alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT REFORMATION OF CONTRACT.

Court of Appeals for Hamilton County.

#### Michael J. Gibbons v. The J. H. Day Company.*

Decided, July 19, 1915.

*Contract for Heating Building*— Action *for Reformation of*Contract— *Evidence Insufficient to Warrant Reformation.*

Under the rule that before a contract can be reformed the evidence establishing a mistake must be clear and convincing and must show that the mistake was not that of one of the parties alone but was mutual, the court is unable to grant the prayer for a reformation of the contract in this case.

*Littleford, James, Ballard & Frost*and *Van Deman & Vorys,*for plaintiff.

*Clore <‡ Clayton,*contra.

*

Motion to direct the Court of Appeals to certify its record overruled by the Supreme Court, May 9, 1916.

*560Gorman, J.

The action below set out in the petition consisted of three causes. The first was to reform the contract for the heating of the defendant company’s plant on Harrison avenue in this city, which contract was entered into between, the plaintiff and the defendant.

The contract is in writing, signed on behalf of plaintiff by M. W. Ward, superintendent, and on behalf of the defendant company by J. H. Day as president. At the time of the trial of the case below Mr. Day was dead and Mir. Ward was *non compos,*so that the testimony of neither was available. It is claimed by the plaintiff that there was a'mutual mistake in the execution of the contract in that there was omitted therefrom a reference to the plans and specifications, and that the same were to be made a part of the contract.

We have examined the record and considered the briefs of the parties in this ease, and we are unable to find that there was a mutual mistake made by the parties. The contract for the heating of .defendant company’s plant appears to be full and complete, and there is no evidence before us which tends to show that the parties had before them any plans and specifications, or intended to make them a part of the contract either by reference or by attachment to the contract. It is elementary law that in order to warrant a court in reforming a contract, the evidence to establish a mistake must be clear and convincing, and that the mistake was not that of one of the parties alone but was mutual.

We are unable to find from the evidence in this case that there was a mistake made by the parties hereto, and we therefore deny the prayer of the petition as to the first cause of action, which cause of action will be dismissed at the cost of the plaintiff.

The issues made upon the second and third causes of action set out in the petition are not before us, and the case will be remanded to the court of common pleas for further proceedings according to law.

Jones (E. H.), P. J., and Jones (Oliver B.), J., concur.
# L_2019269EN.01001301.xml

| 23.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 269/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 269/13

---

Corrigendum to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 of 17 October 2018 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards applications for protection of designations of origin, geographical indications and traditional terms in the wine sector, the objection procedure, restrictions of use, amendments to product specifications, cancellation of protection, and labelling and presentation

(Official Journal of the European Union L 9 of 11 January 2019)

On page 20, in Article 40(2):

for:

‘2.By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the compulsory particulars referred to in Article 41(1) and the lot number may appear outside the field of vision referred to in that paragraph.’,

read:

‘2.By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the compulsory particulars referred to in Article 41(1), the indication of the importer and the lot number may appear outside the field of vision referred to in that paragraph.’.

On page 22, in the third subparagraph of Article 45(1):

for:

‘The first and second subparagraphs are without prejudice to Articles 47 and 56.’,

read:

‘The first and second subparagraphs are without prejudice to Articles 46 and 55.’.

On page 29, in Article 58(1):

for:

‘1.Member States may render the use of the particulars referred to in Articles 49, 50, 52, 53 and 55 of this Regulation and Article 13 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/34 compulsory, prohibited or limited for grapevine products bearing a protected designation of origin or geographical indication produced on their territory, by introducing conditions stricter than those laid down in this Chapter through the corresponding product specifications of those grapevine products.’,

read:

‘1.Member States may render the use of the particulars referred to in Articles 49, 50, 52, 53 and 55 of this Regulation and Article 14 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/34 compulsory, prohibited or limited for grapevine products bearing a protected designation of origin or geographical indication produced on their territory, by introducing conditions stricter than those laid down in this Chapter through the corresponding product specifications of those grapevine products.’.

---
EXTENT OF LIABILITY OF BONDSMEN IN ATTACHMENT.

Circuit Court of Cuyahoga County.

#### The Williams Edwards Company v. Max Golstein.*

Decided, May 20, 1907.

*Attachment*— Bondsmen *Liable Only for Value of Property Taken.*

The. signers of a bond given in an attachment proceeding under the provisions of Section 6513, Revised Statutes, are liable only for the value of the property attached and not to the extent of the Judgment which may be secured in the case.

. *Klein (& Harris,*for plaintiff in error.

*Peskind & Perris,*contra.

Marvin, J.; Henry, J., concurs.

The only question in this ease is whether a bond given in an attachment proceeding under Section 6513, Revised Statutes, binds the obligors in the bond for the payment of whatever *85judgment may be recovered in the action, or whether it simply binds the obligors to the extent of the property attached. The court of common pleas held the obligation to be the latter.

*

 Affirmed, *Edwards Co.*v. *Goldstein,*80 Ohio State, 303.

On the part of the plaintiff in error attention is called to a decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, rendered by Judge Pfleger in the ease of *Margaret McCartney*y. *Ed. E. Williams,*3 O. L. R., 692, in which, in a well considered opinion the contrary doctrine is held. That opinion with the authorities cited in it, impresses us as having much merit, and but for the fact that the circuit court of the second circuit has held otherwise, in the absence of any direct holding by the Supreme Court, we should be inclined to follow the reasoning in that ease. In the circuit court last referred to, in the case of *Saxton*v. *Clymire,*3 C. C., 209, Judge Shauck, of the Supreme Court, distinctly holds the contrary; and the same court sitting in Franklin county in the case of *Ross*v. *The Miller Merchant Tailoring Company,*reported in 7 C. C., 51, also holds that the bond simply binds the obligors to the extent of the property taken in attachment.

In view of these two decisions, and as has already been stated, in the absence of any decision directly in point, of the Supreme Court, we affirm the judgment of the court of common pleas.
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 175

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 24, 1996

Received

JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year

1996, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HJ 175 RDS

1 TITLE I—Continuing

2 Appropriations

3 SECTION 101. Public Law 104–99 is further amend4 ed by striking out ‘‘April 24, 1996’’ in sections 106(c),

5 112, 126(c), 202(c), and 214 and inserting in lieu thereof

6 ‘‘April 25, 1996’’; and that Public Law 104–92 is further

7 amended by striking out ‘‘April 24, 1996’’ in section

8 106(c) and inserting in lieu thereof ‘‘April 25, 1996’’.

Passed the House of Representatives April 24, 1996.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

# AGENCY:

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

HHS gives notice of a decision to designate a class of employees at Vitro Manufacturing in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. On January 16, 2009, the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC:

All AWE employees who worked at Vitro Manufacturing in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, from August 13, 1942 through December 31, 1957, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees in the Special Exposure Cohort. 

                    This designation will become effective on February 15, 2009, unless Congress provides otherwise prior to the effective date. After this effective date, HHS will publish a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     reporting the addition of this class to the SEC or the result of any provision by Congress regarding the decision by HHS to add the class to the SEC.                

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Larry Elliott, Director, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 513-533-6800 (this is not a toll-free number). Information requests can also be submitted by e-mail to                         *OCAS@CDC.GOV*.                    

Dated: January 26, 2009.

Christine M. Branche,

Acting Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 

[FR Doc. E9-1954 Filed 1-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-17-P
...

-L CASRN: Trade Name:

Molecular Formula:

e- 

### Case

### Role Case

### Role 

# --. -@ 

# .

### CBI 

### 04/20/99 

### STRUCTURE ACTIVITY TEAM 

### REPORT CASE NLXSER: P99-0669 WTE: X4N 

### is blocked: EO 

### capped by PO RELATED CASESI CONCLUSIONS/DISCUSSIONS TYPE OF CONCERN: LEVEL OF CONCERN: IG3YWORDS: LUNG IRR-E,S,m 

### AQUATOX SUMMARY OF ASSESSmNT FATE: 

### Liquid HEALTH 1-2 i.

-
-.. ECOTOX 2

- LogKow 

### =-2.31(E); S (mg/L, 25'C) = 

### 628/Disp.(E); 

### H < 1.00E

### MP (C) = 

### <20(E); BP (C) > 400(E); 

### VP @ 

### 25C 

### (m)< 1.OE-6(E) 

### LogKoc = 1.00(E); 

### LogBCF = 1.08(E); POTW 

### removal .(%) 

### 301D(Closed Bottle): 8.2% biodeg in 28d, 

### Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg 2 

### mo PBT 

### Potential: P2BlT1 = 0-25 

### via.possiblepart biodeg; OECD 

### Readily Biodegradable. Sorption to soils/sediments = 

### low *CEB FATE: 

### Migration to ground water = 

### rapid HEALTH: 

### tract, and good from the lung (analog). effects on the lung; irritation to 

### eye, skin (chronic), mucous membranes and lung based on surfactantproperties of the compounds. Absorption is poor 

### from 

### the skin,moderate from the GI 

### Concern for 

### surfactant -

*CEB HEALTH: 

### Low moderate concern (Dermal, inhalation) Test data with purity >99%: rat oral LD, = 2000 

### mg/kg; eye irritation in rabbits, cleared 

### by day 5; 

### no skin irritation 

### in rabbits ECOTOX:



### (ppm)are: fish (ZF) 

### 96-h Le50 = 29.0 

### M S,M p99 

### daphnid 48-h LC50 = 40.0 

### P green 

### algal 95-h 

### EC50 = 40.0 

### P ss bact. 3-21 EC50 > 100.0 

### P S,N

### p>99 fish chronic value 

### - 8.0 P 

### fish Ch'J = 6.0 

### P ZF96/ACR5 daphnid 

### ChV 

### - 8.0 

### P 

### Predicted ('P)

### and measured (M) 

### toxicity values 

### in mg/L 

### fish 96-h LC50 = 40.0 Palgal ChV = 

### 1o:o P ss bact. ChV >= 100.0 

### M S,N p>99 ss bact. 3-’n SUECIECO) = 100.0 

### M S,N p99 Predictions 

### are based 

### on SARs 

### €or SAR cheloical class = log Xow of the hydrophobe%y ClogP is equivalent to 8 linear carbons; ith 35%

### <1ooc hilrdness <180.0 and 23%<500; pH7; effective concentrations based on l-GO% act:-*-e ingredients and mean measured concentrations; mg/L 

### as CaC03; moderate concern for toxicity; assessment factor = 10.0 concern concentration = 0.600 based on 

### TD *CEB ECOTOX: 

### All releases to water and TOC <2.0 mg/L;.

SAT Co-chair: 

### Leonard Keifer 260-1548



# 33 n *Y



# BESTCOPY

## AVAfMBLE

IFor

### mula: IEqWt: -F CREMISTRY /'
reg Fritz

Prec?Met2 

# -

EWIRONMENTAL FATE Bob Boethling David Lynch GaryThorn

HEALTH



# -2 atherine

### Anitole Michael Chino 

# -Leonard 

### Keifer 

### -David Lai 

### JimMurphy Deborah 

### Norris Rcnald Ward Yin 

### Tak Woo 

## - - ENVIRONMENTAL EZTECTS Sordon Cash VLnce Nabholz xiaggis 

### Wilson

SAT 

### CKAIRPERSON/#TKER
- .- Xebecca Zones

,inze Nahholz Leonard Xeifer

.

## _- *-

~ 

# J

- 

# I

'I
IA

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 75

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide

for four-year terms for Members of the House of Representatives and

to provide that Members may not serve more than three terms.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 6, 1995

Ms. ESHOO introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States to provide for four-year terms for Members of

the House of Representatives and to provide that Members may not serve more than three terms.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the follow4 ing article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitu5 tion of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents

6 and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by

7 the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States with-
2

•HJ 75 IH

1 in seven years after the date of its submission for ratifica2 tion:

3 ‘‘ARTICLE —

4 ‘‘SECTION 1. The House of Representatives shall be

5 composed of members chosen every fourth year by the peo6 ple of the several States. The terms of Representatives

7 shall begin at noon on the third day of January of the

8 years that occur two years after the years in which the

9 term of the President begins.

10 ‘‘SECTION 2. No person who has been elected to three

11 four-year terms or who has served twelve years in the

12 House of Representatives shall be eligible for election to

13 the House of Representatives.

14 ‘‘SECTION 3. For purposes of this article, the election

15 of a person to fill a vacancy in the representation of a

16 State in the House of Representatives shall not be in17 cluded in determining the number of times or the number

18 of years the person has been elected as a Representative.

19 ‘‘SECTION 4. Time served in office before this article

20 becomes valid as a part of the Constitution shall be in21 cluded in determining the amount of time a person has

22 served as a Representative.’’.

Æ
From: "Asselmeier, Buzz" <Buzz.Asselmeier@Illinois.gov>

To: Douglas Aburano/R5/USEPA/US@EPA,

Cc: Andy Chang/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, "Ross, Jim" <Jim.Ross@Illinois.gov>

Date: 06/27/2012 11:16 AM

Subject: Clarification on 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS iSIP for Illinois

Doug,

We have reviewed our ambient monitoring data for PM2.5 and we have confirmed that observed

24

‐ hour PM2.5 concentrations have always been below 140 ug/m3 in Illinois. Consistent with EPA’s

guidance, “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2005 24

‐ Hour

Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)” September 25, 2009, areas that

have not observed PM2.5 concentrations above EPA’s intended significant harm level may opt to

address emergency episode requirements by attesting that concentrations had always been below 140

ug/m3. As a result, Illinois satisfies requirements for emergency episode planning even without

contingency plan requirements specifically tailored to PM2.5.

--------------------------------------------

David "Buzz" Asselmeier

Acting Manager, Air Quality Planning Section

Bureau of Air

Illinois EPA

Phone: 217-782-0285

buzz

. asselmeier @ illinois

. gov

--------------------------------------------
§ 19.435 What must I require of a primary tier participant? You as an agency official must require each participant in a primary tier covered transaction to— ( a ) Comply with subpart C of this part as a condition of participation in the transaction; and
( b ) Communicate the requirement to comply with Subpart C of this part to persons at the next lower tier with whom the primary tier participant enters into covered transactions.
**Map Collections**

----

[Rights and Reproductions]

----

**Pakistan.**

United States. Central Intelligence Agency.

**CREATED/PUBLISHED** [Washington : Central Intelligence Agency, 2010]

**NOTES**Includes location map. 

"803471AI (G02807) 12-10." 

 Scale 1:10,000,000 ; Lambert conformal conic proj., standard parallels 23�33' N/35�44' N (E 60�--E 78�/N 37�--N 20�).

**SUBJECTS**Pakistan--Maps.Maps.Pakistan.

**MEDIUM**1 map : col. ; 21 x 17 cm.

**CALL NUMBER****G7640** 2010 .U52

**REPOSITORY**Library of Congress Geography and Map Division Washington, D.C. 20540-4650 USA 

**DIGITAL ID****g7640****ct003263** http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.gmd/**g7640**.**ct003263**

**PREVIOUS****NEXT****NEW SEARCH**
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

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.

June 28, 2016

p0620 

# Order

Clerk June 28, 2016

150148

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 150148

COA: 314706

Wayne CC: 12

- 010198

- FH

DON DALE YOWCHUANG,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

By order of November 26, 2014, the application for leave to appeal the August 5,

2014 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in

People v Seewald (Docket No. 150146). On order of the Court, the case having been

decided on April 25, 2016, 499 Mich 111 (2016), the application is again considered.

Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERS E the

judgment of the Court of Appeals, and we REMAND this case to the Wayne Circuit

Court to reinstate the bindover decision of the 16th District Court and for further

proceedings consistent with this Court’s opinion in People v Seewald

.
(Superior Court of Cincinnati.)

Special Term, September, 1900.

#### DAVID G. EDWARDS, Administrator, v. JOHN C. DALLER.

Where a pleading contains inconsistent averments, the pleader will be required to reform.

Heard oh motion to separately state and number.

Harlan Cleveland, for motion.

C. IW. Baker, contra.

DEMPSEY, J.

There are two inconsistent averments in the petition as to the amount of interest due at the filing thereof, which, when taken in connection.with the recital in general terms of the subsequent agreement between Mrs. Oskamp, Albert Oskamp and Daller, makes it uncertain whether plaintiff counts on that agreement nr on the original note signed by Albert Oskamp and Daller. Defendant is entitled to know what he is to respond to, and I think the petition ought to be reformed so that plaintiff ntay show to the court and the defendant whether he is siting on the note or on tlie agreement, or, what seems to me the prererahle way, plaintiff ought to state all the facts connected with the note and agreement, and then let the court deduce the legal conclusions apparent therefrom.

The first two grounds of defendant’s motion will therefore be granted.

(See another decision in same ease, ante, p. 62.)
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 56 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 56

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
restrict the requirement of citizenship at birth by virtue of birth in 
  the United States to persons with a legal resident mother or father.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 19, 1995

  Mr. Beilenson introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
restrict the requirement of citizenship at birth by virtue of birth in 
  the United States to persons with a legal resident mother or father.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. All persons born in the United States, and subject to 
the jurisdiction thereof, of a mother or father who is a legal resident 
of the United States and all persons naturalized in the United States 
are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 
The first sentence of section 1 of the fourteenth article of amendment 
to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
    ``Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce before this 
article by appropriate legislation.
    ``Section 3. This article shall apply to persons born after the 
date of its ratification.''.
                                 <all>
```