alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the City of New York, Appellant-Respondent, Relative to Acquiring Title to Real Property Required for Lincoln Square Slum Clearance Project. Fred Klenk, Doing Business as Excel Pharmacal Co., Respondent-Appellant.

Motion for an enlargement of time granted to the extent and upon the conditions set forth in the order of this court on motion No. 183, decided simultaneously herewith. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
#### American Bonding and Casualty Company, v. Chicago Bonding and Insurance Company et al., on appeal of Roberts & Heath, Inc., appellant, v. Leonard A. Brundage, receiver, appellee.

Gen. No. 27,581.

Action for unearned premiums on various insurance policies rendered null and void by the insolvency of defendants. Claim of appellant allowed in part and disallowed in part. (See 226 111. App. 475.) Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Charles M. Foell, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1922.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed November 8, 1922.

Rehearing denied November 21, 1922.

A. A. McKinley, for appellant. Stanley A. Armstrong and Charles L. Makemson, for appellee; Emil C. Wetten, of counsel.

Mr. Justice Morrill

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### Marie Tafoya, Respondent, v Mark Becker, Appellant, et al.,

In a medical malpractice action, the defendant Becker appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated August 5, 1977, which denied his motion for an order of preclusion predicated upon plaintiff’s failure to serve a bill of particulars. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion to preclude granted unless plaintiff serves and files a supplemental bill of particulars with respect to items 3, 5, 6 and 8 of defendant Becker’s demand within 10 days after service upon her of a copy of the order to be entered hereon, together with notice of entry thereof. If plaintiff is presently without knowledge as to any of the items allowed, she may so state under oath and she may serve a supplemental bill on such items promptly upon obtaining knowledge thereof, but in any event, not later than 30 days before the date of the trial. Although defendant-appellant Becker served a demand for a bill of particulars in September, 1976, plaintiff-respondent failed to serve a bill until June, 1977; that was after appellant had moved for an order of preclusion. This practice has been condemned by the courts (see *Goldstein v Brogan Cadillac Oldsmobile Corp.,*46 AD2d 799; *Tomasino v Prudential Westchester Corp.,*1 AD2d 781; *De Castro v City of New York,*54 Mise 2d 1007). "Under such circumstances, the items [of the demand] will not be scrutinized and will be allowed unless palpably improper” *(Tomasino v Prudential Westchester Corp., supra).*Appellant objects only to the particulars that plaintiff has supplied with respect to items 3, 5, 6 and 8 of his demand. It is evident that the particulars supplied as to those items do not meet the demand. Since we cannot say that those items of the demand are "palpably improper”, plaintiff must either properly answer them or face preclusion with respect thereto. Martuscello, J. P., Damiani, Titone and Shapiro, JJ., concur.
#### §§ 711.131-711.139 [Reserved]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CURRENCY>                                        US$
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    JAN-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                     1
<CASH>                                         29,045
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                               1,283,292
<ALLOWANCES>                                  122,000
<INVENTORY>                                 3,544,022
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            6,517,162
<PP&E>                                      1,473,100
<DEPRECIATION>                              1,359,890
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              6,740,393
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       1,891,257
<BONDS>                                             0
<COMMON>                                        4,419
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                  4,844,717
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                6,740,393
<SALES>                                     4,783,849
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            4,818,972
<CGS>                                       3,631,167
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               3,631,167
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            1,436,750
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             60,369
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (309,314)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (309,314)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (309,314)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)
        


</TABLE>
#### Luisa Vega, Respondent, v. Adolph Roth, Inc., Appellant.

Judgment in favor of plaintiff for $5,256.41, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, and a new trial ordered in the interests of justice, without costs. Plaintiff’s complaint and bill of particulars allege and the case was tried on the theory that the defendant was negligent in failing to repair the toilet-box chain. If plaintiff slipped and fell because of a wet condition or a broken board, then, since defendant is not charged with negligence in these respects, plaintiff is not entitled to recover by reason thereof and defendant was entitled to have the jury so charged. The charge that the claim of plaintiff is that “she lost her balance”, and the omission to charge on the absence of liability in the event the accident resulted from the wet condition or broken board, did not adequately submit to the jury the theory of the defense. (Cf. *Rivera*v. *City of New York,*11AD 2d 7.) Since the case must be retried, we find it pertinent to observe that under the evidence adduced the charge should be limited to actual notice because defendant was not in possession of the premises, and the evidence was to the effect that plaintiff’s daughter, two weeks before the accident, told the superintendent of the building “in English” that the chain was broken. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Yalente, McNally, Stevens and Bastow, JJ.
### §7471. Plan requirements

In accordance with the policy of section 7401(b)(1) of this title, each applicable implementation plan shall contain emission limitations and such other measures as may be necessary, as determined under regulations promulgated under this part, to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in each region (or portion thereof) designated pursuant to section 7407 of this title as attainment or unclassifiable.

(July 14, 1955, ch. 360, title I, §161, as added Pub. L. 95–95, title I, §127(a), Aug. 7, 1977, 91 Stat. 731; amended Pub. L. 101–549, title I, §110(1), Nov. 15, 1990, 104 Stat. 2470.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1990—Pub. L. 101–549 substituted "designated pursuant to section 7407 of this title as attainment or unclassifiable" for "identified pursuant to section 7407(d)(1)(D) or (E) of this title".
#### In the Matter of Nicholas J. Rivecca, Doing Business as Gerri’s Bar, Petitioner, v New York State Liquor Authority, Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.)

Determination unanimously confirmed, without costs. Memorandum: This proceeding to review the respondent’s determination canceling petitioner’s license for Gerri’s Bar presents only questions of credibility and substantial evidence. Respondent resolved these issues against petitioner, finding that he permitted the premises to become disorderly in that he permitted solicitation of males for immoral purposes on the licensed premises on three different occasions. In view of petitioner’s history of similar violations, the penalty of cancellation and forfeiture of the $1,000 bond claim are not excessive, and in view of the history and findings, the denial of an additional license for on-premises consumption to petitioner at a second location was not arbitrary or capricious. (Article 78, transferred by order of Oneida Supreme Court—art 78.) Present—Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons, Dillon and Witmer, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration getween Al-Bar Fashions, Inc., Appellant, and Local 20 Waterproof Garment Workers’ Union, Respondent.

Order, entered on March 12, 1962, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.
### §7470. Congressional declaration of purpose

The purposes of this part are as follows:

(1) to protect public health and welfare from any actual or potential adverse effect which in the Administrator's judgment may reasonably be anticipate 1 to occur from air pollution or from exposures to pollutants in other media, which pollutants originate as emissions to the ambient air) 2, notwithstanding attainment and maintenance of all national ambient air quality standards;

(2) to preserve, protect, and enhance the air quality in national parks, national wilderness areas, national monuments, national seashores, and other areas of special national or regional natural, recreational, scenic, or historic value;

(3) to insure that economic growth will occur in a manner consistent with the preservation of existing clean air resources;

(4) to assure that emissions from any source in any State will not interfere with any portion of the applicable implementation plan to prevent significant deterioration of air quality for any other State; and

(5) to assure that any decision to permit increased air pollution in any area to which this section applies is made only after careful evaluation of all the consequences of such a decision and after adequate procedural opportunities for informed public participation in the decisionmaking process.

(July 14, 1955, ch. 360, title I, §160, as added Pub. L. 95–95, title I, §127(a), Aug. 7, 1977, 91 Stat. 731.)

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

#### Effective Date

Subpart effective Aug. 7, 1977, except as otherwise expressly provided, see section 406(d) of Pub. L. 95–95, set out as an Effective Date of 1977 Amendment note under section 7401 of this title.

#### Guidance Document

Pub. L. 95–95, title I, §127(c), Aug. 7, 1977, 91 Stat. 741, required Administrator, not later than 1 year after Aug. 7, 1977, to publish a guidance document to assist States in carrying out their functions under part C of title I of the Clean Air Act (this part) with respect to pollutants for which national ambient air quality standards are promulgated.

#### Study and Report on Progress Made in Program Relating to Significant Deterioration of Air Quality

Pub. L. 95–95, title I, §127(d), Aug. 7, 1977, 91 Stat. 742, directed Administrator, not later than 2 years after Aug. 7, 1977, to complete a study and report to Congress on progress made in carrying out part C of title I of the Clean Air Act (this part) and the problems associated in carrying out such section.

1 So in original. Probably should be "anticipated".

2 So in original. Section was enacted without an opening parenthesis.
Case 3:09-cr-00495-CRB Document 33 Filed 07/29/10 Page 1 of 4Case 3:09-cr-00495-CRB Document 33 Filed 07/29/10 Page 2 of 4Case 3:09-cr-00495-CRB Document 33 Filed 07/29/10 Page 3 of 4Case 3:09-cr-00495-CRB Document 33 Filed 07/29/10 Page 4 of 4
February 23, 2010

Case 3:08-cv-03129-MMC Document 161 Filed 02/23/10 Page 1 of 1
§ 521.37 Initial decision. ( a ) The ALJ shall issue an initial decision based only on the record, which shall contain findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the amount of any penalties and assessments imposed.
( b ) The findings of fact shall include a finding on each of the following issues: ( 1 ) Whether the claims or statements identified in the complaint, or any portion thereof, violate § 521.3;
( 2 ) If the person is liable for penalties or assessments, the appropriate amount of any such penalties or assessments, considering any mitigating or aggravating factors that he or she finds in the case, such as those described in § 521.31.
( c ) The ALJ shall promptly serve the initial decision on all parties within 90 days after the time for submission of post-hearing briefs and reply briefs (if permitted) has expired. The ALJ shall at the same time serve all parties with a statement describing the right of any defendant determined to be liable for a civil penalty or assessment to file a motion for reconsideration with the ALJ or a notice of appeal with the Director. If the ALJ fails to meet the deadline contained in this paragraph, he or she shall notify the parties of the reason for the delay and shall set a new deadline.
( d ) Unless the initial decision of the ALJ is timely appealed to the Director, or a motion for reconsideration of the initial decision is timely filed, the initial decision shall constitute the final decision of the Director and shall be final and binding on the parties 30 days after it is issued by the ALJ.
§ 92.56 Summary of procedure for taking depositions. In taking a deposition on notice or executing a commission to take depositions, a notarizing officer should conform to any statutory enactments on the subject in the jurisdiction in which the depositions will be used. He should also comply with any special instructions which accompany the request for a deposition on notice or a commission. Unless otherwise directed by statutory enactments or special instructions, the officer should proceed as follows in taking depositions: ( a ) Request the witnesses, whose testimony is needed, to appear before him; or, at the request of any party to the action or proceeding, request designated persons to supply him or the requesting party with needed records or documents in their possession, or copies thereof;
( b ) When necessary, act as interpreter or translater, or see that arrangements are made for some qualified person to act in this capacity;
( c ) Before the testimony is taken, administer oaths (or affirmations in lieu thereof) to the interpreter or translator (if there is one), to the stenographer taking down the testimony, and to each witness;
( d ) Have the witnesses examined in accordance with the procedure described in §§ 92.57 to 92.60;
( e ) Either record, or have recorded in his presence and under his direction, the testimony of the witnesses;
( f ) Take the testimony, or have it taken, stenographically in question-and-answer form and transcribed (see § 92.58) unless the parties to the action agree otherwise (rules 30(c) and 31(b), Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts of the United States);
( g ) Be actually present throughout the examination of the witnesses, but recess the examination for reasonable periods of time and for sufficient reasons;
( h ) Mark or cause to be marked, by identifying exhibit numbers or letters, all documents identified by a witness or counsel and submitted for the record.
[22 FR 10858, Dec. 27, 1957, as amended at 60 FR 51723, Oct. 3, 1995]
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2821 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2821

   To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic basketballs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 8, 2005

  Mr. Neal of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To suspend temporarily the duty on certain synthetic basketballs.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN SYNTHETIC BASKETBALLS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.95.11       Synthetic          Free         Free             No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         basketballs                                                        31/2009
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         9506.62.80)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Mount Hope Cemetery Association, Respondent-Appellant, v. State of New York, Appellant-Respondent.

(Claim No. 32859.)

Motion by claimant to correct the decision of the court of August 2, 1960 (11 A D 2d 303) relating to the consequential damage to 20.537 acres of land denied. The opinion correctly reflected the view of the court that the consequential damage to the parcels of land not taken is $81,782. The percentage formula applied to damage for this land not taken was adopted to achieve consistency with the method of computation of damage followed by the Court of Claims and was applied to the discounted value of an acre before the taking. Claimant’s computations would increase the consequential damage for this land not taken to $210,850.40 or to almost 50% of the entire award. No such damage is demonstrated on any reasonable theory and the court refuses to find damage in such magnitude. Claimant’s computations on this motion essentially are based on the difference in profits which might have been realized on the land not taken, discounted for the same period as though there had been no taking of other land, We do not accept this theory as a reliable or reasonable *706evaluation of damage to this parcel. Cross motion by the State denied. Settle order to be entered on notice and in accordance with the procedure set forth in regulations affecting orders (Rules, 3d Dept.).
#### EDWARDS, Appellant, v. FORTY-SECOND ST. M. & ST. N. AV. RY. CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division. First Department.

February 6, 1903.)

Action by William H. Edwards against the Forty-Second St. M. & St. N. Av. Railway Company. M. Feltenstein, for appellant. J. M. O’Neill, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
506714_1 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

In re WELLS FARGO MORTGAGE 

LENDING PRACTICES LITIGATION 

This Document Relates To: 

ALL ACTIONS. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. M:08-cv-01930-MMC 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF 

APPEARANCE OF LESLIE E. HURST ON 

BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS 

Case 3:08-md-01930-MMC Document 234 Filed 03/02/10 Page 1 of 2
506714_1 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF 

APPEARANCE OF LESLIE E. HURST ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS - M:08-cv-01930-MMC - 1 -

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

AND NOW, this ___________ of ___________________, 2010, upon consideration of the 

Motion for Withdrawal of Appearance of Leslie E. Hurst on Behalf of Plaintiffs, it is hereby 

ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED and Leslie E. Hurst shall be removed as counsel 

for plaintiffs in the above-captioned matter. 

_________________________________________ 

THE HONORABLE MAXINE M. CHESNEY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

2nd day March

Case 3:08-md-01930-MMC Document 234 Filed 03/02/10 Page 2 of 2
###### Editorial Note on Part 40

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 71 FR 34520 and 34521, June 15, 2006.

#### § 40.93 Aliens unlawfully present after previous immigration violation.

An alien described in INA 212(a)(9)(C)(i) is permanently ineligible for a visa unless the Secretary of Homeland Security consents to the alien's application for readmission not less than 10 years following the alien's last departure from the United States. Such application for readmission shall be made prior to the alien's reembarkation at a place outside the United States.

[62 FR 67568, Dec. 29, 1997]
§ 1000.424 What are the application requirements for guarantee assistance under title VI of NAHASDA? The application for a guarantee must include the following: ( a ) An identification of each of the activities to be carried out with the guaranteed funds and a description of how each activity qualifies: ( 1 ) As an affordable housing activity as defined in section 202 of NAHASDA; or
( 2 ) As a housing related community development activity under section 601(a) of NAHASDA.
( b ) A schedule for the repayment of the notes or other obligations to be guaranteed that identifies the sources of repayment, together with a statement identifying the entity that will act as the borrower.
( c ) A copy of the executed loan documents, if applicable, including, but not limited to, any contract or agreement between the borrower and the lender.
( d ) Certifications by the borrower that: ( 1 ) The borrower possesses the legal authority to pledge and that it will, if approved, make the pledge of grants required by section 602(a)(2) of NAHASDA.
( 2 ) It possesses the legal authority to borrow or issue obligations and to use the guaranteed funds in accordance with the requirements of this subpart.
( 3 ) Its governing body has duly adopted or passed as an official act a resolution, motion, or similar official action that: ( i ) Identifies the official representative of the borrower, and directs and authorizes that person to provide such additional information as may be required; and
( ii ) Authorizes such official representative to issue the obligation or to execute the loan or other documents, as applicable.
( 4 ) The borrower has complied with section 602(a) of NAHASDA.
( 5 ) The borrower will comply with the requirements described in subpart A of this part and other applicable laws.
[63 FR 12349, Mar. 12, 1998, as amended at 77 FR 71528, Dec. 3, 2012]
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

SWINGLESS GOLF CLUB CORPORATION,

a Wyoming corporation,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ROY H. TAYLOR, individually and d/b/a

CENTERFIRE GOLF COMPANY, and

JAMES S. STOWELL, an individual, JACK

GALANTI, an individual, MIKE STRINGER,

an individual, CENTERFIRE GOLF

COMPANY, a California corporation, NEW

RIVER INDUSTRIES CORP., EZEE GOLF

LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,

and STEVE FLUKE, an individual,

Defendants. /

No. C 08-05574 WHA

REMINDER TO COUNSEL

REGARDING UPCOMING

TRIAL DATES

To ensure absolute clarity regarding upcoming trial dates, the final pretrial conference will

occur at 2 P.M. ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2010, with all pretrial filings due at least one week

prior to the conference. A jury trial will begin promptly at 7:30 A.M. ON SEPTEMBER 20. 

Counsel is again reminded that no further continuances will be granted. Both sides must prepare

for trial.

Dated: August 10, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-05574-WHA Document 112 Filed 08/10/10 Page 1 of 1