alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(115 App. Div. 114)

#### MAINE PRODUCT CO. v. NATIONAL GUM & MICA CO.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 19, 1906.

Appeal from Special Term, New York County.

Suit by the Maine Product Company against the National Gum & Mica Company. From an order granting an injunction, defendant appeals. Modified.

Argued before O’BRIEN, P. J., and INGRAHAM, CLARKE, and HOUGHTON, JJ.

Edward A. Alexander, for appellant.

Lewis H. Freedman, for respondent.

INGRAHAM, J.

The court in this case granted the same injunction that was granted in the case of the Maine Product Company v. Alexander (decided herewith) 100 N. Y. Supp. 709. For the reasons stated in directing a modification of the order appealed from in that case, we think the order here appealed from should be modified by striking out the revision restraining the defendant from voting on, or exercising any rights arising from, or incident to, the ownership by it of the shares of stock, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs to either party. All concur.
###### Editorial Note on Subpart A of Part 989

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 989 appear at 83 FR 53973, Oct. 26, 2018.

#### § 989.33 Alternate members.

The alternate for a member of the Committee shall act in the place and stead of such member (a) during his absence, and (b) in the event of his removal, resignation, disqualification, or death, until a successor for such member's unexpired term has been selected and has qualified.

[41 FR 32412, Aug. 3, 1976]
#### TRUSTEES OF PRESBYTERY OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. WESTMINSTER PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF WEST TWENTY-THIRD ST., Appellant, et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 27, 1914.)

Action by the Trustees of the Presbytery of New York against the Westminster Presbyterian Church of West Twenty-Third Street, impleaded with others. It. J. Reese, of New York City, for appellant. H. W. Jessup, of New York City, for respondent.

No opinion. Appeal from order dismissed, without costs. Order filed. See, also, 150 N. Y. Supp. 1115.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v ) 2:06-mj-69-DRB

)

HECTOR R. SILVA and )

ROSA E. RINCON )

ORDER

On July 21, 2006, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 5.1, the court held a consolidated

preliminary hearing pursuant to each defendant’s oral motion. Based on the evidence

presented at the hearing by Alabama State Trooper Will Barnes, the court finds that there is

probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed in violation of federal narcotics

laws and that the defendants committed this crime. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the defendants be held to answer the charges against him in this

court.

Done this 21 day of July, 2006. 

st

/s/ Delores R. Boyd

DELORES R. BOYD 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00200-WHA-CSC Document 22 Filed 07/21/2006 Page 1 of 1
August 14, 2015

Mr. Bri an D. F iske III

32238 Renoir Road

Winchester, CA 92596

Dear Mr. Fiske :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

§ § 91.7(a)

, 91.119(c)

, 91.121

, 91.151(a)

, 91.405(a)

, 91.407(a)(l)

, 91.409(a)(l) and (2) , and

91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we

can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We entered your May 18, 2015

, exemption request into the public docket

(No. FAA− 2015

− 1964 ), but we are unable to process your request any further. The

information you sent does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For

us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Avia tion Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 1 1.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

I f you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure3
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Computer LiteracyConstruct ValidityEducational TechnologyEvaluation MethodsHigh School StudentsHigh SchoolsKnowledge LevelMiddle School StudentsMiddle SchoolsOnline SystemsReliabilityStudent EvaluationWorld Wide Web

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3293 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3293

  To suspend temporarily the duty on electric drink mixers with tilt 
                   mixing heads and two-speed motors.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 26, 2006

   Mr. Allen introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on electric drink mixers with tilt 
                   mixing heads and two-speed motors.

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

SECTION 1. ELECTRIC DRINK MIXERS WITH TILT MIXING HEADS AND TWO-SPEED 
              MOTORS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

``      9902.85.17        Electric drink mixers   Free      No change       No change       On or before 12/
                           with tilt mixing                                                  31/2009          ''
                           heads and two-speed                                                                 .
                           motors (provided for
                           in subheading
                           8509.40.00)..........

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
First Department,

October, 1980

(October 2, 1980)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Paula Fiorina, Appellant.

Judgment of resentence of the Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on November 9, 1979, unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Birns, Lupiano and Yesawieh, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0614

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER I TOULOUSE,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including November 21, 2022, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 13 2022

10/13/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0614
Case 3:06-cr-00191-MHT-CSC Document 12 Filed 12/27/2006 Page 1 of 1
H. Res. 232

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

April 26, 2005.

Resolved, That on such date as the Speaker of the House

of Representatives may designate, official photographs of the

House may be taken while the House is in actual session.

Payment for the costs associated with taking, preparing, and

distributing such photographs may be made from the applicable accounts of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

Clerk.
1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to

the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

 T.C. Memo. 2008-27

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

HOI THI HUYNH, Petitioner v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 22381-06. Filed February 12, 2008.

Hoi Thi Huynh, pro se.

Tracy Hogan, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

FOLEY, Judge: The issue for decision is whether petitioner

is liable for a section 72(t)1 10-percent additional tax relating

to distributions from a qualified retirement plan.
- 2 -

FINDINGS OF FACT

Until October 2003, petitioner was employed as a math

teacher with the City of Chicago. While employed as a teacher,

petitioner acquired an annuity account with AXA Equitable, a

qualified retirement plan. In 2004, petitioner received

distributions from AXA Equitable of $5,478 and $8,961. 

Petitioner reported, on her 2004 tax return, the distributions as

income from pensions and annuities. 

On July 31, 2006, respondent issued petitioner a notice of

deficiency relating to 2004 and determined that petitioner was

liable for a 10-percent additional tax with respect to the

distributions. 

Petitioner filed her petition with the Court on November 2,

2006, while residing in Chicago, Illinois. 

OPINION

A 10-percent additional tax is imposed upon distributions

from a qualified retirement plan, unless one of the exceptions

enumerated in section 72(t)(2) is satisfied. Sec. 71(t)(1) and

(2); see also Dwyer v. Commissioner, 106 T.C. 337 (1996). 

Petitioner failed to meet any of those exceptions. Accordingly,

we sustain respondent’s determination. 
- 3 -

Contentions we have not addressed are irrelevant, moot, or

meritless. 

 Decision will be entered for

 respondent.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHRISTINE BENNETT, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.:

v ) 1:06-CV-723-MHT

)

ARMY FLEET SUPPORT, LLC )

)

)

Defendant. )

REPORT REGARDING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

COMES NOW, Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, and

submits this Report of the parties’ face-to-face conference regarding

settlement of the above-styled cause. Plaintiff reports as follows:

1. Counsel met face-to-face in Enterprise, Alabama and discussed the

possibility of resolving this lawsuit. Although the parties were unable to reach

an agreement, the parties have agreed that mediation is appropriate.

2. To that end, the parties have agreed to use Fern Singer, Esq. of Baker

Donelson Bearman Caldwell and Berkowitz as the mediator. Ms. Singer has

agreed to serve as mediator. Mediation will be scheduled on the parties’

earliest available date.

Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 46 Filed 07/12/2007 Page 1 of 2
2

Respectfully submitted,

s/Ethan R. Dettling

Jon C. Goldfarb (ASB-5401-F58J)

Ethan R. Dettling (ASB-9067-T68E)

Counsel for Plaintiff

OF COUNSEL:

Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis, LLC

The Kress Building

301 19th Street North

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

Telephone No.: (205) 314-0500

Facsimile No.: (205) 254-1500

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing

document has been properly filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF

system which will send electronic notification to the following counsel of

record:

Kirk Cordell Shaw

Mary Carol Ladd

Ambrecht Jackson LLP

PO Box 290

Mobile, AL 36601-0290

251-405-1302

Email: kcs@ajlaw.com

Email: mcl@ajlaw.com

on this the 12th day of July, 2007.

s/Ethan R. Dettling

OF COUNSEL

Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 46 Filed 07/12/2007 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 EASTERN DIVISION

CLIFFORD ALSTON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 3:06-cv-722-WKW

)

CHRISTOPHER ASKEW, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint report by October 18, 2007, informing

the court of the status of mediation. 

DONE this 11th day of October, 2007.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00722-WKW-TFM Document 35 Filed 10/11/2007 Page 1 of 1
### Resources in sedimentary rocks of the Powder River basin and adjacent uplifts, northeastern Wyoming

By: Ray E. HarrisRodney H. DeBruinRichard W. Jones

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1917N

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
-                                 Larger Work: This publication is Chapter                                N of                                                                              Evolution of sedimentary basins: Powder River Basin                                                                    
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
§ 948.40 Inspection and certification. ( a ) During any period in which the handling of potatoes is regulated pursuant to § 948.20 through § 948.24, inclusive, no handler shall handle potatoes unless such potatoes are inspected by an authorized representative of the Federal or a Federal-State Inspection Service and are covered by a valid inspection certificate, except when relieved of such requirements by § 948.22(b), § 948.23, or § 948.40(b).
( b ) Rules may be issued by the Secretary, upon recommendation of the Colorado Potato Committee requiring inspection on regraded, resorted or repacked lots, or providing for special inspection requirements or relief therefrom. Such rules may provide distinctions, insofar as practical, between handling at shipping point and handling in receiving markets within the production area.
( c ) Upon recommendation of an area committee and approval by the Secretary, any or all potatoes so inspected and certified shall be identified by appropriate seals, stamps, or tags to be affixed to the containers by the handler under the direction and supervision of a Federal or Federal-State Inspector or the committee. Master containers may bear the identification instead of the individual containers within said master container.
( d ) Insofar as the requirements of this section are concerned, the length of time for which an inspection certificate is valid may be established by the committee with the approval of the Secretary.
( e ) When potatoes are inspected in accordance with the requirements of this section, a copy of each inspection certificate issued shall be made available to the committee by the inspection service.
( f ) Area committees with the approval of the Colorado Potato Committee may recommend and the Secretary may require that no handler shall transport or cause the transportation of potatoes by motor vehicle or by other means unless such shipment is accompanied by a copy of the inspection certificate issued thereon, or other document authorized by the committee to indicate that such inspection has been performed. Such certificate or document shall be surrendered to such authority as may be designated.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Alice Olgeaty, Respondent, v Pass & Seymour, Inc., et al., Appellants. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed August *16, 1978,*May 24, 1979, September 25, 1979 and September 29, 1979, which held that claimant’s decedent suffered a myocardial infarction on January 31, 1975 which constituted an accident within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Law and resulted in his causally related death. The board found: "based on the hospital records, the history given by decedent to Dr. Hayman, the widow’s testimony and the testimony of Dr. Black and Dr. Hayman, that the decedent, on January 31, 1975, did climb an incline and carry dies, which work was arduous for this individual, and precipitated his myocardial infarction, an accident within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Law, that resulted in his causally related death.” There is substantial evidence in the record to support this determination of the board. Decisions affirmed, with costs to the Workers’ Compensation Board against the employer and its insurance carrier. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Main and Mikoll, JJ., concur; Staley, Jr., J., not taking part.
#### Jean Ryan, as Executrix of Theodore Lorenz, Deceased, et al., Respondents, v. Insurance Company of North America, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

In an action for a declaratory judgment, defendant Insurance Company of North America appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated November 10, 1969, as granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 to the extent of adjudging that said defendant is obligated to provide plaintiffs a defense in a personal injury action brought against them by John Torrone. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements, and plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment denied. In our opinion, Indorsement No. 4 attached to the “ General Package Insurance Policy ” specifically excluded from coverage the accident resulting in the personal injury to Torrone. This endorsement, entitled “PRODUCTS LIABILITY EXCLUSION”, in clear language stated: “ In consideration of the premium charged, it is agreed the policy shall not apply to liability for Personal Injury and Property Damage arising out of the Products Hazard as defined in Section II of the policy.” *838The power lawn mower was a product contemplated within this Products Liability Exclusion indorsement of the policy issued to the insured “ machinery dealers ”, No ambiguity is evident and the expressed intention of the parties is clear. In our view, the reliance of Special Term upon *Johnson*v. *National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa.*(56 Misc 2d 983, affd. 33 A D 2d 924 on the opinion of Mr. Justice Meyer at Trial Term) was misplaced. The factual pattern in *Johnson*does not fit the ease at bar. There, the basic holding was that the ambiguities existing in the exclusion clause and in the definition of the phrase “ products hazard ” (pp. 986, 987) precluded the average businessman from understanding that coverage was excluded. That conclusion turned upon the premise that the phrase and definition in the policy were not sufficiently clear to exclude from coverage the completed operation *“*of a contractor who sells no product” (p. 987). Christ, P. J., Hopkins, Munder and Brennan, JJ. concur; Rabin, J., dissents and votes to affirm the order insofar as appealed from.
#### Fort-Mims & Haynes Company *v.*Branan-Akers Company.

June 13, 1913.

Attachment. Before Judge Ellis. Eulton superior court. May 27, 1912.

*Horton Brothers & Burrecs,*for plaintiffs.

*Jones &*Chambers, for defendants.

Fish, C. J.

1. Where a declaration has been filed in the superior court on an attachment returnable" thereto, “the defendant may appear by himself or attorney at law, and make his defense at any time before final judgment is rendered against him.” Civil Code, § 5104.

(a) Accordingly, the court did not err in allowing the defendants in such a ease to file a proper plea at the trial term, although the case had been marked in default at the return term. See *Fincher*v. *Stanley Electric Mfg. Co.,*127 *Ga.*362 (56 S. E. 440).

2. The action in attachment was based upon indebtedness due on promissory notes. It appeared by agreement on the trial, while the plaintiffs were submitting evidence, that the defendants, after the filing of the declaration, had.been duly adjudicated bankrupts; that in the bankruptcy proceedings the schedules of assets and liabilities were filed as required by law; that the notes held and sued on by the plaintiffs were properly scheduled among the unsecured liabilities of the defendant bankrupts; and that a discharge in bankruptcy had been duly and regularly granted to each of the- defendants. *Held,*as it appeared that the indebtedness claimed by the plaintiffs was provable in bankruptcy, that the defendants were relieved from liability therefor by the discharge in bankruptcy, and a nonsuit was properly granted. Bankruptcy Act of 1898, § 17; *Beck & Gregg Hardware Co.*v. *Crum,*127 *Ga.*94 (3) (56 S. E. 442).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*