alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Alexander Cramer, Respondent, *v.*Henry S. Mack et al., Appellants.

April 6, 1880.

1. In an action for the breach of a contract of hiring, the burden is on the plaintiff to show his readiness to perform the service for which he was employed.

2. Where a servant is discharged for failure to perform his duty, the master is not guilty of a breach of the contract of hiring.

Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court.

*Reversed and remanded.*

Noble & Orrick, for the appellants.

J. La Due, for the respondent.

Hayden, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants employed him as travelling salesman, and otherwise, for one year from August 1, 1877, at $1,800; that accordingly he served until the 7th of May, 1878, when, without cause or provocation, the defendants discharged him, and refused to allow him to continue in their employ. The plaintiff avers that he has at all times been willing to perform his contract, and asks judgment for the balance unpaid. The answer is a general denial.

There was evidence tending to show that the plaintiff was ' hired for a year at $1,800, and, on the defendants’ part, evidence tending to show that he was hired by the month, at $100 a month. There was further evidence tending to show *532that in May, 1878, the plaintiff being requested, in continuance of his services, to travel as salesman in Kansas or Illinois, refused to do so ; and that it was upon his refusal to continue to serve that he was discharged by the defendants. The jury found for the plaintiff.

The instructions given by the court were incorrect in this respect: that they ignored the material issue whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, and whether his discharge proceeded, or not, from his own fault. The plaintiff does not sue for services rendered, but for breach of contract, — seeking to recover for services which were never rendered, — and the burden is on him to prove that he offered, or was ready to render the services, and thus did not fail through his own fault. The mere allegation of a discharge in the petition cannot relieve him from making out a *prima facie*case. Under the issues, moreover, the discharge was denied; and the burden of proving the discharge — that is, a discharge without fault on the part of the plaintiff — was on that party whose business it was to make out his case. To speak accurately, moreover, there is no discharge, in legal contemplation, where the servant hired for a given time refuses, during that time, to do the work for which he was hired. It is not the master who puts an end to the contract, but the servant, who abandons the service and then sues for wages which he has refused to earn.

It was inconsistent to admit the evidence tending to show that the plaintiff refused to do his work, and then to exclude the material issue presented in the defendants’ instruction.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Judge Bakewell concurs ; Judge Lewis is absent.
#### 852.237-76 Award to Single Offeror.

As prescribed in 837.7001(a)(1), insert the following provision:

# Award to Single Offeror (OCT 2019)

(a) Award shall be made to a single offeror.

(b) Offerors shall include unit prices for each item. Failure to include unit prices for each item will be cause for rejection of the entire offer.

(c) The Government will evaluate offers on the basis of the estimated quantities shown.

(d) Award will be made to that responsive, responsible offeror whose total aggregate offer is the lowest price to the Government.

(End of provision)

*Alternate I* *(OCT 2019).* As prescribed in 837.7001(a)(2), insert the following paragraph (d) in lieu of paragraph (d) of the basic provision:

(d) Award will be made to that responsive, responsible offeror whose total aggregate offer is in the best interest of the Government.

[84 FR 46456, Sept. 4, 2019]
Motion Granted and Order filed September 26, 2019. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00691-CV

____________

IN RE VALERO REFINING TEXAS L.P., Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

295th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2018-36172

ORDER

On August 9, 2019, relator Valero Refining-Texas, Inc. filed a petition for 

writ of mandamus. Valero challenges orders denying its motion for summary 

judgment and motion for permissive interlocutory appeal regarding whether Valero 

is immune from common law negligence claims pursuant to the Texas Workers’ 

Compensation Act. Valero asks this court to compel the Honorable Donna Roth, 

presiding judge of the 295th District Court, Harris County, to render judgment in 

Valero’s favor or, in the alternative, compel Judge Roth to permit an interlocutory 

appeal. 

Valero also filed a motion to file documents under seal. We grant the motion 
2

as to a temporary seal. The temporary seal will become final when the parties (1) 

file with the Clerk of the Texas Supreme Court a verified copy of the posted notice

and (2) file with the clerk of this court (a) a statement of compliance with Rule 76a(3) 

and (b) the signed final sealing order. The parties have 30 days from the day of this 

order to comply. 

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Christopher, Spain, and Poissant.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DAVID CHARLES STEVENSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D15-3920

[October 12, 2017]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Lisa M. Porter, Judge; L.T. Case No. 13-017343-CF10A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Stacey Kime, Assistant Public 

Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Don M. Rogers, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, CIKLIN and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
801.601 General. ( a ) The Senior Procurement Executive is granted the authority to appoint and terminate contracting officers. This authority is further delegated to the heads of the contracting activities (HCA) and others as appropriate. The SPE may also delegate authority to execute, award, and administer contracts, purchase orders, and other agreements to other VA officials, such as HCAs and contracting officers. All delegations of authority will be made in writing.
( b ) HCAs may authorize the use of ordering officers to order supplies and services in accordance with the ordering limits identified in the contract or agreement or the specific ordering guide. Ordering officers shall be delegated in writing. The written delegation must be specific to the contract or agreement and articulate the limitations of the delegated authority. Ordering officers shall only place orders against the contract or agreement if it is awarded to a single awardee. Ordering officers may not negotiate contract terms and conditions, determine price reasonableness, or determine best value. If the contracting officer determines prior to award that ordering officers will be authorized to place orders against a contract or agreement, the contracting officer will furnish the contractor with the names of individuals delegated ordering officer authority by separate letter upon issuance of the contract.
Docket Number FAA-2013-0699
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 10512 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                               H. R. 10512

               To extend the RAISE Family Caregivers Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 19, 2024

Ms. Bonamici (for herself, Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania, Ms. Castor of 
   Florida, and Mr. Bacon) introduced the following bill; which was 
        referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
               To extend the RAISE Family Caregivers Act.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Extending the RAISE Family 
Caregivers Act''.

SEC. 2. RAISE FAMILY CAREGIVERS ACT.

    (a) Strategy.--Section 3 of the RAISE Family Caregivers Act (42 
U.S.C. 3030s note) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (c)--
                    (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by 
                inserting ``(or the Secretary's designee)'' after ``The 
                Secretary''; and
                    (B) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``and made 
                publicly available by the Secretary,'' after 
                ``caregiver programs,''; and
            (2) in subsection (d)(2), by inserting ``in'' after 
        ``caregiver programs''.
    (b) Council.--Section 4(e) of that Act (42 U.S.C. 3030s note) is 
amended by striking ``The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 
App.)'' and inserting ``Chapter 10 of title 5, United States Code,''.
    (c) Sunset Extension.--Section 6 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 3030s note) 
is amended by striking ``terminate'' and all that follows through 
``Act.'' and inserting ``terminate on September 30, 2029.''.
                                 <all>
```
832.7001 Electronic payment requests. ( a ) The contractor shall submit payment requests in electronic form unless directed by the contracting officer to submit payment requests by mail. Purchases paid with a Government-wide commercial purchase card are considered to be an electronic transaction for purposes of this rule, and therefore no additional electronic invoice submission is required.
( b ) The contracting officer may direct the contractor to submit payment requests by mail, through the United States Postal Service, to the designated agency office for— ( 1 ) Awards made to foreign vendors for work performed outside the United States;
( 2 ) Classified contracts or purchases when electronic submission and processing of payment requests could compromise the safeguarding of classified or privacy information;
( 3 ) Contracts awarded by contracting officers in the conduct of emergency operations, such as responses to national emergencies;
( 4 ) Solicitations or contracts in which the designated agency office is a VA entity other than the VA Financial Services Center in Austin, Texas; or
( 5 ) Solicitations or contracts in which the VA designated agency office does not have electronic invoicing capability as described above.
#### 634.005-6 Full production.

The Deputy Secretary is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 34.005-6 with power of redelegation to the Under Secretary for Management.

[59 FR 66766, Dec. 28, 1994, as amended at 64 FR 43628, Aug. 11, 1999]
#### Margaret MacDonald, Respondent, v Thomas A. MacDonald, Appellant.

— In a matrimonial action in which, *inter alia,*the plaintiff wife was granted a divorce, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated July 20, 1979, as denied defendant’s motion to modify the provisions of the judgment of divorce and in part granted plaintiffs cross motion. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. Defendant husband, *inter alia,*sought to modify that portion of a 1975 judgment of divorce which stated that a stipulation between the parties would be incorporated but not merged in the judgment. He based his argument on the fact that the stipulation itself contained no provision for survival. Defendant could have made an attack on that provision of the judgment of divorce had he appealed therefrom (see *Nicoletti v Nicoletti,*43 AD2d 699). Having failed to appeal, he is bound by the provisions of the judgment of divorce including the provision for survival of *959the stipulation (see *Goldman v Goldman,*69 AD2d 758; *Chanin v Chanin,*59 AD2d 671). Mangano, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Margett, JJ., concur.
#### 852.236-81--852.236-89 [Reserved]
#### 715.303 Responsibilities.
#### MUNCH, Respondent, v. GOLDENKRANZ, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

March 12, 1906.)

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Fourth District. Action by Martin O. Munch against Solomon Goldenkranz. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Reversed.

Meyer Greenberg, for appellant.

Leopold W. Harburger, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We think the judgment Was against the weight of evidence and that the facts were as testified to by the witness White and the defendant, namely, that the plaintiff, by a mutual agreement between him, White, and the defendant, was to pay for the furniture, and the defendant and White were to pay the rent and incidental expenses. The purchase of the pool tables was a subsequent matter with which the defendant had nothing to do. The expense of that purchase was to be shared between White and the plaintiff in proportions agreed upon between them. The other items embraced in the recovery need not now be discussed. The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch on Law Enforcement Responses to Opioid Overdoses (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -           Military Youth on the Move      

# Military Youth on the Move

This site helps military youth cope with a deployment or move.

http://apps.militaryonesource.mil/MOS/f?p=MYOM%3AHOME2%3A0
#### 842.1202 Responsibility for executing agreements.

To avoid duplication of effort on the part of VA contracting offices in preparing and executing agreements to recognize a change of name or successor in interest involving multiple contracts issued by VA activities, only one agreement will be prepared and executed between the Government and the parties (transferor and transferee) and will be processed as forth in FAR 42.1203. The Office of Acquisition and Logistics, Risk Management and Compliance Service will, in each case, designate a cognizant HCA responsible for assigning a contracting officer. The designated contracting officer shall be responsible for taking all necessary and appropriate actions with respect to either recognizing or not recognizing a successor in interest or recognizing a change of name agreement and processing and executing the agreements as set forth in VA procedures.

[85 FR 60078, Sept. 24, 2020]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000100858
<NAME> UNION LIGHT, HEAT, AND POWER COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      291,381
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          21,534
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        10,723
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                   5,733
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 329,371
<COMMON>                                         8,780
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       19,525
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            104,610
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 132,915
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                            74,549
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              30,167
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  91,740
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  329,371
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                       69,283
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             1,226
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      65,045
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      66,271
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                          3,012
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               (464)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                   2,548
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         1,437
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,111
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    1,111
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                             0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        1,160
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          28,332
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00


</TABLE>
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch on Law Enforcement Responses to Opioid Overdoses (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -  Announcements 
            -           Resource: Stories from the Field: The White Earth Nation      

# Resource: Stories from the Field: The White Earth Nation

This article discusses how a Minnesota Tribe used a multifaceted approach to successfully respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. Their approach included culturally and linguistically appropriate messaging and other health literacy best practices.**Learn more.**
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-2441

NAPOLEON T. ANNAN YARTEY,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

MONTGOMERY BOARD OF EDUCATION, The President; PATRICIA 

O’NEILL; CHRISTOPHER S. BARCLAY; JOHN DOE 1-10,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District 

Judge. (8:10-cv-01384-DKC)

Submitted: March 31, 2011 Decided: April 4, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Napoleon T. Annan Yartey, Appellant Pro Se. Edward Barry 

Lattner, Paul F. Leonard, Jr., COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR THE 

COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Napoleon T. Annan Yartey appeals the district court's 

order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss his complaint 

alleging several state law claims against Defendants, including 

breach of contract, fraud and conversion claims. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm the district court’s order. Yartey v. Montgomery Bd. 

of Educ., No. 8:10-cv-01384-DKC (D. Md. Dec. 20, 2010). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED