alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §1361. Repealed. Sept. 26, 1950, ch. 1049, §13(7), 64 Stat. 1043

Section, act June 29, 1948, ch. 706, §1, 62 Stat. 1075, related to purpose of organization of Panama Railroad Company.
### **CHAPTER 307—LIABILITY OF WATER CARRIERS**

Sec.
30701.
Definition.
30702.
Application.
30703.
Bills of lading.
30704.
Loading, stowage, custody, care, and delivery.
30705.
Seaworthiness.
30706.
Defenses.
30707.
Criminal penalty.
Kajima USA exemption requ est (Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 3581)

List of aircraft for proposed UAS operation:

Make: Tuffwing

Model: UAV Mapper

Type: Fixed Wing

Maximum Weight: 4.4 lbs

Make: DJI

Model: Phantom 2 Vision +

Type: R otorcraft (Q uadcopter)

Maximum Weight: 2.8 lbs

Make: DJI

Model: Phantom 3 Professional

Type: R otorcraft (Q uadcopter)

Maximum Weight: 2.8 lbs

Make: DJI

Model: Inspire 1

Type: R otorcraft (Q uadcopter)

Maximum Weight: 6.5 lbs
§ 3286.605 After sale. ( a ) *Tracking installation information.* The retailer is responsible for providing to HUD the information required pursuant to § 3286.113.
( b ) *Other tracking and compliance requirements.* The retailer continues to be responsible for compliance with the tracking and compliance requirements set out in subpart F of part 3282 of this chapter, which are related to HUD construction and safety standards.
### §455a. State taxation; lands of desert-land entryman

The lands of any desert-land entryman located within an irrigation project constructed under the Reclamation Act and obtaining a water supply from such project, and for whose land water has been actually available for a period of four years, may likewise be taxed by the State or political subdivision thereof in which such lands are located.

(Apr. 21, 1928, ch. 394, §2, 45 Stat. 439; June 13, 1930, ch. 477, 46 Stat. 581.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Reclamation Act, referred to in text, is identified in section 455 of this title.

#### Amendments

1930—Act June 13, 1930, reenacted section without change.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 23

- 00241

- CV

RFL, LLC formerly known as Luby’s Fuddruckers Restaurants, LLC (cross

- appellee),

Appellant

v.

TCP LAS PALMAS PARTNERS, LTD. (cross

- appellant),

Appellee

From the 288th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CI07660

Honorable Cynthia Marie Chapa , Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios Justice

Beth Watkins , Justice 1

Delivered and Filed: January 24, 2024

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED

The parties filed a joint motion to dismiss this appeal and cross

- appeal . We grant the

motion. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1(a)( 2 ). By agreement of the parties, w e order all costs to be borne

by the party that incurred them. Id.

PER CURIAM

1 Not participating.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

November 22, 2010 

1115 

Order 

 

November 22, 2010 

141502 & (74) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141502 

 COA: 284982 

Wayne CC: 07-014855-FC 

RUDY MAURICE THOMAS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for miscellaneous relief is GRANTED. The 

application for leave to appeal the April 29, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is 

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented 

should be reviewed by this Court.
§ 891.670 Cost containment and modest design standards. ( a ) *Restrictions on amenities.* Projects must be modest in design. Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, amenities must be limited to those amenities, as determined by HUD, that are generally provided in unassisted decent, safe, and sanitary housing for low-income families in the market area. Amenities not eligible for HUD funding include balconies, atriums, decks, bowling alleys, swimming pools, saunas, and jacuzzis. Dishwashers, trash compactors, and washers and dryers in individual units will not be funded in independent living complexes. The use of durable materials to control or reduce maintenance, repair, and replacement costs is not an excess amenity.
( b ) *Unit sizes.* For independent living complexes, HUD will establish limitations on the size of units and number of bathrooms, based on the number of bedrooms that are in the unit.
( c ) *Special spaces and accommodations.* ( 1 ) The costs of construction of special spaces and accommodations may not exceed 10 percent of the total cost of construction, except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section. Special spaces and accommodations include multipurpose rooms, game rooms, libraries, lounges, and, in independent living complexes, central kitchens and dining rooms.
( 2 ) Special spaces and accommodations exclude offices, halls, mechanical rooms, laundry rooms, and parking areas; dwelling units and lobbies in independent living complexes; and bedrooms, living rooms, dining and kitchen areas, shared bathrooms, and resident staff dwelling units in group homes.
( d ) *Exceptions.* HUD may approve a project that does not comply with the cost containment and modest design standards of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section if: ( 1 ) The Sponsor demonstrates a willingness and ability to contribute the incremental development cost and continuing operating costs associated with the additional amenities or design features; or
( 2 ) The proposed project involves substantial rehabilitation or acquisition with or without moderate rehabilitation, the additional amenities or design features were incorporated into the existing structure before the submission of the application, and the total development cost of the project with the additional amenities or design features does not exceed the cost limits.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 26, 2010 

0519 

Order 

 

May 26, 2010 

140423 

NATHAN KLOOSTER, 

Petitioner-Appellee, 

v SC: 140423 

 COA: 286013 

MTT: 00-323883 

CITY OF CHARLEVOIX, 

Respondent-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 15, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall 

include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether a “conveyance” within the meaning 

of MCL 211.27a(3), (6), or (7) must be by means of a written instrument; (2) if so, 

whether the deed creating the joint tenancy qualifies as such an instrument; (3) whether 

the transfer of title to the petitioner in this case meets the exception of MCL 

211.27a(7)(h); (4) whether the transfer of title to the petitioner and his brother as joint 

tenants meets the exception of MCL 211.27a(7)(h); (5) whether this last issue is properly 

preserved; and (6) if not, whether this Court should nevertheless consider this issue to 

avoid a “miscarriage of justice.” Napier v Jacobs, 429 Mich 222, 232-233 (1987). 

 Persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this 

case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.