alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Bela Geler, an Infant, by Rachmiel Geler, Her Guardian ad Litem, et al., Respondents, v. Jack Weitzman, Appellant.

In an action by an infant plaintiff to recover damages for personal injuries sustained as the result of the defendant’s negligent operation of his motor vehicle in which the infant was a passenger, and by her father for loss of services and expenses, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 21, 1960, granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. Whether the swerve or skid into the elevated pillar resulted from negligent operation was, at the least, a question of fact in view of the respective versions of the infant plaintiff and the defendant *(Lahr*v. *Tirrill,*274 N. Y. 112; *Cole*v. *Swagler,*308 N. Y. 325). Moreover, there is no showing of compensable injury sustained by the infant plaintiff as a result of the accident. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of John H. Cogan, as Executor of Stella Rapacki, Deceased.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, by default, without costs. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE COMBINED
AND CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF TRENDWEST RESORTS, INC. AND
SUBSIDIARIES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           2,796
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   82,312
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,996
<INVENTORY>                                     43,853
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          12,818
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,351
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 160,509
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        66,742
<OTHER-SE>                                      66,411
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   160,509
<SALES>                                         76,873
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                90,822
<CGS>                                           20,682
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,281
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 5,315
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  38
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,461
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,433
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,028
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,028
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
§ 1005.105 What are eligible loans? ( a ) *In general.* Only fixed rate, fixed term loans with even monthly payments are eligible under the Section 184 program.
( b ) *Eligible borrowers.* A loan guarantee under section 184 may be made to: ( 1 ) An Indian family who will occupy the home as a principal residence and who is otherwise qualified under section 184;
( 2 ) An Indian Housing Authority or Tribally Designated Housing Entity; or
( 3 ) An Indian tribe.
( c ) *Appraisal of labor value.* The value of any improvements to the property made through the skilled or unskilled labor of the borrower, which may be used to make a payment on account of the balance of the purchase price, must be appraised in accordance with generally acceptable practices and procedures.
( d ) *Construction advances.* The Department may guarantee loans from which advances will be made during construction. The Department will provide guarantees for advances made by the mortgagee during construction if all of the following conditions are satisfied: ( 1 ) The mortgagor and the mortgagee execute a building loan agreement, approved by HUD, setting forth the terms and conditions under which advances will be made;
( 2 ) The advances may be made only as provided in the building loan agreement;
( 3 ) The principal amount of the mortgage is held by the mortgagee in an interest bearing account, trust, or escrow for the benefit of the mortgagor, pending advancement to the mortgagor or the mortgagor's creditors as provided in the loan agreement; and
( 4 ) The mortgage shall bear interest on the amount advanced to the mortgagor or the mortgagor's creditors and on the amount held in an account or trust for the benefit of the mortgagor.
( e ) *Environmental compliance.* ( 1 ) Section 1000.20 of this chapter applies to an environmental review in connection with a loan guarantee under this part. That section permits an Indian tribe to choose to assume environmental review responsibility.
( 2 ) Before HUD issues a commitment to guarantee any loan, or before HUD guarantees a loan if there is no commitment, HUD must: ( i ) Comply with environmental review procedures to the extent applicable under part 50 of this title, in accordance with § 1000.20(a) and (c); or
( ii ) Approve a Request for Release of Funds and certification from an Indian tribe, in accordance with part 58 of this title, if the Indian tribe has assumed environmental review responsibility.
( 3 ) If the loan involves proposed or new construction, HUD will require compliance with procedures comparable to those required by § 203.12(b)(2) of this title for FHA mortgage insurance.
( f ) *Lack of access to private financial markets.* In order to be eligible for a loan guarantee if the property is not on trust or restricted land, the borrower must certify that the borrower lacks access to private financial markets. Borrower certification is the only certification required by HUD.
[61 FR 9054, Mar. 6, 1996. Redesignated and amended at 63 FR 12349, 12372, Mar. 12, 1998; 63 FR 48990, Sept. 11, 1998; 67 FR 19493, Apr. 19, 2002]
### §372. Water right as appurtenant to land and extent of right

The right to the use of water acquired under the provisions of this Act shall be appurtenant to the land irrigated, and beneficial use shall be the basis, the measure, and the limit of the right.

(June 17, 1902, ch. 1093, §8, 32 Stat. 390.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This Act, referred to in text, is act June 17, 1902, popularly known as the Reclamation Act, which is classified generally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 371 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section is comprised of the proviso in section 8 of act June 17, 1902. Remainder of section 8 is classified to section 383 of this title.

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

#### Section as Unaffected by Submerged Lands Act

Provisions of this section as not amended, modified or repealed by the Submerged Lands Act, see section 1303 of this title.
#### Leopold Gelberg and Another, Appellants, v. Standard Match Company, Inc., Respondent.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Settle order on notice. Present —■ Clarke, P. J., Dowling, Smith, Page and Greenbaum, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements for the quarter ended March 31, 1997 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           3,900
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,225
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,729
<PP&E>                                         264,024
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 394,489
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          101,749
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           300
<OTHER-SE>                                     238,882
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   394,489
<SALES>                                         52,064
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                52,064
<CGS>                                           25,496
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,496
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                36,667
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,857
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,956)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,956)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,956)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.40)
        

</TABLE>
#### HUTCHINSON v. WASHBURN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 6, 1903.)

1. Servant — Discharge—Grounds.

Act of an employé in charging up regular hotel rates in his expense account, when he in fact paid only commercial rates, is ground for his discharge.

3. Same — Time when Discovered.

■Reason for the discharge of a servant, not known to the employer at the time, may nevertheless be relied on by him, if afterwards discovered, in defense to an action for damages.

3. Irrelevant Evidence — Waiver on Objections.

Objection to evidence as irrelevant, not made when the evidence is offered, is waived.

Appeal from municipal court, borough of Brooklyn, Second District.

Action by Frederick M. Hutchinson against George J. Washburn to recover damages for the wrongful discharge of from defendant’s employ. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals.

Reversed.

Argued before BARTLETT, JENKS, WOODWARD, HIRSCHBERG, and HOOKER, JJ.

*692Richard I. White, for appellant.

L. A. Fuller, for respondent.

JENKS, J.

We think that there should be a new trial. During the trial the defendant elicited evidence from the plaintiff to the that when the plaintiff was on his business trips for his employer he obtained on several occasions commercial rates at hotels — i. e., a discount from the usual rate — though his expense account shows hotel charges at the usual rates. We fail to find that the plaintiff offered any evidence to explain these variances. It is true that this conduct was not one of the expressed reasons for the discharge, and it is questionable whether the evidence was strictly within the pleadings. But if it be established that the plaintiff thus dealt with, his master, then we think that this was good reason for his discharge. And it is sufficient that such ground actually existed at the time of discharge, although it was then unknown to the employer; and the -employer may avail himself of such breach óf duty in defense of this action. Wood on Master and Servant (2d Ed.) 121, and authorities cited; Green v. Edgar, 21 Hun, 414; Arkush v. Hanan, 60 Hun, 518, 15 N. Y. Supp. 219. If it be urged that this answer was not within the pleadings, the answer is that proof in some instances of payment of but commercial rates was received without objection, and that all of the subsequent testimony upon this point was received without objection, save that there was a general objection and exception taken to one question. If, on the new trial, an amendment of the pleadings be deemed necessary, then the municipal court has the power to grant it. Section 166, c. 580, Laws 1902. It may be that upon the new trial the plaintiff can satisfactorily explain the circumstances which appear to make against him, but on the present record we think that the judgment should not be sustained.

Judgment of the municipal court reversed, and. new trial ordered; costs to abide the event. All concur.

¶

 2. See Master and Servant, vol. 34, Cent. Dig. § 38.
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

11078887.1 STIP. AND [PROP.] ORDER RE EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO OPPOSE LTR BR. NO. 2; CV-09-2124 SI

MARTIN D. BERN (SBN 153203) 

Martin.Bern@mto.com 

MALCOLM A. HEINICKE (SBN 194174) 

Malcolm.Heinicke@mto.com 

YUVAL MILLER (SBN 243492) 

Yuval.Miller@mto.com 

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 

560 Mission Street, Twenty-Seventh Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94105-2907 

Telephone: (415) 512-4000 

Facsimile: (415) 512-4077 

Attorneys for Defendant 

GUARDSMARK, LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

(SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION) 

PHILLIP TEMPLE, on behalf of himself, 

individually, and all others similarly 

situated, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

GUARDSMARK, LLC, and DOES 1 

through 100, INCLUSIVE, 

Defendant.

CASE NO. CV-09-2124-SI 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

EXTENDING TIME TO FILE 

DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO 

PLAINTIFF’S LETTER BRIEF 

Judge: The Honorable Susan Illston 

Location: Courtroom 10, 19th Floor

Case 3:09-cv-02124-SI Document 72 Filed 07/06/10 Page 1 of 3
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

11078887.1 - 1 - STIP. AND [PROP.] ORDER RE EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO OPPOSE LTR BR. NO. 2; CV-09-2124 SI

WHEREAS, on May 28, 2010, counsel for Plaintiff Phillip Temple filed Letter 

Brief Number 2 [Docket No. 61] (“Letter”); 

WHEREAS, the Letter has caused counsel to engage in a further meet and confer 

in an effort to resolve the dispute without the involvement of the Court; 

WHEREAS, the parties have stipulated that the deadline for Defendant 

Guardsmark, LLC (“Guardsmark”) to oppose the Letter be extended until July 1, 2010 in 

order to allow sufficient time for the parties to discuss this matter further and for 

Guardsmark to respond, if necessary, to the Letter brief; 

NOW THEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendant, through their counsel of record, 

HEREBY STIPULATE that the deadline for Guardsmark to file its opposition to the 

Letter be extended to July 8, 2010. 

DATED: July 1, 2010 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 

MARTIN D. BERN 

MALCOLM A. HEINICKE 

YUVAL MILLER 

By: /s/ Martin D. Bern 

MARTIN D. BERN 

Attorneys for Defendants 

GUARDSMARK, LLC 

DATED: July 1, 2010 QUALLS & WORKMAN, L.L.P. 

By: /s/ Daniel H. Qualls 

DANIEL H. QUALLS 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

PHILLIP TEMPLE 

Case 3:09-cv-02124-SI Document 72 Filed 07/06/10 Page 2 of 3
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 - STIP. AND [PROP.] ORDER RE EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO OPPOSE LTR BR. NO. 2; CV-09-2124 SI

I, Martin D. Bern, attest that I have obtained concurrence from Daniel H. 

Qualls in the filing of this Stipulation. See N.D. Cal. General Order 45 § 10(B). 

DATED: July 1, 2010 /s/ Martin D. Bern

 Martin D. Bern 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: _____________________ ____________________________________ 

 The Honorable Susan Illston 

Case 3:09-cv-02124-SI Document 72 Filed 07/06/10 Page 3 of 3
§ 9b.8 Term and renewal of Department of State press building passes. ( a ) Department of State press building passes for U.S. citizens are issued with three years' validity. Subject to positive completion of an international background check, passes for non-U.S. citizens are issued with one year's validity and may be renewed for three years. Notwithstanding its initial validity, any press building pass that has not been used for a twelve-month period, as recorded by the Bureau of Diplomatic Security's turnstyle entry devices, will become invalid at the end of that twelve-month period.
( b ) For any valid passes issued before October 1, 1995, notification shall be sent by the Department of State to the holder of the pass that the pass has become invalid by reason of lack of use for 12-month period. However, failure of the holder for any reason to receive such a notification shall not affect the invalidity of the pass. Anyone whose pass has become invalid may apply for a new pass in accordance with §§ 9b.2 through 9b.5.
[61 FR 3800, Feb. 2, 1996]
#### § 207.252e Method of payment of mortgage insurance premiums.

In the cases that the Commissioner deems appropriate, the Commissioner may require, by means of instructions communicated to all affected mortgagees, that mortgage insurance premiums be remitted electronically.

[63 FR 1303, Jan. 8, 1998]
#### § 203.39 Standards for buildings.

The buildings on the mortgaged property must conform with the standards prescribed by the Commissioner.
#### § 274.219 Form N-17f-1, cover page for each certificate of accounting of securities and similar investments of a management investment company in the custody of a member of a national securities exchange, filed pursuant to rule 17f-1.

[54 FR 32049, Aug. 4, 1989]

###### Editorial Note

#### Editorial Note:

For Federal Register citations affecting Form N-17f-1, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov.*
#### § 232.535 Loan multiples—minimum principal.

The loan shall involve a principal obligation in multiples of $100, and the minimum principal obligation shall be $10,000.

[40 FR 4908, Feb. 3, 1975]
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2967 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2967

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the Federal building located at 333 Mt. Elliott Street in 
       Detroit, Michigan, as the ``Rosa Parks Federal Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building located at 333 Mt. Elliott Street in Detroit, 
Michigan, shall be known and designated as the ``Rosa Parks Federal 
Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Rosa Parks Federal 
Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 26, 2005.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2967

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To designate the Federal building located at 333 Mt. Elliott Street in 
       Detroit, Michigan, as the ``Rosa Parks Federal Building''.
```
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, February 09, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, February 09, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A16I0123. DANIEL KNIGHT v. THE STATE .

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

15SC136361
#### (A) The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Donald R. Nemire, Appellant. (B) The People of the State of New York ex rel. Joseph Brunson, Appellant, v. W. Cecil Johnston, as Director of Dannemora State Hospital, Respondent.

[In each action] Permission to prosecute appeals as poor persons granted. Appeals may be perfected upon one typewritten copy of the records and five typewritten copies of the briefs.
-1- CASE NO. CV 09-2176 SI

JOINT STIP TO EXTEND MSJ BRIEFING AND HEARING DATES

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

Laurence F. Padway, #89314

LAW OFFICES OF LAURENCE F. PADWAY

1516 Oak Street, Suite 109

Alameda, California 94501

Telephone: (510)814-0680

Facsimile : (510)814-0650

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SEDGWICK, DETERT, MORAN & ARNOLD LLP

REBECCA A. HULL Bar No. 99802

rebecca.hull@sdma.com

One Market Plaza

Steuart Tower, 8th Floor

San Francisco, California 94105

Telephone: (415) 781-7900

Facsimile: (415) 781-2635

Attorneys for Defendant

Kaiser Permanente Flexible Benefits Plan, incorrectly sued as

Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Long Term Disability Plan; 

and Real Party in Interest Metropolitan Life

Insurance Company

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff and counterdefendant Pamela Lee, defendant Kaiser Permanente Flexible Benefits 

Plan, incorrectly sued as Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Long Term Disability Plan (“Plan”), and

real party in interest and counterclaimant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”), 

through their respective attorneys, hereby jointly stipulate to the following modification of the 

Pamela Lee,

Plaintiff,

v.

Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Long Term 

Disability Plan,

Defendant.

CASE NO. CV 09-2176 SI

STIPULATION

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,

 Real Party in Interest.

and related counterclaim

Case 3:09-cv-02176-JW Document 38 Filed 04/30/10 Page 1 of 2
-2- CASE NO. CV 09-2176 SI

JOINT STIP TO EXTEND MSJ BRIEFING AND HEARING DATES

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

current briefing and hearing schedule with regard to the parties’ respective motions for judgment, 

in light of the need for the parties to complete certain pending discovery procedures:

Plaintiff’s opening brief due June 25, 2010

Defendants’ opposition and cross motion due: July 9, 2010

Plaintiff’s reply and opposition to cross motion due: July 23, 2010

Defendants’ reply due: July 30, 2010

Hearing on cross motions: August 6, 2010, or the 

earliest date thereafter that is 

convenient to the Court

IT IS SO AGREED AND STIPULATED.

DATED: April 27, 2010 LAW OFFICES OF LAURENCE F. PADWAY

By: /s/ Laurence F. Padway (as authorized 4/27/10)

Laurence F. Padway

Attorneys for Plaintiff Pamela Lee

DATED: April 27, 2010 SEDGWICK, DETERT, MORAN & ARNOLD LLP

By: /s/ Rebecca A. Hull

Rebecca A. Hull

Attorneys for Defendant Kaiser Foundation Health 

Plan Long Term Disability Plan and Real Party in 

Interest Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

ORDER

It is so ordered. The briefing schedule set forth in the parties’ stipulation is adopted, and 

the hearing on the cross dispositive motions shall be held August 6, 2010.

Dated: ______________________ __________________________

Hon. Susan Illston

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:09-cv-02176-JW Document 38 Filed 04/30/10 Page 2 of 2