alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Peter Markevich, Appellant, *v.*Royal Insurance Company, Limited, Respondent.

Second Department,

May 29, 1914.

Attorney and client — discovery — disclosure of client’s address — professional privilege.

In an action upon a policy of insurance, providing for full discovery, the defendant is entitled to an order requiring the plaintiff’s attorneys to disclose their client’s address, especially when an order for plaintiff’s examination before trial has been issued, but has not been served, and the professional privilege of the attorneys is no defense to such an application.

Appeal by the plaintiff, Peter Markevich, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Kings County Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 18th day of March, 1914, requiring plaintiff’s attorneys within three days to disclose plaintiff’s address to defendant’s • attorneys, and staying of proceedings meanwhile.

*Alvin C. Cass,*for the appellant.

*Ernest A. Cardozo [Edward S. Greenbaum*with him on the brief], for the respondent.

*641Per Curiam:

Although not statutory, the power to direct the disclosure of the client’s residence or address has long been recognized. *(Ninety-nine Plaintiffs*v. *Vanderbilt,*4 Duer, 632; *Post*v. *Scheider,*13 N. Y. Supp. 396; *Matter of Malcom,*129 App. Div. 226.) Not only is the address necessary for personal service of court orders, but plaintiff’s residence may require him to give security for costs (Code Civ. Proc. § 3268), fixes the county of trial (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 984, 985) and (in certain actions against a foreign corporation) may be determinative of the court’s jurisdiction (Code Civ. Proc. § 1780.) The professional privilege of the attorney cannot avail against giving the address of his client. *(Matter of Trainor,*146 App. Div. 117, 119.) The plaintiff relies on *Drake*v. *New York Iron Mine*(75 Hun [1894], 539). An examination of the original record reveals that the ulterior purpose, which defendant did not deny, was to remove the cause into the Federal court. Furthermore, plaintiff’s attorney in that case did offer to furnish his client’s address. Again, defendant had not, as here, a judicial order, which he had been unable to serve on the plaintiff.

Good faith towards an insurer requires the insured, when asked, to give his residence. The standard form of policy of this State provides for full discovery. Thereby the assured is to submit to examination on oath, and to produce his books and papers. Hence, in a suit on the policy, such a request for the assured’s address is quite in keeping with the contract obligations. No ulterior or sinister motive is thereby indicated. Defendant seeks what it is entitled to as a litigant, and what it contracted for in its policy.

The order appealed from is, therefore, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Jenks, P. J., Burr, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
#### § 75.192 Dissemination.

###### Cross Reference

Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 70322, Aug. 29, 2024.

If an applicant proposes to publish and disseminate curricula or instructional materials under a grant, the applicant shall include an assurance in its application that the curricula or materials will reach the populations for which the curricula or materials were developed.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 240

 243

 257

 238

 280

 271

 261

 266

 278

 293

 320

 353

 299

 359

 334

 355

 361

 359

 337

 358

 344

 402

 411

 395

 390

 319

 424

 396

 334

 349

 221

 227

 233

 228

 233

 233

 232

 229

 230

 231

 231

 238

 238

 258

 243

 250

 253

 255

 256

 264

 265

 317

 263

 260

 236

 236

 264

 239

 215

 210

 233

 235

 241

 233

 248

 246

 244

 251

 253

 256

 269

 291

 261

 296

 281

 292

 294

 291

 280

 313

 316

 355

 339

 324

 306

 276

 336

 305

 263

 262

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

NOVEMBER 2017 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: December 5, 2017

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 160

 161

 165

 160

 169

 168

 167

 171

 172

 174

 182

 196

 177

 199

 190

 196

 198

 196

 189

 209

 211

 235

 226

 216

 205

 187

 224

 204

 179

 178

TOTAL 8,390

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 21
## NO. 12

- 24

- 00037

- CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST
O F R. H., A CHILD § § § APPEAL FROM THE 321ST
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM T hi s appeal i s being dismissed for failu re to comply wit h t h e Texas R ules of App ellate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3 ( c)

. K.H. , actin g pro se, filed a notice of appeal on March 6 , 2024

. On March 7 , the Clerk of this Court notified Appellant that the no tice of a pp eal fa iled to contain t he information specifically r equired by Texas Rule s of Appellate P rocedure 9.5 and Section 51.017(a) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. 1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.5 (service); see also T EX

. C IV

. P RA C

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN

. § 51 .0 17(a) (West Supp. 2019) (notice of appeal must be served on each court reporter responsib le for pr eparing reporte r ’ s record). The notice warned that, unless Appellant filed a proper notice of appeal on or before March 18 , the appeal would be refer red to
t he Co urt for dismissal. Th is deadline passed and Appellant has not filed a co mpliant not ice of ap peal or other r espon se to this Court ’ s notice

. Because Appellant failed, after notice, to comply with Rule 9.5 and Section 51.017(a) , the appeal is dismisse d

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 42.3(c) (on its own initiative af ter giving ten days ’

1 P ro se lit igant s are held to the same standards as licensed at torneys and must comply with all applicable rules of procedure; other wise, pro s e li tigants would ben ef it from an unfair ad vantage over parties repr ese nted by counsel

. Muhamm ed v. Plai n s Pipeline, L .P. , No. 12

- 16

- 00 189

- CV, 20 17 WL 2665180 , at *2 n.3 (Tex. App.

— T yler June 21, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.)

.2 notice to all par ties, appellate cour t may dismiss ap peal if appeal is subject to dismissal because appellant failed to comply with a requirement of these rules, a court order, o r a notice from the cl erk requiring a response or other a ction within a specified time)

.

Opinion delivered April 10, 2024

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J ., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

## COURT OF APPEALS
TWELF TH COURT O F APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUDG MENT

APRI L 10, 2024

NO. 12-24-00037- CV

IN THE INTE REST OF R. H., A CHILD
Appe al from the 321st District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 23-0541-D)

TH IS CAU SE came on to be heard on the appellate re cord, a nd the same being considered, it is the opinion of this Court th at the appeal should be dis missed

. It is t h erefore ORDERED, ADJUDG ED a nd DE CREED by this Cou rt t hat this appeal be, and the same is, he reby dismissed ; and that this decision be certifie d to t h e court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoy le, J. and Neeley, J
#### § 681.18 Consolidation of HEAL loans.

HEAL loans may be consolidated as permitted in 34 CFR 685.220.
§ 79.11 What are the Secretary's obligations in interstate situations? ( a ) The Secretary is responsible for: ( 1 ) Identifying proposed federal financial assistance that has an impact on interstate areas;
( 2 ) Notifying appropriate officials and entities in states which have adopted a process and which select the Department's program or activity.
( 3 ) Making efforts to identify and notify the affected state, areawide, regional, and local officials and entities in those states that have not adopted a process under the Order or do not select the Department's program or activity;
( 4 ) Responding under § 79.10 if the Secretary receives a recommendation from a designated areawide agency transmitted by a single point of contact, in cases in which the review, coordination, and communication with the Department have been delegated.
( b ) In an interstate situation subject to this section, the Secretary uses the procedures in § 79.10 if a state process provides a state process recommendation to the Department through a single point of contact.
(Authority: E.O. 12372, Sec. 2(e))
§ 300.131 Child find for parentally-placed private school children with disabilities. ( a ) *General.* Each LEA must locate, identify, and evaluate all children with disabilities who are enrolled by their parents in private, including religious, elementary schools and secondary schools located in the school district served by the LEA, in accordance with paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section, and §§ 300.111 and 300.201.
( b ) *Child find design.* The child find process must be designed to ensure— ( 1 ) The equitable participation of parentally-placed private school children; and
( 2 ) An accurate count of those children.
( c ) *Activities.* In carrying out the requirements of this section, the LEA, or, if applicable, the SEA, must undertake activities similar to the activities undertaken for the agency's public school children.
( d ) *Cost.* The cost of carrying out the child find requirements in this section, including individual evaluations, may not be considered in determining if an LEA has met its obligation under § 300.133.
( e ) *Completion period.* The child find process must be completed in a time period comparable to that for students attending public schools in the LEA consistent with § 300.301.
( f ) *Out-of-State children.* Each LEA in which private, including religious, elementary schools and secondary schools are located must, in carrying out the child find requirements in this section, include parentally-placed private school children who reside in a State other than the State in which the private schools that they attend are located.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1820-0030) (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(10)(A)(ii))
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 617

 668

 655

 611

 607

 575

 566

 556

 455

 430

 587

 480

 497

 491

 498

 470

 534

 580

 527

 500

 392

 484

 476

 451

 428

 371

 467

 429

 488

 491

 513

 249

 246

 237

 231

 226

 224

 227

 227

 228

 231

 234

 233

 207

 219

 211

 223

 230

 234

 218

 210

 231

 243

 249

 235

 245

 239

 225

 223

 219

 215

 225

 334

 344

 338

 325

 328

 329

 312

 315

 308

 284

 292

 275

 289

 290

 267

 281

 302

 311

 279

 276

 275

 292

 292

 284

 282

 275

 271

 272

 285

 272

 279

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JULY 2000 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE:August 2, 2000

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 222

 229

 225

 217

 219

 219

 209

 211

 206

 192

 196

 186

 195

 195

 181

 190

 203

 208

 188

 187

 186

 196

 196

 192

 190

 186

 183

 184

 192

 184

 188

TOTAL 9,158

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT HEADWORKS
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

November 18, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

125250 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 125250 

 COA: 242050 

Oakland CC: 2001-177534-FC 

NICHOLAS JAMES JACKSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, leave to appeal was granted, 472 Mich 884 (2005), and the 

briefs and oral argument of the parties have been considered by this Court. It now 

appears to this Court that the cases of Davis v Washington, __ US __; __ S Ct __; __ L 

Ed 2d __; 74 USLW 3272; 2005 WL 1671669; 2005 US LEXIS 7859 (October 31, 

2005), and Hammon v Indiana, __ US __; __ S Ct __; __ L Ed 2d __; 74 USLW 3272; 

2005 WL 1914510; 2005 US LEXIS 7860 (October 31, 2005), are pending before the 

United States Supreme Court and that the decisions in those cases may resolve an issue 

raised in this case. We ORDER that this case be held in ABEYANCE pending the 

decisions in those cases. 

t1114 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 18, 2005 

Clerk
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 299

 316

 258

 245

 234

 237

 274

 321

 356

 293

 299

 272

 252

 255

 279

 286

 250

 235

 226

 212

 209

 217

 215

 209

 206

 204

 208

 207

 206

 208

 208

 170

 174

 180

 184

 187

 191

 192

 194

 199

 199

 206

 215

 219

 208

 208

 213

 212

 211

 204

 194

 195

 203

 202

 196

 191

 184

 187

 183

 179

 179

 180

 212

 223

 211

 210

 208

 206

 213

 231

 242

 230

 239

 235

 229

 222

 231

 239

 227

 222

 216

 203

 204

 210

 208

 203

 200

 196

 196

 192

 191

 192

 193

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

AUGUST 2019 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE:September 10, 2019

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 147

 154

 146

 146

 145

 143

 148

 159

 166

 158

 164

 161

 158

 153

 159

 164

 156

 153

 149

 141

 142

 146

 145

 141

 140

 137

 137

 135

 134

 135

 135

TOTAL 6,634

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT HEADWORKS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Hercules Incorporated 10-K96
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          30,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  394,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    279,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               739,000
<PP&E>                                       2,349,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,484,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,386,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          694,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        79,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     808,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,386,000
<SALES>                                      2,060,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,060,000
<CGS>                                        1,320,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  299,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              35,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                485,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   160,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            325,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   325,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.98


</TABLE>
#### § 75.701 The grantee administers or supervises the project.

A grantee shall directly administer or supervise the administration of the project.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5130 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5130

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 9, 2020

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Small Business 
                          and Entrepreneurship

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend the Small Business Act to adjust the employment size standard 
requirements for determining whether a manufacturing concern is a small 
               business concern, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Capturing All Small Businesses Act 
of 2019''.

SEC. 2. EMPLOYMENT SIZE STANDARD REQUIREMENTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 3(a)(2) of the Small Business Act (15 
U.S.C. 632(a)(2)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``and subject to the 
        requirements specified under subparagraph (C)'' after 
        ``paragraph (1)''; and
            (2) in subparagraph (C)--
                    (A) by inserting ``(including the Administration 
                when acting pursuant to subparagraph (A))'' after ``no 
                Federal department or agency''; and
                    (B) in clause (ii)(I) by striking ``12 months'' and 
                inserting ``24 months''.
    (b) Effective Date.--This Act and the amendments made by this Act 
shall take effect 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives January 8, 2020.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000049146
<NAME> HUNT MANUFACTURING CO.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
<S>                           <C>          
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-01-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-04-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-01-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,528
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   50,721
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,809)
<INVENTORY>                                     35,391
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                92,000
<PP&E>                                         106,648
<DEPRECIATION>                                (53,937)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 175,674
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           33,675
<BONDS>                                         64,559
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,615
<OTHER-SE>                                      61,065
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   175,674
<SALES>                                        327,525
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               327,525
<CGS>                                          204,976
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  204,976
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                94,345
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   655
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,278
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,271
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,052
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,219
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    251
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,968
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.28



</TABLE>
§ 463.760 How do one-stop partners jointly fund other shared costs under the Memorandum of Understanding? ( a ) In addition to jointly funding infrastructure costs, one-stop partners listed in §§ 463.400 through 463.410 must use a portion of funds made available under their programs' authorizing Federal law (or fairly evaluated in-kind contributions) to pay the additional costs relating to the operation of the one-stop delivery system. These other costs must include applicable career services and may include other costs, including shared services.
( b ) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, shared services' costs may include the costs of shared services that are authorized for and may be commonly provided through the one-stop partner programs to any individual, such as initial intake, assessment of needs, appraisal of basic skills, identification of appropriate services to meet such needs, referrals to other one-stop partners, and business services. Shared operating costs may also include shared costs of the Local WDB's functions.
( c ) Contributions to the additional costs related to operation of the one-stop delivery system may be cash, non-cash, or third-party in-kind contributions, consistent with how these are described in § 463.720(c).
( d ) The shared costs described in paragraph (a) of this section must be allocated according to the proportion of benefit received by each of the partners, consistent with the Federal law authorizing the partner's program, and consistent with all other applicable legal requirements, including Federal cost principles in 2 CFR part 200 (or any corresponding similar regulation or ruling) requiring that costs are allowable, reasonable, necessary, and allocable.
( e ) Any shared costs agreed upon by the one-stop partners must be included in the MOU.
#### § 76.135 Are there any requirements for matching funds?

The Secretary waives all requirements for matching funds for those programs that are consolidated by an Insular Area in a consolidated grant application.

(Authority: 48 U.S.C. 1469a)

[47 FR 17421, Apr. 22, 1982]