alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

Order 

May 29, 2015

150327

150396

SHERYL L. SPIGNER,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 150327

COA: 315616

Macomb CC: 2011-002037-NO

YARMOUTH COMMONS ASSOCIATION and

KRAMER-TRIAD MANAGEMENT GROUP,

LLC,

Third-Party Plaintiffs,

Defendants, 

and

W & D LANDSCAPING & SNOW

PLOWING, INC.,

Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. _________________________________________

SHERYL L. SPIGNER,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 150396

COA: 315616

Macomb CC: 2011-002037-NO

YARMOUTH COMMONS ASSOCIATION and

KRAMER-TRIAD MANAGEMENT GROUP,

LLC,

Third-Party Plaintiffs,

Defendants-Appellants, 

and

W & D LANDSCAPING & SNOW

PLOWING, INC.,

Third-Party Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 29, 2015

t0526

2

Clerk

On order of the Court, the applications for leave to appeal the September 30, 2014

judgment of the Court of Appeals are considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral 

argument on whether to grant the applications or take other action. MCR 7.302(H)(1). 

The parties shall file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order 

addressing whether the Court of Appeals erred in interpreting Hoffner v Lanctoe, 492 

Mich 450 (2012), when it held that the open and obvious doctrine does not preclude the 

plaintiff’s premises liability claim. The parties should not submit mere restatements of 

their application papers.
2839.102 Management of risk.

Contracts involving DOJ Information and Information Systems shall comply with the security

requirements prescribed in FAR 39.102 and all applicable DOJ security requirements, including

without limitation all DOJ Policy Statements and DOJ Policy Instructions established under the DOJ

Acquisition Management Order relating to the Management of Risk of DOJ Information and

Information Systems.

Parent topic: Subpart 2839.1 - General
#### SCHMITT, Respondent, v. NEVINS, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

November 25, 1914.)

Action by Ethel Booth Schmitt, as executrix, etc., against William H. Nevins.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
#### PUBLIC BANK OF NEW YORK CITY, Respondent, v. LONDON et al., Appellants.

Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 27, 1914.)

Action by the Public Bank of New York City against Louis London and others. M. London, of New York City, for appellants. H. L. Moses, of New York City, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment and decision (147 N. Y. Supp. 738) modified, by striking out any award of interest upon the sum *1108of $10,000 from April 1, 1913, and, as so modified, affirmed, with costs to respondent. Settle order on notice.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of catalogingand locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)

**Title:**  Asset forfeiture and money laundering resourcedirectory
May 1997,May 1998

 
SuDoc: � ����J 1.89/3:M 74/������� 
�Item Number:717-A-11 (online)
CGP system Number: 000619289
#### BAKER et al., Appellants, v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

January 6, 1915.)

Action by Charles G. Baker and another, as administrators, etc., against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company.

No opinion. Motion for leave to appeal (from 150 N. Y. Supp. 1074) to Court of Appeals denied, with $10 costs.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 27, 2014

t0519 

# Order

Clerk May 27, 2014

149054

KAYE LANDERS,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 149054

COA: 318367

MCAC: 13

- 000013

GRAND BLANC REHABILITATION AND

NURSING CENTER and PENNSYLVANIA

MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

INSURANCE,

Defendants

- Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the app lication for leave to appeal the February 25, 2014

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### WHITE, Respondent, v. ERIE R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

December 4, 1914.)

Action by Jennie White, as administratrix, etc., against the Erie Railroad Company.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event. *Held,*that if the train was going not to exceed six miles an hour as it approached and passed the crossing, as the jury must have found in view of the charge, the plaintiff’s intestate was guilty of contributory negligence as matter of law.
1228.311-1 Contract clause.       The contracting officer shall insert the clause at FAR 52.228–7, Insurance Liability to Third Persons, as prescribed in FAR 28.311–1 unless it is waived by an official one level above the contracting officer.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 1228.3—Insurance
###### Editorial Note on Part 72

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 72 appear at 80 FR 74981, Dec. 1, 2015, and at 81 FR 86910, Dec. 2, 2016.

#### § 72.206 Representation.

Any person who acts under this subpart as a representative for a State (or for the Governor or legislature thereof) or for an affected Indian Tribe shall include in the request or other submission, or at the request of the Commission, a statement of the basis of his or her authority to act in such representative capacity.
#### Nora DuBois, Appellant, v Brookdale University Hospital and Medical Center et al., Respondents.

[815 NYS2d 239]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for employment discrimination in violation of Executive Law § 296, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated December 1, 2004, as granted those branches of the defendants’ motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), (5), and (7) to dismiss the first and second causes of action alleging discrimination and retaliation in violation of Executive Law § 296 and 42 USC § 1981, respectively, and denied her request, made in her opposing papers, for leave to replead.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In 2004, the then-66-year-old plaintiff, a woman of Trinidadian descent, commenced this action arising from her employ*732ment as an assistant head nurse of the emergency room at the defendant Brookdale University Hospital and Medical Center (hereinafter the defendant hospital). At that time, the defendant Catherine Norton Lind had been the director of nursing at the defendant hospital for four years. The plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that the defendants intentionally discriminated and retaliated against her based on her age, race, and national origin in violation of Executive Law § 296 and 42 USC § 1981.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention on appeal, even accepting the allegations of the complaint as true, and giving her every favorable inference to be drawn therefrom, the plaintiff failed to state a prima facie case of illegal discrimination (see *Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind,*3 NY3d 295, 305 [2004]; *Whidbee v Garzarelli Food Specialties, Inc.,*223 F3d 62, 69 [2000]; *McLee v Chrysler Corp.,*109 F3d 130 [1997]; *Lumhoo v Home Depot USA, Inc.,*229 F Supp 2d 121 [2002]). Rather, her allegations were merely conclusory.

Concerning the plaintiffs allegations of illegal retaliation, the Supreme Court properly found that the plaintiff suffered no adverse employment action from the termination of her employment since the termination was subsequently overturned and the plaintiff was reinstated with back pay and benefits *(see Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, supra; Yerdon v Henry,*91 F3d 370 [1996]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the defendants’ motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), (5), and (7) to dismiss the first and second causes of action alleging discrimination and retaliation in violation of Executive Law § 296 and 42 USC § 1981, respectively.

Since the plaintiff failed to demonstrate “good ground” to support these causes of action, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff leave to replead *(Nadkarni v North Shore-Long Is. Jewish Health Sys.,*21 AD3d 354 [2005]; *see Latture v Smith,*1 AD3d 408, 409 [2003]; *Hall Signs v Aries Striping,*236 AD2d 513 [1997]; CPLR 3211). Ritter, J.P., Luciano, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur. [See 6 Misc 3d 1023(A), 2004 NY Slip Op 51819(U) (2004).]
(April 13, 1970)

#### In the Matter of Mohican Cable T. V. Corp., Appellant, v. Robert Cronin, as Mayor of the City of Glens Falls., et al., Respondents.

Reynolds, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Warren County, dismissing appellant’s application, in a proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, to declare that a franchise agreement between appellant and the Common Council of the City of Glens Falls is valid and in full force and effect. While Special Term was correct in its decision that mandamus does not lie, nevertheless -Special Term has the authority to determine that while the petitioner has prosecuted its action in an improper form and has requested relief to which it is not entitled, that fact alone does not bar its receiving the relief to which it is entitled (CPLR 103, subd. [e]; 105, subd. [d]; *Matter of Lakeland Water List.*V. *Onondaga County Water Auth.,*24 N Y 2d 400; *Matter of Phalen*v. *Theatrical Protective Union No. 1,*22 N Y 2d 34, cert. den. 393, U. S. 1000; *Matter of Gorbeau Gonstr. Gorp.*v. *Board of TSduc., Union Free School Dist. No. 9,*32 A D 2d 958). Accordingly, the ease must be remanded to Special Term to prescribe, in a proper order, pursuant to CPLR 103 (subd. [c]), the further prosecution of this action. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and matter remitted to Special Term for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Greenblott. Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J.
§ 850.39 Recordkeeping and use of information. ( a ) The responsible employer must establish and maintain accurate records of all beryllium inventory information, hazard assessments, exposure measurements, exposure controls, and medical surveillance.
( b ) Heads of DOE Departmental Elements must: ( 1 ) Designate all record series as required under this rule as agency records and, therefore, subject to all applicable agency records management and access laws; and
( 2 ) Ensure that these record series are retained for a minimum of seventy-five years.
( c ) The responsible employer must convey to DOE or its designee all record series required under this rule if the employer ceases to be involved in the CBDPP.
( d ) The responsible employer must link data on workplace conditions and health outcomes in order to establish a basis for understanding the beryllium health risk.
( e ) The responsible employer must ensure the confidentiality of all work-related records generated under this rule by ensuring that: ( 1 ) All records that are transmitted to other parties do not contain names, social security numbers or any other variables, or combination of variables, that could be used to identify particular individuals; and
( 2 ) Individual medical information generated by the CBDPP is: ( i ) Either included as part of the worker's site medical records and maintained by the SOMD, or is maintained by another physician designated by the responsible employer;
( ii ) Maintained separately from other records; and
( iii ) Used or disclosed by the responsible employer only in conformance with any applicable requirements imposed by the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Privacy Act of 1974, the Freedom of Information Act, and any other applicable law.
( f ) The responsible employer must maintain all records required by this part in current and accessible electronic systems, which include the ability readily to retrieve data in a format that maintains confidentiality.
( g ) The responsible employer must transmit all records generated as required by this rule, in a format that protects the confidentiality of individuals, to the Director, Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security on request.
( h ) The responsible employer must semi-annually transmit to the Office of Domestic and International Health Studies, Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security an electronic registry of beryllium-associated workers that protects confidentiality, and the registry must include, but is not limited to, a unique identifier, date of birth, gender, site, job history, medical screening test results, exposure measurements, and results of referrals for specialized medical evaluations.
[64 FR 68905, Dec. 8, 1999, as amended at 71 FR 68733, Nov. 28, 2006; 80 FR 5008, Jan. 30, 2015; 88 FR 41293, June 26, 2023] Editorial Note
Editorial Note: At 80 FR 5008, Jan. 30, 2015, § 850.39 was amended; however, the amendment could not be incorporated due to inaccurate amendatory instruction.
#### § 962.1 Scope.

This part applies only to radioactive waste substances which are owned or produced by the Department of Energy at facilities owned or operated by or for the Department of Energy under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 *et seq*). This part does not apply to substances which are not owned or produced by the Department of Energy.
May 16, 2015

U. S. Department of Transportation Docket

Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington DC 20590

Re: Additional aircraft to be listed on Lewanui UAS exemption #11558

Dear Sir or Madam:

We’d like to add another version of a sUA already listed on our exemption. We were approved to operate 

the DJI Phantom 2 and Inspire 1 series, all of which are being registered with the Registration Branch per 

our exemption. We’d like to add the Phantom 3, in addition to our already pending requests for the 

S1000 and S900 aircraft. 

The Phantom 3 we are requesting possesses the same operating specs and weight criteria but with 

upgrades to the electronics making this aircraft even safer to operate than its predecessor.

I’ve attached the operating manual in the docket in addition to the previous request and operating manual 

for the S1000.

Sincerely yours,

Timothy Lerma

Lewanui
Editorial Note on Part 712
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 712 appear at 88 FR 41292, June 26, 2023.

§ 712.21 Appointment of DOE counsel. ( a ) Upon receipt from the individual of a written request for a certification review hearing, the Manager shall request appointment of DOE counsel as soon as possible.
( b ) DOE Counsel is authorized to consult directly with the individual if he is not represented by counsel, or with the individual's counsel or representative if so represented, to clarify issues and reach stipulations with respect to testimony and contents of documents and other physical evidence. Such stipulations shall be binding upon the individual and the DOE Counsel for the purposes of this subpart.
Editorial Note on Part 55
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 55 appear at 80 FR 74980, Dec. 1, 2015.

§ 55.23 Certification. To certify the medical fitness of the applicant, an authorized representative of the facility licensee shall complete and sign NRC Form 396, “Certification of Medical Examination by Facility Licensee,” which can be obtained by writing the Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by calling (301) 415-7232, or by visiting the NRC's Web site at *http://www.nrc.gov* and selecting forms from the index found on the home page. ( a ) Form NRC-396 must certify that a physician has conducted the medical examination of the applicant as required in § 55.21.
( b ) When the certification requests a conditional license based on medical evidence, the medical evidence must be submitted on NRC Form 396 to the Commission and the Commission then makes a determination in accordance with § 55.33.
[52 FR 9460, Mar. 25, 1987, as amended at 53 FR 43421, Oct. 27, 1988; 68 FR 58813, Oct. 10, 2003; 73 FR 30458, May 28, 2008]
**Exhibit
      32.2**





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Patient Safety Technologies, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      I, William B. Horne, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




February
              13, 2006
            
            /s/ William B. HorneWilliam
              B. HorneChief
                Financial Officer
§ 960.5-2-3 Meteorology. ( a ) *Qualifying condition.* The site shall be located such that expected meteorological conditions during repository operation and closure will not be likely to lead to radionuclide releases to an unrestricted area greater than those allowable under the requirements specified in § 960.5-1(a)(1).
( b ) *Favorable condition.* Prevailing meteorological conditions such that any radioactive releases to the atmosphere during repository operation and closure would be effectively dispersed, thereby reducing significantly the likelihood of unacceptable exposure to any member of the public in the vicinity of the repository.
( c ) *Potentially adverse conditions.* ( 1 ) Prevailing meteorological conditions such that radioactive emissions from repository operation of closure could be preferentially transported toward localities in the vicinity of the repository with higher population densities than are the average for the region.
( 2 ) History of extreme weather phenomena—such as hurricanes, tornadoes, severe floods, or severe and frequent winter storms—that could significantly affect repository operation or closure.
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 663 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit former 

Members and former officers of the House who are registered lobbyists 

from admission to the Hall of the House, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 31, 2006 

Mr. SNYDER submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Rules, and in addition to the Committee on House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

RESOLUTION 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to 

prohibit former Members and former officers of the 

House who are registered lobbyists from admission to 

the Hall of the House, and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That clause 4(a) of rule IV of the Rules 

2 of the House of Representatives is amended by striking 

3 ‘‘and’’ at the end of subparagraph (1), by striking the pe4 riod at the end of subparagraph (2) and inserting ‘‘; and’’, 

5 and by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: 

6 ‘‘(3) they are not registered lobbyists.’’. 
2 

•HRES 663 IH 

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITING ADDITIONAL ACCESS TO HOUSE 

2 SERVICES FOR LOBBYISTS WHO ARE FORMER 

3 MEMBERS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Any services which are made 

5 available by the House of Representatives exclusively to 

6 Members, officers, and employees of the House of Rep7 resentatives and former Members of the House of Rep8 resentatives, including access to facilities in House office 

9 buildings which are operated for the exclusive use of Mem10 bers and former Members, may not be made available or 

11 provided to any former Member who is a lobbyist reg12 istered under the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act or 

13 any successor statute except to the extent that such serv14 ices are made available by the House to lobbyists reg15 istered under such Act who are not former Members. For 

16 purposes of this section, the term ‘‘Member of the House 

17 of Representatives’’ includes a Delegate or Resident Com18 missioner to the Congress. 

19 (b) REGULATIONS.—The Committee on House Ad20 ministration shall promulgate regulations to carry out this 

21 section. 

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 653 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 653

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                      February 1, 2006.
    Resolved, That the House hereby concurs in the Senate amendment to the House 
amendment to the bill (S. 1932) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to 
section 202(a) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006 
(H. Con. Res. 95).
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
226 So.2d 771

#### Johnny GUILLORY v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 50017.

Oct. 8, 1969.

In re: Johnny Guillory applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of St. Landry. 223 So.2d 413.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there appears no error of law in its judgment.
#### § 54.23 Contents of application—environmental information.

Each application must include a supplement to the environmental report that complies with the requirements of subpart A of 10 CFR part 51.