute has not been interpreted by the Indiana courts with reference to the issues in this case. The Federal Anti-Head-Tax Act forbids any state agency to "levy or collect a tax, fee, head charge, or other charge, directly or indirectly, on persons traveling in air commerce or on the carriage of persons traveling in air commerce . . .," 49 U.S.C. § 1513(a), other than "reasonable rental charges, landing fees, and other service charges from aircraft operators for the use of airport facilities," 49 U.S.C. § 1513(b). Again, reasonableness is not defined, but the statute has a history and a context that enable us to give meaning to the term. Airport authorities, to raise revenues, had taken to imposing "head taxes" on passengers emplaning at their airports. Congress decided that "the head tax is an unnecessary burden on interstate commerce, that it is discriminatory, and that it has a stifling effect on air transportation," most of which, of course, is interstate. H.R. Rep. No. 157, 93d Cong., 1st Sess. 4 (1973). We may assume that what is unreasonable under the federal act is also unreasonable under the state act; but, in any event, if there is a clash, the federal act must of course prevail. Another federal act is invoked, the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970, 49 U.S.C. § 1718(a)(1) (1976 ed.), now 49 U.S.C. § 2210(a)(1), which requires that airports receiving federal subsidies -- such as the Indianapolis airport -- be "available for public use on fair and reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination. . . ." It is unclear whether this act was intended to be enforceable by airport users, such as the appellee airlines; but it will not be necessary in this case to resolve this question, or determine whether the challenged user fees are unreasonable under this act.
Besides the Federal Anti-Head-Tax Act and important to understanding it, the appellees invoke the commerce clause of the Constitution (Art. I, § 8, cl. 3), which has been interpreted to forbid the states to discriminate against interstate commerce. See, e.g., Southern Pac. Co. v. Arizona, 325 U.S. 761, 767-68, 89 L. Ed. 1915, 65 S. Ct. 1515 (1945), and for this circuit's most recent application of the clause W.C.M. Window Co. v. Bernardi, 730 F.2d 486 (7th Cir. 1984). Although the clause as written is a grant of authority to Congress to regulate interstate (and foreign) commerce rather than an independent limitation on state power, the Supreme Court, building on a dictum by John Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.), 1, 197-209, 6 L. Ed. 23 (1824), early on interpreted the clause as prohibiting of its own force, without need for congressional action, state action that discriminates against interstate commerce. See, e.g., Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 53 U.S. (12 How.) 299, 319, 13 L. Ed. 996 (1851). Although controversial, see, e.g., Kitch, Regulation and the American Common Market, in Regulation, Federalism, and Interstate Commerce 7, 20-22 (Tarlock ed. 1981), this interpretation of the commerce clause can be defended on the practical ground that Congress is too busy -- and maybe as James Madison feared too factionalized -- to police every infringement of the policy (implied by a number of separate provisions of the Constitution) that the United States be a single "common market" for goods and services. See Eule, Laying the Dormant Commerce Clause to Rest, 91 Yale L.J. 425, 431-32 (1982). But this ground fails when Congress has exercised its regulatory power. "Once Congress acts, courts are not free to review state taxes or other regulations under the dormant Commerce Clause. When Congress has struck the balance it deems appropriate, the courts are no longer needed to prevent States from burdening commerce, and it matters not that the courts would invalidate the state tax or regulation under the Commerce Clause in the absence of congressional action." Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130, 154, 71 L. Ed. 2d 21, 102 S. Ct. 894 (1982). Congress has acted here, in the Anti-Head-Tax Act, by forbidding airport authorities to charge unreasonable rates, directly or indirectly, to interstate airlines. Therefore, when those rates are challenged, the only question is whether they are consistent with the congressional policy.
We are asked by an amicus curiae to consider the bearing of the Convention on International Civil Aviation ("the Chicago Convention," as it is known), 61 Stat. 1180. A treaty of the United States, see British Caledonian Airways Ltd. v. Bond, 214 U.S. App. D.C. 335, 665 F.2d 1153, 1159 n. 3 (D.C. Cir. 1981), the Convention has the force of a federal statute. But it does not regulate airport fees. It establishes a Council with broad powers and the Council has recommended standards that require that landing fees and other aiport charges be reasonable, but these standards are issued under a provision of the Convention, Article 55, relating to the "permissive" functions of the Council, and actions taken in discharge of those functions are not intended to have the force of law.
Two facts together persuade us that the district court was correct in concluding that the ordinance was unreasonable under the applicable state and federal standards in disregarding the airport's concession revenues. The first is monopoly. We take judicial notice of the fact that only six airports in Indiana are served by airlines other than commuter airlines and that Indianapolis International Airport is the only one in the central part of the state except for Purdue University Airport in Lafayette. See U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, National Airport System Plan: Revised Statistics 1980-1989, at 141 (1980). The Purdue airport is tiny compared to the Indianapolis airport; the 22,940 passengers who emplaned there in 1982 were less than 2 percent of the 1,382,391 who emplaned at Indianapolis that year. U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Airport Emplanement Activity for CY 1982, at V(II-R)-29 (July 1, 1983). As no one in this lawsuit has advanced the improbable proposition that the Purdue airport is a feasible substitute for most of even many of the passengers who now use the Indianapolis airport, we may assume that except for travelers whose origination or destination is near the borders of the state (and who can therefore use the airports just across the state line, in Chicago, Louisville, and Cincinnati), most people traveling by air to and from Indiana have to use the Indianapolis airport.
Therefore, unless forbidden to do so by state or federal law, the Indianapolis Airport Authority can charge a monopoly price for the use of its airport -- that is, a price in excess of the cost of operating the airport (including debt service). Of course the sky is not the limit. If the Authority charged too high a price many people would stop using the airport.For example, some of those traveling out of the state would fly out of small airports in the state and switch planes at the nearest major airport in a neighboring state; or they would drive, or take a bus or train, to their destination. But for most people these would be such grossly inferior alternatives to using the Indianapolis airport that they would rather pay even a hefty premium than switch. And it would make no economic difference whether this premium was charged to the passenger directly as he came into or left the airport or to the airline that carried him. If it was charged to the airline, the airline could turn around and raise its ticket prices to passengers to and from Indianapolis; if it was charged to the passenger the airline could absorb the charge by reducing those prices. Whether airline or passenger ultimately bears the cost of an airport fee depends on the conditions of supply and demand rather than on who is assessed the charge. All this was recognized by the Congress that passed the Anti-Head-Tax Act. See S. Rep. No. 12, 93d Cong., 1st Sess. 22 (1973).
It should be clear without extended discussion that a monopoly price is an unreasonable price. Locational monopoly -- the type of monopoly that the Indianapolis airport enjoys -- is one of the traditional levers by which a state can (if not prevented) unreasonably burden interstate commerce, see Note, Airline Deregulation and Airport Regulation, 93 Yale L.J. 319, 322 (1983), and the Anti-Head-Tax Act was passed as we said earlier in order to prevent the placing of unreasonable burdens on interstate air transportation. The Senate Report refers to the "financial windfalls" that states or cities could obtain from imposing head taxes or equivalent taxes on the airlines or their passengers. See S. Rep. No. 12, supra, at 17. If the Indianapolis airport did not have monopoly power it could not extract revenues vastly in excess of its costs, which is what it has done by the combination of user fees and concession rentals shown on this record.
It is not enough for the airlines to show that the airport has monopoly power; it must also show that this power is being used to impose unreasonable rates, directly or indirectly, on the airlines or airline passengers, and not on other entities that are neither formal nor actual parties to this case. Here the second critical fact comes into play, which is that the people who use the concessions at the Indianapolis airport are, with rare exceptions, airline passengers. Although some airports adjacent to large cities (the Milwaukee airport for example) have meeting facilities that attract nonpassengers, the Indianapolis airport does not. The parking lot is used by emplaning passengers and by people picking up deplaning passengers. The car rental agencies are used by emplaning and deplaning passengers, and likewise the food stands and newsstands. This means that when the airport charges a rental fee to concessionaires it is as if it were charging a landing fee to the airlines or imposing a head tax on the passengers. If a traveler is willing to pay $140 to fly from Indianapolis to (say) New York, it should be a matter of indifference to him whether he pays $100 for the ticket, $10 in head tax, and $30 for parking; or $120 for the ticket and $20 for parking, with no head tax. What matters to him is the total cost that he must incur to make the flight, rather than the form in which the cost is distributed among the various items that he must buy.
According to the Indianapolis Airport Authority's own figures, the annual cost to it of providing rental space and other services to the parking lot and the car rental agencies is only $1 million, yet it collects $3.5 million in annual rent from these concessions. The concessionaires recoup this expense in the prices they charge their customers -- the airline passengers -- and it is thus the passengers who end up paying the $2.5 million in net revenues that the Authority obtains from the concessionaires. When concession rentals -- paid ultimately by the passengers or (in the form of reduced ticket prices) the airlines -- that are more than three times the cost that the Authority itself allocates to the concessions are added to the airline user fees that also fall on either the airlines or their passengers, the result is an exaction that is wholly disproportionate to the costs to the airport of serving the airlines and their passengers, and is therefore unreasonable under the state and federal statutes. It is unreasonable whether done to evade the statutes, or to price discriminate against the more affluent passengers (heavy users of concessions services), or for other reasons. And it is unreasonable even though we may assume that all of the Authority's income must be plowed back into airport development. See Ind. Code §§ 8-22-3-11, -25, -28, -29. No one can say how much of the overcharge extracted from the airlines' passenger will return to them in this way. The Authority might decide to use most of it for the benefit of general-aviation users, or pour it into "gold-plating" improvements that would give airline users a higher quality of airport services, at a higher price, than they wanted.
The problem of the Authority's disregarding its concession income in setting user fees has analogies in conventional public utility regulation. Many regulated firms have unregulated affiliates. A good example (at least before the recent changes in the structure and regulation of the telephone industry) is the manufacture of telephones -- which has never been a regulated activity -- by affiliates of regulated telephone companies. A telephone company might be tempted to evade rate regulation by having its manufacturing affiliate charge exorbitant prices (nominally to it) for telephones and by passing on the overcharge to the telephone ratepayers in the form of higher rates for telephone service. The ratepayers would end up paying monopoly prices, despite regulation. The regulatory agencies, however, were alert to the danger and successfully asserted the power to limit the profits of the manufacturing subsidiaries. See, e.g., Illinois Bell Tel. Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n, 55 Ill. 2d 443, 483-84, 303 N.E.2d 364, 376 (1973); 1 Kahn, The Economics of Regulation 28 n. 20 (1970); cf. Smith v. Illinois Bell Tel. Co., 282 U.S. 133, 152-53, 75 L. Ed. 255, 51 S. Ct. 65 (1930).No agency has regulatory authority over the rate practices of the Indianapolis Airport Authority; instead the duty of regulation falls to the courts in the enforcement of the state and federal statutes forbidding unreasonable rates. But this just means that we must imagine ourselves in the role of a regulatory agency (though with more circumscribed powers, because of the limitations that Article III places on federal judicial power, see e.g., Federal Radio Comm'n v. General Elec. Co., 281 U.S. 464, 469, 74 L. Ed. 969, 50 S. Ct. 389 (1930)) that is charged with preventing airport authorities from setting exorbitant rates to airlines or their passengers. By charging its concessionaires rent far in excess of the cost to the Authority of providing them with space and services (while charging the airlines landing fees equal to their full costs), knowing that the concessionaires will try to pass on their rental expenses to the passengers (their customers), the Authority is doing the same kind of thing that the telephone companies would have been doing if they had been allowed to charge their subscribers indirectly for exaggerated costs that the companies had allocated to manufacturing telephones. True, it is not exactly the same thing. The telephone subscriber has to have a telephone if he wants telephone service, and in the heyday of telephone regulation he could get the telephone only from the telephone company. The passengers who uses Indianapolis International Airport does not have to use the parking lot or a car rental agency; there are other ways of getting to and from the airport. But the existence of alternatives just limits -- it does not destroy -- the Authority's power to extract by indirection the profits that its locational monopoly makes possible. Its big surplus of concession income over the costs of providing space and other facilities and services to the concessionaires shows this.
The Authority cites cases such as FPC v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 386 U.S. 237, 243, 18 L. Ed. 2d 18, 87 S. Ct. 1003 (1976), for the proposition that a utility's income from unregulated activities (here, the concessions) should not be attributed to the regulated activities (the runways and other facilities used by the airlines). We have no quarrel with the proposition in the abstract but point out that implicit in it is the assumption that the customers for a utility's unregulated services are different peopole from the customers for its regulated services. If they are the same people, the utility can (if permitted) evade the regulatory ceiling on rates to its regulated customers by charging them excessive prices for the unregulated services they buy. This is what the Authority has tried to do here, since it is the airline passengers, in their capacity as patrons of the airport concessions, or the airlines, who will in the end bear the cost of the heavy rentals that the Authority has charged its concessionaires. This point was missed in Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 429 F. Supp. 1069, 1079 (D.N.C. 1976), the only decision that supports the Authority's treatment of its concession revenues.
Actually, United Gas Pipe Line Co. strengthens our analysis. The issue there was whether, in deciding what cost of service allowance for federal income tax to permit a utility to take, the Federal Power Commission had to give the utility the allowance it would be entitled to if it filed a separate tax return, or could subtract the tax savings that the utility obtained by filing a consolidated return with affiliated corporations that were not regulated. The Court held that the latter course was proper, 386 U.S. at 243-45, even though it amounted to treating a tax savings obtained in part from unregulated activities as income to the regulated firm that had to be taken into account in setting its rates. In just the same way, the district judge here forced the airport authority to take account of concession rentals, nominally obtained from unregulated activities, in setting rates to the authority's regulated customers (the airline defendants).
An amicus curiae defends the Authority's approach as a method of preventing airport congestion. Suppose, it argues, the Authority's concession revenues rose to a level where they covered the airport's entire costs. Then, if our analysis is right, the landing fees and other charges to the airlines would have to be zero; the airlines would consequently have no incentive to economize on their use of the airport; and there would be congestion and resulting passenger delays that stiff landing fees could have avoided.But leaving aside the fact that the Authority introduced no evidence that the Indianapolis airport is crowded at the existing user fees (that is, the fees set in the expired leases), we point out that aiport congestion is a problem of structure, not level, of rates. No airport is congested all the time; congestion is a problem only at peak periods, such as Friday evenings. And the logical -- we do not say the only -- way to deal with congestion at peak periods is to charge a peak-period surcharge. See, e.g., 1 Kahn, supra, at 87-103. This is the point of Professor Eckert's criticism of airport financing, which the amicus curiae cites. See Eckert, Airports and Congestion 20-27 (1972). He does not advocate allowing airport authorities to extract revenues greater than their costs; he wants a system of variable landing fees to induce the airlines to economize on their use of airports and airways. See also Levine, Landing Fees and the Airport Congestion Problem, 12 J. Law & Econ. 79, 91, 102-03 (1969). We have said nothing to prevent the Indianapolis Airport Authority from charging higher landing fees at some times of the day or week or year than at others or shifting from a system of financing its operations out of a combination of landing fees and concession rentals to landing fees alone. And it is not true, or at least not inevitable, that if the Authority reduced or even eliminated concession rentals, the concessionaires would simply pocket the considerable sums that they now pay the airport in rentals, and airline passengers would be no better off than they are now. There is direct competition among many of the concessionaires, such as the car rental agencies; and there is competition to become a concessionaire. See Omega Satellite Products Co. v. City of Indianapolis, 694 F.2d 119, 126-27 (7th Cir. 1982).
Now it is conceivable, even in a regime of total reliance on landing fees, that if the Authority raised its peak-period fees it might have to lower its fees at other times in order to avoid making its income from the airlines excessive overall. But that would simply reinforce the desired effect of the peak-period surcharge in redirecting traffic to less busy periods. Moreover, no offsetting reduction would be necessary if the peak-period surcharge did not generate additional revenue, and it might not. Its purpose would be to reduce flights at the peak period rather than to make money, and the reduction in number of flights might offset the increase in the landing fee per flight.
It is also conceivable, however, that no matter what the structure (as distinct from level) of landing fees, the airport or its airspace would become unduly congested. If high landing fees were offset by reductions in concession rentals that were passed on to the concessionaires' customers, the airport might become so attractive a place to travel to and from that it would be thronged with passengers despite the high ticket prices, reflecting high landing fees. In that unlikely event there would be an argument (we need not decide how compelling an argument) for allowing the airport to continue to charge those fees, even though it would obtain temporary monopoly profits by doing so, in order to limit usage and enable the airport to finance a rapid expansion of its facilities. See Levine, supra, at 88. But there is no suggestion that the Indianapolis airport is anywhere near that point.
The Authority used an invalid method of calculating airline landing fees and must therefore go back to the drawing board. But unless there were a single valid method, we could not tell the Authority what fees it must charge; and no one says there is. We emphasize, too, that the powers of a federal court in regulating rates are more limited than those of an administrative agency. We can invalidate an unreasonable rate, but we cannot fix the reasonable rate; that is a legislative or administrative rather than a judicial function. Reagan v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 154 U.S. 362, 397-98, 38 L. Ed. 1014, 14 S. Ct. 1047 (1894). We therefore do not hold that the Authority must use the "single cash register" approach, in which the entire airport is treated as a single cost center, rather than the "multiple cash register" approach, illustrated by this case, in which the airport is divided into different revenue-producing centers each of which must pay its own way. The vice of the ordinance, at least so far as the case before us is concerned, is not that it makes the airlines pay the cost allocable to them, or even that it makes the concessionaires pay so much more than the cost allocable to them (for no concessionaires are parties to this suit); it is that, by a combination of airline user fees and concession rentals, the airport authority has imposed on the airlines and their passengers a cost for the use of the airport that greatly exceeds a reasonable estimate of the costs that the airlines impose on the airport.
Although we need take no position on the single versus multiple "cash register" question we do need to consider three other objections that the airlines make to the ordinance, because they are independent of the Authority's refusal to take account of concession revenues in setting user fees. The first is that the ordinance should have allocated the costs of firefighting services in proportion to the number of fires experienced by each class of users of the airport's facilities over some reasonable period of time rather than mainly to the airlines. We disagree. The airport has elaborate firefighting facilities not in order to enable it to respond to a grease fire in a hamburger stand or a car fire in the parking lot but to protect the airlines and their passengers should a plane catch on fire in a crash or other accidental. Airport costs that would not be avoided if a particular class of users stopped using the airport (i.e., the concessionaires) are not costs imposed on the airport by those users, and therefore are not properly allocable to them. Cf. Illinois v. ICC, 722 F.2d 1341, 1346 (7th Cir. 1983). Thus the bulk of the firefighting costs are properly allocable to the airlines. On similar grounds we think the Authority introduced enough evidence -- if barely enough -- to support its allocation of security costs to the airlines, particularly in light of the absence of any contrary evidence introduced by the airlines. (This is a minor item; the costs of the anti-hijacking program are recovered in a separate fee to the airlines that is not contested.)
The Authority allocated $400,000 of its costs to the airport's general-aviation users but charged no landing fee to them. It points out that the cost of collecting landing fees from general-aviation users would be very high -- maybe as much as half the fee -- and that in lieu of a landing fee it imposes a charge per gallon of aviation fuel consumed by general-aviation users at the airport.There is no objection to substituting a flowage fee (as it is called) for a landing fee in order to economize on the costs of collection, but the flowage fee must yield revenues commensurate with the costs allocated to general-aviation users. This flowage fee does not. It generates only $250,000 in revenues. Although the ordinance nearly doubled the landing fees and other charges to the airline users of the airport, it left unchanged the flowage fee that the Authority had been charging to general-aviation users since 1971. The difference in the Authority's treatment of airlines and private planes -- making the former pay for the full costs (and more!) that they impose on the airport, but, through inaction, allowing the latter to get away with paying little more than half of the costs they impose -- has not been justified. And since flights by private planes are more likely to be intrastate than airline flights are, the effect of leaving the flowage fee unchanged has been to shift some of the costs imposed by local users of the airport to its interstate users, who are, along with many of their customers, nonresidents of Indiana. This is just the sort of discrimination Congress wanted to prevent in the Anti-Head-Tax Act.
The only other issue that requires discussion is whether the airlines are holdover tenants. If they are, then whatever new ordinance the airport authority enacts in response to our decision will not be retroactive to the date of the expiration of the leases. Several early Indiana cases discussed in Employers' Liability Assurance Co. v. Enos Coal Corp., 457 F.2d 402, 406-07 (7th Cir. 1972), hold that if a tenant does not vacate the premises at the expiration of his lease but continues to make, and the landlord continues to accept, payment of the rental fixed in the lease, the tenant is automatically a holdover tenant whose obligations to the landlord are discharged by payment of that rental. But a more recent case indicates that Indiana has come into line with the prevailing view that the presumption that the tenancy continues "may be rebutted by proof of a contrary intention on the part of the landlord alone. . . ." Speiser v. Addis, 411 N.E.2d 439, 441 (Ind. App. 1980). Of course the Authority is wrong to argue that Speiser, a decision of the Indiana Appellate Court, "overruled" the earlier cases, which include two decisions of the Indiana Supreme Court, Harry v. Harry, 127 Ind. 91, 92, 26 N.E. 562 (1891), and Lautman v. Miller, 158 Ind. 382, 63 N.E. 761 (1902). But just as an intermediate federal appellate court may properly decline to follow a U.S. Supreme Court decision when convinced that the Court would overrule the decision if it had the opportunity to do so, see, e.g., Norris v. United States, 687 F.2d 899, 902-04 (7th Cir. 1982); Browder v. Gayle, 142 F. Supp. 707, 717 (M.D. Ala.) (three-judge court), aff'd per curiam, 352 U.S. 903, 77 S. Ct. 145, 1 L. Ed. 2d 114 (1956); United States v. Girouard, 149 F.2d 760, 765 (1st Cir. 1945) (dissenting opinion), rev'd, 328 U.S. 61, 90 L. Ed. 1084, 66 S. Ct. 826 (1946), so many intermediate state appellate courts decline to follow earlier state supreme court decisions for the same reason -- especially when almost a century has passed since the earlier decisions. And if we think the intermediate state appellate court has made a correct or even, perhaps, just a defensible prediction of what the state supreme court would do if the question were put to it, then we are bound to follow its ruling in a diversity case or any other case where the issue is one of state law. See, e.g., Garris v. Schwartz, 551 F.2d 156, 158 (7th Cir. 1977); 19 Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4507 at pp. 94-95 (1982).
Although the usual way of creating a holdover tenancy is by an explicit communication from the landlord that he is electing to treat the tenant as a holdover, "The conduct of the landlord . . . may amount to an assertion of the right of election. This would be the case if an offer by the tenant to continue paying the usual rent was accepted without reservations." 2 Restatement (Second) of Property (Landlord and Tenant) § 14.4, comment e (1977). But here the rent was accepted with reservations. The Authority told the airlines that it would not extend the leases unless they agreed to substantial increases in the rental rate. The airlines knew that the Authority had the legal power unilaterally to impose new terms (provided they were reasonable). And beginning on September 1, 1980, when the ordinance went into effect, they were fully apprised of the Authority's position that the charges fixed in the ordinance were the rates that it would seek to collect from the airlines. By continuing to use the airport in these circumstances the airlines assumed the risk that either the ordinance would be held valid and they would have to pay the fees fixed in it or, if the ordinance was held invalid and some substitute enactment fixing reasonable fees was promulgated, they would have to pay those fees instead.
To summarize, we agree with the district judge that the ordinance is invalid in disregarding concession income and in continuing the old flowage fee for general-aviation users, but we disagree with some of his other conclusions and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The Authority raises some minor procedural and evidentiary issues in this appeal that are without merit and require no discussion. The parties shall bear their own costs in this court.
Affirmed In Part, Reversed In Part, And Remanded.
FLAUM, Circuit Judge, concurring.
I join in that portion of the majority opinion holding that the airlines were not holdover tenants under Indiana law. I agree with the majority's conclusion that the ordinances establishing user fees for the Indianapolis International Airport*fn1 are invalid. However, I reach that result for reasons different from those of the majority, and thus, I concur only in the judgment as to the remaining issues.
In this appeal, the Indianapolis Airport Authority has asked this court to require the airlines to pay the fees established in its ordinances for use of the airport. The airlines argue tht the ordinances, and more particularly the user fees charged them under the ordinances, are invalid because the Airport Authority improperly allocated costs among airport users in setting the fees. In response to these arguments, the majority opinion informs the parties that the ordinances are invalid because the airport has a monopoly and extracts a monopoly price from the concessionaire users. The majority opinion argues that the ordinances are invalid because the fees charged to the concessionaire users are excessive, resulting in an unreasonable price being charged to airline passengers. There are several difficulties with this approach. First, whether the fees charged to the concessionaires are excessive is not at issue. No one, either at the district court or on appeal, has argued that the fees charged to the concessionaires are too high. The concessionaires are not parties to this action. The ordinances in question do not even apply to most of them.*fn2 Moreover, no one has argued, and there is no evidence in the record, that the total price charged to airline passengers is unreasonable. Second, the issue of monopoly was barely mentioned by the parties below and on appeal.*fn3 The focus of the airlines' argument as to the unreasonableness of the fees was that costs and revenues were allocated improperly in setting the user fees. Third, and most significant, the approach taken by the majority does not address the issue of whether the costs allocated, and thus the fees charged, to the airlines are unreasonable. The majority finds the existence of a monopoly price because the rent charged to the concessionaires is more than three times the costs attributed to them under the Airport Authority's cost allocation method. This approach, however, assumes the very issue that we have been asked to decide -- whether the costs were correctly allocated. If a larger percentage of the costs of the airport properly should have been allocated to the concessionaires, then the disparity between the rent and the costs would not be as great. The issue in this case is whether various federal and state laws prohibit the cost accounting method employed by the airport in setting the user fees charged to the airlines. I deem it appropriate to restrict a federal court's involvement with a municipal corporation's method of setting rates for the use of its property -- for reasons of comity and judicial restraint -- to the specific issues that are brought before the court.
Moreover, I believe that the majority opinion inappropriately relies on a statute that is unnecessary to its decision. The airlines challenged the ordinances on the basis of three statutes: section 18(a)(1) of the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970, as amended, 49 U.S.C. § 1718(a)(1) [now codified at 49 U.S.C. § 2210(a)(1) (Supp. 1982)]; the Federal Anti-Head Tax Act, 49 U.S.C. § 1513 (Supp. IV 1980) (prior to 1982 amendment); and section 8-22-3-11(9) of the Indiana Airport Authorities Act, Ind. Code Ann. §§ 8-22-3-1 to -35 (West 1982). All three statutes require the airport to charge "reasonable" fees. As the majority correctly notes, we need not decide whether the airlines have standing to raise the Airport an Airways Development Act of 1970. Because I would hold that the ordinances violated the Indiana statute, and because the federal Anti-Head Tax Act poses difficult and unresolved problems of interpretation, I would not and do not reach the question of whether the ordinances also violate the federal statute.*fn4 Thus, we need not decide whether "reasonable" under the Act means the same thing as it does under the Indiana statute.*fn5 Furthermore, section 1513(b) clearly applies only to fees charged to "aircraft operators." It does not apply to fees charged to concessionaires. The majority opinion thus has expanded the reach of the statute and created regulation of the market system where Congress clearly had no intent to regulate.
Finally, I see no need to discuss potential means of reducing airport congestion through rate-making methodology. Courts are not experts on the subject of airport management and financing. The parties have not asked for our advice on airport congestion.*fn6 The parties have not argued before this court that congestion is, or is even likely to be, a problem at Indianapolis International Airport. Until this matter is squarely presented to us as an issue necessary to a decision, we should not address it.
Prior to September 1, 1980, the Airport Authority's changes to the airlines were set through leases negotiated with the airlines. In determining the fees to be charged, the Airport Authority totalled its operating and maintenance expenses plus the cost of its debt service and subtracted all revenues form airport users other than the airlines. The Airport Authority then set its fees in an amount sufficient to recover from the airlines the balance of the amount necessary to pay its expenses and debt service. Before the lease expired on August 31, 1980, the parties attempted to negotiate a new lease but were unable to do so. In August 1980, the Airport Authority passed ordinance 4-1980, which established fees and charges effective September 1, 1980.In December 1980, the Airport Authority passed ordinance 5-1980, which established fees and charges effective February 1, 1981.
In determining the fees to be set by the ordinances, the Authority relied on accounting reports prepared by its staff and the firm of Crenshaw & Associates ("Crenshaw Report"). The Crenshaw Report divided the airport into various cost centers. There were two types of cost centers: revenue-producing and nonrevenue-producing. Costs were then allocated among the cost centers. Costs from each revenue-producing cost center were charged to that specific center. Costs from nonrevenue-producing cost centers were allocated among revenue-producing cost centers using one or two methods: management analysis or revenue acres. Under the management analysis method, airport management determined what percentage of the costs benefitted the users of each revenue-producing cost center and then allocated the costs accordingly. Under the revenue acres method, costs were allocated strictly according to the space occupied by each revenue-producing cost center.
Costs were then allocated among the users of each revenue-producing cost center. The concessionaires were considered to be users only of the terminal building cost center, and thus they were allocated costs solely from that cost center. The parking lot was considered to be a user only of the parking lot cost center, and thus it was allocated costs solely from that cost center. Users were divided into two classes: aeronautical and nonaeronautical. Aeronautical users were charged at a rate to recover the costs attributed to them. Nonaeronautical users were charged market rates, with their attributed costs serving as a minimum.
In determining how to assess fees against aeronautical users, the Airport Authority divided the users into classes. Commercial airline users' fees were assessed through rental and landing fees. General aviation users' fees were assessed through a fuel flowage fee. That fee had not been raised since 1971. The costs allocated to general aviation totalled over $400,000. The fuel flowage fee recovered approximately $250,000.
The ordinances increased the rates charged to the airlines. Under the lease, the airlines paid $.46 per thousand pounds gross landing weight and $17.55 per square foot for rent in the terminal. Under ordinance 4-1980, the airlines were to pay $.6015 per thousand pounds gross landing weight and $21.95 per square foot in rent. Under ordinance 5-1980, the landing fee was increased to $.6771 per thousand pounds gross landing weight. Under the ordinances, the airport was budgeted to have net income of $2,917,129 for 1981. After September 1, 1980, the airlines continued to pay both rent and landing fees at the rates imposed under the expired leases.
The district court, following a bench trial, ruled that the rates and charges established by the ordinances were unreasonable because the Airport Authority's method of allocating costs and revenues failed to recognize interdependences between aeronautical and nonaeronautical users. The court further held that the rates discriminated against the airlines and in favor of general aviation.*fn7 Finally, the court held that the airlines were holdover tenants under Indiana law, and as such, the Airport Authority by accepting rent from them had waived its right to the rent imposed by the ordinances.
On appeal, the Airport Authority argues that the district court erred in holding that its rates and fees under the ordinances were unreasonable. It contends that the district court's opinion improperly forces it to use revenues from nonaeronautical users to subsidize the airlines. The Airport Authority argues that it had broad discretion in adopting its rate-making methodology.It further maintains that the general aviation flowage fees were not discriminatory, because it can use different methods to collect fees from different classes of users.
The airlines argue that the district court properly found that the accounting method was improper and that the Airport Authority misapplied its own improper methodology. They argue that the general aviation fee was discriminatory because it failed to recover the costs attributable to general aviation.
The Indiana Airport Authorities Act provides that an airport authority board "may do all acts necessary or reasonably incident to carrying out the purposes of this chapter, including the folowing: . . . To adopt a schedule of reasonable charges and to collect them from all users of facilities and services within the district . . ." Ind. Code Ann. § 8-22-3-11(9) (West 1982). Under the statute, a reasonable charge is one that reflects the differences in the extent of use of airport facilities by different classes of users. Evansville-Vanderburgh Airport Authority District v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 259 Ind. 464, 467, 288 N.E.2d 136, 137 (1972). As the court noted, "The very concept of a user fee implies that there are different uses that can be identified and the amount of the fee charged must relate to that use." Id., 288 N.E.2d at 137. Thus, the amount of the fee charged must relate to the benefits supplied to the user, measured according to the costs incurred in supplying the benefits.*fn8
This conclusion has two important corollaries. First, the fee charged to one user cannot relate to costs incurred in supplying benefits to those other than that user. Second, each user or class of users must bear its full share of the costs of its benefits. Violation of either principle would lead to a fee that is unreasonable under Indiana law.
Applying these principles, I find that, as a matter of law, the rates imposed by the ordinances are unreasonable. First, the fees charged to the airlines reflect the cost of benefits fairly attributable to other users of the airport. Second, the fees fail to reflect the extent of use by the users.
One benefit not reflected in the fees charged to the concessionaires is the production of customers for the parking lot and concessions. The parties agree that the persons using the airport parking lot and concessions are airline passengers. Thus, there is a dependence on the airlines by the concessionaire users. Cf. Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 429 F. Supp. 1069, 1083 (E.D.N.C. 1976) ("the authority is directly dependent on the inflow and outflow of commercial passengers and freight, as served by the airlines, to provide the people -- traffic who use a majority of such services as restaurant, parking space, ticket counter, concessions, etc."). Daniel C. Orcutt, Executive Director of the airport, testified that "the airport provides an economic opportunity for these companies to conduct their business, and they are willing to pay more than the cost for that opportunity, to have the exposure to the traffic." Transcript at 208. The dependence of the nonaeronautical users on the airlines to produce customers means that those users receive a substantial benefit from the airlines.The costs of producing that benefit, however, are borne entirely by the airlines. Under the Indiana statute, that is unreasonable.*fn9 There was testimony at the trial about several different cost accounting methods that the Airport Authority could use to recognize that dependency, such as the byproduct and joint-product methods. It is, of course, unnecessary for this court or the district court to endorse any particular method.
Second, the fuel flowage fee charged to general aviation users did not recover the costs allocated to general aviation. The statute requires that the fee be related to the costs of the serviceds provided and be determined according to the extent of the use. The fee charged here fails to meet that standard, and thus it is unreasonable. However, nothing in the statute requires that all users be assessed according to the same formula or that costs be collected in the same manner.The Airport Authority may collect fees from general aviation through a fuel flowage fee rather than through a landing fee; but however it chooses to collect its fee, that fee must recover the costs properly allocable to that user.
Third, the Airport Authority, in determining its cost centers, included in the landing area cost center both land that was not part of the clear zone for any existing runway and land that was at that time not even owned by the airport.*fn10 This had the effect of increasing the size of the landing area cost center and thus of the amount allocated to that cost center under the revenue acres method. The users of that cost center -- the commercial airlines -- were thus charged with costs that had no relation to the extent of their use of the airport. This is unreasonable.*fn11
The airport firefighting costs were allocated according to management analysis. Although the majority of the firefighting activity took place in the terminal building, most of the costs were allocated to the airfield. The Airport Authority argues that this is because the firefighting equipment and personnel are required in case there is a major aircraft disaster, not to deal with the minor emergencies that occur in the terminal building. This analysis is reasonable under the statute, because it relates the costs to the extent of the use.
Both in the district court and on appeal, the Airport Authority has characterized the dispute over cost accounting methods as a choice between the "single cash register method" and the "multiple cash register method." In the former, the airport is treated as one cost center and revenues from the nonaeronautical users are applied to lower the fees charged to the airlines. In the latter, the airport is treated as a series of cost centers, each of which must stand alone for rate-making purposes. The Airport Authority contends that the district court opinion would force it to apply the single cash register method. I do not understand the district court opinion to require this, and I would not so hold.The Indianapolis Airport Authority may establish as many cost centers as it deems prudent; but it must allocate the costs among them, and among the users of a cost center, fairly. See Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 429 F. Supp. at 1079 (a multiple cash register system is a reasonable method of allocating costs if it is fairly and regularly applied).
Requiring the Airport Authority to consider dependencies in allocating costs does not violate the rule of public utility rate-making that revenues from unregulated activities cannot be used to subsidize regulated activites. See Smyth v. Ames, 169 U.S. 466, 42 L. Ed. 819, 18 S. Ct. 418 (1898). Instead, it merely requires a fair allocation of costs in determining the revenues of the activities. Moreover, under the Indiana statute the fees charged to concessionaires are regulated. The Indiana Supreme Court has recognized that concessions are "users" of an airport within the meaning of section 8-22-3-11(9). Evansville-Vanderburgh Airport Authority District v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 259 Ind. at 466-67, 288 N.E.2d at 137.
Because I agree with the majority opinion that the airlines were not holdover tenants under Indiana law, I also agree that the case must be remanded to the district court for further proceedings.
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:
Things Have Been...
The basement is back to normal too. The sheetrock has been fixed, the walls freshly painted along with trim and doors and new carpet. Whew!
Along with all of this I've been struggling a bit with my health. Having a disaster of a home, a hernia surgery and kidney stones simultaneously felt like salt in a very open wound. One day while feeling a little sorry for myself I read this quote from Richard G. Scott "Challenges often come in multiple doses applied simultaneously. When those trials are not consequences of your disobedience, they're evidence that the Lord feels you are prepared to grow more." Reading this brought peace to my soul. Really, it's a blessing to have challenges because that is how we are able to become who our Father in Heaven knows we can become. Everyday I wake up feeling a little better and have seen so much goodness from those around me that have so willingly served our family. I've been taught and humbled and for that I am very thankful.
Posted by dandee on Thursday, October 16, 2014
12 comments:
Oh, I feel so bad for you. Not feeling well then having so much going on. Will your home insurance help at all. So sorry. Feel better.ReplyDeleteReplies
Yes, thankfully our insurance has been wonderful.Delete
Hope you feel better soon!ReplyDelete
- AnonymousOctober 17, 2014 at 6:38 AM
Your optimism during times like these is so inspiring. Challenges really do help us grow and it's wonderful that you can see the good in such trying times. Praying for your family and the health of you & the new babe. I am pregnant with my first (due in March) and think of you often and love reading your blogs.ReplyDelete
Take care,
Kristin in VA
Ok this is exactly what I needed to read. Thank you xxReplyDelete
Wow. We have had multiple doses of trials and stress lately too, and it's not easy to keep the chins up and the attitudes optimistic. Praying for you and all this!! Be strong and courageous!ReplyDelete
I was confused to comment, if I exaggerated when I said it was a remarkable article. I was amazed by the contents and it would like to continue reading even if the eyes are tired. really good article anyway. may I share articles like this penyebab kemandulan cara mengobati obat tendonitis/radang tendon gejala cara menyembuhkan usus buntu> gejala stroke pengobatan The article discusses health treatment. The next article also discusses the same thing cara menyembuhkan katarak cara menyembuhkan maag kronis cara mengobati kista ukuran 8cm 7cm these articles I created to share information that might be useful for everyone cara mengobati kista ukuran 5cm 6cm cara mengatasi pengapuran tulang I'd love sharing goodness as with this article, hopefully it can benefit others.ReplyDelete
This article is very interesting and very motivating the young child, and I loved your article, dewa pokerReplyDelete
This article is very nice, helpful and informative
I think this place is not too bad even very good, and I like the atmosphere there. thank you for willing to share with us. this is really something very extraordinary, raja pokerReplyDelete
Your article was excellent and I would give it a try
Super website with a great sharing and amazing stories is ur web.. please keep doing what u do now.. thanks to you.ReplyDelete
Agen Bola Resmi
Bandar bola
Agen Bola Terpercaya
Agen Bola Terbesar
Agen Bola online
Judi bola
Berita Bola
Agen Sbobet
Agen Ibcbet
She told me she just didn't see herself as a leader and didn't realize that other people at the school saw her as a leader as wellReplyDelete
Togel Online Singapore
Togel Online Hongkong
Bandar Togel Singapore
Bandar Togel
Togel Online Terpercaya
Bandar Togel Online Terpercaya
Togel Online
Agen Togel Online Hanoi
Agen Togel Online
Togel Online Cambodia


text:
Home | Submit a file | New | Categories | RSS Feeds | Blog
Free Software Advertising
"Convert JPG to PDF" snapshot
Convert JPG to PDF software supports to convert jpeg to pdf, multipage tiff to pdf, png to pdf, emf to pdf, wmf to pdf, gif to pdf. Merge multiple images to one single PDF without losing original style etc. Fixup the page width of PDF file.
Essential downloads
001 Picture Recovery is a reliable picture recovery tool for users to recover pictures lost due to accidental deleting, formatting, and other unknown reasons from PC, SD card, USB Drive and other storage devices.
AutoMe is a reliable and user-friendly windows automation software and macro recorder with task scheduler, color checker. AutoMe is very easy to use, you can record robot, and run it as many time as needed. No programing needed.
Product information
Windows 7/Vista/XP/2000/Server/95/98, Other
File size:
1.15 Mb
Date added:
May 26, 2012
Product page:
Description from the Publisher
Convert JPG to PDF software supports multiple image formats conversion into PDF like jpeg to PDF, multiple tiff images to pdf, bmp to pdf, animated gif to pdf, emf to pdf, wmf to pdf, png to pdf, etc. It is one small converter that can instantly convert JPEG images into PDF files with fast speed. Merge multiple images to one single PDF without losing original style etc. Support adjust each page size of PDF automatically. Fixup the page width of PDF file. Image to PDF Conversion program has several options to convert image files into PDF document as per your requirement. You can change image size, page size, page margin and set PDF Meta properties before converting the images into PDF files. It has also an option to set password protection to encrypt your converted PDF files from unauthorized users or person. Using this tool, you can create a PDF eBook of your hot and stylish pictures and share, transfer or carry easily. Key features: * JPG to PDF Converter support all major image formats like jpeg, bmp, tiff, emf, wmf, gif, ico, png, etc. * Supports both single as well as multipage tiff images. * Has option to change image size, page size and page margin. * Set PDF Meta properties like Title, Author, Subject and Keyword. This is an optional setting. * Has option to add password protection on converted PDF documents to secure from others or share through web. * Make single PDF document after joining all the listed images on same document. * Make individual PDF documents for every individual images listed on image list. * Has option to add image extension with resultant file name. * Option to add prefix and suffix with output file name. * Works on all Windows OS like XP, Vista and 7. * Supports both 32 bit and 64 bit OS.
Users reviews & testimonials
This software is not reviewed yet.
Product tagspdf protection, multipage tiff editor, joining pdf, pdf page size, single page, change page size, multipage tiff, convert multiple bmp to pdf, meta
Other downloads from this publisher
Split and merge PDF file can split big PDF file into a number of small parts, delete specific pages from PDF documents, merge various PDFs, evaluate t ...
TIFF to PDF Converter is a powerful tool for doing image conversion job. It is able of convert TIFF images into PDF document formats. Software is capa ...
Image Watermark software protects each watermarked image in multiple locations with different setting and adds logos or text as watermark to your phot ...
PDF Security software can secure your valuable files and restrict or protect feature like document printing, editing, document assembly, content print ...
PDF page resize software can change existing file property like page orientation or layout on any paper size, custom size and relative size with resiz ...
[ More downloads from this publisher ]


text:
BT has announced plans to increase both line rental and call charges from the 28th April in another blow for already stretched consumers.
Call charges are set to increase 9%, with line rental due to go up another 30p a month, just months after prices went up with the VAT increase.
A UK landline call will now cost 7.6p a minute, up from 7p, and customers will receive a letter in the next few weeks highlighting the changes.
BT increased their call charges by 10% in October last year, and added 50p to the cost of line rental, and the latest changes add to inflation busting price increases from the Telecom giant.
Some customers will escape the increase, with those customers on a BT Basic, or Line Rental Saver tariff not paying more for their line rental, and BT Basic and Light User Scheme members not paying increase call charges.
BT's call minder service will also rise from £2.60 a month to £3 a month, although BT argued the rise in charges would have minimal impact on customers.
"Millions of people have signed up to our Unlimited Anytime Plan in the last year and 75% of UK landline calls on our network are now free," it said.
BTs letter admitted that it "appreciated that price rises are never welcome" and that other products would now cost less, including BT Vision which will now only cost £12.50 a month.


text:
Need a Latex Allergy Test in Azle, TX? Simply order online 24/7 and get a fast, affordable Latex Allergy Test at a lab near you (Find More Locations):
Why would I get a Latex Allergy Test?
A Latex Allergy Test checks for an allergy to latex. People in Azle, TX order a Latex Allergy Test for general screening or when concerned about symptoms.
How much does a Latex Allergy Test cost?
Our Latex Allergy Test prices include the doctor's order that you need to get tested in Azle, TX, all lab fees and taxes, and a pdf copy of your results. For current prices, please CLICK HERE.
What does a Latex Allergy Test report look like?
For a sample report, please CLICK HERE.
We are pleased to offer a Latex Allergy Test in Azle, TX.
Latex Allergy Test in other cities near Azle, TX:Aledo | Benbrook | Boyd | Fort Worth | Haslet | Keller | Naval Air Station/ Jrb | Newark | Paradise | Rhome | River Oaks | Saginaw | Springtown | Weatherford | Westover Hills
Limited Time Offer!
Save 5% on Your Order Today Only
Use Promo Code XTPUDSKLC
Offer Expires in


text:
Holiday Hours Are Here!
Starting November 28th, we are open:
Monday through Friday 9 am to 8 pm
Saturday and Sunday 9 am to 8 pm
Saturday 12/17 and Sunday 12/18 9 am to 8 pm
Wednesday 12/21 through Friday 12/23 9 am to 9 pm
Christmas Eve Saturday 12/24 9 am to 5 pm
Christmas Day Sunday 12/25 Closed
Hanukkah begins at Sundown on Saturday, December 24th!
Get ready for the Festival of Light with our huge Hanukkah section! From menorahs to dreidels, gelt to games, we've got all you need to create tasty Hanukkah treats, decorate the house or throw a party!
Christmas is coming!
Get into gear for the Holiday Season! We are the Stocking Stuffer Headquarters and your source for Fun Stuff! Toys and Games, Novelties and White Elephant Gifts, SantaCon Wearables, Holiday Party Supplies, Christmas Wrapping Paper and Bags, Cookie Party Baking Supplies and Gingerbread Houses! We have everything you need for Christmas!


text:
Tokarey Apartment
Cari Kadar Hotel
Carian Baru-baru Ini
Wego mencari pelbagai laman pelancongan agar anda dapat melihat dan membandingkan kadar terbaik.
Ulasan Hotel
Berdasarkan ulasan dari seluruh web.
Maklumat Hotel
Ideally located in the prime touristic area of Al Aziziyah, Masar Jeddah Furnished Apartments promises a relaxing and wonderful visit. The hotel offers a wide range of amenities and perks to ensure you have a great time. Smoking area, car park, Wi-Fi in public areas, coffee shop, room service are there for guest's enjoyment. Designed for comfort, selected guestrooms offer in room safe, bathrobes, mini bar, separate dining area, microwave to ensure a restful night. The hotel offers various recreational opportunities. For reliable service and professional staff, Masar Jeddah Furnished Apartments caters to your needs.


text:
Viewing All 114 Photos
Certified photos by travelers like you.
September 2016
view from atv stop
This was looking over the ocean at one of our four stops! You get to see many more along the ride!
August 2016
Mi Dushi Snorkeling
Three sisters Melissa, Nikki and Brianna snorkeling with Mi Dushi!
July 2016
Natural Bridge
This was the smaller part of the bridge. The bigger bridge was demolished by waves back in 2008.
July 2016
Catholic Church
This was a gorgeous Catholic Church that only sat 30 people
July 2016
Aruba cave
We got to visit one of the Aruba caves. It was very educational and even saw bats.


text: Hello People, Im having difficulty with sibilance in vocals I have recorded and I am looking for some useful tips and techniques. From what I understand the best way to deal with sibilance is Mic placement. Recently I have been placing the Mic just higher than the mouth and this has helped but I have just read in another thread 'Recording Vocals' the cons of using this technique. Another suggestion in the 'Recording Vocals' thread was to shift the Mic to the right or left of the singers mouth. Can anyone comment on this technique? I use Logic Studio De-esser after compression but the sibilance is still irritating. Any suggestions?


text:
- Hi there, welcome to Tribesmart. Log in to get started...
2012 (Two-Disc Special Edition) [Blu-ray]
Guide price: $23
Last updated on 8th Mar 2010
2012 (Two-Disc Special Edition) [Blu-ray]
From Roland Emmerich, director of THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW and INDEPENDENCE DAY, comes the ultimate action-adventure film, exploding with groundbreaking special effects. As the world faces a catastrophe of apocalyptic proportions, cities collapse and continents crumble. 2012 brings an end to the world and tells of the heroic struggle of the survivors. Starring John Cusack, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Amanda Peet, Woody Harrelson and Danny Glover.
Login or Register to add this to your wish list or favourites.
Similar to 2012 (Two-Disc Special Edition) [Blu-ray]
Microsoft Xbox One 1TB Special Edition Fallout 4
LeaseItKeepIt is a partner of ours that makes it easy for us to provide you with product through a flexible payment system where you only pay a small amount down. We ship you the product and you can continue to make modest monthly payments on it, or you can send it back. After 12 months, you own the product outright.


text: Just to show how biased J-Lo is, watch Hollie's first performance. Usually when one judge gives a standing ovation they all give a standing ovation. For Hollie's performance, Randy and Steven stood up and J-Lo stayed firmaly planted in her chair. I would be surprised if she gives a standing ovation to anyone but Joshua for the rest of the season. The standing ovations for Joshua happen so often that they have lost their meaning.


text:
Gordy's Lunch
Played 3564 times
Gordy's Lunch game information:
A newly born baby dragon eats fireflies by jumping. Feeding himself Gordy gradually masters his ability to spit fire. Beware the nasty knight, whose primary goal is to kill our baby dragon.
How to play:
Use arrow keys to move and press space bar to breath fire.
Add this game to your website or blog!
Popular Tags
Latest Games
- Bart Shootout
- The Hulk Differences
- Princess doll house 2
- American Trucks Memory
- Sailor Ship Escape
- Defend Kindom Wars
- Deadpool Jigsaw
- Offroad Race Truck
- House Cleaning
- Kings Castle 20
- BMW F32 Jigsaw
- Art Gallery Escape
- Fairy Beauty Salon
- Daredevil Jigsaw
- Semi Truck Jigsaw
- Lexus RS 350 Jigsaw
- Land of the Monsoon
- Kings Castle 19
- Italy Palazzo Escape
- Kings Castle 18
- Steven Adventure 2
- The Flowers of Paris
- Hendersons House
- Cindrella Hidden Objects
- Abandoned Theater Escape
- Phantom Jigsaw Truck
- Silverado Jigsaw
- Fireman Kids Western
- Elsa's Cuisine
- Dora Find Flying Castle


text:
Bearing 12x15x15FKIV, TIMKEN
- The bearing 12x15x15FKIV will be sent only after a detailed professional technical control.
- Thus, buying 12x15x15FKIV from RulmentiOnline.ro you have quality guarantee.
- Delivery is by express courier or by other means agreed with you.
- Bearings inventories are 100% real and weekly updated thanks to our partners and our company's care.


text:
And, of course, the fine print:
Get free shipping on your next order when you spend over $100. The discount will be automatically applied to your purchase; no promo code required. The subtotal of your purchase must be $100.01 or greater after any promotional discounts have been applied. Additional fees such as tax or shipping and handling do not apply toward your minimum subtotal requirement of $100.01. Offer applies to standard shipping only. Certain items that require additional shipping and handling are excluded from this promotion and do not apply towards your $100.01 subtotal minimum. Offer subject to change.
Leave your mark on all of your makings with this handmade stamp. The sturdy rubber stamp is packed in a box made with recycled materials and includes a bright magenta ink pad. Mounted on a maple wood block, each stamp includes a To/From line and a black-colored pencil for filling everything out.
- Natural rubber stamp mounted on a maple block
- Includes one rubber stamp
- One black colored pencil
- One magenta ink pad
- Stamp measures 2 3/8" x 3 5/8''
This product ships from the maker within 7 days, via USPS
If you're not happy with this item for any reason, you may return it for a full refund within 30 days.


text:
Auto Sales Videos
Car Sales in America Coming off a Record Year
New survey found that 70 percent of new owners driving off the lot experience regret after their purchase.
Index: Kobe Bryant Announces Retirement
To the index of other news tonight the president of Oklahoma Wesleyan University making headlines after venting his frustration. Over student complaints and protests posting a blunt message of the zone. He says students today are taught to be quote self absorbed narcissistic. The title this post
Tesla's Big News Overshadows Earnings
Tesla Motors reports quarterly sales of $1.1 billion and profit figures that top estimates, but a release date for a new model and surging battery orders are the talk of Wall Street.
Auto Buyers Spending More to Trade Up
The new annual sales rate for auto sales in the U.S. hit 16.5 million last month, as Americans continue to replace aging cars.
Texas Pounded With Heavy Rain, Hail
ABC News' Ron Claiborne, Rob Marciano on the latest storm system sweeping through the U.S.
Nationwide Crackdown Underway for Car Dealers
"Operation RUSE Control" is expected to crack down of deceptive advertising in auto sales.
Car Sales Frozen in February
U.S. annual auto sales slow to 16.2 million pace, a 500K drop from prior month.
Dream Vehicles Star in the Nation's Biggest Auto Show
The biggest car manufacturers compete as the economy sees a boom in car sales.
US Vehicles Sales Rise to 16.5 Million in 2014
Okay. It's Wednesday January 7 the markets in New York are open and a big number this morning six and a half million. That's the total number of cars and trucks sold in America last year. It's merely a 6% jump from the year before and it is the best year in vehicle sales as 2006. I thought
Oil Prices Plunge: Is There a Downside?
The New York Times' Paul Krugman and former White House adviser Meghan O'Sullivan discuss the impact at home and abroad.


text:
Is this restaurant good for large groups?
Is this restaurant good for brunch?
Is this a fast food place?
Is this restaurant good for breakfast?
Is this restaurant good for lunch?
Are the prices at this restaurant low or inexpensive?
Is this restaurant good for dinner?
Does this restaurant offer free wifi?
Does this restaurant offer delivery?
Does this restaurant accept reservations?
Thanks for helping!
We have enjoyed our breakfasts at Jay's. The service and food is really great. It is the one time of the year that my husband has bacon, eggs and toast. I always enjoy eating at Jays and especially enjoy the pancakes
Jay's is another restaurant out of town once local residents visit. The breakfast line during the weekend at the drive through is long but very fast. If you want Fried Chicken on Sunday you better get there before the local churches dismiss. The food is consistent, the staff is friendly and courteous.
It's a favorite in town. I am a fan of the breakfast menu although the fried chicken is good. One of the few places in town to get breakfast that is not fast food. The service is good. Carry out or eat in. Good size carry out portions. You will likely be satisfied.
Their biscuits are delicious! The biscuits are nice and moist and not dry. The prices are reasonable and the staff is friendly!
They have a wonderful food bar with all kinds of home favorites.
Their chicken sandwiches are to die for.
Great buffet with a great variety of vegetables to choose from. The chicken was great as well as all the other items. We will definitely go back.
We stopped in on a Saturday around lunch time. The chicken we got at the counter was hot and juicy, but not overly flavorful. The buffet was not well stocked, the chicken thighs and legs were warm. The corn bread was inedible, but the biscuits were tasty. The bathroom was disgusting, toilet wouldn't flush, no paper towels and it was...
Been here twice. Food pretty good. It's kind of a cross between a sit down restaurant and a fast food place. I haven't eaten there for lunch - just breakfast a couple times. I would like to try their advertised menu items - chicken. But okay on breakfast. You won't be let down.
We go for the biscuits there the best, anywhere!. The gravy is just ok, could use a little more sausage flavor. Chicken is very good,best in the area.
We visited Jay's for lunch. The food was good but nothing I would drive out of my way for. The chicken was crispy and tasted very good but was not very hot. The buffet was priced right ($6.95) for the variety of foods provided. I would say give it a shot if you would like a very local place to...
Own or manage this property? Claim your listing for free to respond to reviews, update your profile and much more.


text:
- Browse bikes
- Top bikes
- Tools
- News & reviews
- Forums
- Free classifieds
Triumph Speedmaster 2006
2006 Triumph Speedmaster specifications, pictures, reviews and rating
Picture credits - Triumph. Click to submit more pictures.
|Triumph's profilation of this bike
|Dark, brooding lines and a stripped-down hot-rod essence make the Speedmaster a standout middleweight cruiser.
|General information
|Triumph Speedmaster
|Custom / cruiser
|68.5 out of 100. Show full rating and compare with other bikes
|Engine and transmission
|865.00 ccm (52.78 cubic inches)
|Engine type:
|Twin, four-stroke
|55.00 HP (40.1 kW)) @ 6750 RPM
|69.00 Nm (7.0 kgf-m or 50.9 ft.lbs) @ 4800 RPM
|Bore x stroke:
|90.0 x 68.0 mm (3.5 x 2.7 inches)
|Fuel system:
|Fuel control:
|Double Overhead Cams/Twin Cam (DOHC)
|Digital - inductive type
|Cooling system:
|Transmission type,
final drive:
|Wet. multi-plate
|Chassis, suspension, brakes and wheels
|Frame type:
|Tubular steel cradle
|Rake (fork angle):
|Front suspension:
|41mm forks
|Rear suspension:
|Chromed spring twin shocks with adjustable preload
|Front tyre:
|Rear tyre:
|Front brakes:
|Double disc
|Front brakes diameter:
|310 mm (12.2 inches)
|Rear brakes:
|Single disc
|Rear brakes diameter:
|285 mm (11.2 inches)
|Physical measures and capacities
|Dry weight:
|229.0 kg (504.9 pounds)
|Power/weight ratio:
|0.2402 HP/kg
|Seat height:
|720 mm (28.3 inches) If adjustable, lowest setting.
|Overall height:
|1,160 mm (45.7 inches)
|Overall length:
|2,420 mm (95.3 inches)
|Overall width:
|830 mm (32.7 inches)
|1,655 mm (65.2 inches)
|Fuel capacity:
|16.60 litres (4.39 gallons)
|Other specifications
|Color options:
|Jet Black. Jet Black/Sunset Red. Jet Black/Neon Blue
|Further information
|Insurance costs
|Get estimated US insurance cost with a quote from Allstate Motorcycle Insurance.
|Parts finder
|Chaparral provides online schematics & OEM parts for the US. Motorcycle Superstore provides an easy-to-use parts finder. Ships to the US, Canada, UK and Australia. MotoSport.com ships motorcycle parts and accessories to most countries. Sixity.com has low prices and free shipping on ATV and motorcycle parts to the US. Also check out our overview of motorcycle webshops at Bikez.info.
|Aftermarked parts at CruiserCustomizing.com.
|Ask questions
|Join the 06 Triumph Speedmaster discussion group or the general Triumph discussion group.
|Paid expert advice
|Available from a motorcycle mechanic at JustAnswer from $18.
|Loans, tests, etc
|Search the web for dealers, loan costs, tests, customizing, etc.
|Related bikes
|List related bikes for comparison of specs.
Discussions for every bikeBikez has discussion forums for every bike. View comments, questions and answers at the 2006 Triumph Speedmaster discussion group. You can sign up for e-mail notifications when other riders answer you. If you have extensive experience with the MC, please send us a review. If you consider buying this bike, you should view the list of related motorbikes Look at photos. Compare technical specs. And check out the rating of the bike's engine performance, reliability, repair costs, etc. You can compare the rating with other bikes.
|Rating sample for this Triumph bike
Value for money for the 2006 Triumph Speedmaster:
(77.7 out of 100)
Click here for complete rating. You can also compare bikes.
Pictures, trademarks and logos of third parties are the exclusive property of the respective owners. Technical specifications are subject to change without notice. Bikez.com has been developed by low-cost software development company ObjectLabs.
Custom Search
Aprilia BMW Ducati Harley-Davidson Honda Kawasaki KTM Moto Guzzi Suzuki Triumph Ural Yamaha
Copyright © 1999-2016 by Bikez.com a.s. This web uses cookies.
About Bikez. Advertise products. Contact Bikez.com. Privacy policy. Motorcycle catalogue and Motorcycle classifieds
Copyright © 1999-2016 by Bikez.com a.s. This web uses cookies.
About Bikez. Advertise products. Contact Bikez.com. Privacy policy. Motorcycle catalogue and Motorcycle classifieds


text:
Odoo Help
This community is for beginners and experts willing to share their Odoo knowledge. It's not a forum to discuss ideas, but a knowledge base of questions and their answers.
Change the verification fields in auth_signup
Hi everyone,
When you give portal access to a customer, a user is created in the res_users table. The users table picks the name and email address of the customer as the name and login of the user. However, I want the user table to populate the login field with a custom field that i have added to the res_partner table. Thank you for your assistance.
Olalekan Babawale
Your Answer
Please try to give a substantial answer. If you wanted to comment on the question or answer, just use the commenting tool. Please remember that you can always revise your answers - no need to answer the same question twice. Also, please don't forget to vote - it really helps to select the best questions and answers!
About This Community
Question tools
|Asked: 10/31/16, 5:02 AM
|Seen: 109 times
|Last updated: 10/31/16, 5:37 AM


text:
Home | Make an Appointment | For Medical Professionals
Behavioral Health
Browse staff with similar
locations & specialties below:
Christina Stanga, M.D.
Behavioral HealthPsychiatry & PsychologyMenomonie
George Melnyk, M.D.
Behavioral HealthPsychiatry & PsychologyMenomonie
Michael Deminsky, L.C.S.W.
Behavioral HealthMenomonie
Steve Siegle, L.P.C.
Behavioral HealthMenomonie
Victoria Zweifelhofer, L.C.S.W.
Behavioral HealthPsychiatry & PsychologyMenomonie
Holly McAbee, L.C.S.W.
Behavioral HealthMenomonie
Print Profile
Select a city to view local service information.
Behavioral Health
Hospital and Clinic2321 Stout RoadMenomonie, WI 54751715-235-5531715-233-7777 (appointments)
Master's degree in Mental Health Counseling, University of Wisconsin-Stout, Menomonie
Licensed Professional Counselor
I grew up in a large farm family in rural Wisconsin. I have a great love for children and the changing seasons found in Wisconsin. In my spare time, I enjoy time with family, baking, outdoor activities, painting, reading and volunteering.
Utilizing education to support individual needs and empower others to become more autonomous
Working with children, couple and families
Foster and adoptive care
Anxiety related disorders
Child development
Attention deficit
Autism spectrum disorders
Behavior analysis
Use of cognitive behavior and dialectical behavior skills
Learn how your generositycreates the future of medicine.
© 2012-2015 Mayo Clinic Health System Notice of Nondiscrimination Notice of Privacy Practices Terms of use


text:
Kiss Me Kits for New Year's Eve! Fill a bag or basket with everything for the perfect kiss at Midnight - a fizzy drink to share, sparklers, gum & more! These make great party favors for guests!
Who doesn't want to be kissed at midnight as a new year with new possibilities begins? This New Year's Eve Printable is perfect for that special midnight "kiss"! #newyear #newyear2014 #printables
New Years Eve Truth or Dare Game! So cute!
new year's eve party favors -midnight kisses {they're chocolate kisses!}
Kiss Me Kits for New Years Eve! Fill a bag or basket with everything for the perfect kiss at Midnight!
FREE printable New Year's Eve Hershey Kisses labels!
Cute idea for NYE party - midnight kiss lipbalm for the guests
New Year's Eve Party Idea Including Midnight Kkisses
New Year's Eve Party Printables for Adults – Wrap chocolate Kisses up in a pretty cellophane bag and add a label that says "Midnight Kisses." Send them home with your friends.
Midnight kisses, perfect for Valentine's Day #loveisallyouneed


text:
You missed it This great deal for International Center of Photography is over. But don't despair, we've got more great deals every day.
Related Deals That You May Like
Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum
Admission to Intrepid Museum and Space Shuttle
NYC Midtown$36$24
Gallery of Legends
Alex Rodriguez Hand-Signed Authenticated Baseball
NYC Midtown$399$179
New-York Historical Society Museum & Library
Museum Admission for 2 Adults or 2 Adults & 3 Kids
NYC Midtown$38$20
Off Broadway Magic Show
Ticket to Off Broadway Magic Show
NYC Midtown$79$44.99
International Center of Photography
Adult Admission for Two
93% recommendedin LivingSocial customer ratings
A powerful image is like that widely loved university professor: It can stir our emotions and open our minds to whole new ways of thinking. Study up on today's deal from the innovative and culturally rich International Center of Photography, and get a fascinating lesson in the importance of the medium. Pay $12 (regularly $24) for admission for two to the well-curated, Bryant Park-adjacent institution that has showcased more than 3,000 artists over the years. Opened in 1974, this museum offers brilliant programming and exhibits that appeal to seasoned shutterbugs and rookies of the craft alike. On display right now is "Weegee: Murder Is My Business," a collection of photos that The New York Times called a "combination of grit, humanity, and intensity." You can also indulge your love of history with a special on Civil War propaganda or explore any of the upcoming exhibitions -- which are sure to help develop your love of the art and its societal impact.
Want more? Check out International Center of Photography on Facebook.
PAID VALUE EXPIRES ON December 3, 2021
PROMOTIONAL VALUE EXPIRES ON September 2, 2012


text:
Login/Create Account
Check Out the new Remax App
Ask About This Home
Incredible value & one of the best locations in Stonegate!! With a clear view out your front window & a residential setting in the back, this 3 bedroom, 3.5 bath townhome is the one to buy! Wonderfully bright unit with a 2-story entry foyer, before heading up to the living & dining room; Neutral kitchen w/ double oven; maple cabinets & a cozy breakfast dining area. The great room off of the kitchen has a gas fireplace & sliding glass door to a secluded balcony (wooded setting) w/ a gas line for your grill. Hardwood floors thruout 1st level & convenient powder room. Spacious bedrooms have wall to wall carpeting. Huge master suite w/ walk in closets, master bath w/ double vanity, jetted tub, sep. stall shower. Ground level contains a family room/guest room; utilities & laundry located here as well as a full bath (stall shower) & access from the 2 car garage. New HW Heater! NYC bus outside the complex! Enjoy local shopping, restaurants & Blue Ribbon schools in this great town!


text:
Schonbek Lighting 5631-83 Milano Florentine Bronze Flush Mount
Schonbek Lighting 5631-84 Flush Mount has delicately intricate Italian cast detailing that stands out against the simple silhouette. It comes in a wide range of finishes and is from Schonbek's Milano Collection, a collection that is totally inspired by the Italian Rococo designs of the past.
Model No.: 5631-83
Number of Bulbs: 3
Length: 12"
Room: Foyer, Kitchen, Living Room, Office, Bedroom, Bathroom, Hallway
Note: Shown in Royal Pewter
Collection: Milano
Bulb Wattage: 40W
Finish: Florentine Bronze
Height: 6"
- Schonbek Lighting 5631-84
data-bread-crumbs="" data-lang="en">


text:
Orange Salad
|1 Medium
|1 Bunch (100 gm)
|French dressing
|2 Tablespoon
1. Skin the oranges; take away all bitter pith.
2. Wash, clean and cut lettuce and watercress. Pat dry well.
3. Put in a bowl and toss with French dressing. Garnish with bunches of watercress.
4. Cut oranges across in 1/4 inch slices. Keep the orange on the green salad.
5. Serve right away as a side accompaniment for roast duck, or cold meats.
Recipe Summary
Rate It
Nutrition Rank
Nutrition Facts
Serving size
Calories 86 Calories from Fat 33
% Daily Value*
Total Fat 4 g5.8%
Saturated Fat 0.48 g2.4%
Trans Fat 0 g
Cholesterol 0 mg
Sodium 78.6 mg3.3%
Total Carbohydrates 13 g4.3%
Dietary Fiber 3.5 g14.1%
Sugars 9.4 g
Protein 2 g4.1%
Vitamin A 143.7% Vitamin C 106.3%
Calcium 8.9% Iron 4.8%
*Based on a 2000 Calorie diet


text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, First Municipal
District; the Hon. WILLIAM M. BARTH, Judge, presiding. Affirmed.
The motion now before us is that of defendant to strike a document entitled "Statement of Facts" filed by plaintiff in the trial court as part of the record in this case. *fn1 The "Statement of Facts" bears a certification by the trial judge that it is a "correct, full and true statement of the facts material to" the controversy, and indicates that it may be incorporated in the record on appeal in lieu of a report of proceedings.
In the trial court plaintiff gave due notice to defendant that on December 21, 1965, it would move for certification of the "Statement of Facts" by the trial judge. On that date an order was entered which did not purport to continue the motion to a later date, but rather purported only to "extend the time for approving and filing of Statement of Facts to December 27th, 1965." This does not have the same effect. The establishment of a time within which a document may be presented for approval and filing does not automatically bring the matter before the court on the last day of the authorized period. A motion must be made for that purpose, and on due notice.
When no order of continuance was entered, the validity of the original notice terminated, and no further notice was ever given. Consequently, when plaintiff, ex parte, presented the "Statement of Facts" for the court's approval on December 27, 1965, there was a failure of compliance with Circuit Court Rule 2.1 pertaining to notice. McFadden v. Wernecke, 35 Ill. App.2d 441, 183 N.E.2d 181.
As to its contents, the "Statement of Facts" is governed by Supreme Court Rule 36. *fn2 Ill Rev Stats (1963), c 110, § 101.36. The document must be a report of proceedings setting forth the testimony, the rulings of the trial judge, etc., pursuant to paragraph (1) (c); or it must be a statement of facts agreed to by the parties on written stipulation, pursuant to paragraph (1) (d). The rule contemplates no other kind of document for preserving a record of the trial proceedings.
The "Statement of Facts" filed in this case is a narrative statement which does not purport to show the testimony as such, nor the names of any witnesses, nor what any particular witness testified to, nor any objections of counsel, nor any rulings of the trial judge (other than the judgment). In short, it obviously does not purport to comply with Rule 36(1) (c) as a report of proceedings.
The record also discloses that the "Statement of Facts" was not stipulated or agreed to by defendant, so it does not qualify as an agreed statement of facts under Rule 36(1) (d).
The document, therefore, has no standing, and defendant's motion to strike it is allowed. Feldman v. Munizzo, 16 Ill. App.2d 58, 64, 147 N.E.2d 427.
Since the time for filing a proper report of proceedings or agreed statement of facts has expired, and since the only errors relied on for reversal would require consideration of the trial court proceedings, the judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed. Early v. Early, 13 Ill. App.2d 394, 141 N.E.2d 758; Williamson v. Williamson, 11 Ill. App.2d 572, 138 N.E.2d 80.
DRUCKER, P.J. and McCORMICK, J., concur.
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:
The weekly Wprost, out tomorrow, shows a politburo document, signed by Mikhail Gorbachev, which appears to warrant a KGB contract killing on John Paul II.
So claims Polish journalist John O. Kohler in a book, also released tomorrow, Chodzi o papieża. Szpiedzy w watykanie - (About the Pope: Spies in the Vatican). The politburo document says: "Use all available possibilities to prevent a new political trend, initiated by the Polish pope…"
The document, which dates back to November 1979, - one year after Karol Wojtyla became pope - is signed by eight top Party officials including Konstantin Rusakov, who coordinated action with the Polish communist party, and Mikhail Gorbachev.
In Rome, Pope John Paul II survived four bullets on May 13, 1981 shot by Turk Mehmet Ali Hagca.
"If this information is true, Gorbachov should be brought to account," said Zbigniew Chlebowski, head of the ruling Civic Platform's parliamentary party...
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Did Mikhail Gorbachev order John Paul II's attempted assassination? It sure looks that way right now. Russian records already reveal that the KGB was behind the assassination attempt on John Paul II on May 13, 1981. This latest revelation points to the possibility that this KGB order came directly from the man who would eventually become the leader of the Soviet Union during its collapse, and has since become somewhat of an international icon.


text:
Hi my name is Rachel Trebilcock We had this service the other day they had came out to the property to give us a free quote we thought it would be more than the free quote but the price was excellent. They were very friendly and provide a professional service and every thing wa..
Paul arrived on time and provided great service. His plastering experience really came through. He even patched up a few holes on the other walls. Will hire him again.
Get your job done right
We verify our businesses
Only hire the best
Free to request and free to hire!
Alexandria, NSW
Carpentry, Fence, Garden
Half day
I'd like to get some timber screening panels installed onto a fence, and just below that a garden bed dug out and edging around it. The area is 4m wide.
You can see the timber screen product he...Make a similar request


text:
Construction Projects
Public Works & Utilities Projects
NW 48th from W Vine to W Adams
Currently a two-lane roadway, NW 48th Street will be constructed as a four-lane divided road between W. Holdrege Street and Highway 34. South of W. Holdrege Street, the road has been designed as a six-lane road to match NDOR's interchange project, though only five lanes are being built now. The segment between W. Adams Street and Highway 34 is not scheduled for construction at this time, but preliminary design plans have been completed.
"P" St. Streetscape Project
The City of Lincoln Public Works Department is working with the Urban Development Department on the completion of the next phase of the "P" Street Streetscape Project. This project is a part of the greater Downtown Lincoln Master Plan and continues to build on the growth and redevelopment taking place in the Downtown area.
More Information