alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
39785.

#### SORRENTO ITALIAN RESTAURANT, INC. v. FRANCO et al.

Decided January 18, 1963

Rehearing denied February 6, 1963.

*302
      *Ernest D. Brookins, 0. Ernest Tidwell, Edwin W. Boss,*for plaintiff in error.

*Sidney I. Bose, Bose & Lappas, Hugh A, Wills,*contra.

Jordan, Judge.

The trial court did not err in sustaining the *303general demurrer to the petition of the plaintiff corporation for the reason that it was not alleged in said petition that there had been a written assignment of the lease agreement by the assignees of the original lessee to the plaintiff corporation. This being a suit brought ex contractu to recover damages for breach of a written contract, the plaintiff corporation must necessarily show that it was a party to the contract sued upon by assignment from the assignees of the original lessee (no question of third party beneficiary being involved herein) *(Code Ann.*§ 3-108); and, said contract being in writing, the petition must affirmatively show that the transfer or assignment was in writing in order to withstand the defendants’ general demurrer. *Merchants Grocery Co. v. Shawnee Milling Co.,*86 Ga. App. 848, 851 (72 SE2d 797); *Alropa Corp. v. Richardson,*58 Ga. App. 656, 657 (199 SE 666).

The contention of the plaintiff corporation that the allegations of the petition were sufficient to show a waiver by the defendant lessors of the provisions of the original lease agreement requiring that any assignment by the lessee must be consented to in writing by the lessors in order to be valid, is unavailable here for the reason that the petition does not show that the interest of the sublessees had in fact been transferred or assigned in writing to the plaintiff. In the absence of an assignment to the plaintiff by the assignees of the original lessee, the plaintiff, as a mere stranger to the contract, could not assert any rights thereunder or invoke any waiver of rights by the defendant lessors.

The allegations of the petition, when construed most strongly against the pleader, show that the plaintiff corporation occupied the leased premises as a tenant at will by virtue of an oral agreement between the defendant lessors and the plaintiff corporation and do not disclose the requisite privity of contract between the plaintiff corporation and the defendants to allow recovery in an action at law instituted by the plaintiff in its own name for damages arising from the alleged breach of the terms of the lease agreement. *Kohn v. Colonial Hill Co.,*38 Ga. App. 286 (1) (144 SE 33).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 1 Agreed to House (ATH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 1

 Recognizing the sacrifice and courage of Army Warrant Officers David 
Hilemon and Bobby W. Hall II, whose helicopter was shot down over North 
                      Korea on December 17, 1994.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

              January 5 (legislative day, January 4), 1995

 Mr. Spence (for himself, Mrs. Thurman, Mr. Stearns, Mr. McCollum, Mr. 
   Richardson, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Goss, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. 
Deutsch, Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Peterson of Florida, Mrs. Fowler, Mr. Canady, 
Mr. Shaw, Mr. Diaz-Balart, Mrs. Meek of Florida, Mr. Miller of Florida, 
 Mr. Brown of Florida, Mr. Young of Florida, Mr. Scarborough, Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen, Mr. Foley, and Mr. Weldon of Florida) submitted the following 
concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on National 
                                Security

              January 5 (legislative day, January 4), 1995

  Committee on National Security discharged; considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Recognizing the sacrifice and courage of Army Warrant Officers David 
Hilemon and Bobby W. Hall II, whose helicopter was shot down over North 
                      Korea on December 17, 1994.

Whereas on December 17, 1994, the helicopter of Army Chief Warrant Officer David 
        Hilemon and Army Chief Warrant Officer Bobby W. Hall II was shot down 
        over North Korea;
Whereas as a result of this incident, Chief Warrant Officer Hilemon sacrificed 
        his life for his country and Chief Warrant Officer Hall was taken 
        captive by the Korean People's Army;
Whereas on December 22, 1994, Chief Warrant Officer Hilemon's remains were 
        returned to the United States at the Demilitarized Zone at Panmunjom and 
        on December 28, 1994, he was laid to rest with full military honors and 
        in full view of Mt. Ranier in the State of Washington, in accordance 
        with the wishes of Chief Warrant Officer Hilemon; and
Whereas Chief Warrant Officer Hall, held in captivity for 13 days under 
        stressful circumstances, served his country above and beyond the call of 
        duty: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the Congress--
            (1) recognizes the sacrifice of Army Chief Warrant Officer 
        David Hilemon to his country and expresses gratitude for his 
        selflessness and deepest regret for his loss to his family; and
            (2) recognizes the exceptional service of Army Chief 
        Warrant Officer Bobby W. Hall II to his country and expresses 
        commendation for his courage.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 157 (Monday, August 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 41413]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19704]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Office of International Regimes and Agreements; Proposed 
Subsequent Arrangement

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Subsequent arrangement.

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

SUMMARY: This notice has been issued under the authority of Section 131 
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2160). The 
Department is providing notice of a proposed subsequent arrangement 
under the Agreement for Cooperation Between the United States of 
America and the Government of Australia Concerning Peaceful Uses of 
Nuclear Energy and the Agreement Between the United States and the 
Argentine Republic Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy.
    This subsequent arrangement concerns the retransfer of 10,120.40 
kgs of tritiated heavy water in 46 stainless steel drums from the 
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization (ANSTO) in Lucas 
Heights, Australia to NucleoElectrica Argentina SA (NA SA) in Buenos 
Aires, Argentina. The heavy water is 99.32% pure and contains 10 grams 
of tritium. The material, which is currently located at ANSTO, will be 
transferred to the Atuche and Embalse nuclear power stations and will 
be used as coolant and moderator material in these nuclear power 
stations operated by NA SA. ANSTO originally obtained the material from 
Atomic Energy Canada Limited and exchanged this material with an 
equivalent quantity of U.S. obligated material.
    In accordance with Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended, we have determined that this subsequent arrangement is not 
inimical to the common defense and security.
    This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than fifteen 
days after the date of publication of this notice.


    Dated: August 10, 2009.
    For the Department of Energy.
Anatoli Welihozkiy,
Director (Acting), Office of International Regimes and Agreements.
[FR Doc. E9-19704 Filed 8-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-0 9 -00 188 -CV No be ll C om m unic at ion s, Inc ., d/b/aNo be ll C om m unic at ion s o f De lawa r e , f/k/ a N obe ll

Co m m unic at ion s, Inc ., a Te xa s C or por at ion , A ppe lla nt v. Andrew Heller and H arvey Ring , Appellees
F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 200TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- GN-07- 0002 25 , HO NORAB LE STEP HEN Y ELENOSKY , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

NO. 03-08-00694- CV No be ll C om m unic at ion s, Inc ., d/b/aNo be ll C om m unic at ion s o f De lawa r e , f/k/ a N obe ll

Co m m unic at ion s, Inc ., a Te xa s C or por at ion , A ppe lla nt v. Carm elo M. G ordian, App ellee
F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 200TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- GN-08- 0042 14, H ONO RAB LE STEPH EN YELENO SKY , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

ME MO R

A ND UMO PI N I O N Appellant Nobe ll Com munications and appellee s Andre w Heller , Har vey Ring, a nd Carmelo M. Gordia

n have f

iled joint mot ions reque sting the Court to consolidate theWhen co mpleting the c onsolidated appe llate re cord, the district court cle rk nee d not 1 duplicate mate rials pre viously included in the cle rk’s re cord f or ca use number 03- 08-00694-CV. 2 two above- ref

ere nced c ause numbe rs for a ll purposes. The Court grants t h e m otions and c on so lid ate s th e tw o a

bo ve -r e fe re nc e d c a

us e s f or a ll p ur po se s, inc lud ingpr e pa

ra tio n o f t he a pp e llate rec ord, brief

ing, a nd submissi on. The consolidated appea l sha ll procee d under c ause numbe r 03-09- 00 18 8- CV , s tyle d a s Nob e ll Co mm un ic ati on s, In c . d/b/ a Nobe ll Co mm un ic ati on s o f D e law aref/k

/a Nob e ll Com mu nic ati on s, In c ., a Te x as Cor po ra tio n v . A nd

re w H e lle r, Ha rv e

yRi ng , a nd Car me lo M. Gordian , and shall proc eed unde r a sing le appe llate re cord , co n sisting of the c lerk’s r ecord previously

filed in c a u s en u mb e r 0 3 - 0 8 - 0 0 6 9 4 - CV , s u

p p lemente d with additional materials fr om trial court cause number D-1- GN-07- 000225. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c) . Cause number 03-08-00694- 1 CV is hereby

dismiss ed. The pa rties’ motion for e x tension of time to file brief s is al s o gra n t ed. The appellant’ s brief sha l l b e due 60 days from the date the consolidate d rec ord is completed a nd the appellee s’ brief

s shall be due 60 da

y s from the date the appe llant’s brief is filed.

__________________________________________ Diane M. H enson, Jus tice Be fore Chief Justice Jones, J ustices Puryear and He nson Dismissed Filed: May

29, 2009
#### Jonathan Geissler et al., Appellants, v Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[808 NYS2d 118]

In an action for a judgment declaring, inter alia, that the defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company is obligated to defend and indemnify the defendant Howard Geissler in an underlying personal injury action entitled *Geissler v Geissler,*pending in the Supreme Court# Orange County, under index No. *4333746/02, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Owen, J.), dated August 5, 2004, as granted the motion of the defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it and denied their cross motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by adding to the first subparagraph of the decretal paragraph thereof granting the defendant’s motion the words “without prejudice to reinstituting or commencing a new action against Liberty Mutual Insurance Company in accordance with *Lang v Hanover Ins. Co.*(3 NY3d 350 [2004]), in the event that the plaintiffs obtain a judgment against Howard Geissler in the underlying personal injury action which remains unsatisfied for 30 days after service thereof on the insurer”; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiffs were not named insureds under the general liability insurance policy issued by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (hereinafter Liberty Mutual) to the defendant Boy Scouts of America and their right of action was therefore subject to the provisions of Insurance Law § 3420. As both parties agree, the plaintiffs did not obtain a judgment against the defendant Howard Geissler which remained unsatisfied for 30 days after service thereof on the insurer. In light of the Court of Appeal’s decision in *Lang v Hanover Ins. Co. (id.),*although decided after the order appealed from, the plaintiffs cannot maintain a direct action against Geissler’s purported insurer, and their complaint insofar as asserted against Liberty Mutual must be dismissed *(see*Insurance Law § 3420; *Lang v Hanover Ins. Co., supra*at 354). Accordingly, we do not reach the merits of the plaintiffs’ cause of action against Liberty Mutual. The complaint insofar as asserted against Liberty Mutual should have been dismissed without prejudice to the plaintiffs reinstituting or commencing a new action against that defendant if the requirements of Insurance Law § 3420 are met. Adams, J.P., Crane, S. Miller and Mastro, JJ., concur.
SPA 25

April 26, 2004
- Page 1 of 2 RCRA REVI SI ON C HECKLIST 205 NESHAP: Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light
- Dut y Trucks

69 FR 22601

– 22661 April 26, 2004 (RCRA Cluster XIV , Non
- HSWA) Name of State: Washington State Statutory

Authorit y: 70.105 RCW Title of Regulati ons: Chapter 173
- 303 WAC Effective Date: July 31, 2009 Date Checklist Completed: May 10, 2010
FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS FEDERAL RCRA CITATION ANALOGOUS STATE CITATION WAC 173 - 303 - STATE ANALOG IS: EQUIV
ALENT LESS

STRIN
GENT MORE

S TRIN
GENT BROADER

IN SCOPE PART 264

– STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZ ARDOUS WASTE

TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DI SPOSAL FACILIT IES SUBPART BB

– AI R EMI SSI ON STANDARDS FOR EQUIPMENT LEA KS APPLICABILITY Section 264.1050 is amended b y adding paragraph (h) after paragraph (g) and before the note to read as follows: 264.1050 691(1)(g) X
Purged coatings and solvents from surface coating operations subject to the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for the surface coating of automobiles and light
- duty trucks at 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII, are not subject to the requirements of this subpart. 264.1050(h) 691(1)(g) X

PART 265

– IN TERIM STATUS STAND ARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDO US

WASTE TREATMENT, STO RAGE, AND DI SPOSALFACILITIES SUBPART B B
-- AI R EMI SSI ON STANDARDS FOR EQUIPMENT LEA KS APPLICABILITYSPA 25

RCRA R EVI SI ON C HECKLIST 205: NESHAP: Surface Coating of Automobiles and L ight
- Dut y Trucks (Cont’d)

April 26, 2004
- Page 2 of 2 FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS FEDERAL RCRA CITATION ANALOGOUS STATE CITATION WAC 173 - 303 - STATE ANALOG IS: EQUIV
ALENT LESS

STRIN
GENT MORE

S TRIN
GENT BROADER

IN SCOPE Section 265.1050 is amended b y adding paragraph (g) after paragraph (f) and before the note to read as follows: 265.1050 400(3)(a) X
Purged coatings and solvents from surface coating operations subject to the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for the surface coating of automobiles and light
- duty trucks at 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIII, are not subject to the requirements of this subpart. 265.1050(g) 400(3)(a) X
#### Cheryl Hanfling, Respondent, v Philip Hanfling, Appellant.

[808 NYS2d 117]

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered February 13, 2001, which incorporated but *434did not merge the terms of a stipulation of settlement, the defendant appeals from (1) a money judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Berkowitz, J.), entered May 19, 2004, which, after a hearing, and upon an order of the same court entered May 10, 2004, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $16,376.73, representing his 50% share of reasonable unreimbursed medical expenses, and (2) a money judgment of the same court, also entered May 19, 2004, which, after a hearing, and upon the order entered May 10, 2004, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $6,666, representing maintenance and child support arrears.

Ordered the defendant’s notice of appeal from the order entered May 10, 2004, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the money judgments *(see*CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the money judgments are affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the parties’ separation agreement does not prohibit the plaintiff from bringing the parties’ children to out-of-plan medical providers *(see Cohen-Davidson v Davidson,*291 AD2d 474 [2002]). Thus, the Supreme Court properly awarded the plaintiff one half of the unreimbursed medical expenses.

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review. Adams, J.P., Luciano, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.
§ 53.6065-1 Verification of returns. ( a ) *Penalties of perjury.* If a return, statement, or other document made under the provisions of Chapter 42 or Subtitle F of the Code or the regulations thereunder with respect to any tax imposed by Chapter 42 of the Code, or the form and instructions issued with respect to such return, statement, or other document, requires that it shall contain or be verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, it must be so verified by the person or persons required to sign such return, statement, or other document. In addition, any other statement or document submitted under any provision of Chapter 42 or Subtitle F of the Code or regulations thereunder with respect to any tax imposed by Chapter 42 of the Code may be required to contain or be verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury.
( b ) *Oath.* Any return, statement, or other document required to be submitted under Chapter 42 or Subtitle F of the Code or regulations prescribed thereunder with respect to any tax imposed by Chapter 42 of the Code may be required to be verified by an oath.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1213

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make S corporations eligible

for the rules applicable to real property subdivided for sale by

noncorporate taxpayers.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 10, 1995

Mr. STARK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make

S corporations eligible for the rules applicable to real

property subdivided for sale by noncorporate taxpayers.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. S CORPORATIONS ELIGIBLE FOR RULES APPLI4 CABLE TO REAL PROPERTY SUBDIVIDED FOR

5 SALE BY NONCORPORATE TAXPAYERS.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) of section 1237 of

7 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to real prop8 erty subdivided for sale) is amended by striking ‘‘other
2

HR 1213 IH

1 than a corporation’’ and inserting ‘‘other than a C cor2 poration’’.

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

4 subsection (a) shall apply to sales after January 1, 1992

5 (and to sales and exchanges on or before such date for

6 purposes of determining whether the treatment under sec7 tion 1237(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 applies

8 to any sale after such date).

Æ
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATION****PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, C.Neil Beer, certify that: 1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of JMAR Technologies, Inc.;  2) Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;  3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of,and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;  4) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this quarterly report (based on such evaluation); and  c) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and 5) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.         By: /s/ C.Neil Beer             C. Neil Beer      Chief Executive Officer         August11, 2006
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 Discovery Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
John Venette, Treasurer, Secretary and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
as applicable, 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 results of operations of the Company.



BY(Signature)                            /s/ John Venette
(Name and Title)                         John Venette
                                         Treasurer, Secretary and Chief
                                         Financial Officer
(Date)                                   November 9, 2007











                                  End of Filing