alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
494 P.2d 187

#### George TILL and Irene Till, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. John R. GRAY and Bobbie D. Gray, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 745.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

Feb. 4, 1972.

E. Douglas Latimer, John C. Maine, Jr., McAtee, Marchiondo & Michael, Albuquerque, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Clarence R. Bass, Shaffer, Butt & Bass, Albuquerque, for defendants-appellees.

OPINION

SUTIN, Judge.

This is a “slip and fall,” “mother and daughter” social guest case which occurred in defendants’ home. Plaintiff,'Mrs. Till, the mother of defendant Bobbie Gray, slipped and fell on a waxed floor and injured herself. The trial court granted defendants summary judgment. Plaintiffs appeal.

We reverse.

The following facts appear from the record:

Mrs. Till, 54 years of age, arrived at her daughter’s home with her dog the night before the accident. The following moriiing, March 18, 1969, mother and daughter were chatting back and forth between two bedrooms. The mother was dressing. Suddenly, with a yell of surprise to the mother, the daughter shouted: “Mother, hurry and get this damn dog, she is going to wet on my carpet.” The mother, with one sock on and one sock off, hurried across the hall to the daughter’s • bedroom1. She reached down, scooped up the dog in her left arm and ran out of her daughter’s bedroom, turned left in the hall, and when she did, her left foot with the sock on hit the waxed floor. Her feet went straight up and she fell down. She usually watched herself while walking on the floors, but when her daughter hollered “Hurry/,’ she just hurried and jumped and ran. . This caused her to give no thought to the floor, nor to the sock on her left foot. The floor had just been waxed the day before, and the daughter believed that if she had pot then waxed, the accident may not have, happened. She kept the floors too slick and did not warn her mother. However, the daughter had kept her floors highly waxed, slick as glass, for the preceding eleven years, and the mother knew this.

The rule applicable to a social guest is stated in Jellison v. Gleason, 77 N.M. 445, 423 P.2d 876 (1967). The “hurry” situation of this case was not present in Jellison, so there are factual issues concerning the adequacy of the disclosure of a dangerous condition and whether that condition was apparent. Thus, there are issues to be decided by the trier of fact concerning negligence and contributory negligence. There being material issues of fact, summary judgment was improper.

*526Since the case must be remanded for trial, the assumption of risk defense will be governed by Williamson v. Smith, 83 N. M. 336, 491 P.2d 1147, decided December 13, 1971.

Reversed.

It is so ordered.

WOOD, C. J., and HENDLEY, J., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

LEON DATAWN FORD,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 275 WAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 29th day of December, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Sitka Resource Advisory Committee will meet in Sitka, Alaska, February 15, 2011. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss potential projects under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2008.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held February 15, 2011 at 4 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

                        The meeting will be held at the Harrigan Hall Visitor Center, 330 Harbor Dr., Sitka, Alaska. Send written comments to Sitka Resource Advisory Committee, c/o District Ranger, USDA Forest Service, 204 Siginaka Way, Sitka, AK 99835, or electronically to Lisa Hirsch, RAC Coordinator at                         *lisahirsch@fs.fed.us.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lisa Hirsch, RAC Coordinator Sitka Ranger District, Tongass National Forest, (907) 747-4214.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meeting is open to the public. Committee discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Committee members. However, public input opportunity will be provided and individuals will have the opportunity to address the Committee at that time.

Dated: January 10, 2011.

Carol A. Goularte,

District Ranger.

[FR Doc. 2011-893 Filed 1-18-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
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

 1,740

 2,098

 2,765

 1,030

 420

 211

 225

 202

 194

 186

 269

 213

 235

 226

 0

 0

 0

 229

 234

 245

 245

 255

 256

 251

 258

 285

 268

 286

 283

 315

 304

 197

 196

 188

 199

 200

 198

 185

 154

 156

 166

 174

 186

 184

 148

 0

 0

 0

 160

 164

 177

 166

 164

 162

 165

 191

 207

 209

 224

 223

 240

 258

 400

 441

 598

 277

 225

 203

 204

 176

 169

 176

 187

 201

 221

 201

 0

 0

 0

 192

 197

 204

 208

 213

 212

 208

 215

 234

 233

 249

 252

 272

 284

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

DECEMBER 2014 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: January 6, 2015

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

RIO VISTA ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
Exhibit 23.5
 
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
   /s/ Robert D. RavnaasRobert D. Ravnaas, P.E.Executive Vice President
Cawley, Gillespie & Associates, Inc
Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-693.
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

 162

 165

 174

 172

 172

 174

 181

 169

 169

 170

 169

 168

 166

 162

 156

 155

 151

 156

 158

 155

 152

 146

 146

 139

 141

 146

 142

 138

 131

 130

 117

 116

 115

 114

 113

 119

 112

 112

 118

 115

 120

 119

 120

 115

 117

 119

 118

 122

 115

 118

 117

 112

 108

 102

 112

 106

 102

 107

 104

 102

 134

 136

 139

 145

 149

 152

 151

 142

 146

 145

 149

 148

 149

 144

 144

 142

 142

 143

 145

 143

 139

 134

 132

 127

 128

 131

 131

 129

 121

 119

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

APRIL 2011 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: May 25, 2011

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

SAN ANDREAS ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 15
                                                                    ----------

                                                      COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

                                                             November 13, 1996

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

                          Re:   Pacific Telesis Group
              Registrations on Forms S-3, Form S-4, and Forms S-8
              ---------------------------------------------------

We are aware  that our report  dated November 13,  1996 on  our review of  the
interim financial information  of Pacific Telesis  Group and Subsidiaries  for
the three-  and nine-month periods  ended September  30, 1996 and  included in
this Form 10-Q is incorporated by  reference in the Corporation's registration
statements as follows:

Form S-3:     PacTel Capital Resources  $500,000,000 Debt  Securities and     
              Guarantee thereof by Pacific Telesis Group
Form S-3:     Secondary Offering  of 137,504 shares  of Pacific Telesis       
              Group Common Stock
Form S-3:     Shareowner Dividend Reinvestment and Stock Purchase Plan
Form S-3:     Pacific Telesis Group  and Pacific Telesis  Financing I,  II    
              and III $1 billion  of Trusts Preferred Securities  and Other   
              Securities
Form S-3:     2,576,494 shares of Pacific Telesis Group Common Stock
Form S-3:     SBC Communications, Inc. Dividend Reinvestment Plan 
Form S-4:     ABI American Businessphones, Inc. Merger
Form S-4:     SBC Communications, Inc. Merger
Form S-4:     3,250,000 shares of Pacific Telesis Group Common Stock
Form S-8:     Nonemployee Director Stock Option Plan
Form S-8:     Supplemental Retirement  and Savings Plan for  Salaried         
              Employees
Form S-8:     Supplemental  Retirement and  Savings Plan for  Nonsalaried     
              Employees
Form S-8:     Stock Option and Stock Appreciation Rights Plan
Form S-8:     Stock Incentive Plan

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under  the Securities Act of 1933, this  report should
not be  considered a part of the registration statements prepared or certified
by us within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

                                     Very truly yours,



                                     /s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
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

 2,372

 1,968

 1,671

 1,312

 946

 724

 1,037

 956

 1,147

 981

 1,070

 1,059

 1,090

 1,096

 1,117

 1,343

 1,205

 1,339

 1,047

 870

 937

 1,232

 1,651

 2,137

 2,336

 2,950

 3,200

 3,299

 3,212

 3,439

 2,682

 205

 206

 206

 205

 198

 193

 200

 200

 200

 194

 204

 201

 208

 211

 206

 221

 223

 223

 217

 223

 230

 230

 223

 235

 235

 241

 249

 251

 252

 253

 261

 574

 497

 468

 432

 346

 299

 317

 295

 316

 310

 357

 349

 363

 378

 387

 429

 426

 437

 418

 382

 344

 385

 428

 547

 608

 786

 942

 920

 869

 932

 754

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JANUARY 2014 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: June 6, 2014

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

RIO VISTA ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
#### In the Matter of the Petition of William W. Farley, as State Commissioner of Excise, for an Order Revoking and Canceling Liquor Tax Certificate No. 16,893, Issued to William A. Thater, and Transferred to Catherine Cronin.

Motion for reargument denied, with ten dollars costs.
Editorial Note on Part 70
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 70 appear by T.D. ATF-450, 66 FR 29022-29030, May 29, 2001.

§ 70.162 Levy and distraint on salary and wages. ( a ) *Notice of intent to levy.* Levy may be made for any unpaid tax only after the appropriate TTB officer has notified the taxpayer in writing of the intent to levy. The notice must be given in person, left at the dwelling or usual place of business of the taxpayer, or be sent by certified or registered mail to the taxpayer's last known address, no less than 30 days before the day of levy. The notice of intent to levy is in addition to, and may be given at the same time as, the notice and demand described in § 70.161 of this part.
( b ) *Jeopardy.* Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to a levy if the appropriate TTB officer has made a finding under § 70.161(a)(2) of this part that the collection of tax is in jeopardy.
( c ) *Continuing effect of levy on salary or wages.* A levy on salary or wages is continuous from the time of the levy until the liability out of which the levy arose is released under 26 U.S.C. 6343 and § 70.167 of this part. For this purpose, the term “salary or wages” includes compensation for services paid in the form of fees, commissions, bonuses, and similar items. The levy attaches to both salary or wages earned but not yet paid at the time of the levy, and salary or wages earned and becoming payable (or paid in the form of an advance) subsequent to the date of the levy, until the levy is released pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section. In general, salaries or wages that are the subject of a continuing levy, if not exempt from levy under 26 U.S.C. 6334(a) (8) or (9), become payable to the officer who made the levy as the payor would otherwise be obligated to pay over the money to the taxpayer. For example, if the wage earner is paid on the Wednesday following the close of each workweek, a levy made upon the taxpayer's employer on any Monday would reach both the wages due for the prior workweek and the wages for succeeding workweeks as such wages become payable. In such a case the levy would be satisfied if the employer, on the first Wednesday after the levy and on each Wednesday thereafter, pays over to the officer who made the levy wages which would otherwise be paid to the employee on such Wednesday, until the employer receives a notice of release from levy described in paragraph (d) of this section. See, however, § 70.245(d) of this part for rules which permit a delayed payment to the officer who made the levy in certain cases where amounts payable to the taxpayer are exempt from levy under 26 U.S.C. 6334 (a)(9) and (d).
( d ) *Release and notice of release from levy.* The officer who made the levy will promptly release a continuing levy on salary or wages when the conditions of 26 U.S.C. 6343 are met. The officer who made the levy will also promptly notify the person upon whom the levy was made that it has been released.
(26 U.S.C. 6331)
Editorial Note on Part 416
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 416 appear at 68 FR 53509, Sept. 11, 2003.

§ 416.1262 Special resource provision applicable in cases involving essential persons. ( a ) *Essential persons continuously meet criteria of eligibility.* In determining the resources of an individual (and spouse, if any) who meet the conditions specified in § 416.1260 and whose payment standard is increased because such individual has in his home an essential person (as defined in § 416.222), either the State plan resource limit and exclusions (as specified in § 416.1260) applicable to cases in which the needs of an essential person are taken into account in determining the individual's needs, or the resource limit as specified in § 416.1205 and exclusions as specified in § 416.1210, whichever is most advantageous to the individual (and spouse), will be used.
( b ) *Essential person fails to meet criteria of eligibility.* If for any month after December 1973 a person fails to meet the criteria for an essential person as specified in § 416.222, in determining the resources of an individual (and spouse, if any) either the State plan resource limit and criteria as specified in § 416.1260 applicable to the individual or individual and spouse, as the case may be, or the resource limit as specified in § 416.1205 and exclusions as specified in § 416.1210, whichever is most advantageous to the individual (and spouse), will be used.
[39 FR 33797, Sept. 20, 1974, as amended at 51 FR 10616, Mar. 28, 1986]
No. 20959.

#### Denver-Climax Truck Line, Inc., et al., *v.*Jim Chelf, Inc., et al.

(399 P.2d 244)

Decided February 23, 1965.

Hays, Thompson & Johnston, for plaintiffs in error.

Duke Dunbar, Attorney General, Frank E. Hickey, Deputy, Robert Fullerton, Special Assistant, Robert N. Trunk, Assistant, John J. Conway, Assistant, for defendants in error.

Ernest Porter, Alvin J. Meiklejohn, Jr., Amici Curiae.

*373
      *En Bañe.*

Mr. Chief Justice Pringle

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Denver-Climax, the plaintiff below, brings error from the District Court’s dismissal of its complaint.

This case, like *Denver-Laramie-Walden Truck Line v. Denver-Fort Collins Freight Service,*156 Colo. 366, 399 P.2d 242, decided this day, was brought to challenge certain rates charged by a motor vehicle private carrier. The complaint alleged that Denver-Climax, a motor vehicle common carrier, and the defendant Jim Chelf, Inc., a private carrier, compete and render substantially the same or similar services. It further alleged that on January 15, 1962, Chelf filed a schedule which announced rates for the transportation of concrete pipe lower than the rates prescribed for competing common carriers, for substantially the same or similar service.

Denver-Climax petitioned the PUC to suspend the rates filed by the defendant carrier. It contended that they violated C.R.S. ’53, 115-11-12, which requires the PUC to set minimum rates to be collected by private carriers at no lower than the rates prescribed for competing common carriers rendering substantially the same or similar service. The PUC permitted the rates to become effective and then, as distinguished from *Denver-Laramie-Walden Truck Line v. Denver-Fort Collins Freight Service, supra,*held a hearing at which it took evidence. By its decision, it found the rates to be lawful. The plaintiff filed a motion for rehearing, which was granted. The rehearing has not yet been held.

Denver-Climax, nevertheless, brought suit in the District Court. It asked that the PUC be required to show cause why it should not be ordered to *cancel the rates,*and that Chelf be required to show cause why it should not be ordered to collect from its shippers the difference *374between the rates it was collecting and those Denver-Climax was collecting. The PUC’s motion to dismiss was granted, and Denver-Climax brought error.

The plaintiff in error’s arguments here are similar to those made in *Denver Laramie-Walden Truck Line v. Denver-Fort Collins Freight Service, supra.*We find here, as in that case, and for the same reasons, that the action must be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The action in the District Court sought to compel the PUC to cancel the rates published by the private carrier in advance of a final determination by the PUC. The original order finding the rates lawful is not a final order since a rehearing was granted, C.R.S. ’53, 115-6-14 as amended, and the rehearing has not yet been held. Under such circumstances, Denver-Climax’s action in the district court was premature.

The judgment is affirmed.

Mr. Justice Moore and Mr. Justice Schauer not participating.
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

DAY HIGH

 504

 492

 444

 493

 495

 518

 458

 401

 437

 343

 312

 273

 265

 282

 274

 283

 0

 271

 270

 276

 280

 288

 287

 281

 285

 287

 301

 300

 263

 248

 253

 256

 252

 255

 248

 239

 246

 238

 159

 154

 160

 162

 173

 200

 0

 233

 233

 235

 241

 242

 248

 248

 246

 246

 245

 241

 359

 353

 351

 355

 360

 373

 356

 328

 315

 288

 228

 204

 205

 217

 224

 234

 0

 254

 252

 256

 262

 267

 268

 267

 267

 270

 277

 280

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

FEBRUARY 2015 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: March 4, 2015

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

SAN ANDREAS ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
EXHIBIT 3.40
 AMENDED AND RESTATED
OPERATING AGREEMENT
OF
MINERAL AREA PHARMACY AND DURABLE MEDICAL EQUIPMENT, LLC
   ARTICLE I
 OFFICES
   ARTICLE II
 MEMBERS




---



##### 



2




---



##### 



ARTICLE III
 MANAGERS
       3




---



##### 



4




---



##### 



ARTICLE IV
 OFFICERS
    5




---



##### 



6




---



##### 



ARTICLE V
 CONTRACTS, LOANS, CHECKS AND DEPOSITS
  7




---



##### 



ARTICLE VI
 TRANSFER OF PERCENTAGE OWNERSHIP
  ARTICLE VII
 FISCAL YEAR
  ARTICLE VIII
 DISTRIBUTIONS
  ARTICLE IX
 SEAL
  8




---



##### 



ARTICLE X
 WAIVER OF NOTICE
  ARTICLE XI
 INDEMNIFICATION OF OFFICERS AND MANAGERS
  ARTICLE XII
 AMENDMENTS
  9




---



##### 



FARMINGTON HOSPITAL CORPORATION, Sole 
MemberBy:
    
    /s/ D. Andrew SlusserName:
    
    D. Andrew SlusserTitle:
    
    Vice President
 10
§ 222.10 When determinations of relationship as wife, husband, widow or widower of employee are made. ( a ) The claimant's relationship as the wife or husband of an employee is determined when the claimant applies for an annuity, or when there is a claim which would include a husband or wife in the computation of the social security overall minimum provision, or when a claim is filed for a lump-sum payment. If a deemed marriage (see § 222.14) is to be determined, the husband, wife, or widow(er) must also be found to be or to have been living in the same household as the employee (see § 222.16).
( b ) The claimant's relationship as the widow(er) of an employee is determined as of the date on which the employee died. If the claimant applied for a lump-sum payment as the widow(er) of the employee, one of the following determinations is made: ( 1 ) Whether the widow(er) was living in the same household as the employee, as defined in § 222.16 of this part, at the time of the employee's death, if the claimant is applying for the 1974 Act lump-sum death payment.
( 2 ) Whether the widow(er) was living with the employee, as defined in § 222.15 of this part, at the time of the employee's death, if the claimant is applying for the 1937 Act lump-sum death payment, annuities due but unpaid at death, the residual lump-sum payment, or a lump-sum refund payment.
( c ) In order for a claimant who has applied for a monthly survivor annuity to establish a deemed marriage, the claimant must have been living in the same household as the employee at the time of the employee's death (see § 222.16).
( d ) If the husband, wife, widow(er), remarried widow(er), or surviving divorced spouse of the employee is a claimant for a monthly annuity on a basis other than age or disability, a child-in-care determination is required (see §§ 222.17 and 222.18).
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 03-1125.1 

________________________________________________________________________ 

SCIENTIFIC COOPERATION 

Earth Sciences 

 Memorandum of Understanding 

Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and NORWAY 

Signed at Reston November 25, 2003 

 

 with 

 

Annexes 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
NORWAY 

Scientific Cooperation: Earth Sciences 

 Memorandum of understanding signed at 

 Reston November 25, 2003; 

 Entered into force November 25, 2003. 

 With annexes. 




NOTE: It is noted that the Article II subsection title "D" is duplicated on this page.
#### Josef Skiba v. Holbrook, Cabot & Rollins Corporation.

Application denied, with ten dollars costs. Order signed. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.