alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Lois R. Sivin, Appellant, v. Harold L. Schwartz, Jr., et al., Defendants, and APL Corporation, Respondent.

In a stockholder’s derivative action, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 18,1964, as denied her cross motion to inspect the defendant corporation’s stock books and stock transfer records. The other (unappealed from) provisions of the order directed the plaintiff to file a surety company bond or other acceptable security in the sum of $35,000 and, pending the filing of such bond or security, stayed plaintiff “ from all proceedings in the action ”, Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed on the law and on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $10 costs and disbursements; plaintiff’s cross motion for inspection granted in the exercise of discretion and stay modified so as to permit such inspection. The inspection shall proceed on 10 days’ written notice given by the plaintiff, or as the parties may mutually stipulate in writing. The plaintiff’s cross motion was denied by Special Term on the ground that plaintiff was not a stockholder of record for a period of at least six months, and that such requirement is imposed by section 624 of the Business Corporation Law as a condition precedent to a stockholder’s right thereunder to examine the corporate stock books. In our opinion, that statute is not exclusive; and any stockholder, including one not of record, has a. common-law right to inspect the stock books if the inspection is sought in good faith and for a Valid purpose (Business Corporation Law, § 624, subd. [f]; *Matter of Steinway,*159 N. Y. 250; *People ex rel. Lorge*v. *Consolidated Nat. Bank,*105 App. Div. 409; *People ex rel. Callanam*v. *Keeseville, etc. R. R. Co.,*106 App. Div. 349; *People ex rel. Venner*v. *New York Life Ins. Co.,*111 App. Div. 183; *Matter of Brentmore Estates*v. *Hotel Barbizon,*263 App. Div. 389; *Matter of Bush Term. Co.,*78 F 2d 662; 3 White, New York Corporations [12th ed.], pp. 238-240; Homstein, Rights of Stockholders in the New York Courts, 56 Yale L. J. 942, 946). There is a Valid reason for an inspection of the corporate stock books where the inspection is sought, as it is here, by a plaintiff in a stockholder’s derivative action for *823the purpose of obviating the need for posting security by inducing a sufficient number of other stockholders to join him as coplaintiffs *(Matter of Baker*v. *Macfadden Pubs.,*300 N. Y. 325, 330). On the record at bar, we do not believe the corporation has raised any factual issue of bad faith that requires a hearing. Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
#### WALSH v. RIESENBERG et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 30, 1905.)

Death—Amount of Damages.

A verdict-for $15,000 for the death of a man 32 years of age and earning $12 per week was excessive.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 15, Cent. Dig. Death, § 125.]

Appeal from Trial Term, New York County.

. Action by Mary Walsh, as administratrix of the estate of Walter Walsh, deceased, against Adolph Riesenberg and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal.

Reversed on conditions.

Argued before O’BRIEN, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, CLARKE, INGRAHAM, and HOUGHTON, JJ.

H. S. Marshall, for appellants.

F. L. Taylor, for respondent.

CLARKE, J.

Plaintiff’s intestate and one Connor were killed on March 7, 1900, by the fall of a bundle of iron pipes from an elevator in a building owned and occupied by the appellants, comprising the firm of Koch & Co. Walsh and Connor were truckmen, and had been engaged in unloading the pipes from a truck on the street. At the time of the accident they were standing upon the sidewalk. The pipes fell through a window of the elevator shaft, striking and killing both men. The litigation growing out of this occurrence is reported as follows: Connor v. Koch, 63 App. Div. 257, 71 N. Y. Supp. 836; Connor v. General Fire Extinguisher Company, Impleaded, etc., 73 App. Div. 624, 77 N. Y. Supp. 339, affirmed 174 N. Y. 315, 66 N. E. 1106; Connor v. Koch, 89 App. Div. 33, 85 N. Y. Supp. 93; Walsh v. Riesenberg, 94 App. Div. 466, 89 N. Y. Supp. 58.

The facts have been so fully stated in those cases that it would serve no useful purpose to repeat them here. In the case in 89 App. Div. 33, 85 N. Y. Supp. 93, this court unanimously affirmed a judgment in favor of the administratrix of Connor and against these appellants entered upon the verdict of a jury for $10,000. The evidence showed that Connor was 20 years 6 months old at the time of his death and that his wages were $10.50 per week. In the case at'bar the jury returned a verdict of $15,000. The intestate was 32 years of age and was earning $12 per week. We have carefully considered the record in this case, and have reached the conclusion that plaintiff was entitled *329to a verdict, and that no reversible error was committed; but we think that the amount of the verdict was excessive and unwarranted.

The judgment and order will therefore be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event, unless the plaintiff will stipulate to reduce the judgment to $7,500 and the costs and disbursements in the court below, with interest thereon from March 7, 1900, to the date of the entry of judgment, and in that event judgment and order affirmed, without costs to either party in this court. All concur.
#### In the Matter of Rose Gold, Appellant, v Board of Education of the Copaigue Union Free School District, Respondent.

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*to review a determination of the respondent to conduct a hearing with respect to the petitioner’s physical condition other than in accordance with sections 3012 and 3020-a of the Education Law, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered September 25, 1978, which dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Respondent proceeded properly under section 511 of the Education Law. The hearing that the petitioner will have will satisfy her right to due process. Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Suozzi and Rabin, JJ., concur.
');
	document.write('

*Today, President Trump released his Fiscal Year 2018 Budget. “This  budget makes an historic investment in America’s students,”  said U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos.  “President Trump is committed to ensuring the Department focuses on returning  decision-making power back to the States, where it belongs, and on giving  parents more control over their child’s education.**By  refocusing the Department’s funding priorities on supporting students, we can  usher in a new era of creativity and ingenuity and lay a new foundation for  American greatness.”*

The following materials show what this budget provides for the programs and activities of the Department of Education:

- Press Release
- FY 2018 Education Budget Fact Sheet
- The FY 2018 Education Budget Summary and Background Information [**PDF**, 1MB] provides program information and detailed budget tables.
- The FY 2018 Justifications of Appropriations Estimates to the Congress
- FY 2018 Budget [**MS PowerPoint**, 2.2MB]

### On the Homeroom Blog

- The President's Budget: Empowering Parents by Expanding Education Choice
- The President's Budget: Maintaining Support for our Most Vulnerable Students
- The President's Budget: Simplifying Funding for Postsecondary Education

### FY 2018 Budget for the entire U.S. Government

- The President's FY 2018 Budget for the entire United States Government
These cases involved alleged disability discrimination in interscholastic athletics against  a student who uses a wheelchair.  OCR determined that the Wooster City School District and Ohio High School Athletic Association (OHSAA) discriminated against the student in violation of Section 504 and Title II when the student was not permitted to race at the same time as individuals racing on foot during track seasons or given the opportunity to earn points for his team.  OCR obtained a resolution agreement with Wooster.  OCR opened directed investigations against four other Ohio school districts alleged  to have discriminated against the student in the same manner.  On February 18, 2014, OCR closed the monitoring of the resolution agreement and closed as resolved the OHSAA complaint and the directed investigations involving the other school districts.
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 235 

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Defense should 

consider establishing an award program for the cyber community of 

the Department of Defense. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 27, 2017 

Mr. ROUNDS submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of 

Defense should consider establishing an award program 

for the cyber community of the Department of Defense. 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Secretary of Defense should con2 sider— 

3 (1) establishing an award program for employ4 ees of the Department of Defense who carry out the 

5 cyber missions or functions of the Department of 

6 Defense; 

7 (2) all award options under law or policy, in8 cluding compensation, time off, and status awards; 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 235 IS 

1 (3) awards based upon operational impact and 

2 meritorious service; 

3 (4) providing the largest possible opportunity 

4 for such members or employees to earn such rewards 

5 without regard to type of position, grade, years of 

6 service, experience or past performance; 

7 (5) individual and organization rewards; and 

8 (6) other factors, as the Secretary considers ap9 propriate, that would reward and provide incentive 

10 to cyber personnel or organizations. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 209 

Commemorating the 40th Anniversary of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, 

the preeminent public policy trade association in Silicon Valley. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 28, 2017 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Ms. HARRIS) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Commemorating the 40th Anniversary of the Silicon Valley 

Leadership Group, the preeminent public policy trade 

association in Silicon Valley. 

Whereas the Silicon Valley Leadership Group (referred to in 

this preamble as the ‘‘Leadership Group’’), founded by 

David Packard in 1978, advocates on behalf of Silicon 

Valley employers in the interest of improving the economic health of and quality of life in Silicon Valley; 

Whereas the Leadership Group represents nearly 400 member companies that constitute 1 in 3 private sector jobs 

in Silicon Valley; 

Whereas the Leadership Group was integral in establishing a 

permanent regional office of the United States Patent 

and Trademark Office in Silicon Valley, facilitating creVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:01 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\SR209.IS SR209

SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 209 IS 

ativity, innovation, and efficiency for local companies and 

creating new economic and employment opportunities; 

Whereas the Leadership Group was a crucial partner in promoting the restoration of the San Francisco Bay and restoring wildlife habitat by reducing toxins and pollutants, 

improving water quality, and protecting communities 

from floods; 

Whereas the Leadership Group has been vital in the development of transportation improvements, including helping 

secure funding for the electrification of Caltrain, which 

will replace diesel trains with high-performance electric 

trains, nearly doubling ridership, reducing travel times, 

cutting emissions, and creating 9,600 additional employment opportunities across the United States; and 

Whereas the Leadership Group has supported and contributed to organizations such as Second Harvest Food 

Bank, Housing Trust Silicon Valley, Healthier Kids 

Foundation Santa Clara County, Christmas in the Park 

in San Jose, and many other organizations that help improve the quality of life in the Silicon Valley region: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) recognizes the significant contributions of 

3 the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and the mem4 bers of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group to the 

5 economic health of and quality of life in Silicon Val6 ley; and 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 209 IS 

1 (2) commemorates the 40th anniversary of the 

2 Silicon Valley Leadership Group. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
# C_2016455EN.01000101.xml

| 6.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 455/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 455/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8226 — TowerBrook Capital Partners/Van Dijk Educatie Beheer)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 455/01)

On 28 November 2016, 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:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition 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 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 32016M8226. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8226. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 18

- 00264

- CV

C ARROLL I NDEPENDENT S CHOOL D ISTRICT , Appellant

V

.

N ORTHWEST I NDEPENDENT S CHOOL D ISTRICT , J OSH W RIGHT , M ARK S CHLUTER , S TEVE S PR OWLS , J UDY C OPP , A NN D AVIS

- S IMPSON , L ILLIAN R AUCH , AND R

YDER W

ARREN , IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES ONLY , Appellees §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 141st District Court

of Tarrant County ( 141

- 210251

- 05 )

July 1, 2021
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Su dder th

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there
was error in the trial court’s judgment. The judgment is modified to specifically state

that the referenced Bates

- stamped pages are attache d to the judgmen t

. We have
attached those pages to this opinion as Exhibit B. We further modify the judgment to
correct a typographical error by deleting the italicized portion of the judgment and

replac ing that paragraph with the following paragraph:IT IS F URTHER O R D E RED, ADJUDGED [,] AND DECREE D tha t it is eq uit able and just u nder T ex

. C iv . P rac . & R em . C od e Ann. § 37.0 09 that De fend an ts be a

war ded t h e i r reaso nable and n eces sary atto rneys ’ fee s an d costs incurred in t his m atter as follows, w it h all at torneys ’ fees

a n d co sts b eing taxed to Plaint iff :

. . . .

It is ordered that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed as modi fied.

It is further ordered that appell ant Carroll Independent School District shall

pay all of the costs of this appeal , f or which let executio n issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By __ /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

________________ Chief Justice Bonnie Sudd erth
March 13, 2012 

UBE SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS LABORATORY, INC. 





2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         176,000
<SECURITIES>                                10,860,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,159,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          104,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       213,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,842,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,159,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               853,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (153,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (153,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

</TABLE>
B E A C H R D

C H U R C H S T

M E A D O W L N

L IG H T H O U S E R D

D U N E R D

W O O D R ID G E R D

L IT T L E B E A C H R D

W O O D R ID G E R D

B E A C H R D

C H U R C H S T

M E A D O W L N

L IG H T H O U S E R D

D U N E R D

W O O D R ID G E R D

L IT T L E B E A C H R D

W O O D R ID G E R D

Coopers

Neck Pond

Heady

Creek

Heady

Creek

Halsey Neck Pond

Aga

w

a

n

La

ke

S H I N N E C O C K B A Y

A

g

a

w

a

n

L

a

k

e

Bennett

Cove

Shinnecock Inlet

ATLANTIC OCEAN

Taylor

Creek

S H I N N E C O C K B A Y

Shinnecock

Indian

Cemetery

Ponquogue

Bridge

Ponquogue

Point

Cormorant

Point

Ponquogue

Tiana Beach

Southampton

Cormorant

Point

Warner

Islands

Southampton

Beach

Ponquogue

Point

Ponquogue

Bridge

16

26

40°

19

21

17

13

7

45

45

000m

27'

19

14

14 21

7

45

45

45

7

7

45

000m

47'

52' 40° 30"

FEET

000

16

16

17

20

24

18

22

13

26

27

7

45

7

45

7

7

7

45

E

E 1

50'

47'30"

72°

30"

30"

40° 45'

30"

FEET

20

20

15

12

23

24

17

12 15

25

18

17

11

20

25

16 18 19

28

45

45

45

7

45

7

7

45

7

7

45

7

45

7

45

45

45

45

45

7

45

7

45

000m

000m

N

1 000 FEET

000 FEET

N

260 000

50'

30"

52'

30"

72°

72°

25'

25' 22'

30' 72°22'

220

21

27

15

15

23

22

45

7

45

45

400

430

30"

45'

27'

40°

30'

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

ADJOINING 7.5' QUADRANGLES

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

SHINNECOCK INLET, NY

2010

Interstate Route State Route

ROAD CLASSIFICATION

WX Interstate Route /. US Route H State Route

Ramp 4WD

US Route Local Road

SHINNECOCK INLET QUADRANGLE

NEW YORK

7.5-MINUTE SERIES

1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

FEET

This map was produced to conform with version 0.5.10 of the

draft USGS Standards for 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Maps.

A metadata file associated with this product is also draft version 0.5.10

SCALE 1:24 000

1 0.5 0 1

MILES

1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2

Zone 18T

Imagery.......................................................NAIP, May 2008

Roads.....................................US Census Bureau TIGER data

with limited USGS updates, 2004

Names...............................................................GNIS, 2008

Hydrography.................National Hydrography Dataset, 2008

Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 1998

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and

1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator,

Produced by the United States Geological Survey

10 000-foot ticks: New York Coordinate System of 1983

(Long Island zone)

×

Ø

MN

GN

UTM GRID AND 2010 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET

1° 40 ́

30 MILS

13° 55 ́

248 MILS

U.S. National Grid

100,000-m Square ID

Grid Zone Designation

18T

YL

CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET

Sag

Harbor

Shinnecock

Inlet Quogue

Mattituck Southampton

Sag

Harbor

OE S

NEW YORK
Opinion filed September 26, 2013

In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

______ _ ___ No. 11

- 13

- 00 256

- C V

__________ DAVID MICHAEL BROOKS , Appellant

V.

WAL

- MART STORES, INC. , Appellee

On Appeal from the 35 th District Court
Brown County , Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1210368

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N David Michael Brooks, Appellant, attempts to appeal from a May 28, 2013 summary judgment rendered in favor of Wal

- Mart Stores, Inc. Upon reviewing the
documents on file in this case, this court wrote the parties and informed them that the motion for new trial appeared to be untimely, thereby making the notice of appeal untime ly . We requested that Ap pellant respond and show grounds to2 continue the appeal. Appellant filed a response urging that his notice of appeal was timely pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.1(a)(4) because he timely filed a request for findings of fact and conc lusions of law. See T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 297. Because Rule 26.1(a)(4) is not applicable in this case, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(a). The judgment from which Appellant attempts to appeal is a summary judg ment. Findings of fact and conclusions of law are not proper when the appeal is from a summary judgment. Linwood v. NCNB Tex. , 885 S.W.2d 102, 103 (Tex. 1994). Thus, a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law does not extend
the time in which to file a notice of appeal. Id. ; Scott v. Wood Cnty. Comm’rs
Court , No. 12

- 13

- 00037

- CV, 2013 WL 776660 ( Tex. App.

— Tyler Feb. 28, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.). In his response to our letter, Appellant did not address the timeliness of hi s motion for new trial as requested by this court

. Our records reflect that t he motion
for new trial was filed on June 28, 2013, which was thirty

- one days after the date that the trial court signed the order granting summary judgment

. The motion for
new trial was filed o ne day late

. See T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 329b(a). Absent a timely filed motion for new trial, the notice of appeal was due to be filed on June 27, 2013, thirty days after the summary judgment was signed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.1. However, Appellant did not fil e his notice of appeal until August 26, 2013, ninety days after the summary judgment was signed. Appellant’s notice of appeal was, therefore, untimely. Absent a timely notice of appeal, this court is without jurisdiction to
consider this appeal. See Wi lkins v. Methodist Health Care Sys. , 160 S.W.3d 559, 563 (Tex. 2005); Garza v. Hibernia Nat’l Bank , 227 S.W.3d 233 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.); see also Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615,3 617 (Tex. 1997). Because Appellant did not timely file a notice of appeal, we have no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.
We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

September 26, 2013 Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Willso n, J.