alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ralph Vendriesco et al., Doing Business as Sundown Lounge, Appellants, v Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Respondent.

Appeal from-an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered September 8, 1977 in Greene County, which denied plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss defendant’s second affirmative defense. The issue to be resolved on this appeal is the extent of the insurable interest on improvements to real property made by a lessee in possession with an option to purchase. Plaintiffs operated a motel and restaurant under a lease running from September 3, 1975 to September 30, 1976, with an option to buy if they so exercised that option in writing prior to the expiration date of the lease. During the term they had made improvements in the sum of approximately $15,000 and had obtained from defendant a policy of fire insurance which, among other things, covered "betterments and improvements” made by the insured. However, this coverage contained a clause providing that in the event the betterments and the improvements were not repaired or replaced within a reasonable time after a loss, the insured could collect only that portion of the original cost of the damaged or destroyed items which the unexpired term of the lease at the time of the loss bears to the period from the date of the betterments and improvements to the termination date of the lease. On September 7, 1976 a fire substantially destroyed the leased premises. Neither the plaintiffs nor the lessor repaired or replaced any of the betterments or improvements after the fire. Accordingly, defendant applied the formula contained in the policy and contended that any recovery for the betterments and improvements must be limited to 23/365 of their original cost, and so *947asserted as an affirmative defense in its answer to the complaint herein which sought full reimbursement for the loss. Plaintiffs argued that their position as lessees with an option to purchase cast them in the same position as contract purchasers in possession with a full insurable interest and moved to have defendant’s affirmative defense dismissed. Special Term disagreed with plaintiffs’ contention and this appeal ensued. There must be an affirmance. The language of the policy providing for the limiting formula is clear and unambiguous on its face. At the time of the loss, plaintiffs had no rights other than those of a lessee in possession with an unexercised right to purchase. Measuring their rights at that time, as we must *(Whitestone Sav. & Loan Assn, v Allstate Ins. Co.,*28 NY2d 332; *Alexandra Rest, v New Hampshire Ins. Co. of Manchester,*272 App Div 346, affd 297 NY 858), it is clear that their recovery should be limited to their unexpired "use interest” in the betterments and improvements. As lessees with an unexercised option to purchase, they never achieved the status of a contract vendee or any other that would place them beyond the reach of the contractual limitation (see *Trumbull v Bombard,*171 App Div 700, 706, affd 225 NY 638). Order affirmed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Sweeney, Kane, Main and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
#### 252.237-7022 Services at installations being closed.

As prescribed in 237.7402, use the following clause:

# Services at Installations Being Closed (MAY 1995)

Professional employees shall be used by the local government to provide services under this contract to the extent that professionals are available in the area under the jurisdiction of such government.

(End of clause)

[59 FR 36090, July 15, 1994, as amended at 60 FR 29503, June 5, 1995]
#### Yolanda Alava et al., Appellants, v Peninsula General Hospital, Respondent.

In a medical malpractice action, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated March 14, 1977, which, upon sustaining defendant’s objection to plaintiffs’ use of a tape recorder at examinations before trial, prohibited plaintiffs from using the tape recorder. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, plaintiffs are permitted to use the tape recorder at the examinations before trial and defendant is permitted to have a stenographic transcript made of the depositions at its own expense. In our opinion defendant failed to demonstrate that the recording device plaintiffs proposed to use for continuation of their pretrial depositions was inadequate and of unsatisfactory fidelity (see *Abelow v Grossman,*59 AD2d 849). However, in view of the fact that defendant has pointed out that at least two of the witnesses to be deposed have heavy foreign accents and the noise level in the room in which the depositions are being taken is very high, we believe that in addition to plaintiffs’ audio tape recording, defendant should be permitted to have, at its own cost, a stenographic transcription of the depositions (see 22 NYCRR 685.10; cf. *Bichler v Lilly & Co.,*50 AD2d 90; *Rubino v Searle & Co.,*73 Misc 2d 447). At this time we suggest to members of the Bar wishing to utilize either a video or audio recorder for depositions, that they become familiar with the recent amendment to CPLR 3113 (subd [b]), and the rules of this court "governing electronic recording of depositions in civil cases” (22 NYCRR Part 685). Titone, J. P., O’Connor, Martuscello and Mangano, JJ., concur.
| | Celebrating
15 Years of Serving the President: 1982-1997

A
review of NSTAC issues addressed prior to NSTAC XX

*
* *

PREFACE

TABLE
OF CONTENTS

Return to NSTAC Reports
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 35 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR EVENT TO 

4 CELEBRATE A KING KAMEHAMEHA DAY LEI 

5 DRAPING CEREMONY. 

6 (a) AUTHORIZATION.—Emancipation Hall in the 

7 Capitol Visitor Center is authorized to be used on June 
2 

•HCON 35 EH 

1 11, 2023, for an event to celebrate a King Kamehameha 

2 Day Lei Draping Ceremony. 

3 (b) PREPARATIONS.—Physical preparations for the 

4 conduct of the event described in subsection (a) shall be 

5 carried out in accordance with such conditions as may be 

6 prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 26, 2023. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 35 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the 

mony. a King Kamehameha Day Lei Draping CereCapitol Visitor Center for an event to celebrate
#### 3022.406 Administration and enforcement.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR E N B ANC R ECONSIDERATION OF O RDER G RANTING T EMPORARY R ELIEF

Appellate case name: Shatish Patel, M.D., Hemalatha Vijayan, M.D., Subodh Sonwa lkar,

M.D., Wolley Oladut M.D. v

. St. Luke’ s Sugar Land Partnersh ip,

L.L.P. and St. Luke’ s Community Development Corporation

- Sugar

Land

Appellate case number: 01

- 13

- 00273

- CV

Trial court case number: 2011

- 24016

Trial court: 152nd District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: Dec ember 30, 2013

Party filing motion: Appellees, St. Luke’s Sugar Land Partnership, L.L.P. and St. Luke’s

Community Development Corporation

- Sugar Land.

T he motion for en banc reconsideration of the order granting temporary relief is

DENIED.

Judge’s sig nature: /s/ Michael M a ssengale

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings, K eyes, Higley, Bland, Sharp,

Massengale, Brown, and Huddle.

In light of this Court’s ruling denying St. Luke’s motion for en banc reconsideration of the merits

of the appeal, Justice Keyes would dismiss St. Luke’s motion for en banc reconsideration of the

order granting temporary relief as moot.

Justice Sharp would grant the motion for en banc reconsideration of the order granting temporary

relief

.

Date: February 11, 2014
#### 32.705 Unenforceability of unauthorized obligations.

Many supplies or services are acquired subject to supplier license agreements. These are particularly common in information technology acquisitions, but they may apply to any supply or service. For example, computer software and services delivered through the internet (web services) are often subject to license agreements, referred to as End User License Agreements (EULA), Terms of Service (TOS), or other similar legal instruments or agreements. Many of these agreements contain indemnification clauses that are inconsistent with Federal law and unenforceable, but which could create a violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 1341) if agreed to by the Government.

[78 FR 37688, June 21, 2013]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains Summary Financial Information extracted from the
Quarterly Report for the three months ended March 31, 1997 of Carrols
Corporation and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statement.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                    $  9,121,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                             $  8,645,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                               $  2,189,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          $ 25,137,000
<PP&E>                                    $129,964,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            $ 64,850,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            $181,001,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     $ 31,717,000
<BONDS>                                   $121,563,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                  $         10
<OTHER-SE>                                $ 18,966,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              $181,001,000
<SALES>                                   $ 58,305,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          $ 58,388,000
<CGS>                                     $ 16,506,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             $ 50,462,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        $  3,556,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          $ (1,109,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                             $   (369,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      $   (740,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                             $   (740,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# Hispanic-Serving Institutions – Science, Technology, Engineering,

# or Mathematics and Articulation Program 

# FY 2016 Awards

9/30/2016
Amendment No. 3 to Amended and Restated Severance Agreement




 Exhibit 10(iii)A(78) 
 AMENDMENT No. 3 
 TO 
 ACUITY BRANDS, INC 
 AMENDED AND RESTATED SEVERANCE AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDMENT made and entered into as of the 28th day of October, 2009, by and between ACUITY BRANDS, INC. (the “Company”) and VERNON J.
NAGEL (“Executive”); 
 W I T N E S S E T H 
 WHEREAS, the Company and Executive entered into an Amended and Restated Severance Agreement, dated as of January 20, 2004 (“Severance Agreement”), providing for the payment of certain compensation
and benefits to Executive if Executive’s employment is terminated under certain circumstances; and 
 WHEREAS, the parties now desire
to amend the Severance Agreement in the manner hereinafter provided; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Severance Agreement is hereby amended, as
follows: 
 1. 
 Section 4.2 is hereby amended by deleting the present section in its entirety and substituting the following in lieu thereof: 
  

			
	“4.2	  	Annual Bonus. Executive shall be paid an amount equal to the greater of (i) 150% of employee’s gross salary, multiplied by a fraction (the “Pro Rata Fraction”),
the numerator of which is the number of days that have elapsed in the then current fiscal year through Executive’s Date of Termination and the denominator of which is 365, or (ii) the annual incentive bonus that would be paid or payable to
Executive under the Incentive Plan based upon the Company’s actual performance for such fiscal year, assuming 50% of the Company financial performance payout percentage for named executive officers that are subject to the application of
negative discretion, multiplied by the Pro Rata Fraction. The bonus amount determined pursuant to Section 4.2(i) shall be paid to Executive within ten (10) days of Executive’s Date of Termination and any additional amount payable pursuant to
Section 4.2(ii) shall be payable at the same time as bonuses are payable to other executives under the Incentive Plan. “Incentive Plan” shall mean the Acuity Brands, Inc. Management Compensation and Incentive Plan for the fiscal year in
which the Executive’s Termination of Employment occurs. Terms used in this Section 4.2 shall have the meaning ascribed them in the Incentive Plan.

 2. 
 This Amendment to the Severance Agreement shall be effective as of the date of this Amendment. Except as hereby modified, the Severance Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first above written. 
  

			
	 EXECUTIVE

	
	 /s/ VERNON J. NAGEL

	 VERNON J. NAGEL
# C_2016484EN.01001801.xml

| 24.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 484/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 484/18

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7930 — ABP Group/Fane Valley Group/Slaney Foods)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 484/05)

On 7 October 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 32016M7930. 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 32016M7930. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Cagles, Inc. for the period ended January 01, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, J. Douglas Cagle, Chief Executive Officer of Cagles, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:



1. The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and



2. The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date: February 11, 2004

By: /s/ J. Douglas Cagle

J. Douglas Cagle

Chief Executive Officer





















2









3
#### 3053.222-70 Application of labor laws to Government acquisitions.

The following form is prescribed for use in connection with the application of labor laws, as specified in (HSAR) 48 CFR 3022.406-9: DHS Form 700-4, Employee's Claim for Wage Restitution.

[68 FR 67871, Dec. 4, 2003, as amended at 71 FR 25776, May 2, 2006; 77 FR 50637, Aug. 22, 2012]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

BENJAMIN WILLIAMS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 5691

)

STATE OF MISSOURI JUVENILE )

OFFICE, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Benjamin Williams (“Williams”) has filed a self-prepared

“Complaint of Constitutional Rights Violations and Motion for

Emergency Injunction” against two agencies of the State of

Missouri and Missouri Circuit Judge Robert Liston, seeking to

invoke federal subject matter jurisdiction on diversity of

citizenship grounds. But Missouri is insulated from such an

action by the Eleventh Amendment, while Judge Liston is protected

by absolute judicial immunity as to conduct that comes within the

scope of his judicial functions.

Because Williams seeks in forma pauperis status, he must

establish not only his financial inability to pay the filing fee

but also the assertion of a nonfrivolous claim in the legal sense

(see Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025, 1026 (7th Cir. 2000)). What

has been said in the preceding paragraph confirms that Williams

cannot meet the latter requirement. Hence his motion for in

forma pauperis treatment is denied. And because there is no way

in which Williams’ Complaint can be salvaged substantively, this
Court sua sponte dismisses this action as well.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: July 23, 2012

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             710
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,217
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,265
<INVENTORY>                                      8,828
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,582
<PP&E>                                          48,290
<DEPRECIATION>                                  32,162
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  55,654
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,987
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            81
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,578
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    55,654
<SALES>                                         14,774
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,774
<CGS>                                           14,919
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,951
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (162)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,333
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 524
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (13,787)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (52)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (13,735)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   1,108
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,627
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.65)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.1


                 Consent of Independent Auditors



The Board of Directors
US Airways Group, Inc.:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration 
statement nos. 2-98828, 33-26762, 33-39896, 33-44835, 33-60618 
and 33-60620 on Form S-8 and the registration statement nos.
33-41821 and 33-50231 on Form S-3 of US Airways Group, Inc. of 
our report dated February 25, 1998, except as to Note 15 which is 
as of March 12, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheets 
of US Airways Group, Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company") as of 
December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related consolidated 
statements of operations, cash flows and changes in stockholders' 
equity (deficit) for each of the years in the three-year period 
ended December 31, 1997 which appear in the December 31, 1997 
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company and US Airways, Inc.


KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Washington, D.C.
March 18, 1998
#### National Grange Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant, v. Pearly Malone et al., Respondents.

In an action to declare whether the plaintiff insurance company properly disclaimed liability under an automobile *882liability insurance policy issued by it to the defendant Malone, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered January 31, 1963 upon the decision and opinion of a Special Referee after a non jury trial before him, declaring that plaintiff is obligated: (a) to defend a negligence action brought by the defendant Miles against the defendant Malone; (b) to pay, subject to policy limitations, any sum which the defendant Malone shall become obligated to pay to defendant Miles as damages for injury to person and property in said negligence action; and (e) to pay $600 (plus costs) to the defendant Malone as counsel fee necessarily incurred by her *“*to date ” in defense of the plaintiff’s action and in defense of the defendant Miles’ action. Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Kleinfeld, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur; Ughetta, Acting P. J., and Brennan, J., dissent and vote to reverse the judgment and to grant judgment to the plaintiff, with the following memorandum: In our opinion, because of the delay by the defendant Malone in notifying the plaintiff insurance company of the subject automobile accident, the plaintiff is not obligated to defend the action brought against said defendant (its insured) by the defendant Miles. The policy requires such notice *“*as soon as practicable.” The accident occurred September 28, 1961. The insurance company was not notified until December 19, 1961, some 80 days later. It is no concern of the company that, because of the defendant Malone’s limited education or lack of explicit instruction by her own broker, she labored under the misapprehension that Allstate Insurance Company was her insurer, rather than the plaintiff. Such lack of knowledge should not be permitted to visit prejudice upon an innocent party *(Deso*v. *London & Lancashire Ind. Co.,*3 N Y 2d 127; *Reina*v. *United States Cas. Co.,*228 App. Div. 108, affd. 256 N. Y. 537; *Mason*v. *Allstate Ins. Co.,*12 A D 2d 138).