alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Travelers Indemnity Company, Appellant, v Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 14, 1977, dismissing the complaint, is unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of directing the entry of judgment declaring that defendants are not required to provide insurance coverage to the lessee Faljar Sten with respect to the lawsuit brought by the administratrix of the estate of Reino A. Helin arising out of the accident in the State of Maine which resulted in the death of said Helin, a resident of Massachusetts, and that defendants are not obligated to provide for the defense of said action on behalf of said Sten, and the judgment is otherwise affirmed, with one bill of $60 costs and disbursements to defendants-respondents. Sten rented the motor van here involved from defendants in New York setting forth his destination as Portland, Maine. The rental agreement provided for liability insurance for Sten to be furnished by defendants, but excluded from such coverage liability for injuries to Sten’s "guests.” The decedent Helin, a resident of Massachusetts, apparently joined Sten in Massachusetts and was a guest. The vehicle overturned while being operated in the State of Maine and Helin was killed. Under the Maine guest statute, the owner of a rental vehicle is apparently exempt from liability for injuries incurred by a guest passenger. Plaintiff had issued a liability insurance policy to Sten covering liability for damages imposed on Sten arising out of his operation of a nonowned vehicle. Plaintiff claims that New York law is applicable; that the exclusion in the rental contract of coverage for Sten’s guests is a violation of New York law, specifically subdivision 2 of section 167 of the Insurance Law; and that therefore defendants are obligated to cover the liability as primary insurers. However, subdivision 2 of section 167 of the Insurance Law applies only to a vehicle "principally garaged or principally used in this state”. The vehicle here involved was registered in Massachusetts. It was only temporarily in New York at the time Sten picked it up. It was not a vehicle "principally garaged or principally used in this state” and the *780statute is thus inapplicable. However, as this is a declaratory judgment action, the complaint should not have been dismissed, but instead the rights of the parties should have been declared in favor of defendants. *(Lanza v Wagner,*11 NY2d 317, 334.) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Silverman, Fein and Markewich, JJ.
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.
 Small Business Administration [Declaration of Disaster #10003]
 Pender County and the contiguous counties of Bladen, Brunswick, Columbus, Duplin, New Hanover, Onslow, and Sampson in the State of North Carolina constitute a disaster area as a result of damages caused by tornadoes created from remnants of Hurricane Charley that occurred August 12-13, 2004. Applications for loans for physical damage as a result of this disaster may be filed until the close of business on February 8, 2005 and for economic injury until the close of business on September 9, 2005 at the address listed below or other locally announced locations: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 1 Office, 360 Rainbow Blvd., South 3rd Floor, Niagara Falls, NY 14303. The interest rates are: PercentFor Physical Damage:Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere:
6.375Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere:
3.187Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere:
5.800Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere:
2.900Others (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere:
4.875For Economic Injury:Businesses and Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere:
2.900
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 10003 and for economic damage is 10004. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 59008.) Dated: December 9, 2004. Hector V. Barreto, Administrator.


[FR Doc. 04-27651 Filed 12-16-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
### §§2985d to 2985g. Repealed. Pub. L. 97–35, title VI, §683(a), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 519

Section 2985d, Pub. L. 88–452, title VII, §745, as added Pub. L. 93–644, §10(a), Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2322; renumbered §746, Pub. L. 94–341, §2(b)(16), July 6, 1976, 90 Stat. 806; renumbered §745, Pub. L. 95–568, §14(k), Nov. 2, 1978, 92 Stat. 2438, related to coordination and eligibility.

Section 2985e, Pub. L. 88–452, title VII, §746, as added Pub. L. 93–644, §10(a), Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2322; renumbered §747, Pub. L. 94–341, §2(b)(16), July 6, 1976, 90 Stat. 806; renumbered §746 and amended Pub. L. 95–568, §14(k), (l), Nov. 2, 1978, 92 Stat. 2438, 2439, related to evaluation, research, and demonstration.

Section 2985f, Pub. L. 88–452, title VII, §747, as added Pub. L. 93–644, §10(a), Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2323; renumbered §748, Pub. L. 94–341, §2(b)(16), July 6, 1976, 90 Stat. 806; renumbered §747, Pub. L. 95–568, §14(k), Nov. 2, 1978, 92 Stat. 2438, related to program planning grants.

Section 2985g, Pub. L. 88–452, title VII, §748, as added Pub. L. 93–644, §10(a), Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2323; renumbered §749, Pub. L. 94–341, §2(16), July 6, 1976, 90 Stat. 806; renumbered §748, Pub. L. 95–568, §14(k), Nov. 2, 1978, 92 Stat. 2438, set forth nondiscrimination provisions.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 1981, see section 9912(a) of this title, prior to the general amendment of chapter 106 (§9901 et seq.) of this title by Pub. L. 105–285.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 238 (Monday, December 13, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 72183]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27275]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force


HQ USAF Scientific Advisory Board

AGENCY: Department of the Air Force, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given of the 
forthcoming meeting of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board. The 
purpose of the meeting is to kickoff the four approved fiscal year 2005 
studies as directed by Air Force leadership. The studies are 
``Automatic Target Recognition'', ``Domain Integrations'', ``System of 
Systems Engineering'', and ``Air Force Operations in Urban 
Environments''. Because classified and contractor-proprietary 
information will be discussed, this meeting will be closed to the 
public.

DATES: January 10-14, 2005.

ADDRESSES: 1560 Wilson Blvd, Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22209-2404.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Major Kyle Gresham, Air Force 
Scientific Advisory Board Secretariat, 1180 Air Force Pentagon, Rm 
5D982, Washington, DC 20330-1180, (703) 697-4808.

Albert F. Bodnar,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-27275 Filed 12-10-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-05-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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARMANDO MOLINAR, 

Plaintiff(s),

 v.

B. PRICE, et al.,

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-0161 CRB (PR)

ORDER

(Docket # 57)

On November 24, 2009, the court granted defendants' motion for summary

judgment on plaintiff's claim that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to

his health and safety when they denied his request for permission to wear tennis

shoes in the showers due to an ankle injury and he consequently fell and injured

himself. Docket # 55. "Plaintiff did not file an opposition despite being advised

to do so on more than on one occasion." Id. at 2.

More than seven months later, plaintiff has filed a request for an extension

of time to file an opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment on the

ground that he has "uncovered discrepancies in the request for summary

judgment." Docket # 57 at 1. Plaintiff's request (docket # 57) is DENIED.

In order to relitigate this matter, plaintiff must show that he is entitled to

vacate judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). He does not. He

does not even disclose the discrepancies he has uncovered. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 20, 2010 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.08\Molinar, A1.or3.wpd

Case 3:08-cv-00161-CRB Document 58 Filed 07/21/10 Page 1 of 1
#### Federal Steel of Pennsylvania Corporation, Formerly Federal Steel Corporation, Appellant, v Mitsubishi International Corporation, Respondent.

Supreme Court, New York County, entered July 2, 1976, after a jury verdict in favor of the defendant dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with $60 costs and with disbursements of this appeal payable to respondent. We find that there was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that there was no contract among the parties, and we therefore do not reach the issue discussed by the Trial Justice of whether the condition precedent of providing marketable title was met. Concur— Lupiano, J. P., Birns, Lane, Sandler and Sullivan, JJ.
Case 3:08-cv-01485-EMC Document 126 Filed 08/12/10 Page 1 of 2Case 3:08-cv-01485-EMC Document 126 Filed 08/12/10 Page 2 of 2
#### Richard W. Chisholm, Appellant, v Elaine E. Hodges, Respondent.

[716 NYS2d 311]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered August 23, 1999, which, *inter alia,*granted defendant’s motion to vacate her default in answering the complaint and to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction to the extent of vacating the default and permitting defendant to plead lack of jurisdiction in her answer, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The default was properly vacated upon defendant’s timely demonstration of reasonable excuse therefor and a meritorious defense. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Ellerin, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.
§ 1423.22 Motions. ( a ) *Filing of Motions.* ( 1 ) Motions made prior to a hearing and any response thereto shall be made in writing and filed with the Regional Director: *Provided, however,* That after the issuance of a complaint by the Regional Director any motion to postpone the hearing should be filed with the Chief Administrative Law Judge at least five (5) days prior to the opening of the scheduled hearing. Motions made after the hearing opens and prior to the transmittal of the case to the Board shall be made in writing to the Administrative Law Judge or orally on the record. After the transmittal of the case to the Board, motions and any response thereto shall be filed in writing with the Board: *Provided, however,* That a motion to correct the transcript shall be filed with the Administrative Law Judge.
( 2 ) A response to a motion shall be filed within five (5) days after service of the motion, unless otherwise directed.
( 3 ) An original and two (2) copies of the motions and responses shall be filed, and copies shall be served on the parties. A statement of such service shall accompany the original.
( b ) *Rulings on motions.* ( 1 ) Regional Directors may rule on all motions filed with them before the hearing, or they may refer them to the Chief Administrative Law Judge.
( 2 ) Except by special permission of the Board, and in view of § 1429.11 of this subchapter, rulings by the Regional Director shall not be appealed prior to the transmittal of the case to the Board, but shall be considered by the Board when the case is transmitted to it for decision.
( 3 ) Administrative Law Judges may rule on motions referred to them prior to the hearing and on motions filed after the beginning of the hearing and before the transmittal of the case to the Board. Such motions may be ruled upon by the Chief Administrative Law Judge in the absence of an Administrative Law Judge.
( 4 ) Except by special permission of the Board, and in view of § 1429.11 of this subchapter, rulings by Administrative Law Judges shall not be appealed prior to the transmittal of the case to the Board, but shall be considered by the Board when the case is transmitted to it for decision. In the discretion of the Administrative Law Judge, the hearing may be continued or adjourned pending any such request for special permission to appeal.
§ 1414.5 Communications prohibited. Except as provided in § 1414.6, ex parte communications prohibited by § 1414.2 shall include: ( a ) Such communications, when written, if copies thereof are not contemporaneously served by the communicator on all parties to the proceeding in accordance with the provisions of part 1429 of this chapter; and
( b ) Such communications, when oral, unless advance notice thereof is given by the communicator to all parties in the proceeding and adequate opportunity afforded to them to be present.
PUBLIC LAW 115–332—DEC. 19, 2018 132 STAT. 4487 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3996: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 115–598 (Comm. on the Judiciary). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018): 

Mar. 14, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 11, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–332 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to permit other courts to transfer certain 

cases to United States Tax Court. 

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 ‘‘Protecting Access to the Courts 

for Taxpayers Act’’. 

SEC. 2. TRANSFER OF CERTAIN CASES. 

Section 1631 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 

inserting ‘‘(or, for cases within the jurisdiction of the United States 

Tax Court, to that court)’’ after ‘‘any other such court’’. 

Approved December 19, 2018. 

28 USC 1 note. 

Protecting Access 

to the Courts for 

Taxpayers Act. 

Dec. 19, 2018 

[H.R. 3996] 


dkrause on DSKBC28HB2PROD with PUBLAWS
§ 228.19 Special source rules requiring United States manufacture or procurement. ( a ) Certain agricultural commodities and products thereof must be procured in the United States if the domestic price is less than parity, unless the commodity cannot reasonably be procured in the United States in fulfillment of the objectives of a particular assistance program under which such commodity procurement is to be financed. (22 U.S.C. 2354). USAID maintains a list of restricted agricultural commodities and related policies, which is available in USAID's Automated Directives System, ADS 312.
( b ) Motor vehicles must be manufactured in the United States to be eligible for USAID financing (22 U.S.C. 2396). Any vehicle to be financed by USAID under a long-term lease or where the sale is to be guaranteed by USAID must be manufactured in the United States. However, financing of transportation or driver services from an individual or commercial entity and not directly financing the purchase or lease of a vehicle, is subject to the requirements at § 228.12. Financing transportation or driver services means: ( 1 ) The vehicle is independently owned or leased by the hired driver or company;
( 2 ) The vehicle will be maintained by the individual or commercial entity and driven only by the hired driver(s); and
( 3 ) The vehicle is not directly leased, either as a separate line item in the contract separate from the cost of the driver's services, or under a separate contract.
( c ) Under section 606(c) of the FAA, USAID cannot finance any pharmaceutical product that is manufactured outside of the United States if the pharmaceutical is covered by a valid U.S. patent, unless the U.S. patent holder expressly authorizes the manufacture of the pharmaceutical. Without such express authorization, the pharmaceutical must be purchased from the U.S. patent holder. In addition, USAID shall not finance non-contraceptive pharmaceuticals without prior written approval as provided in USAID's Automated Directives System Chapter 312. Contraceptives may be financed in accordance with the procedures in ADS 312.
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1796 Prepped by Keeia Richards



## Document

Number: 

# 2DIV-H-4 4 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/31/2008 4:20:37

PM Sheet 21 of 107

### A-90-3 7 IV-H-4 4 P. 2

Bil l Harnet

t 11/12/2002 11:30 A M I receivedth e fax . Thanks . Amy_L._Farrell@omb.eop.go v To : Amy_L._Farrell@omb.eop.go v cc : Lyn n Hutchinson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Subject : Re : rul e tex

t rmrr[§ j Amy_L._Farrell@omb. e To : Bil l Harnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA op.go vcc : Lyn n Hutchinson/RTP/USEPA/US@Elj' A 11/12/2002 09:3 4 A M Sub J ect : rul e tex t rmr r 

# W0V2 2 EP AAI R DOCKE T

Bil l - Ther e wa s rul e tex t tha t shoul d hav e bee n i n wit h th e larg e fa x fro mlas t week . i' m going t o sen

d the page s i' mreferring t o t o the 402 8 fa x number . Am y
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RICHARD COLLINS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Nos. 145-48 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 22nd day of November, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
#### Oliver Bonnerwith, Appellant, v Dolious Kirby et al., Defendants, and Rosen, Rosen & Crane, Respondent.

In an action, *inter alia,*.to impress a trust upon certain real property, in which action the law firm of Rosen, Rosen & Crane rendered certain services to the plaintiff, the latter appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated October 3, 1975, which, after a nonjury trial, fixed the said firm’s lien for legal services and disbursements. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements, on the opinion of Mr. Justice Ferraro at Trial Term. Cohalan, Acting P. J., Titone, Mollen and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4195 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4195

    To improve services for victims of sexual assault and domestic 
                               violence.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 9, 2012

Mr. Sablan (for himself, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Pierluisi, 
Mrs. Christensen, and Ms. Norton) introduced the following bill; which 
             was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To improve services for victims of sexual assault and domestic 
                               violence.

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

SECTION 1. SEXUAL ASSAULT SERVICES GRANTS.

    (a) Amendment.--Paragraph (4) of section 14601(b) of the Violence 
Against Women Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14043g(b)) is amended--
            (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``, except that the 
        United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the 
        District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Commonwealth of the 
        Northern Mariana Islands shall each be allocated 0.125 percent 
        of the total appropriations''; and
            (2) by striking the third sentence.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to grants under section 14601 of the Violence 
Against Women Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14043g) for fiscal year 2013 and 
succeeding fiscal years.
                                 <all>
```
#### Henry F. Norcott, trading as H. F. Norcott & Company, Defendant in Error, v. Mary S. Frankenburger, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 20,074.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

Brokers, § *51*
      ***
      *—when not procuring cause.*In an action by a broker to recover commissions for the sale of land to a person with whom plaintiff had negotiated, hut who refused at that time to purchase at the price fixed, the deal being subsequently consummated through another broker at a lower price, it was *held*that the evidence was insufficient to show that plaintiff was the procuring cause of the sale.

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John K. Peindiville, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1914.

Reversed with finding of facts.

Opinion filed February 24, 1915.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Henry F. Norcott, a broker, trading as H. F. Norcott & Company, against Mary S. Frankenburger to recover the sum of one hundred and twenty dollars commissions on a sale of certain property owned by defendant. From a judgment for plaintiff for one hundred and twenty dollars, defendant brings error.

John Schwender, for plaintiff in error.

Warren Nichols, for defendant in error.

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

MICHAEL J. MADRY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-1890

[November 30, 2017]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Dennis D. Bailey, Judge; L.T. Case No. 80-9092CF10A.

Michael J. Madry, Crawfordville, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Anesha Worthy, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

TAYLOR, DAMOORGIAN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.