alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
167 So. 99

#### PAGE v. NEW ORLEANS PUBLIC SERVICE, Inc.

No. 33302.

March 2, 1936.

Rehearing Denied March 30, 1936.

Joseph O. Schwartz, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Rosen, Kammer, Wolff & Farrar, of New Orleans, for appellee.

BRUNOT, Justice.

This is a suit on an oral contract. The 'appeal is from a judgment maintaining the defendant’s exception of no cause of action and dismissing the plaintiff’s suit at his cost.

The petition alleges that, after ten years of service as an employee of the defendant, the latter discharged him, without cause, and he is, therefore, entitled to recover from the defendant the sum of $63,-628, based on his life expectancy, together with legal interest thereon from judicial demand until paid, and the costs of the suit. The prayer of plaintiff is for judg*619ment' for the sum, interest, and costs sued for.

The suit is based on an alleged lifetime contract with the defendant as a meter tester for defendant, it being agreed that the term “life employment” means continuous employment as long as- the plaintiff performs his work in an efficient and proper manner.

The defendant’s exception of ho cause of action is based upon the prohibition contained in Civ.Code art. 167. We quote the article:

> • “Persons who have attained the age of majority can not bind themselves for a longer term than five years.”

The reasons for the prohibition have been considered and adopted by this court too often to be again repeated. In the case of Pitcher v. United Oil & Gas Syndicate, Inc., 174 La. 66, 139 So. 760, this court held, quoting from the syllabus, as follows:

> “Contract for employment as long as master is operating, without other consideration from servant than services to be .rendered, held for indefinite period, terminable at will of either party.”

The plaintiff contends that he surrendered a lucrative position in California to accept employment with the defendant during a strike'of certain of its employees, and, by reason of the surrender of such position, he was not an ordinary employee, but ■the holder of an option, for consideration, ■and therefore entitled to hold his position •with the defendant company to the termination of his lifetime contract.

It is pertinent to ask, in this connection, what consideration, if any, did the defendant receive from the plaintiff beyond the service the plaintiff rendered it while in its employ. The record shows none; hence the status of plaintiff remains that of a person over the age of majority who is suing upon a contract for a lifetime employment. To a suit on a prohibited contract the exception of no cause of action is a proper defense, and the judgment maintaining the exception filed herein and dismissing this suit is correct.

For the reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is affirmed, at appellant’s cost.
# C_2020006EN.01000601.xml

| 10.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/6

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

9 January 2020

(2020/C 6/06)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1110 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 121,54 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4731 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85285 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,5330 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0808 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 137,70 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,8665 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,253 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 332,51 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2422 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,7785 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 6,5331 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6193 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4505 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6317 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6796 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5018 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 288,28 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,7839 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,7011 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4460 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 387,35 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5445 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,250 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 68,0757 |
| THB | Thai baht | 33,647 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,5194 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,8637 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 79,1620 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1110

JPY

Japanese yen

121,54

DKK

Danish krone

7,4731

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85285

SEK

Swedish krona

10,5330

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0808

ISK

Iceland króna

137,70

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,8665

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,253

HUF

Hungarian forint

332,51

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2422

RON

Romanian leu

4,7785

TRY

Turkish lira

6,5331

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6193

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4505

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6317

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6796

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5018

KRW

South Korean won

1 288,28

ZAR

South African rand

15,7839

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,7011

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4460

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 387,35

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5445

PHP

Philippine peso

56,250

RUB

Russian rouble

68,0757

THB

Thai baht

33,647

BRL

Brazilian real

4,5194

MXN

Mexican peso

20,8637

INR

Indian rupee

79,1620

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
3.103-2 Evaluating the certification. ( a ) *Evaluation guidelines.* ( 1 ) None of the following, in and of itself, constitutes *disclosure* as it is used in paragraph (a)(2) of the Certificate of Independent Price Determination (hereafter, the certificate): ( i ) The fact that a firm has published price lists, rates, or tariffs covering items being acquired by the Government.
( ii ) The fact that a firm has informed prospective customers of proposed or pending publication of new or revised price lists for items being acquired by the Government.
( iii ) The fact that a firm has sold the same items to commercial customers at the same prices being offered to the Government.
( iv ) Participating in a reverse auction (see subpart 17.8).
( 2 ) For the purpose of paragraph (b)(2) of the certificate, an individual may use a blanket authorization to act as an agent for the person(s) responsible for determining the offered prices if— ( i ) The proposed contract to which the certificate applies is clearly within the scope of the authorization; and
( ii ) The person giving the authorization is the person within the offeror's organization who is responsible for determining the prices being offered at the time the certification is made in the particular offer.
( 3 ) If an offer is submitted jointly by two or more concerns, the certification provided by the representative of each concern applies only to the activities of that concern.
( b ) *Rejection of offers suspected of being collusive.* ( 1 ) If the offeror deleted or modified paragraph (a)(1) or (3) or paragraph (b) of the certificate, the contracting officer shall reject the offeror's bid or proposal.
( 2 ) If the offeror deleted or modified paragraph (a)(2) of the certificate, the offeror must have furnished with its offer a signed statement of the circumstances of the disclosure of prices contained in the bid or proposal. The chief of the contracting office shall review the altered certificate and the statement and shall determine, in writing, whether the disclosure was made for the purpose or had the effect of restricting competition. If the determination is positive, the bid or proposal shall be rejected; if it is negative, the bid or proposal shall be considered for award.
( 3 ) Whenever an offer is rejected under paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section, or the certificate is suspected of being false, the contracting officer shall report the situation to the Attorney General in accordance with 3.303.
( 4 ) The determination made under paragraph (2) of this section shall not prevent or inhibit the prosecution of any criminal or civil actions involving the occurrences or transactions to which the certificate relates.
[48 FR 42108, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 55 FR 25526, June 21, 1990; 84 FR 19839, May 6, 2019; 89 FR 61330, July 30, 2024]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000701345
<NAME> US AIRWAYS GROUP,INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         950,966
<SECURITIES>                                   635,839
<RECEIVABLES>                                  337,025<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                    248,744
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,310,194
<PP&E>                                       6,388,325
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,470,337
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,531,411
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,848,719
<BONDS>                                      2,615,780
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          758,719
<PREFERRED>                                    213,128
<COMMON>                                        64,306
<OTHER-SE>                                   (861,816)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,531,411
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,142,413
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,704,920
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             267,122
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                275,482
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,109
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            263,373
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   263,373
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.69
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.33
<FN>
<F1>Receivables are presented net of allowances.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### 2822.302 Liquidated damages and overtime pay.

The authority to make the determination prescribed in FAR 22.302(c) is delegated to the HCA, or designee.
370.401 Policy. ( a ) It is HHS policy that contracting activities shall not award a contract involving live vertebrate animals until the Contractor provides acceptable assurance the contract work is subject to initial and continuing review by an appropriate Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) as described in the PHS Policy at IV.B.6 and 7. The contracting officer shall require an applicable Animal Welfare Assurance approved by the Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW), National Institutes of Health (NIH), of each contractor, subcontractor, or institution having responsibility for animal care and use involved in performance of the contract. Normally the assurance shall be approved before award. The contracting officer, on a case-by-case basis, may make award without an approved assurance in consultation with OLAW. For additional information see PHS Policy II., IV.A, and V.B.
( b ) The OLAW, NIH, is responsible for negotiating assurances covering all HHS/PHS-supported or HHS/PHS-conducted activities involving the care and use of live vertebrate animals. OLAW shall provide guidance to contracting officers regarding adequate animal care and use, approval, disapproval, restriction, or withdrawal of approval of assurances. For additional information see PHS Policy V.A.
( c ) If using live vertebrate animals, HHS policy requires that offerors address the points in the Vertebrate Animal Section (VAS) of the Technical Proposal. Each of the points must be addressed in the VAS portion of the Technical Proposal. For additional information see PHS Policy and use Contract Proposal VAS Worksheet. *http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/phspol.htm # InformationRequiredinApplications- ProposalsforAwardsSubmittedtoPHS* and *http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/VAScontracts.pdf*.
**Program Office:** Office of School Support and Technology Programs**CFDA Number:** No CFDA

This provision of the taxcode provides a source of funding that may be used for renovating school buildings, purchasing equipment, developing curricula, and/or training school personnel. The proceeds of the bonds may not be used for new construction. This is a tax credit bonds program, not a grant program.

|Last Modified: 12/08/2004
|-------------------------
#### James C. Davis, director general of railroads and Federal agent of Grand Trunk Western Railway Company, appellee, v. American Coal & Supply Company, appellant.

Gen. No. 30,499.

Action upon contract of carriage. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. George B. Holmes, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1925.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed May 25, 1926.

Edward D. Pomeroy and Henry T. Martin, for appellant.

Kretzinger, Kretzinger & Smith, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### 252.236-7009 [Reserved]
#### 309.407 Suspension.
- 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

|                                            |
|--------------------------------------------|
|                                            | PurposeFunding StatusEligibilityLaws, Regs, & GuidanceApplicant InfoResourcesAwardsFAQsPerformanceContacts |  |
| Office of Communications and Outreach Home |
|                                            |

The Secretary of Education is responsible for administering the RISE Award, which is authorized under Public Law No. 116-13.

----

 

 Printable view

## How Do I Find...

          - Student loans, forgiveness
          - Higher Education Rulemaking
          - College accreditation
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - FAFSA
          - 1098, tax forms

More >

## Information About...

          - Elevating Teaching
          - Early Learning
          - Engage Every Student
          - Unlocking Career Success
          - Cybersecurity

 

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a Grant

Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works ClearinghouseOpen Data PlatformCOVID Relief Data

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy Program

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
          - vote.gov
#### 332.702 Policy.

Departmental employees shall report any suspected violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 1341, 13 U.S.C. 1342, and 31 U.S.C. 1517) immediately to the Operating Division's Chief Financial Officer (CFO), who in turn will report the matter to the HHS Deputy CFO.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 Nos. 33-86016 and 333-95149) pertaining to the MPSI Systems Inc. 1988
Stock Option Plan and the MPSI Systems Inc. 1998 Stock Plan of our reports dated
February 25, 2002 with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of MPSI Systems Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended September 30, 2000.


                                                        ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Tulsa, Oklahoma
February 25, 2002
#### 252.247-7001 [Reserved]
# C_2017429EN.01000801.xml

| 14.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/8

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

13 December 2017

(2017/C 429/05)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1736 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 132,99 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4431 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,87905 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,9060 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1647 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,8253 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,650 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 314,36 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2146 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,6325 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 4,5242 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5503 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5092 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,1612 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6886 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5874 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 280,07 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,9868 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,7692 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5505 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 969,18 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7959 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,252 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 69,1283 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,236 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,8907 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 22,5424 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 75,6170 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1736

JPY

Japanese yen

132,99

DKK

Danish krone

7,4431

GBP

Pound sterling

0,87905

SEK

Swedish krona

9,9060

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1647

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,8253

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,650

HUF

Hungarian forint

314,36

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2146

RON

Romanian leu

4,6325

TRY

Turkish lira

4,5242

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5503

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5092

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,1612

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6886

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5874

KRW

South Korean won

1 280,07

ZAR

South African rand

15,9868

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,7692

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5505

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 969,18

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7959

PHP

Philippine peso

59,252

RUB

Russian rouble

69,1283

THB

Thai baht

38,236

BRL

Brazilian real

3,8907

MXN

Mexican peso

22,5424

INR

Indian rupee

75,6170

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 2023

- 1178

_____________________________
K IMBERLY L. R ADFORD , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County

. Leandra G. Johnson , Judge

. March 4, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. B.L. T HOMAS , R OBERTS , and R OWE , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
#### Thomas L. MENNELLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joan B. CAREY, Deputy Chief Administrative Judge New York City Courts, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 05-6771-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Nov. 6, 2007.

*126Thomas L. Mennella, West Hempstead, NY, pro se.

PRESENT: Hon. WALKER, Hon. CHESTER J. STRAUB and Hon. ROSEMARY S. POOLER, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Thomas L. Mennella, *pro se,*appeals the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Arthur D. Spatt, *Judge)*entered on June 28, 2004, *sua sponte*dismissing Mennella’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We presume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and the issues on appeal.

We review a district court’s *sua sponte*dismissal of a complaint *de novo,*viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and giving him the benefit of all reasonable inferences. *See Griffin v. Crippen,*193 F.3d 89, 91 (2d Cir.1999); *Dory v. Ryan,*999 F.2d 679, 681 (2d Cir.1993), *modified on other grounds,*25 F.3d 81 (2d Cir.1994). “[W]hen addressing a *pro se*complaint, a district ‘court should not dismiss without granting leave to amend at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated.’ ” *Thompson v. Carter,*284 F.3d 411, 416 (2d Cir.2002) (quoting *Branum v. Clark,*927 F.2d 698, 705 (2d Cir.1991)). However, leave to amend is not required when amendment would be futile. *See Ellis v. Chao,*336 F.3d 114, 127 (2d Cir.2003).

Here, the District Court properly dismissed Mennella’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint *sua sponte*because the claims raised in the complaint were unequivocally barred by the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine. *127
      *See Hoblock v. Albany County Bd. of Elections,*422 F.3d 77, 85 (2d Cir.2005). That doctrine is applicable because (1) Mennella lost at his disciplinary hearing and Article 78 proceedings; (2) Mennella complains of injuries caused by those decisions; (3) Mennella’s complaint asks the Court to review and reject those decisions; and (4) the state court decisions were entered pri- or to Mennella filing the complaint in this action. *See id.*

To the extent that Mennella claims that the District Court’s order should be vacated based on the District Judge’s post-decision recusal, this argument is without merit because any potential conflict was harmless and there is no risk that the District Court’s denial of relief will produce injustice in other cases or could undermine the public’s confidence in the judicial process. *See Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp.,*486 U.S. 847, 862, 864, 108 S.Ct. 2194, 100 L.Ed.2d 855 (1988). To the extent Mennella claims he was constitutionally harmed by excessive fines, that claim was not raised below.

Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
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, 33-44835, 333-62029, 333-82003, 333-35296, 333-44284, 333-53132, 333-81784, and 333-73788 on Form S-8 of US Airways Group, Inc. of our report dated February 26, 2002, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of US Airways Group, Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company") as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2001 which appear in the December 31, 2001 Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company.

Our report refers to a change, effective January 1, 2001, in the Company's method of accounting for derivative instruments and hedging activities and effective January 1, 2000, in the Company's method of accounting for the sale of mileage credits in its frequent traveler program.







KPMG LLP





McLean, Virginia
March 26, 2002