alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Alford & Mills *v.*Shore Lumber Company.

January 14, 1913.

Injunction. Before Judge Thomas. Brooks superior court. June 14, 1912.

*Branch*<£• *Snotv,*for plaintiffs in error. *E. K. Wilcox,*contra.

Hitl, J.

In view of the pleadings and the evidence submitted at an interlocutory hearing before the judge of the superior court, he did not abuse his discretion in enjoining the defendants from using the timber in controversy for turpentine purposes, until the final hearing, upon the plaintiffs executing a bond in a stated amount to be approved by the clerk of the court, conditioned to pay the defendants all damages and costs which might' be sustained by reason of the granting of such injunction, provided the plaintiffs should finally fail to recover in the action.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### Don Leipham, Inc., et al., Respondents, v. A. Phil Grosodonia, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and facts, with costs, and judgment directed in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint on the merits, with costs. Certain findings of fact and conclusions of law disapproved and reversed and new findings and conclusions made. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs (real estate brokers) based upon the following provisions of a written agreement: *“*Commission due selling brokers concerning Auburn Plaza * * * $4,000. Deposit with offer $4000 to be held in escrow until execution of deal ”. Oh February 2 and 10, 1961 plaintiffs submitted to the representative of the owner of the plaza written purchase offers signed by defendant. Both offers were rejected and no further offers were submitted by plaintiffs on behalf of defendant. On February 24, 1961 defendant delivered to plaintiffs a copy of a letter then mailed by him to the owner’s representative in which he had written “I am, therefore, terminating our negotiations for the Auburn Plaza”. Defendant then informed plaintiffs in writing “should I decide to negotiate once more for Auburn Plaza our agreement still holds”. Between February 24 and 27, 1961 defendant did negotiate once more by making an effort to purchase the property directly from the owner. On February 27, 1961 the owner’s representative by letter addressed to defendant in care of plaintiffs notified defendant that his offer was not acceptable. Plaintiffs then returned to defendant his $4,000 check which had been deposited by him with plaintiffs in escrow. Defendant had no further conversations or dealings with either of the plaintiffs and in October, 1961 he contracted for purchase of the property on terms more favorable to him than were specified in the purchase offers submitted by plaintiffs on his behalf. We find that the contract sued upon was terminated by the parties when the property owner finally rejected defendant’s offers on February 27, 1961 and plaintiffs returned to defendant the $4,000 check which plaintiffs were holding in escrow under the terms of the contract. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe Trial Term in favor of plaintiffs in an action for work, labor and services.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Noonan and Del Vecehio, JJ.
250.104-3-70 Indemnification under contracts involving both research and development and other work. When indemnification is to be provided on contracts requiring both research and development work and other work, the contracting officer shall insert an appropriate clause using the authority of both 10 U.S.C. 3861 and Public Law 85-804. ( a ) The use of Public Law 85-804 is limited to work which cannot be indemnified under 10 U.S.C. 3861 and is subject to compliance with FAR 50.104.
( b ) Indemnification under 10 U.S.C. 3861 is covered by 235.070.
[73 FR 46815, Aug. 12, 2008, as amended at 87 FR 76996, Dec. 16, 2022]
NO. 07-03-0542-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TE XAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A JANUARY 20, 2004

______________________________ IN RE RA

YMUNDO L EYVA, RE LATOR

_________________________________ Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ. MEMORAND UM OPINION ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDUMUS Relator Raymundo Leyva seeks a writ of mandamus ordering respo ndent, the Honorable Jack R. Miller, allegedly Judge of the 64 th District Court of Hale County, to take action on a motion filed by relator in cause number A13183-9809 in the D istrict 64 th District Court of Hale County. We deny the petition. In his petition, relator

alleges that he h as filed a motion to expu nge the r ecord of a criminal charge of escape. The charge was dismissed on motion of the State based upon relator’s guilty plea to capital murder. We are requested to order respondent to rule on the motion to

expung e.2

In support of

the peti tion for writ of mandamus, relator attached copies of (1) the State’s Motion to

Dismissand the Or d er dismissing the referenced cause, (2) relator’s Petition for Expu nction, a nd (3) a l etter to th e Hale C ounty DistrictClerk filing the petition and requesting notification of any rulings on the motion. No other document or record of proceedi ngs is at

tached to

or furnis hed in s upport of the peti tion. When petition for writ of mandam us is mad e, it is t h e relator’s burden to show entitlementto the re lief bei ng reque sted. See generally Johnson v. Fourth District C ourt of Appeals , 700 S.W. 2d 916, 9 17 (Tex. 1985) (orig. pro ceeding ). Relators seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus must satisfy three requirements to show entitlement to the writ: (1) a legal duty to perfor m; (2) a demand for perfo rmance; an d (3) a refusal to act. Stoner v. Massey , 586 S.W. 2 d 843, 846 (Tex. 19 79). A court is not required to consider a motion n ot calle d to its a ttention. Metzger v. Sebek , 892 S.W. 2d 20, 49(Tex.Ap p.-- Houston [1st Dist .] 1994, w rit denie d). Rela tor’ s petition does not demonstra te that hi s motion has been called to respondent’s attention or presented to respondent for a ruling. Relator has not presented a record w hich shows respon dent has refused to a ct, thus relator has not shown entitleme nt to the relief so ught. The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. Phil Johnson Chief Justice
#### 3.805 Exemption.

The Secretary of Defense may exempt, on a case-by-case basis, a covered Federal action from the prohibitions of this subpart whenever the Secretary determines, in writing, that such an exemption is in the national interest. The Secretary shall transmit a copy of the exemption to Congress immediately after making the determination.

[72 FR 46330, Aug. 17, 2007]
#### In the Matter of Lenward Liquor Corp., Respondent, v. New York State Liquor Authority, Appellant.

Order entered on February 19, 1963 granting petitioner’s motion and directing the respondent Authority to approve the removal application unanimously reversed, on the law, and petition dismissed, without costs. Merely 'because the petitioner could not profitably *613conduct Ms business at the licensed premises is no ground for mandating a transfer to some other location. To obtain permission for the removal of a package store it must appear that the public convenience and advantage will be promoted by the removal to the new location from the old location. The Authority found that “ public convenience and advantage will not be served or promoted by the approval of this petition.” We cannot say that there is insufficient in the record to sustain such a finding. The record does not establish that the respondent acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner, and only upon such finding can the court annul its determination. Furthermore, upon an application to remove to a new location there is a certain degree of discretion vested in the respondent Authority. We cannot say that such discretion was abused. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, McNally and Stevens, JJ.
#### 3023.1004 Requirements.

DHS Directive 023-02, Environmental Management Program, provides guidance and direction for compliance with environmental laws, regulations and executive orders. DHS Directive 025-01, Sustainable Practices, provides guidance and direction for compliance with sustainable acquisition and other sustainable practices. Contracting officers shall ensure that solicitations and contracts contain appropriate sustainable practices requirements, provisions and clauses. Contractors shall comply with the DHS sustainable acquisition and environmental policy by taking appropriate actions to eliminate or reduce their impacts on the environment.

[86 FR 17316, Apr. 2, 2021]
Case: 3:12-cv-50276 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 1 of 17 PageID #:1
Case: 3:12-cv-50276 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 2 of 17 PageID #:2
Case: 3:12-cv-50276 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 3 of 17 PageID #:3
Case: 3:12-cv-50276 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 4 of 17 PageID #:4
Case: 3:12-cv-50276 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 5 of 17 PageID #:5
Case: 3:12-cv-50276 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 6 of 17 PageID #:6
Case: 3:12-cv-50276 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 7 of 17 PageID #:7
Case: 3:12-cv-50276 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 8 of 17 PageID #:8
Case: 3:12-cv-50276 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 9 of 17 PageID #:9
Case: 3:12-cv-50276 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 10 of 17 PageID #:10
Case: 3:12-cv-50276 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 11 of 17 PageID #:11
Case: 3:12-cv-50276 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 12 of 17 PageID #:12
Case: 3:12-cv-50276 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 13 of 17 PageID #:13
Case: 3:12-cv-50276 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 14 of 17 PageID #:14
Case: 3:12-cv-50276 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 15 of 17 PageID #:15
Case: 3:12-cv-50276 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 16 of 17 PageID #:16
Case: 3:12-cv-50276 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 17 of 17 PageID #:17
3.603 Responsibilities of the contracting officer. ( a ) Before awarding a contract, the contracting officer shall obtain an authorization under 3.602 if— ( 1 ) The contracting officer knows, or has reason to believe, that a prospective contractor is one to which award is otherwise prohibited under 3.601; and
( 2 ) There is a most compelling reason to make an award to that prospective contractor.
( b ) The contracting officer shall comply with the requirements and guidance in subpart 9.5 before awarding a contract to an organization owned or substantially owned or controlled by Government employees.
Dr. Pamela J. MaimerE-mail: FRA@ed.govTelephone: (202) 453-6891

Amy MarrionE-mail: FRA@ed.govTelephone: (202) 453-5628

Mailing Address:U.S. Department of Education, OPEInternational and Foreign Language EducationFulbright-Hays Faculty Research Abroad Program400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.Washington, DC 20202

IFLE Home
246.705 Limitations. ( a ) In addition to the exceptions provided in FAR 46.705(a), warranties in the clause at 252.246-7001, Warranty of Data, may be used in cost-reimbursement contracts.
[71 FR 27647, May 12, 2006]
#### 2952.245-70 Contractor Responsibility to Report Theft of Government Property.

As prescribed in 2945.104-70, insert the following clause:

# Contractor Responsibility To Report Theft of Government Property (FEB 2020)

Upon the contractor becoming aware of theft of government property by its employee(s), including theft that occurs at subcontractor or alternate site locations, the contractor shall report the theft of government property to the Contracting Officer's Representative or CO of record.

(End of Clause)
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-86189 and 333-40922) and Form S-8(Nos. 333-82325, 333-51678 and 333-69034) of Wyndham International, Inc. of our report dated March 15, 2005 with respect to our opinion relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules, except for Note 2b to theconsolidated financial statements related to accounting for income taxes, as to which date is May 16, 2005 and April 8, 2005 with respect to our opinions relating to internal control over financial reporting, except for the penultimateparagraph of Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting, as to which the date is May 16, 2005 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedules, management’s assessment of the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K/A. 

 

/s/    PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

 

Dallas, Texas 

May 23, 2005
16.203-2 Application. A fixed-price contract with economic price adjustment may be used when (i) there is serious doubt concerning the stability of market or labor conditions that will exist during an extended period of contract performance, and (ii) contingencies that would otherwise be included in the contract price can be identified and covered separately in the contract. Price adjustments based on established prices should normally be restricted to industry-wide contingencies. Price adjustments based on labor and material costs should be limited to contingencies beyond the contractor's control. For use of economic price adjustment in sealed bid contracts, see 14.408-4. ( a ) In establishing the base level from which adjustment will be made, the contracting officer shall ensure that contingency allowances are not duplicated by inclusion in both the base price and the adjustment requested by the contractor under economic price adjustment clause.
( b ) In contracts that do not require submission of certified cost or pricing data, the contracting officer shall obtain adequate data to establish the base level from which adjustment will be made and may require verification of data submitted.
[48 FR 42219, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 50 FR 1742, Jan. 11, 1985; 50 FR 52429, Dec. 23, 1985; 60 FR 34739, July 3, 1995; 75 FR 53148, Aug. 30, 2010]
Institutions of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) that are eligible in accordance with Section 322 [20 USC §1061]. 

FIPSE Home
#### Meryl Dionisio, Appellant, v Auto Hire, Inc., et al., Respondents.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated October 31, 1978, which stayed the trial of the action pending resolution of the issues in a pending declaratory judgment action. Order modified, in the exercise of discretion, by adding a provision thereto providing that all the parties (and their attorneys) to the declaratory judgment action are to cooperate so that said action may be tried with all due dispatch. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the plaintiff in the instant action is directed to serve a copy of the order to be entered hereon on all of the parties in the declaratory judgment action. Special Term properly stayed the trial of the negligence action pending determination of the issues in the declaratory judgment action which has been instituted by the insurance carrier of one of the defendants against the insurance carriers of the other defendants and against the parties in the instant action (cf. *Cubero v Schwartz,*51 AD2d 760; *Trieber v Hopson,*27 AD2d 151; *Ganas v Terry,*16 AD2d 826; *Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v Lipsky,*9 Mise 2d 390). During oral argument of this appeal the attorney for the plaintiff and the attorney for defendants Kuehne and Nagel Air Frieght *997Inc., and Sal Baglio stipulated that they would co-operate with each other to the fullest extent in making sure that the declaratory judgment action is tried with all due dispatch. They are so directed. In addition, although no one appeared at the time of oral argument for codefendant Auto Hire, Inc., nor for the plaintiff in the declaratory judgment action (American Home Assurance Company) nor for the other defendants in the declaratory judgment action (Hartford Insurance Co., Kemper Insurance Companies, Lumbermans Mutual Casualty Company and American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co.), all of them, by their attorneys, are directed to co-operate fully with the attorneys for the parties herein to the end that the declaratory judgment action may be tried to a speedy conclusion. Since CPLR 2201 provides that a stay may be granted "upon such terms as may be just”, we are modifying the order appealed from accordingly. Rabin, J. P., Shapiro, Cohalan and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 40 

Designating the week beginning on February 5, 2017, as ‘‘National Tribal 

Colleges and Universities Week’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2017 

Ms. HEITKAMP (for herself, Mr. LANKFORD, Ms. STABENOW, Ms. BALDWIN, 

Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. UDALL, Mr. THUNE, Mr. MORAN, Mr. TESTER, Mr. 

HEINRICH, Mr. DAINES, Mr. HOEVEN, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mrs. MURRAY, 

Mr. FRANKEN, Mr. PETERS, Ms. HIRONO, and Mr. BARRASSO) submitted 

the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating the week beginning on February 5, 2017, as 

‘‘National Tribal Colleges and Universities Week’’. 

Whereas there are 37 Tribal Colleges and Universities operating on more than 75 campuses in 16 States; 

Whereas Tribal Colleges and Universities are tribally chartered or federally chartered institutions of higher education and therefore have a unique relationship with the 

Federal Government; 

Whereas Tribal Colleges and Universities serve students from 

more than 250 federally recognized Indian tribes; 

Whereas Tribal Colleges and Universities offer students access to knowledge and skills grounded in cultural tradiVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:53 Feb 02, 2017 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\SR40.ATS SR40

smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 40 ATS 

tions and values, including indigenous languages, which 

enhances Indian communities and enriches the United 

States as a whole; 

Whereas Tribal Colleges and Universities provide access to 

high-quality postsecondary educational opportunities for 

American Indians, Alaska Natives, and other individuals 

living in some of the most isolated and economically depressed areas in the United States; 

Whereas Tribal Colleges and Universities are accredited institutions of higher education that effectively prepare students to succeed in their academic pursuits and in a global and highly competitive workforce; 

Whereas Tribal Colleges and Universities have open enrollment policies, and approximately 15 percent of the students at Tribal Colleges and Universities are non-Indian 

individuals; and 

Whereas the collective mission and the considerable achievements of Tribal Colleges and Universities deserve national recognition: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates the week beginning on February 

3 5, 2017, as ‘‘National Tribal Colleges and Univer4 sities Week’’; and 

5 (2) calls on the people of the United States and 

6 interested groups to observe National Tribal Colleges 

7 and Universities Week with appropriate ceremonies, 

8 activities, and programs to demonstrate support for 

9 Tribal Colleges and Universities. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
#### Hotel Armstrong, Inc., Respondent, v. Temporary State Housing Rent Commission et al., Appellants, and Louis J. Lefkowitz, as Attorney-General of the State of New York, Intervenor-Appellant.

Orders, entered on April 21, 1960, (1) denying the motion of the defendants to dismiss the complaint herein for insufficiency pursuant to subdivision 4 of rule 106 of the Rules of 'Civil Practice, and (2) denying the motion of the intervenor-appellant, Attorney-General of the State of New York, to dismiss the complaint pursuant to rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice or for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to the provisions of section 476 of the Civil Practice Act and rule 112 of the Rules of Civil Practice, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally and Stevens, JJ. [25 Misc 2d 87.]
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 20 (Tuesday, February 2, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 7883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02159]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice (21-008)]


Planetary Science Advisory Committee; Meeting

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY:  In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a 
meeting of the Planetary Science Advisory Committee. The meeting will 
be held for the purpose of soliciting, from the scientific community 
and other persons, scientific and technical information relevant to 
program planning.

DATES: Monday, March 1, 2021, 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Eastern Time; 
and Tuesday, March 2, 2021, 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Eastern Time.

ADDRESSES: Virtual meeting via WebEx and dial-in teleconference only.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Karshelia Henderson, Science 
Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 
358-2355 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#442f2c212a202136372b2a042a2537256a232b32"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7c1714191218190e0f13123c121d0f1d521b130a">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As noted above, this meeting will be 
available to the public telephonically and by WebEx only. The meeting 
event for attendees is: https://nasaenterprise.webex.com/nasaenterprise/j.php?MTID=m1aafd71607930a725986be629a61990e. The event 
meeting number is 199 538 6929 and the password is PAC_March2021. For 
audio, when joining the Webex event, you may use your computer or 
provide your phone number to receive a call back. Otherwise, call the 
U.S. toll conference number: 1-415-527-5035 and enter the access code 
199 538 6929.
    The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:

--Planetary Science Division Update
--Planetary Science Division Research and Analysis Program Update

    It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to 
accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.

Patricia Rausch,
Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2021-02159 Filed 2-1-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-13-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
28.106-7 Withholding contract payments. ( a ) During contract performance, agencies shall not withhold payments due contractors or assignees because subcontractors or suppliers have not been paid.
( b ) If, after completion of the contract work, the Government receives written notice from the surety regarding the contractor's failure to meet its obligation to its subcontractors or suppliers, the contracting officer shall withhold final payment. However, the surety must agree to hold the Government harmless from any liability resulting from withholding the final payment. The contracting officer will authorize final payment upon agreement between the contractor and surety or upon a judicial determination of the rights of the parties.
( c ) For any withholding incident to the labor standards provisions of the contract, see part 22.