alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### TUYAGDA ALUMINUM PRODUCTS CORP., v. HULL DOBBS 65TH INFANTRY FORD, INC. and Banco Popular De P.R. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Third Party Defendant.

Civ. No. 872-69.

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico.

May 27, 1970.

*775A. Santiago Villalonga, San Juan, P.R., for third party defendant Ford Motor Co.

Alberto Gerardino, Santurce, P.R., for plaintiff Tuyagda Aluminum.

ORDER

FERNANDEZ-BADILLO, District Judge.

The case at bar was originally filed in the Superior Court of Puerto Rico, San Juan Part, as an action for rescission of contract and damages. The claim made before the Commonwealth court by plaintiff corporation was one for alleged hidden defects discovered in an automobile bought from Hull Dobbs 65th Infantry Ford, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as Hull Dobbs) and financed by Banco Popular de Puerto Rico. Co-defendant Hull Dobbs filed a third-party complaint against the manufacturer, Ford Motor Company, alleging that if the vehicle had any hidden defects “the actual party responsible for said defects is Ford Motor Company * * *”

Shortly thereafter, the third-party defendant filed a Petition for Removal asserting that it has been at all times a corporation existing under and by virtue of the laws of a state other than the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico having its principal place of business outside this jurisdiction while third-party plaintiff is a local corporation organized and existing under Puerto Rican law. This being the case petitioner invoked federal jurisdiction under 48 U.S.C. § 863 and 28 U.S.C. § 1332. This was followed by an Objection to Removal Requested by Third-Party Defendant which was filed on December 31, 1969 by plaintiff and which came on for hearing on January 9, 1970. The ease was continued several times and on January 30, 1970 the same was taken under advisement without argument. The Court shall treat the objection to removal as a Motion to Remand.

It should be noted at the outset that there is no diversity between plaintiff and defendant in the main action. The third-party complaint is completely dependent upon the main action. The Court adopts the position stated in Holloway v. Gamble-Skogmo, Inc., 274 F.Supp. 321 (N.D.Ill., 1967) and set forth 1A Moore’s Federal Practice § 0.167(10) p. 1052 to the effect that:

> “ * * * where an action not within original federal jurisdiction is brought in the state courts, introduction of a third party claim, even assuming that the claim is removable if sued upon alone, does not make all or any part of the action removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c).”

Having held that a third party defendant does not have the right to remove, the Court hereby orders and decrees the immediate remand of this action to the court from whence it was improvidently removed.

It is further ordered that this cause be remanded to the Superior Court of Puerto Rico, San Juan Part, as not properly removable to this Court and that the Clerk this day serve a certified copy of this Order of Remand by mail upon the Clerk of the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, San Juan Part, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c).
### §7503. Cause and procedure

(a) Under regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, an employee may be suspended for 14 days or less for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service (including discourteous conduct to the public confirmed by an immediate supervisor's report of four such instances within any one-year period or any other pattern of discourteous conduct).

(b) An employee against whom a suspension for 14 days or less is proposed is entitled to—

(1) an advance written notice stating the specific reasons for the proposed action;

(2) a reasonable time to answer orally and in writing and to furnish affidavits and other documentary evidence in support of the answer;

(3) be represented by an attorney or other representative; and

(4) a written decision and the specific reasons therefor at the earliest practicable date.

(c) Copies of the notice of proposed action, the answer of the employee if written, a summary thereof if made orally, the notice of decision and reasons therefor, and any order effecting 1 the suspension, together with any supporting material, shall be maintained by the agency and shall be furnished to the Merit Systems Protection Board upon its request and to the employee affected upon the employee's request.

(Added Pub. L. 95–454, title II, §204(a), Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1135.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 90 days after Oct. 13, 1978, see section 907 of Pub. L. 95–454, set out as an Effective Date of 1978 Amendment note under section 1101 of this title.

#### Information on Appeal Rights

Pub. L. 115–91, div. A, title X, §1097(b)(2), Dec. 12, 2017, 131 Stat. 1617, provided that:

"(A) In general.—Any notice provided to an employee under section 7503(b)(1), section 7513(b)(1), or section 7543(b)(1) of title 5, United States Code, shall include detailed information with respect to—

"(i) the right of the employee to appeal an action brought under the applicable section;

"(ii) the forums in which the employee may file an appeal described in clause (i); and

"(iii) any limitations on the rights of the employee that would apply because of the forum in which the employee decides to file an appeal.

"(B) Development of information.—The information described in subparagraph (A) shall be developed by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, in consultation with the Special Counsel, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission."

1 So in original. Probably should be "affecting".
#### Geraldine C. Ruddy v. Robert M. Ruddy.

Motion for consolidation granted insofar as to allow appellant to have the appeals heard in one typewritten or mimeographed appeal book, but upon printed appellant’s points, upon condition that the appellant serves one copy of the typewritten or mimeographed record and three copies of the printed appellant’s points on the attorney for respondent and files 6 typewritten or 19 mimeographed copies of the record on appeal, together with appellant’s printed points, with this court on or before June 12, 1962, with notice of argument for June 21, 1962, said appeals to be argued or submitted when reached. Respondent’s points are to be served and filed on or 'before June 18, 1962. Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs, unless the appellant procures the record on appeal and appellant’s points to be served and filed on or before June 12, 1962, with notice of argument for June 21, 1962, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. Respondent’s points are to be served and filed on or before June 18, 1962. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: DeSotoNational Wildlife Refuge regulations [electronic resource].**
 
2011|2014|2015|2017
 
SuDoc Number:I 49.44/2:D 46/4/
Item Number:0612-C (online)
CGP systemNumber: 001054515
 
July 10, 2018
§ 212.5 Responsibilities. ( a ) The Principal Deputy Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness, under the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and in coordination with the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment and subject to DoD Directive 4165.6, shall be responsible for implementing policy and oversight of non-Federal entities on DoD installations.
( b ) The Heads of the DoD Components shall: ( 1 ) Implement this part.
( 2 ) Be aware of all non-Federal entities operating on installations under their jurisdiction.
( 3 ) Conduct reviews to ensure installation commanders periodically review facilities, programs, and services provided by non-Federal entities operating on DoD installations. Installation commanders will also review membership provisions and the original purpose for which each organization was originally approved. Substantial changes to those original conditions shall necessitate further review, documentation, and approval for continued permission to operate on the installation.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated statement of income (loss) and the consolidated balance sheet and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>                              
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                          DEC-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                       18,967
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                               137,282
<ALLOWANCES>                                  1,650
<INVENTORY>                                  95,048
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            280,682
<PP&E>                                      239,337
<DEPRECIATION>                                    0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              867,139
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       118,232
<BONDS>                                     536,340
<COMMON>                                    180,005
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                        0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                867,139
<SALES>                                     205,842
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            205,842
<CGS>                                       162,796
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               162,796
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             32,109
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            6,940
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               4,907
<INCOME-TAX>                                  4,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             807
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                    807
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   .08
        


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Elmer C. Hughes, Appellant, *v.*Joseph H. Murphy et al., Constituting the State Tax Commission of the State of New York, Respondents.

Third Department,

May 6, 1964.

*Carroll, Williams, Rulison, Conan <§ Rym (Dcmiél C. Williams*of counsel), for appellant.

*Louis J. LefTcowits, Attorney-General {Paxton Blair*and *Edwin R. Oberwager*of counsel), for respondents.

Reynolds, J.

This is a proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review a determination of the State Tax Commission which sustained an assessment against petitioner for unincorporated business taxes for the years 1953, 1956 and 1957. The sole question presented is whether petitioner is entitled to exemption from taxes imposed under article 16-A of *135the Tax Law on the ground that he is practicing a profession. Petitioner designated his occupation on his tax returns as “Industrial Consultant” and “Engineering Consulting Service ” and here states that he is an “ Industrial Engineer ”. As such he claims he is engaged in the practice of a profession within the intent and meaning of section 386 of the Tax Law. In support of his contention he asserts that certain colleges and universities offer courses and degrees in such field of endeavor. This court has answered this contention in *People ex rel. Hermam*v. *Murphy*(14 A D 2d 473, mot. for lv. to app. den. 11 N Y 2d 642) where we stated: “ While these factors may give some added prestige to the type of work, we have previously determined that the educational training and background and the type of work performed in and of itself did not mandate the Tax Department to find that the individuals so engaged were practicing a ‘profession’.” A long line of cases have consistently held that the exemption clause does not apply to those ‘ ‘ who undertake to advise management as to its business or industrial affairs ”, *(Matter of McCormick*v. *Bragalini,*8 A D 2d 885, 886; see, also, *Matter of Sheahan*v. *Murphy,*12 A D 2d 713; *Matter of White*v. *Murphy,*11 A D 2d 854, affd. 9 N Y 2d 995; *Matter of Kormes*v. *Murphy,*9 A D 2d 1003, mot. for lv. to app. den. 8 N Y 2d 706.) Petitioner asserts that “ industrial engineering” is not the mere giving of advice to management “ as to its business or industrial affairs ” and thus the above-cited cases are inapposite as to him. He states that not only is there a difference in academic background for the “ industrial engineer ” but that the “ industrial engineer ” is required to use scientific and engineering methods, not common in ordinary business advice. But as this court pointed out in *Matter of Sundberg*v. *Bragalini*(7 A D 2d 15, 19, mot. for lv. to app. den. 6 N Y 2d 705): “The advantageous utilization of professional knowledge in a business does not, of course, necessarily constitute the practice of the profession.” In the final analysis we do not perceive any factors in this case of sufficient importance to distinguish it from those cases cited above denying exemption.

The determination should be confirmed.

Gxbsoít, P. J., Heblihy, Taylor and Atjxjsi, JJ., concur.

Determination confirmed, with $50 costs.
§ 2004.1 Purpose and scope. ( a ) This part sets out the National Industrial Security Program (“NISP” or “the Program”) governing the protection of agency classified information released to Federal contractors, licensees, grantees, and certificate holders. It establishes uniform standards throughout the Program, and helps agencies implement requirements in E.O. 12829, National Industrial Security Program, as amended by E.O. 12558 and E.O.13691 (collectively referred to as “E.O. 12829”), E.O. 13691, Promoting Private Sector Cybersecurity Information Sharing, and E.O. 13587, Structural Reforms to Improve the Security of Classified Networks and the Responsible Sharing and Safeguarding of Classified Information. It applies to any executive branch agency that releases classified information to current, prospective, or former Federal contractors, licensees, grantees, or certificate holders. However, this part does not stand alone; users should refer concurrently to the underlying executive orders for guidance. ISOO maintains policy oversight over the NISP as established by E.O.12829.
( b ) This part also does not apply to release of classified information pursuant to criminal proceedings. The Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) (18 U.S.C. Appendix 3) governs release of classified information in criminal proceedings.
( c ) Nothing in this part supersedes the authority of the Secretary of Energy or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2011, *et seq.*) (collectively referred to as “the Atomic Energy Act”); the authority of the Director of National Intelligence (or any intelligence community element) under the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-458), the National Security Act of 1947 as amended (50 U.S.C. 401, *et seq.*), and E.O. 12333 (December 4, 1981), as amended by E.O. 13355, Strengthened Management of the Intelligence Community (August 27, 2004) and E.O. 13470, Further Amendments to Executive Order 12333 (July 30, 2008) (collectively referred to as “E.O. 12333”); or the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security, as the Executive Agent for the Classified National Security Information Program established under E.O. 13549, Classified National Security Information Program for State, Local, Tribal, and Private Sector Entities (August 18, 2010), or as established by E.O. 13284, Amendment of Executive Orders, and Other Actions, in Connection with the Establishment of the Department of Homeland Security (January 23, 2003). In exercising these authorities, CSAs make every effort to facilitate reciprocity, avoid duplication of regulatory requirements, and facilitate uniform standards.
### §576. Enforcement of arbitration agreements

An agreement to arbitrate a matter to which this subchapter applies is enforceable pursuant to section 4 of title 9, and no action brought to enforce such an agreement shall be dismissed nor shall relief therein be denied on the grounds that it is against the United States or that the United States is an indispensable party.

(Added Pub. L. 101–552, §4(b), Nov. 15, 1990, 104 Stat. 2742, §586; renumbered §576, Pub. L. 102–354, §3(b)(2), Aug. 26, 1992, 106 Stat. 944.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 576 of former Title 5, Executive Departments and Government Officers and Employees, was transferred to section 2260 of Title 7, Agriculture, and subsequently repealed by Pub. L. 107–171, title X, §10418(a)(3), May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 507.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 576 was renumbered section 596 of this title.

#### Amendments

1992—Pub. L. 102–354 renumbered section 586 of this title as this section.
#### Colonial Sand & Stone Co., Inc., Appellant, v Enrico & Sons Contractors, Inc., Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered August 1, 1978 vacating default judgment in favor of plaintiff, docketed December 30, 1977, and dismissing the complaint without prejudice to a new action, is unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with $50 costs and disbursements of this appeal to appellant, and the motion to vacate said judgment is denied, without prejudice to renewal of such motion on an adequate showing of merit, within 60 days after service of a copy of the order determining this appeal. The affidavit of service of process should have been received in evidence. *(Jacobs v Zurich Ins. Co.,*53 AD2d 524; *Morrissey v Sostar, S. A.,*63 AD2d 944; CPLR 306, subd [d].) Service on the Secretary of State, as defendant’s agent, was valid. (Business Corporation Law, § 306, subd [b]; CPLR 311, subd 1.) That defendant did not receive actual notice of its service because defendant had removed its office without notifying the Secretary of State does not invalidate the service. While in a proper case we would allow the defendant to open the default and defend the action (CPLR 317), a necessary prerequisite to that is a showing of a meritorious defense. (CPLR 317; *Wakerman Leather Co. v Foster Sportswear Co.,*27 AD2d 767.) This action is on a written agreement of accord and satisfaction. (Although the summons says that the action is for goods sold and delivered, it is apparent from the amount sued on and the amount of the judgment that all that plaintiff seeks to collect is the amount agreed to by the accord and satisfaction.) Defendant suggests some defenses to the goods sold and delivered claim which gave rise to the accord and satisfaction agreement, but does not suggest any defense to this suit based on the agreement of accord and *706satisfaction. Concur-Birns, J. P., Silverman, Evans, Fein and Markewich, JJ.
# C_2023174EN.01000501.xml

| 16.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 174/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 174/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.11089 – AXPO IBERIA / ACSA OBRAS E INFRAESTRUCTURAS / NOGUERA RENOVABLES)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 174/04)

On 8 May 2023, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32023M11089. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32023M11089. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statement
pertaining to the MMI Companies,  Inc.  Savings and Profit Sharing Plan (401(k))
Form S-8 No.  33-72786),  in the  Registration  Statements pertaining to the MMI
Companies,  Inc.  1993 Employee  Stock Plan,  and 1993  Non-employee  Director's
Formula Stock Option Plan (Form S-8 No. 333-46889 and No. 33-81228) and the
Registration Statement pertaining to the 1995 Employee Stock  Investment Plan
(Form S-8 No.  33-87356), and in the related  Prospectuses,  of our report dated
February 24, 1999,  with respect  to  the  consolidated  financial  statements
and  schedules of MMI Companies, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended December 31, 1998.

                                                   ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Chicago, Illinois
March 23, 1999