alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Rudolph Sobota et ux., complainants, *v.*William H. Shaffer et ux., defendants.

[Decided January 10th, 1930.]

*Mr. Abe B. Levenson,*for the motion.

*Mr. Henry J. Carnby, contra.*

Fielder, V. C.

The motion is based on two grounds, the first being, in effect, that the complainants are in laches because they waited nearly two years after executing their bond and discovering the defendants’ alleged fraud before seeking the relief they now pray. Laches involves something more than mere delay. There must be delay for a length of time which unexplained and unexcused is unreasonable under the circumstances and which has been prejudicial to the defendants *(Massie*v. *Asbestos Brake Co., 95 N. J. Eq. 298, 311),*and the complainants should be given the opportunity to prove the facts on final hearing, including their reason or excuse for delay, after which the court may determine what the *460truth is respecting their alleged cause of action and-whether their delay has prejudiced the defendants or barred the complainants from relief. *Le Gendre*v. *Byrnes,*44 *N. J. Eq. 372, 378; Stevenson*v. *Markley, 72 N. J. Eq. 686, 689.*

The second ground is that the complainants have an adequate remedy at law. It may be and probably is true that the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation in the bill contained would, if established, constitute a valid and complete defense to the defendants’ suit at law on complainants’ bond, for it is alleged that the representations which induced the complainants to execute the bond, were false to the knowledge of the defendants and were made by the defendants, or with their connivance, with intent to deceive the complainants. But such defense at law falls short of giving the complainants the full remedy for which they pray here. Besides praying that the defendants be restrained in their suit at law, the complainants pray that the defendants be also restrained from bringing any proceedings on the bond in any court and that they be decreed to surrender said bond to the complainants for cancellation. Since the defense of fraud at law does not. embrace the entire equitable relief which the complainants seek in this cause, the complainants cannot be said to have a full and adequate remedy at law. *Sweeny*v. *Williams, 36 N. J. Eq. 627, 629.*

The motion will be denied, with costs.
HomeAustralia

# Australia

276 items

        -    Media Note  		USTDA Technical Assistance Grant for Network Modernization in the Republic of Palau	  June 21, 2023 
        -    Report  		2023 Trafficking in Persons Report: Australia	  June 15, 2023 
        -    Press Statement  		Statement by the Chair of the 2023 Australia Group	  June 9, 2023 
        -    Remarks  		Opening Remarks for CT Deputy Coordinator Ian Moss at the Counterterrorism Law Enforcement Forum 	  Ian MossJune 6, 2023Counterterrorism Law Enforcement ForumOslo, Norway 
        -    Media Note  		Work to Start on East Micronesia Cable Following Contract Signing	  June 6, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Resettlement Diplomacy Network Senior Officials Meeting	  June 2, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Joint Statement from the United States, Japan, Australia, and the United Kingdom on Spain Joining the Blue Dot Network	  May 16, 2023 
        -    Report  		2022 Report on International Religious Freedom: Australia	  May 15, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		United States-Australia Fifth Energy Security Dialogue	  May 2, 2023 
        -    		克里姆林宫的宣传面孔:玛丽亚·扎哈罗娃	  2023年4月24日 

previous page1…56789…28next page

Back to Top
#### In re ESTATE of Samuel Charles PRESS, Deceased.

No. 73-1476.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 23, 1974.

Appeal dismissed.
HomeBelarus

# Belarus

140 items

        -    Press Statement  		Holding the Lukashenka Regime to Account on the Anniversary of the Fraudulent Presidential Belarusian Election	  Antony J. BlinkenAugust 9, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – August 3, 2021	  Ned PriceAugust 3, 2021 
        -    Report  		2021 Investment Climate Statements: Belarus	  July 21, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – July 20, 2021	  Ned PriceJuly 20, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – July 19, 2021	  Ned PriceJuly 19, 2021 
        -    Readout  		State Department Meetings with Leader of the Democratic Opposition of Belarus Svyatlana Tsikhanouskaya	  July 19, 2021 
        -    Report  		2021 Trafficking in Persons Report: Belarus	  July 1, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – June 21, 2021	  Ned PriceJune 21, 2021Washington, D.C.  
        -    Press Statement  		Holding the Lukashenka Regime and Its Enablers to Account	  Antony J. BlinkenJune 21, 2021 
        -    Media Note  		Joint Statement on Belarus	  June 21, 2021 

previous page1…89101112…14next page

Back to Top
#### Leroy BLANDING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 74-291.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 14, 1974.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Criminal Division, of Palm Beach County; Lewis Kapner, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Osbert L. WALKER, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 00-3334.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Feb. 8, 2001.

*897Before MAYER, Chief Judge, LOURIE and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Osbert L. Walker appeals the initial decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, No. AT-0752990484-I-2 (October 19, 1999), affirming his removal from the United States Postal Service for making threatening comments in the workplace. The initial decision became final on March 31, 2000, when the full board denied Walker’s petition for review. We *affirm,.*

We may only set aside a decision of the board when it is “(1) arbitrary,, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c) (1994).

Substantial evidence supports the board’s factual finding that the Postal Service proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Walker made threatening comments. *See*5 U.S.C. § 7701(c)(1)(B) (1994). Furthermore, many of these findings rest on the credibility determinations of the administrative judge, which are “virtually unreviewable.” *Hambsch v. Dep’t of the Treasury,*796 F.2d 430, 436 (Fed.Cir.1986). The administrative judge credited the testimony of three of Walker’s coworkers who heard, and felt threatened by his statements. Although Walker testified that he intended to do no harm, the administrative judge properly applied a reasonable person standard and considered the factors set out in *Metz v. Dep’t of the Treasury,*780 F.2d 1001, 1002 (Fed.Cir.1986), in finding he had made threatening comments.

To sustain an adverse action, an agency also must prove that the disciplinary action promotes the efficiency of the service. 5 U.S.C. § 7513(a) (1994). Since threatening co-workers is work-related, the administrative judge properly determined that a nexus exists. In consideration of the seriousness of the offense, Walker’s prior disciplinary record, and the agency’s zero-tolerance policy for workplace threats, the administrative judge properly determined that the penalty was within the tolerable limits of reasonableness. *See Gonzales v. Def. Logistics Agency,*772 F.2d 887, 889 (Fed.Cir.1985) (“Penalty decisions are judgment calls best left to the discretion of the employing agency.”). Walker’s additional arguments for reversal of the board’s decision are also without merit.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Estella JACKSON.

No. 82-K-0190.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 4, 1982.

In re Estella Jackson, applying for writs of certiorari. Parish of Terrebonne. No. 53965-P.

Denied.
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.                  

###### Export-Import Bank of the United States

# SUMMARY:

The Advisory Committee was established by Public Law 98-181, November 30, 1983, to advise the Export-Import Bank on its programs and to provide comments for inclusion in the reports of the Export-Import Bank of the United States to Congress.

*Time and Place:*                         Wednesday, September 9, 2009 from 9:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. The meeting will be held at Ex-Im Bank in the Main Conference Room 1143, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571.                    

*Agenda:*                         Agenda items include a short summary of the Bank's recent activities, plus reports from the two Subcommittees of the 2009 Advisory Committee members.                    

*Public Participation:*                         The meeting will be open to public participation, and the last 10 minutes will be set aside for oral questions or comments. Members of the public may also file written statement(s) before or after the meeting. If you plan to attend, a photo ID must be presented at the guard's desk as part of the clearance process into the building, and you may contact Susan Houser to be placed on an attendee list. If any person wishes auxiliary aids (such as a sign language interpreter) or other special accommodations, please contact, prior to September 5, 2009, Susan Houser, Room 1273, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571, Phone: (202) 565-3232.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan Houser, Room 1273, 811 Vermont Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20571, (202) 565-3232.

Jonathan Cordone, Sr.,

Vice President and General Counsel.

[FR Doc. E9-20707 Filed 8-27-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6690-01-M
Click here to skip navigation
follow this link to enable alert boxes for your session profile

follow this link to disable alert boxes for your session profile

Official Website of the Office of Personnel Management

            - Contact FEB Operations
            - FAQs

                -  All of OPM
                -  About
                -  Policy
                -  Insurance
                -  Retirement
                -  Investigations
                -  Agency Services
                -  News
                -  FAQs

          - 
          - Pittsburgh FEB

            -  Committees + Councils 
            -  Resources 
            -  Events Calendar 
            -  Contact Us 

          - Select Location

# Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

## Federal Executive Board

FEB.govLocationsPittsburgh

## About this FEB

The Pittsburgh Federal Executive Board (FEB) is comprised of more than 100 Federal agencies and over 20,000 Federal employees in our region. The FEB strives to provide effective communications and coordination between Federal agencies as well as all levels of government. The goal of our FEB is to be a constructive, unifying force within the Federal Government, as well as our community, by facilitating valuable collaboration.

## Board Leadership

Chair

Michael Horvath

Email: Michael.A.Horvath@hud.gov

More info

Director, Pittsburgh Field Office

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Vice Chair

Matthew MacIsaac

Email: matthew.macisaac@opm.gov

More info

Branch Chief, Retirement Services

U.S. Office of Personnel Management

Executive Director

Vacant

Email: FEBinfo@opm.gov

More info

Deputy Director

Vacant

More info

Pittsburgh Federal Executive Board

## Events Calendar

There are no events planned for this FEB location.

          - About
          - Locations
          - Plans & Reports
          - FAQs

Official website of the U.S. Government operated by the Office of Personnel Management
          - Accessibility
          - Privacy Policy
          - FOIA
          - No Fear Act Data
          - USA.Gov

          -
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JEROMY STEPHEN SCHIEDENHELM,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D17-3504

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed August 31, 2018

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit 

Court for Citrus County,

Richard A. Howard, Judge.

Jeromy Stephen Schiedenhelm, Live Oak, 

pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Carmen F. Corrente, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Jeromy Schiedenhelm, appeals the order denying his motion for 

postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, where he 

raised eight claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Because Appellant filed a legally 

and facially sufficient claim in ground six, and the attachments do not conclusively refute 

the claim, we reverse the summary denial of ground six and remand for an evidentiary 
2

hearing or for the court to attach portions of the record that conclusively refute the 

claim. See Cioeta v. State, 204 So. 3d 156 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). In all other respects, 

we affirm.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.

SAWAYA, TORPY, and WALLIS JJ., concur.
#### Maisie P. Greene v. George F. Fairbanks, Administrator (Estate of James R. Palmer).

Maltbie, C. J., Avery, Brown, Jbnninqs and Ells, Js.

Argued November 4

decided December 5, 1941.

*Virtune P. A. Quinn,*with whom was *Harry Schwartz,*for the appellant (defendant).

*Griswold Morgan,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

Per Curiam.

James Raymond Palmer died intestate February 29, 1940, at the age of eighty-three years, his wife, Carrie Palmer, having died before him on March 12, 1936. They were a childless couple. They lived together at Montville for many years. The defendant is the administrator of Mr. Palmer’s estate. The plaintiff brought this action to recover for services of the claimed value of $2720 alleged to have been rendered to the deceased and his wife, at the request of the deceased and upon his agreement to make compensation therefor. In her complaint, the *406plaintiff alleged that she had presented her claim to the defendant administrator within the time limited by law and it had been rejected. The answer of the defendant denied the rendition of the services and their value, but admitted that the claim had been presented to and rejected by the administrator. The case went to trial before the court and jury and a verdict was returned in favor of the plaintiff for $3000. The present appeal is from the denial by the trial court of the defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict. The claim as presented by the plaintiff to the administrator in writing was for services for eight hundred and forty days at $3 per day and for supplies furnished in the amount of $200. Even if we apply the standard of proof in a case of this kind stated in *Yantz*v. *Dyer,*120 Conn. 600, 604, 181 Atl. 717, the evidence is not such that the jury could reasonably have allowed the plaintiff to recover for any supplies furnished by her, nor does an analysis of the evidence justify a verdict in her favor for services even to the amount stated in the claim presented to the administrator. It follows that the verdict of the jury was in excess of the amount warranted by the evidence or claimed by the plaintiff, and must be set aside.

There is error, the judgment is set aside and a new trial is ordered.
40655.

#### STANDARD ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY et al. v. INGALLS IRON WORKS COMPANY.

Decided April 15, 1964.

*575*G. Ralph Burger-, Casper Rich,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Westmoreland, Hall & Pentecost, Harry P. Hall, Jr.,*contra.

Hall, Judge.

It is the law of this case “that the proof here was sufficient to meet the test of circumstantial proof . . . , and that it was sufficient to raise a presumption that the steel was in fact used in the s'chool job . . the evidence being sufficient to make a prima facie case, the burden was on the defendants to overcome the presumption with some evidence. *Ingalls Iron Works v. Standard Ins. Co.,*107 Ga. App. 454, 459, 460, supra. When the party to whom the burden of evidence has been shifted fails then to carry that burden, the trial court has authority to direct a verdict against him. *Mackey v. Mutual Aid Loan &c. Co.,*94 Ga. 104 (2) (20 SE 643); *Department of Revenue v. Stewart,*67 Ga. App. 281, 289 (20 SE2d 40); *Lonsdale Clothes, Inc. v. Wright,*217 Ga. 817 (2) (125 SE2d 502). The trial .court’s function in ruling on a motion for summary judgment is analogous to the function it performs when ruling on a motion for directed verdict. The essence of both motions is that there is no genuine issue of material fact to be resolved by the trior of the facts, and that the movant is entitled to judgment on the law applicable to the established facts. *McCarty v. National Life &c. Ins. Co.,*107 Ga. App. 178 (1) (129 SE2d 408); *One In All Corp. v. Fulton Nat. Bank,*108 Ga. App. 142, 144 (132 SE2d 116).

The question - here is whether the opposing affidavit contains *576sufficient evidence to meet the defendant’s burden to rebut the plaintiff’s prima facie case. *Studstill v. Aetna Cas. &c. Co.,*101 Ga. App. 766, 768 (115 SE2d 374); *Scales v. Peevy,*103 Ga. App. 42 (2) (118 SE2d 193); *King v. Fryer,*107 Ga. App. 715, 717 (131 SE2d 203). The only evidence contained in the opposing affidavit that could possibly relate to this burden is that the defendant contractor paid its subcontractor certain sums and that “said money has been paid to” the plaintiff. Assuming arguendo that the affidavit meets the test for raising an issue of fact set out in *Holland v. Sanfax Corp.,*106 Ga. App. 1, 5 (126 SE2d 442), and *Planters Rural Tel. Coop. v. Chance,*108 Ga. App. 146 (132 SE2d 90), it presents no genuine issue in this case for the reason that the defendant contractor did not plead the defense of payment. The defense of payment must be specially pled by the principal debtor or added by amendment, otherwise, evidence of payment is irrelevant to the issues. *Code*§ 81-307; *Rawleigh Co. v. Royal,*30 Ga. App. 706 (119 SE 339); *Rahal v. Titus, 107*Ga. App. 844, 848 (131 SE2d 659); *Wilkes v. Arkansas Fuel Oil Co.,*60 Ga. App. 775 (2) (5 SE2d 269).

The defendant’s objection that the plaintiff did not particularize his motion is without merit for the reason that the sole issue in this case was set out by this court in its previous opinion.

The trial court did not err in granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Russell, J., concur.*
#### § 596.302 Effective date.

The term *effective date* refers to the effective date of the applicable prohibitions and directives contained in this part which is 12:01 a.m. EDT, August 22, 1996.
Exhibit 32


            CERTIFICATIONS OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT


      We, Eric W. Schrier and Michael S. Geltzeiler, of The
Reader's Digest Association, Inc., certify, pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)   the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended December
      31, 2005 (the "Periodic Report") which this statement accompanies fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and

(2)   information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      The Reader's Digest Association, Inc.

This certificate is being furnished solely for purposes of Section 906 and is
not being filed as part of the Periodic Report.


Dated:  February 3, 2006




                                         /s/ ERIC W. SCHRIER
                                             Eric W. Schrier



                                      /s/ MICHAEL S. GELTZEILER
                                          Michael S. Geltzeiler
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

BEST MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Appellant

v.

ELEKTA INC.,

Appellee

______________________ 

2021-2084

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2020-

00076, IPR2020-00956.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

BARRY J. COYNE, The Webb Law Firm, Pittsburgh, PA, 

argued for appellant. Also represented by KENT E.

BALDAUF, JR., BRYAN P. CLARK. 

 TAMARA FRAIZER, Squire Patton Boggs LLP, Palo Alto, 

CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by RONALD S.

LEMIEUX. 

 ______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

Case: 21-2084 Document: 51 Page: 1 Filed: 08/26/2022
ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (HUGHES, LINN, and STOLL, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

August 26, 2022 

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 21-2084 Document: 51 Page: 2 Filed: 08/26/2022
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 on Form 10-Q of Cytogen Corporation
(the  "Company")  for the  period  ended  September  30,  2006 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  Thu A.  Dang,  Vice  President,  Finance  of the  Company,  hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, based upon my knowledge:

     (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 results 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.



                                    /s/ Thu A. Dang
                                    --------------------------------------------
Dated:   November 9, 2006           Thu A. Dang, Vice President, Finance
                                    (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Exhibit 32.2

                CERTIFICATION OF REGISTRANT'S CHIEF FINANCIAL
                     OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350

I, Jonathan R. Kosheff, Chief Financial Officer of Parlex Corporation (the
"Company"), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
my knowledge:

      (a) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period
      ending December 28, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated:  February 13, 2004

/s/ Jonathan R. Kosheff
-----------------------
Jonathan R. Kosheff
Chief Financial Officer


<PAGE>