alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

GALLUP, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BUSINESS RESEARCH BUREAU d/b/a

GALLUP PAKISTAN, and IJAZ SHAFT

GILANI, 

Defendants. /

No. C 08-01577 WHA

ORDER SETTING FURTHER

CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE AND 

VACATING HEARING

As set forth in the recent case management order, plaintiff was ordered to file a motion

for summary judgment on the lingering jurisdictional issues in this extraterritorial trademark

action by August 5, 2010, with a hearing scheduled for September 16 (Dkt. No. 128). No

summary judgment motion was filed. Instead, plaintiff left a voice mail with the clerk

explaining that the parties had reached a “settlement” and that no motion was necessary. 

The parties are reminded that until and unless a stipulated dismissal is filed, all courtordered deadlines must be followed. A pending “settlement” and ongoing negotiations do not

excuse missed deadlines. While an order to show cause would normally have been issued,

given the unique circumstances of this action, a further case management conference is now

scheduled for 11 A.M. ON SEPTEMBER 16 (the same day that the hearing was to occur) to

discuss 

Case 3:08-cv-01577-WHA Document 132 Filed 08/11/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

whether plaintiff’s case should be dismissed for want of prosecution or to set dates for trial, if

necessary.

The hearing on the summary judgment motion is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 11, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01577-WHA Document 132 Filed 08/11/10 Page 2 of 2
#### Neely & Company *v.*Stevens.

Fish, C. J.

1. The authority of an agent to execute a sealed instrument must itself be under seal, although the instrument may evidence a contract not required by law to be under seal; and ratification of such instrument, to be binding upon the principal, must also be under seal. *Overman*v. *Atkinson,*102 *Ga.*750, and citations; *Lynch*v. *Poole,*ante, 303 (75 S. E. 158), and citations.

2. By the terms of a contract under seal N. & Co. purchased from 8., who signed the contract and agreed to deliver, at a certain price, 50 bales of cotton, within a given time and at a stated place. The contract was executed on behalf of 1ST. & Co. by W. without authority under seal. S. delivered 25 bales to N. & Co. in accordance with the contract, and received from them the stipulated price therefor, but refused to deliver the balance. 17. & Co. brought an action against S. for a breach of the contract, in which damages were laid in the amount of the difference between the contract price of the cotton not delivered and its market value at the time and place for delivery. On the trial it appeared that there was no ratification by N. & Co., under seal, of the execution of the contract by W., nor did it appear what the market value of the 25 bales was at the time they were delivered, accepted, and paid for, whether it was more or less than the contract price. *Held:*As N. & Co. were not originally bound under the contract, because of want of authority, under seal, in their agent to execute it under seal, and as they never ratified it under seal, the contract was unilateral, and was as to S. nothing more than an offer to make a contract. *(Sivell*v. *Hogan,*119 *Ga.*167 (46 S. E. 67); *Huggins*v. *Southeastern Cement Co.,*121 *Ga.**306311 (48 S. E. 933)); and the plaintiffs were therefore not entitled to recover. *Judgment affirmed.*

June 13, 1912.

Complaint.. Before Judge Littlejohn. Schley superior court. April 10, 1911.

*E. A. Hawlcins,*for plaintiffs. *George P. Munro,*for defendant.

*All the Justices concur.*
§ 34.9 Requests for internal administrative review. ( a ) For all collection methods for debts owed to STATE, the debtor may request a review within State of the existence or the amount of the debt. For offset of current Federal salary under 5 U.S.C. 5514 for certain debts, debtors may also request an outside hearing. See subpart C of this part. This subpart rather than subpart C applies to collections by salary offset for debts arising under 5 U.S.C. 5705 (travel advances), 5 U.S.C. 4108 (training expenses), and other statutes specifically providing for collection by salary offset.
( b ) A debtor requesting an internal review shall do so in writing to the contact office by the payment due date stated within the initial notice sent under 34.8(b) or other applicable provision. The debtor's written request shall state the basis for the dispute and include any relevant documentation in support. ( 1 ) STATE will provide for an internal review of the debt by an appropriate official. The review may include examination of documents, internal discussions with relevant officials and discussion by letter or orally with the debtor, at STATE's discretion. An oral hearing may be provided when the matter cannot be decided on the documentary record because it involves issues of credibility or veracity. Unless otherwise required by law, such oral hearing shall not be a formal evidentiary hearing. If an oral hearing is appropriate, the time and location of the hearing shall be established by STATE. An oral hearing may be conducted, at the debtor's option, either in-person or by telephone conference. All travel expenses incurred by the debtor in connection with an in-person hearing will be borne by the debtor. All telephonic charges incurred during the hearing will be the responsibility of STATE. During the period of review, STATE may suspend collection activity, including the accrual of interest and penalties, on any disputed portion of the debt if STATE determines that suspension is in the Department's best interest or would serve equity and good conscience.
( 2 ) If after review STATE either sustains or amends its determination, it shall notify the debtor of its intent to collect the sustained or amended debt. If previously suspended, collection actions will be re-instituted unless payment of the sustained or amended amount is received or the debtor has made a proposal for a payment plan to which STATE agrees, by the date specified in the notification of STATE's decision.
225 A.2d 520.

#### Robert Duclos *et ux. vs.*Zoning Board of Review of the City of Woonsocket.

JANUARY 12, 1967.

Present: Roberts, C. J., Paolino, Powers, Joslin and Kelleher, JJ.

Per 'Curiam.

This petition for certiorari was brought to review a decision of the respondent zoning board denying the petitioners’ application for a special exception or variance so .as to authorize the operation of a beauty parlor in the basement of their home 'which is located in an R-2 residence district zoned for single-family residences. In compliance with the writ pertinent records have been certified to this court.

The application sought permission either as a customary incidental home occupation under see. 5.22 of the ordinance, or as a special exception under secs. 10.32 and 10.38 thereof, or in the alternative as a variance under the terms of G. L. 1956, §45-24-19 (e).

*538DiSpirito< *and Lind, Frank 0. Lind, Jr.,*for petitioners.

*M. Durkan Cannon,*Assistant City Solicitor, for responent.

An examination of the records discloses that a beauty parlor is neither a customary incidental home occupation under the provisions, of the ordinance nor a use permitted as a special exception which the 'board is authorized to grant.

Further, the evidence adduced before the board fails to. establish that the denial of the use sought would constitute a loss of all beneficial use such as must be shown to justify the granting of a variance under the terms of the enabling act.

It follows that the respondent board was without jurisdiction to grant the relief sought under any of the provisions upon which the petitioners relied. The decision of the board is therefore .correct and is hereby affirmed.

The petition for certiorari is denied and dismissed, the writ heretofore issued is quashed, and the records certified are ordered returned to the respondent board with our decision endorsed thereon.
Exhibit 23.1





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8) pertaining to the Western Container Corporation Retirement Savings Plan, of our reports dated February 25, 2015, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The Coca-Cola Company, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of The Coca-Cola Company, included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2014, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.








/s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Ernst & Young LLP








Atlanta, Georgia


October 28, 2015
#### § 1421.15 Secret ballot.

*Secret ballot* means the expression by ballot, voting machine or otherwise, but in no event by proxy, of a choice with respect to any election or vote taken upon any matter, which is cast in such a manner that the person expressing such choice cannot be identified with the choice expressed, except in that instance in which any determinative challenged ballot is opened.
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 23 - 0010

_________________ IN THE MATTER OF: D.Y.H-J and R.J.,

A Youth in Need of Care. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the Honorable Elizabeth A. Best, District Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 12 2023

07/12/2023
#### Gerald Belfert v. Peoples Planning Corporation of America.

Motion to correct the record, amend the decision and correct the remittitur granted, to the extent of recalling the remittitur filed in the office of the Clerk of the County of New York on July 8, 1960, permitting the appellant to amend the papers on appeal, *nunc pro tunc,*as of April 26, 1960 by adding thereto a copy of the judgment entered January 26, 1960, appealed from, amending the decision of this court filed herein on July 6, 1960, *mine pro tunc,*as of July 6, 1960, so as to affirm the judgment entered January 26, 1960 as well as the order *987appealed from, and resettling the order of affirmance entered July 6, 1960 accordingly. Settle proposed resettled order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rahin, Valente and McNally, JJ.
§ 308.13 Access to records. ( a ) The Director, Administrative Services, shall keep a current list of systems of records maintained by the agency and published in accordance with the provisions of these regulations.
( b ) Individuals requesting access to any record the agency maintains about him or her in a system of records shall be provided access to such records. Such requests shall be submitted in writing by mail, or in person during regular business hours, to the System Managers identified in the specific system notices. Systems maintained at overseas and dometic field offices may be addressed to the Country Director or Regional Service Center Manager. If assistance is needed, the Director, Office of Administrative Services, will provide agency addresses.
( c ) Requests for records from more than one system of records shall be directed to the Director, Office of Administrative Services, Peace Crops, 806 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20526.
( d ) Requests for access to or copies of records should contain, at a minimum, identifying information needed to locate any given record and a brief description of the item or items of information required. If the individual wishes access to specific documents the request should identify or describe as nearly as possible such documents.
( e ) A record may be disclosed to a representative of the person to whom a record relates who is authorized in writing to have access to the record by the person to whom it relates.
( f ) A request made in person will be promptly complied with if the records sought are in the immediate custody of the Peace Corps. Mailed or personal request for documents in storage which must be complied from more than one location, or which are otherwise not immediately available, will be acknowledge within ten working days, and the records requested will be provided as promptly thereafter as possible.
( g ) Medical or psychological records shall be disclosed to an individual unless in the judgment of the agency, access to such records might have an adverse effect upon such individual. When such determination has been made, the agency may require that the information be disclosed only to a physician chosen by the requesting individual. Such physician shall have full authority to disclose all or any portion of such record to the requesting individual in the exercise of his or her professional judgment.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 11

ALLIN CORPORATION

CALCULATION OF NET LOSS PER COMMON SHARE

                 (Dollars in thousands, except per share data)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                    Three Months   Three Months
                                                                        Ended         Ended
                                                                       March 31,     March 31,
                                                                         2000          2001
                                                                   -------------    ------------
<S>                                                                <C>              <C>
Net income (loss)                                                  $      19       $    (997)

Dividends and accretion on preferred stock                               153             161
                                                                   ----------      ----------

Net loss attributable to common shareholders                       $    (134)      $  (1,158)
                                                                   ==========      ==========

Net loss per common share - basic and diluted                      $   (0.02)      $   (0.17)
                                                                   ==========      ==========

Weighted average common shares outstanding -
        basic and diluted                                           6,002,520       6,963,388
                                                                   ==========      ==========


</TABLE>
#### Peter G. McKiernan, Appellant, v Mary J. McKiernan, Respondent.

[715 NYS2d 901]

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated December 12, 1997, the plaintiff former husband appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Shapiro, J.), dated January 21, 1999, as, upon reargument and renewal, adhered to a determination made at a hearing denying his oral application for recusal of the Justice of the Supreme Court.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Under the circumstances, the court properly adhered to its determination to deny the plaintiffs application to recuse itself *(see, York v York,*250 AD2d 837). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, S. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN RE: 

CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION

SECURITIES LITIGATION.

This Document Relates

To All Cases.

 /

No. C 08-01510 WHA

REQUEST

FOR CALCULATIONS 

FOR TRIAL

Both sides are invited to run calculations to ascertain how the fund would have done if the

25-percent non-guaranteed mortgaged-back securities limitation had been honored with the

excess over the 25 percent being: (a) kept in cash (Calculation One), and (b) distributed pro rata

among the other non-guaranteed mortgage-back securities investments (up to the limit of any

other industry limitation) (Calculation Two). These should then be pared down to those who

were shareholders as of the date of the mortgage-back securities industry limitation deletion. 

This should then be compared to the way it did turn out. This should be done in time for each

side to depose the experts on these calculations reasonably before trial. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document 539 Filed 03/30/10 Page 1 of 1
§ 215.12 Penalties and remedies. The provisions of the Act relating to penalties and remedies are summarized below: ( a ) An individual may bring a civil action against the Agency when the Agency: ( 1 ) Makes a determination not to amend a record in accordance with the individual's request;
( 2 ) Refuses to comply with an individual's request pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a (d)(1);
( 3 ) Fails to maintain a record concerning an individual with such accuracy, relevance, timeliness and completeness as is necessary to assure fairness in any determination relating to the qualifications, character, rights, or opportunities of, or benefits to the individual that may be made on the basis of such record, and as a result thereof a determination is made which is adverse to the individual; or
( 4 ) Fails to comply with any other provision of section (d) of the Act in such a way as to have an adverse effect on an individual.
( b ) The court may order the correction or amendment of the records, may enjoin the Agency from withholding the records, may order the Agency to produce any records improperly withheld, and may assess attorney's fees and costs.
( c ) Where a court of competent jurisdiction makes a determination that the Agency action was willful or intentional with respect to 5 U.S.C. 552a (g)(1) (c) or (d), the United States shall be liable for actual damages of no less than $1,000, the costs of the action, and attorneys' fees.
( d ) Criminal penalties may be imposed against an officer or employee of the Agency who willfully discloses material which he or she knows is prohibited from disclosure, or who maintains a system of records without complying with the notice requirements.
( e ) Criminal penalties may be imposed against any person who knowingly and willfully requests or obtains any record concerning an individual from an agency under false pretenses. The offenses enumerated in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section are misdemeanors, with fines not to exceed $5,000.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Buddy Holmes, Appellant, v Harold J. Smith, as Superintendent of the Attica Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Relator is an inmate at the Attica Correctional Facility, having been sentenced *1129on June 27, 1974 to an indeterminate term with a maximum of seven years upon his plea of guilty of attempted kidnapping in the second degree. On May 7, 1975 he met with a panel of the Board of Parole and his minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) was set at *3Vi*years, excluding credit for 319 days of jail time. Relator brought an article 78 proceeding and the court found that the MPI was improperly fixed (see Correction Law, § 212, subd 2-a). It ordered that a new hearing be held and that if relator’s MPI was set at more than one half of his maximum sentence, the action should be reviewed by the full Board of Parole. It was also directed that the reasons for the MPI be stated. A new hearing was held by a panel of the board on August 13, 1975 and relator’s MPI was set at three years, but again the reasons were not stated. On September 2, 1975, before the MPI was reviewed and approved by the full board on September 15, 1975, relator brought this habeas corpus proceeding in which he seeks his release and also asks that the board be held in contempt of court for failing to state the reasons for the MPI which was fixed. The panel reconvened in October, 1975, at which time the reasons were stated and furnished to relator. While critical of the board’s bifurcated action, the court dismissed the writ upon finding that the October hearing was merely an adjournment of the August hearing; that the board had complied with the prior court order directing that a proper MPI be set; and that the reasons therefor were stated and furnished to relator. Relator appeals. The writ was properly dismissed. Where the Board of Parole impermissibly sets a prisoner’s MPI (Correction Law, § 212, subd 2-a) or fails to state reasons for the MPI *(Matter of Festus v Regan,*50 AD2d 1084, mot for lv to app den 41 NY2d 802) the remedy is not habeas corpus leading to release of the prisoner, but an article 78 proceeding to compel compliance (see *Matter of Speed v Regan, 50*AD2d 1100). The Board of Parole has now fully complied with these requirements and relator is entitled to no further relief (see *People ex rel. Ward v Smith,*52 AD2d 755). (Appeal from judgment of Wyoming County Court—habeas corpus.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Dillon, Hancock, Jr., Denman and Witmer, JJ.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 891

_____________________________
D YCK

- O’ N EAL , I NC

. , Appellant,

v.

G RIGORIY B RUTSKIY , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Kevin Blazs , Judge

. June 13, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. See Dyck

- O’Neal, Inc.
, v. Lanham , 214 So. 3d 802 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (certifying conflict between this Court’s decision Higgins v. Dyck

- O’Neal, Inc. , 201 So. 3d 157 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)
, and decisions by the other four district courts of appeal), review granted , SC17

- 975, 2017 WL 4052015 (Fla. Sept. 14, 2017).

B.L. T H OMAS , C.J., and L EWIS and M AKAR , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Susan B. Morrison, of Law Offices of Susan B . Morrison, P.A., and David M. Snyder, of David M. Snyder, and Joshua D. Moore, of Law Offices of Daniel C. Consuegra, Tampa, for Appellant.

David P. Grigaltchik and Boris Galustov
, of Grigaltchik & Galustov, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee.