alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### George Domfort, Respondent, v. Town of Fallsburgh, Appellant.

This is an appeal from an order denying its motion to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to subdivision 4 of rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice on the *940grounds that the said complaint fails to set forth facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff, a policeman in a town having a police force of not more than four members, performed his duties for more than 40 hours per week, in violation of chapter 964 of the Laws of 1957 and that he is entitled to reimbursement for the excess time. Chapter 964 reads in part: “ The 9 9 9 chief of police * * * having the management, control or direction of the police force of any * * * town * 9 9 having a police force of not less than four members * * 9 shall not assign any patrolman 9 *^*9 to more than one tour of duty; such tour of duty shall not exceed eight consecutive hours of each consecutive twenty-four hours and no patrolman shall be assigned to more than forty hours of duty during any seven consecutive day period; except in an emergency as described in this section or for the purpose of changing tours of duty.” The plaintiff contends that the statute is applicable, that the complaint is sufficiently broad to allow the proving of an emergency which would not entitle the plaintiff to overtime pay but would entitle him to a leave of absence with pay for the amount of the overtime, pursuant to chapter 964, or for other relief. The defendant here contends that the complaint does not come within the framework of the statute and should be dismissed. We agree. That part of the chapter, which refers to an emergency, does not, in our opinion, imply that an officer thus acting is entitled to additional compensation in any form. The context of the chapter seems explicit that a police officer should work only the number of hours per day and the total number per week set forth therein except for additional time that may be necessary as the result of an emergency. It states as to an emergency “ excepting only that in the event of strikes, riots, conflagrations 9 * * [patrolman] may be continued on duty for such hours as may be necessary.” This statute, when read in context and in its entirety, did not intend to give any remedy such as pleaded by the plaintiff in his complaint. Order reversed and the complaint dismissed, without costs. Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ., concur.
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

About EDOVERVIEW
|  | **MS Word (417 KB)** |
|--|----------------------|

*Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act Rulemaking
*The Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act*, part of the *No    Child Left Behind Act*, addresses equal access to meet in public schools    that receive federal funds from the Department. The law covers the Boy Scouts    and other youth groups listed in Title 36 of the *U.S. Code* as a    patriotic society. During FY 2004, OCR completed drafting a "Notice of Proposed    Rulemaking", which was published in the *Federal Register* on    Oct. 19, 2004, and provided for a 45-day public comment period. While OCR    received no complaints alleging violations of the act during FY 2004, one    of the five complaints submitted the previous year was resolved in FY 2004. 
  13 | 14 | 15TOCPrintable viewShare this page  Last Modified: 11/01/2007How Do I Find...- Student loans, forgiveness
- College accreditation
- Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
- FERPA
- FAFSA
- 1098, tax forms

More >
Information About...- Transforming Teaching
- Family and Community Engagement
- Early Learning

 
MissionPrioritiesWelcome to ED.gov*Our mission* is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.
Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers
Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a GrantEligibility for Grants
Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website
Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works Clearinghouse
About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy ProgramSubscribe to E-Mail Updates- Notices
- FOIA
- Privacy Policy
- Accessibility
- Security
- Information quality
- Inspector General
- Whitehouse.gov
- USA.gov
- Benefits.gov
- Regulations.gov*
#### 1552.216-73 Fixed rates for services—indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract.

As prescribed in 1516.505(b), insert the following clause:

# Fixed Rates for Services—Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity Contract (OCT 2021)

(a) The following fixed rates shall apply for payment purposes for the duration of the contact.

| Personnel classification | Skill level | Fixed hourly rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |

(b) The rate, or rates, set forth in paragraph (a) of this section cover all expenses, including report preparation, salaries, overhead, general and administrative expenses, and profit.

(c) The Contractor shall voucher for only the time of the personnel whose services are applied directly to the work called for in individual Orders and accepted by the EPA Contracting Officer's Representative (COR). The Government shall pay the Contractor for the life of the Order at rates in effect when the Order was issued, even if performance under the Order crosses into another period. The Contractor shall maintain time and labor distribution records for all employees who work under the contract. These records must document time worked and work performed by each individual on all Orders.

(End of Clause)

*Alternate I* (*date*). As prescribed in 1515.505(b), modify the Basic form of the clause by changing paragraph (c) to the following:

(c) The Contractor shall voucher for only the time of the personnel whose services are applied directly to the work called for in individual Orders and accepted by the EPA Contracting Officer's Representative (COR). The Government shall pay the Contractor at rates in effect when the work is performed by the Contractor. The Contractor shall maintain time and labor distribution records for all employees who work under the contract. These records must document time worked and work performed by each individual on all Orders.

[86 FR 55714, Oct. 7, 2021]
#### Baby Togs, Inc., Appellant, v Harold Trimming Company, Inc., Respondent.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered October 17, 1977, granting defendant judgment dismissing the complaint, and *869judgment on the counterclaim, is unanimously modified, on the law, to reverse so much of the judgment as grants judgment dismissing the complaint, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied, and the judgment is otherwise affirmed, with $75 appeal costs and disbursements to plaintiff-appellant. The judgment on the counterclaim shall be severed. Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 23, 1977, is dismissed as subsumed in the judgment, without costs and without disbursements. Plaintiff has expressly withdrawn its appeal from the judgment in favor of defendant on the counterclaim. Plaintiff’s papers in opposition to the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint are sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact to support its version of the facts. That version is that plaintiff and defendant agreed that plaintiff would buy certain tape at a price of $46 per thousand yards or $.046 per yard; that in writing out the order plaintiff’s employee made a mistake in the placement of the decimal point so that the order was written .46 per yard, and that plaintiff by mistake paid on that basis, and defendant refuses to refund the excess amount of $12,144. If plaintiff is able to establish this version, plaintiff may come within the rule which invokes "the equitable doctrine of reformation on the following basis: ' "Where there is no mistake about the agreement and the only mistake alleged is in the reduction of the agreement to writing, such mistake of the scrivener, or of either party, no matter how it occurred, may be corrected.” *(Born v. Schrenkeisen,*110 N. Y. 55, 59.)’ ” *(Nash v Kornblum,*12 NY2d 42, 46-47.) The *Nash*case involved precisely an error in the written agreement due to an arithmetical miscalculation by the party seeking reformation so that the written agreement did not correctly embody the true agreement of the parties. In such a case, the Court of Appeals said (p 48): "it was unnecessary for the plaintiff to establish fraud on the part of the defendant. Perhaps reformation could have been predicated upon a unilateral mistake on one side and deceptive conduct on the other side which tended to obscure the true agreement (cf. Restatement, Contracts, § 505).” That plaintiff is mistaken in its legal theory should not result in summary judgment dismissing the complaint where the facts may show that the plaintiff is entitled to relief on a proper legal theory. Concur — Birns, J. P., Sandler, Sullivan and Silverman, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SEC
Form 10Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999             JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-02-1998             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998             OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                          89,825                  89,825
<SECURITIES>                                    13,852                  13,852
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                     89,891                  89,891
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               217,833                 217,833
<PP&E>                                         218,120                 218,120
<DEPRECIATION>                                 108,881                 108,881
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 350,083                 350,083
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           55,216                  55,216
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                         2,539                   2,539
<OTHER-SE>                                     281,867                 281,867
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   350,083                 350,083
<SALES>                                        162,346                 446,737
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               162,346                 446,737
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   82,554                 224,104
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                62,827                 169,677
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,965                  52,956
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,272                  19,591
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,693                  33,365
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,693                  33,365
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .21                     .66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .21                     .65
        

</TABLE>
# Amounts

# Ratios
(May 21, 1964)

#### In the Matter of the Construction of the Will of Lansford L. Leigh, Deceased. Marine Trust Company of Western New York, Appellant; Margaret L. Hartom et al., Respondents.

Appeal unanimously dismissed, without costs. Memorandum: The appellant is not a party aggrieved as defined in section 288 of the Surrogate’s Court Act. The decision in *Matter of Venblow*(2 A D 2d 365) should not be extended beyond its precise factual situation. The proceeding is properly before the Surrogate, who has ample authority to determine the questions involved. There are many reasons, such as the preparation and filing of tax returns, why it might be advantageous to have this matter determined before the final accounting. (Appeal by respondent, Marine Trust Company, from an order of Erie Surrogate’s Court which determined that petitioner, Margaret L. Hartom, has standing to maintain the proceeding, and that the court has jurisdiction to construe a separation agreement.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Noonan and Del Vecchio, JJ.
| **Signatures**                                |   | **Title**                                         |   | **Date**                     |
|-----------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------|
|                                          |   |                                              |   |                         |
|                                          |   |                                              |   |                         |
|  /s/GEOFFREY              P. TALBOT      |   | Chairman,                CEO, President and Chief |   | July                14, 2006 |
| GEOFFREY                P. TALBOT             |   | Financial                Officer                  |   |                         |
|                                          |   |                                              |   |                         |
|                                          |   |                                              |   |                         |
|  /s/PETER              J. UPFOLD         |   | Vice                Chairman, CTO and             |   | July                14, 2006 |
| PETER                J. UPFOLD                |   | Treasurer/Secretary                               |   |                         |
|                                          |   |                                              |   |                         |
|                                          |   |                                              |   |                         |
|  /s/ LEONARD              SILVERMAN |   | Director                                          |   | July                14, 2006 |
| LEONARD                SILVERMAN, Ph.D.       |   |                                              |   |                         |
|                                          |   |                                              |   |                         |
|                                          |   |                                              |   |                         |
|  /s/ROBERT              B. FIELDS        |   | Director                                          |   | July                14, 2006 |
| ROBERT                B. FIELDS               |   |                                              |   |                         |

----
### §608a–1. Repealed. Sept. 1, 1937, ch. 898, title V, §510, 50 Stat. 916

Section, act June 19, 1936, ch. 612, §2, 49 Stat. 1539, related to additional provisions regulating the sugar quotas.
#### 14.400 Scope of subpart.

This subpart contains procedures for the receipt, handling, opening, and disposition of bids including mistakes in bids, and subsequent award of contracts.

[48 FR 42171, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 63 FR 58594, Oct. 30, 1998].
Appeal No. 2020AP1750-CR Cir. Ct. No. 2013CF5083

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS

DISTRICT I

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V.

RONALD HENRY GRIFFIN,

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FILED

March 28, 2022

Sheila T. Reiff

Clerk of Court of Appeals

ERRATA SHEET

Sheila T. Reiff

Clerk of Court of Appeals

P.O. Box 1688

Madison, WI 53701-1688

Court of Appeals District I

330 East Kilbourn Avenue, Suite 1020

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202-3161

Court of Appeals District III

2100 Stewart Ave., Suite 310

Wausau, WI 54401

Christina Plum, Sarah Motiff

Court of Appeals

2921 Landmark Place, Suite 415

Madison, WI 53713-4248

Court of Appeals District II

2727 N. Grandview Blvd.

Waukesha, WI 53188-1672

Court of Appeals District IV

2921 Landmark Place, Suite 415

Madison, WI 53713-4248

Hon. Stephanie Rothstein

Circuit Court Judge

Electronic Notice

George Christenson

Clerk of Circuit Court

Safety Building

Electronic Notice

John D. Flynn

Electronic Notice

Christine A. Remington

Electronic Notice

Ronald Henry Griffin 420720

New Lisbon Correctional Inst.

P.O. Box 4000

New Lisbon, WI 53950-4000
No. 2020AP1750-CR

2

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that corrections were made to paragraph 

forty-two in the above-captioned opinion which was released on February 22, 2022. 

A corrected electronic version in its entirety is available on the court's website at 

www.wicourts.gov.
#### §§ 1906.152-1906.159 [Reserved]
#### 1431.101 Objectives.

Individual deviations concerning cost principles and procedures shall require the approval of the cognizant Assistant Secretary, with further redelegation authorized. Redelegation is limited to the BPC.
#### § 776.5 Judicial conduct.

To the extent that it does not conflict with statutes, regulations, or this part, the current version of the American Bar Association Model Code of Judicial Conduct (as amended), hereafter referred to as the `Code of Judicial Conduct,' applies to all military and appellate judges and to all other covered USG attorneys performing judicial functions under the JAG's supervision within the DoN.
#### Sidney Klein, Respondent-Appellant, v Roslyn Klein, Appellant-Respondent.

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on April 29, 1977, unanimously affirmed on the opinion of Shainswit, J., at Special Term, without costs and without disbursements. The appeal from the order of said court entered on April 12, 1977 is hereby dismissed as nonappealable, without costs and without disbursements. Concur — Birns, J. P., Evans, Lane and Sullivan, JJ.
### §7960. Repeal of superseded price support authority and effect of repeal

#### (a) Omitted

#### (b) Disposal

Notwithstanding any other provision of law or previous declaration made by the Secretary, the Secretary shall ensure that the disposal of all peanuts for which a loan for the 2001 crop of peanuts was made under section 7271 of this title before May 13, 2002, is carried out in a manner that prevents price disruptions in the domestic and international markets for peanuts.

#### (c) Treatment of crop insurance policies for 2002 crop year

#### (1) Applicability

This subsection shall apply for the 2002 crop year only notwithstanding any other provision of law or crop insurance policy.

#### (2) Price election

The nonquota price election for segregation I, II, and III peanuts shall be 17.75 cents per pound and shall be used for all aspects of the policy relating to the calculations of premium, liability, and indemnities.

#### (3) Quality adjustment

For the purposes of quality adjustment only, the average support price per pound of peanuts shall be a price equal to 17.75 cents per pound. Quality under the crop insurance policy for peanuts shall be adjusted under procedures issued by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation.

(Pub. L. 107–171, title I, §1310, May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 182.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section is comprised of section 1310 of Pub. L. 107–171. Subsec. (a) of section 1310 of Pub. L. 107–171 amended sections 1428 and 1441 of this title and repealed 7271 of this title.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 97 (Monday, May 20, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29247-29248]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11927]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

48 CFR Part 952

RIN 1990-AA37

Contractor Legal Management Requirements; Acquisition 
Regulations; Correction

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) is correcting a final rule that 
appeared in the Federal Register of May 3, 2013 (78 FR 25795). In this 
document, DOE revised existing regulations covering contractor legal 
management requirements. Conforming amendments were also made to the 
Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation (DEAR).

DATES: This correction is effective July 2, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Eric Mulch, Attorney-Adviser, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of General Counsel, 1000 Independence 
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-5746. 
Email: eric.mulch@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 2013-10485, appearing on page 
25795 in the Federal Register of Friday, May 3, 2013, the following 
correction is made:

952.231-71  [Corrected]

0
On page 25817, second column, DEAR 952.231-71(f)(1)(i) is corrected to 
read:
    ``(i) Which are otherwise unallowable by law or the provisions of 
this contract, including the cost reimbursement limitations contained 
in 48 CFR part 970.31, as supplemented by 48 CFR part 931;''

[[Page 29248]]

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 14, 2013.
Paul Bosco,
Director, Office of Acquisition and Project Management.
[FR Doc. 2013-11927 Filed 5-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
### §7621. Repealed. Pub. L. 110–234, title VII, §7406(b)(1), May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1251, and Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title VII, §7406(b)(1), June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 2013

Section, Pub. L. 105–185, title IV, §401, June 23, 1998, 112 Stat. 564; Pub. L. 105–277, div. A, §101(a) [title VII, §753(c)(2)], Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681, 2681–33; Pub. L. 107–171, title VII, §7205(a), May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 439; Pub. L. 109–171, title I, §1501, Feb. 8, 2006, 120 Stat. 7, related to the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 110–234 and Pub. L. 110–246 repealed this section. Pub. L. 110–234 was repealed by section 4(a) of Pub. L. 110–246.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal of this section and repeal of Pub. L. 110–234 by Pub. L. 110–246 effective May 22, 2008, the date of enactment of Pub. L. 110–234, except as otherwise provided, see section 4 of Pub. L. 110–246, set out as an Effective Date note under section 8701 of this title.

Repeal of this section inapplicable to any solicitation for grant applications issued by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service before June 18, 2008, see section 7406(c) of Pub. L. 110–246, set out as an Effective Date of 2008 Amendment note under section 3157 of this title.