alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### McCARTEN v. SMITH.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

May 29, 1914.)

Specific Performance (§ 128*) — Proceedings and Relief — Relief Awarded.

In an action for specific performance of a contract to convey real estate, or for damages if specific performance could not be decreed, the court, having acquired jurisdiction in equity, should, upon refusing specific performance as impossible, have granted whatever relief plaintiff was entitled to, and erred in dismissing the complaint where he was entitled to the return of his deposit and expenses of examining the title.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Specific Performance, Cent. Dig; §§ 412-419; Dec. Dig. § 128.*]

Thomas, J., dissenting.

Appeal from Special Term, Nassau County.

Action by Elisha E. McCarten against. Adella Smith. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

Reversed, and new trial granted.

Argued before JENKS, P. J., and BURR, THOMAS, CARR, and RICH, JJ.

Clinton M. Flint, of Freeport, for appellant.

Henry Waldman, of New York City, for respondent.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, *&*Rep’r Indexes

PER CURIAM:

We think this judgment should be reversed. The action was brought in equity for a specific performance of a contract *90to convey real property, or, if specific performance could not be decreed, then for damages. The court, having acquired jurisdiction in equity, should have granted whatever relief the plaintiff was entitled to, and should not have dismissed the complaint with- costs. Under the facts of this case, if specific performance could not be granted, then the plaintiff was entitled at least to the return of his deposit money, amounting to $200, and to his reasonable expenses in examining the title. We find no proofs in the case as to the latter item. The plaintiff attempted to establish a claim for damages for breach of the contract; that is, the difference between the agreed purchase price and the reasonable market value of the property. We think that under the particular wording of the contract, the proofs did not entitle him to such damages; but, as to his deposit and expenses, he was clearly entitled to recover, when specific performance was refused.

The judgment is reversed, and a new trial granted, costs to abide the final award of costs. All concur, except THOMAS, J., who dissents.
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 4:20-cv-00110-MW-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 02/24/20 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Case 4:20-cv-00110-MW-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 02/24/20 Page 2 of 2
§ 205.105 Allowed and prohibited substances, methods, and ingredients in organic production and handling. To be sold or labeled as “100 percent organic,” “organic,” or “made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s)),” the product must be produced and handled without the use of: ( a ) Synthetic substances and ingredients, except as provided in § 205.601 or § 205.603;
( b ) Nonsynthetic substances prohibited in § 205.602 or § 205.604;
( c ) Nonagricultural substances used in or on processed products, except as otherwise provided in § 205.605;
( d ) Nonorganic agricultural substances used in or on processed products, except as otherwise provided in § 205.606;
( e ) Excluded methods, except for vaccines: *Provided,* That, the vaccines are approved in accordance with § 205.600(a);
( f ) Ionizing radiation, as described in Food and Drug Administration regulation, 21 CFR 179.26; and
( g ) Sewage sludge.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-02-1998
<CASH>                                             670
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,824
<ALLOWANCES>                                       889
<INVENTORY>                                        635
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,304
<PP&E>                                         137,216
<DEPRECIATION>                                  29,276
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 144,535
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,723
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,559
<OTHER-SE>                                      47,552
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   144,535
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               244,085
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  262,510
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,363
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (22,720)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (8,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (14,720)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (14,720)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.38)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN RE: PETITION OF BURTON R. 

ADAMS AND JOANNE M. ADAMS, HIS 

WIFE

PETITION OF: WILLIAM DITTMAR AND 

JAMES M. CORL

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 694 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 27th day of March, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

(1) Whether the private road act compels another land owner to open up his 

private land to allow an adjoining landowner access to a specific desired 

portion of his or her property when that landowner already has access to 

his property?

(2) Whether the Respondents established that the public is the primary and 

paramount beneficiary of the opening of the private roadway over the 

petitioner’s property?

(3) Did the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania abuse its discretion in 

affirming the lower court’s decision in dismissing Petitioner’s exceptions to 

supplemental report of the board in that the report stated that the 

Petitioner’s land was “essentially land locked” when the record 

demonstrated ready access to same was available via Star Road, an 

abandoned township road? 

(4) Did the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania abuse its discretion in 

affirming the lower court’s decision in dismissing [Petitioner’s] exceptions to 

supplemental report of the board in that the access recommended by the 

board of view over [Petitioner’s] land was clearly not of primary benefit to 

the public as required by law?
§ 2500.031 Administration. ( a ) *General.* Within the limit of funds available for such purpose, the OAO ADO shall make Federal assistance awards to those responsible, eligible applicants whose proposals are judged most meritorious under the procedures set forth in the RFP. The date specified by the OAO ADO as the effective date of the award shall be no later than September 30th of the Federal fiscal year in which the project is approved for support and funds are appropriated for such purpose, unless otherwise permitted by law. It should be noted that the project need not be initiated on the award effective date, but as soon thereafter as practical so that project goals may be attained within the funded project period. All funds awarded by OAO shall be expended solely for the purpose for which the funds are awarded in accordance with the approved statement of work and budget, the regulations, the terms and conditions of the OAO award agreement, the applicable Federal cost principles, and the Department's assistance regulations (e.g., 7 CFR parts 3015, 3016, and 3019).
( b ) *Award agreement.* The award agreement and accompanying terms and conditions will provide pertinent instructions and information including, at a minimum, the following: ( 1 ) Legal name and address of performing organization or institution to which OAO has awarded a grant or cooperative agreement.
( 2 ) Title of project.
( 3 ) Name(s) of Project Director(s).
( 4 ) Identifying award number assigned by OAO.
( 5 ) Project period.
( 6 ) Total amount of OAO financial assistance approved.
( 7 ) Legal authority under which the grant or cooperative agreement is awarded.
( 8 ) Appropriate CFDA number.
( 9 ) Approved budget plan (that may be referenced).
( 10 ) Terms and Conditions
- /app03/pdfs/396cv/002/74/29069t/00248001.tif
- /app03/pdfs/396cv/002/74/29069t/00248002.tif
- /app03/pdfs/396cv/002/74/29069t/00248003.tif
- /app03/pdfs/396cv/002/74/29069t/00248004.tif
- /app03/pdfs/396cv/002/74/29069t/00248005.tif
- /app03/pdfs/396cv/002/74/29069t/00248006.tif
- /app03/pdfs/396cv/002/74/29069t/00248007.tif
- /app03/pdfs/396cv/002/74/29069t/00248008.tif
- /app03/pdfs/396cv/002/74/29069t/00248009.tif
- /app03/pdfs/396cv/002/74/29069t/00248010.tif
- /app03/pdfs/396cv/002/74/29069t/00248011.tif
- /app03/pdfs/396cv/002/74/29069t/00248012.tif
- /app03/pdfs/396cv/002/74/29069t/00248013.tif
- /app03/pdfs/396cv/002/74/29069t/00248014.tif
- /app03/pdfs/396cv/002/74/29069t/00248015.tif
- /app03/pdfs/396cv/002/74/29069t/00248016.tif
- /app03/pdfs/396cv/002/74/29069t/00248017.tif
- /app03/pdfs/396cv/002/74/29069t/00248018.tif
- /app03/pdfs/396cv/002/74/29069t/00248019.tif
- /app03/pdfs/396cv/002/74/29069t/00248020.tif
- /app03/pdfs/396cv/002/74/29069t/00248021.tif
- /app03/pdfs/396cv/002/74/29069t/00248022.tif
- /app03/pdfs/396cv/002/74/29069t/00248023.tif
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 19

- 41014 Conference Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Manuel Joe Reyes,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:17

- CR

- 446

- 2

Before **King, Southwick,** and **Ho,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

The attorney retained to represent Manuel Joe Reyes has moved for
leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Reyes has not filed a response. We have revi ewed counsel’s brief and the

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 1, 2021 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-41014 Document: 00515805299 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/01/2021No. 19

- 41014

2 relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is
**GRANTED** , couns el is excused from further responsibilities herein, and
the **APPEAL IS DISMISSED**

. See 5 **TH C**  **IR**

**. R** 

**.** 42. Case: 19-41014 Document: 00515805299 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/01/2021
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATIONS
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating
to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Donald R. ChappelDonald R. ChappelChief Financial Officer of Williams Partners GP LLC,
general partner of Williams Partners L.P.
(Principal Financial Officer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENSACOLA DIVISION 

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS 

EARPLUG PRODUCTS 

 Case No. 3:19md2885 

LIABILITY LITIGATION 

This Document Relates to All Cases on 

Exhibits A and B 

Judge M. Casey Rodgers 

Magistrate Judge Hope T. Cannon 

ORDER 

This Order addresses duplicate cases filed on the active docket raising 

representation issues. In Case Management Order No. 25, the Court instructed that 

for duplicate plaintiffs, the law firm that will continue representing the plaintiff must 

transition the case from the administrative docket to the active docket as required by 

any Transition Order identifying the case for transition, and the firm(s) no longer 

representing the plaintiff are responsible for dismissing the duplicate case. See ECF 

No. 1916. The Court emphasized it would not provide firms with additional time to 

resolve representation issues and cautioned that duplicate cases would be subject to 

dismissal. See id. Further, the Court instructed firms to resolve any representation 

issues prior to filing a case on the active docket. See ECF No. 2755. 

Despite the Court’s warnings, the 609 plaintiffs identified in Exhibits A and 

B have more than one case filed on the active docket.1

 The law firms representing 

1

 Plaintiffs listed on Exhibit A have two cases filed on the active docket, and the plaintiffs 

listed on Exhibit B have three cases filed. 

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC Document 3655 Filed 02/01/23 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

these plaintiffs are directed to confer with one another and move to dismiss the case 

that is deemed to be the duplicate case within 21 days of the date of this Order. To 

the extent the law firms fail to dismiss the duplicate case by the deadline, the Court 

will dismiss the later filed case.2

 

SO ORDERED, on this 1st day of February, 2023. 

________________________________

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

 The Court will not assume that the duplicate case is the later filed case unless the 

overlapping representation issue persists. 

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC Document 3655 Filed 02/01/23 Page 2 of 2
118 STAT. 1388 PUBLIC LAW 108–348—OCT. 20, 2004

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 2895:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):

Oct. 5, considered and passed Senate.

Oct. 8, considered and passed House.

Æ

Public Law 108–348

108th Congress

An Act

To authorize the Gateway Arch in St. Louis, Missouri, to be illuminated by pink

lights in honor of breast cancer awareness month.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ILLUMINATION OF GATEWAY ARCH IN HONOR OF BREAST

CANCER AWARENESS MONTH.

In honor of breast cancer awareness month, the Secretary of

the Interior shall authorize the Gateway Arch in St. Louis, Missouri,

to be illuminated by pink lights for a certain period of time in

October, to be designated by the Secretary of the Interior.

Approved October 20, 2004.

Oct. 20, 2004

[S. 2895]
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 (2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ FREDERIC SCHEER

Frederic ScheerChairman, Chief Executive Officer and Director(Principal Executive Officer / Principal Financial Officer)May 12, 2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         205,741
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            23,253,223
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,458,964
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          619,631
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,839,333
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,458,964
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,391,816
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,403,141
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,988,675
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,988,675
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

*June 13, 2006*

[Cite as *06/13/2006 Case Announcements,*2006-Ohio-2949.]

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2006-1019.

#### Lipford v. Corrigan.

In Prohibition. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of prohibition. Upon consideration of relator’s motion to expedite and for emergency review and motion for stay of proceedings in lower court and to advance matter on the court’s docket,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motions are denied.

Pfeifer, J., dissents.

Lanzinger, J., not participating.
98-1453.

#### State v. Jacks.

Licking App. No. 95CA157. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2189

GENEVA B. LIVINGSTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:11-cv-00501-WO-JEP)

Submitted: August 28, 2015 Decided: September 9, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Lee Davis, III, Lumberton, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Greensboro, 

North Carolina; Sarah Choi, Special Assistant United States 

Attorney, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Boston, Massachusetts, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Geneva B. Livingston appeals the district court’s order 

upholding the Commissioner’s denial of Livingston’s application 

for disability benefits and supplemental security income. Our 

review of the Commissioner’s determination is limited to 

evaluating whether the findings are supported by substantial 

evidence and whether the correct law was applied. See Mascio v. 

Colvin, 780 F.3d 632, 634 (4th Cir. 2015). We have thoroughly 

reviewed the parties’ briefs, the administrative record, and the 

joint appendix, and we discern no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

Livingston v. Colvin, No. 1:11-cv-00501, 2014 WL 4850447

(M.D.N.C. Sept. 29, 2014). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED