alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Eleanor May McAndrews ARCHIBALD, Appellant, v. Matthew Pierce ARCHIBALD, Appellee.

No. 80-27.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 12, 1980.

McDermott, Will & Emery and J. Michael Fitzgerald, Miami, for appellant.

Goodwin, Ryskamp, Welcher, Carrier & Donoff and Arthur M. Simon, Miami, for appellee.

Before HUBBART, C. J., and BARK-DULL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the wife from a final judgment dissolving a marriage. The final judgment awarded her $50,000.00 in lump sum alimony and $750.00 per month in permanent alimony. The only point on appeal *1214is that the court erred in not awarding her a special equity in an interest the husband held in a hotel located in Jamaica, B.W.I.

In the final judgment under review, the trial judge made the following finding.

> “3. The Court finds that since the inception of the marriage in 1956, the funds of the parties were intermingled in the acquisition of several hotels in Jamaica and Europe. The acquisition of the sole remaining Hotel owned by the Husband; however, did not require any funding. The same was acquired by the Husband with no cash investment. That upon the sale of Montego Hotel, the proceeds of sale were ultimately divided between the parties at their final separation in 1972. “The Court finds that the Wife after the separation from the Husband in 1972, has no special equity in the Husband’s present holdings.. .. ”

Although we might have reached a different result, the findings of the trial judge comes to us with a presumption of correctness. *Herzog v. Herzog,*346 So.2d 56 (Fla.1977); *Storer v. Storer,*353 So.2d 152, 153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). We are not permitted to substitute our judgment as to the facts for his. *Dinkel v. Dinkel, 322*So.2d 22 (Fla.1975); *Shaw*v. *Shaw,*334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976); *Monzon v. Monzon,*349 So.2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); *Koken v. Neubauer,*374 So.2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). He is in the best position to make an equitable distribution of any assets acquired during the marriage. *Canakaris v. Canakaris,*382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980).

Examining the record in light of these principles, we find no error in the final judgment of dissolution under review; therefore, the same is affirmed.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 23.1
                         Consent of Arthur Andersen LLP

                               ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report dated January 18, 2002 (except with respect to the matter discussed in
Note 16, as to which the date is January 29, 2002), incorporated by reference in
this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed Form S-8 Registration
Statements File No. 33-15780 and 33-82214.


                                                             Arthur Andersen LLP

Lancaster, Pa.
March 25, 2002


                                       26
§ 417.481 Maintenance of records: Risk HMOs and CMPs. A risk contract must provide that the HMO or CMP agrees to maintain and make available to CMS upon request, books, records, documents, and other evidence of acounting procedures and practices that— ( a ) Are sufficient to— ( 1 ) Establish component rates of the ACR for determining additional and supplementary benefits; and
( 2 ) Determine the rates utilized in setting premiums for State insurance agency purposes; and
( b ) Include at least any records or financial reports filed with other Federal agencies or State authorities.
[50 FR 1346, Jan. 10, 1985, as amended at 58 FR 38082, July 15, 1993; 60 FR 45680, Sept. 1, 1995]
§ 416.179 Payment and coinsurance reduction for devices replaced without cost or when full or partial credit is received. ( a ) *General rule.* CMS reduces the amount of payment for a covered surgical procedure for which CMS determines that a significant portion of the payment is attributable to the cost of an implanted device not on pass-through status under subpart G of part 419 of this subchapter when one of the following situations occur: ( 1 ) The device is replaced without cost to the ASC or the beneficiary;
( 2 ) The ASC receives full credit for the cost of a replaced device; or
( 3 ) The ASC receives partial credit for the cost of a replaced device but only where the amount of the device credit is greater than or equal to 50 percent of the cost of the new replacement device being implanted.
( b ) *Amount of reduction to the ASC payment for the covered surgical procedure.* ( 1 ) The amount of the reduction to the ASC payment made under paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section is calculated in the same manner as the device payment reduction that would be applied to the ASC payment for the covered surgical procedure in order to remove predecessor device costs so that the ASC payment amount for a device with pass-through status under § 419.66 of this subchapter represents the full cost of the device, and no packaged device payment is provided through the ASC payment for the covered surgical procedure.
( 2 ) The amount of the reduction to the ASC payment made under paragraph (a)(3) of this section is 50 percent of the payment reduction that would be calculated under paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
( c ) *Amount of beneficiary coinsurance.* The beneficiary coinsurance is calculated based on the ASC payment for the covered surgical procedure after application of the reduction under paragraph (b) of this section.
[72 FR 42545, Aug. 2, 2007, as amended at 72 FR 66932, No. 27, 2007]
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Irvin NOIL v. Judge Frank MARULLO, Orleans Parish Criminal Court.

No. 80-KH-1779.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 26, 1980.

In re Irvin Noil, applying for remedial writs. Parish of Orleans. No. 222-267.

Denied.
HomeSaint Lucia

# Saint Lucia

59 items

        -    TIAS  		Saint Lucia (16-901.1) – Agreement to Improve International Tax Compliance and to Implement the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act	  September 1, 2016 
        -    Foreign Assistance Evaluations: Peace and Security  		INCLE-CBSI Activities – Summative Evaluation (Summary)	  September 18, 2015 
        -    TIAS  		Saint Lucia (13-430.1) – Agreement on Defense Caribbean Basin Security Initiative	  April 30, 2013 
        -    TIAS  		Saint Lucia (13-430) – Agreement on Defense Status of Forces	  April 30, 2013 
        -    TIAS  		Saint Lucia (12-628.1) – Agreement on Aerial Interception Assistance	  June 28, 2012 
        -    TIAS  		Saint Lucia (00-202.1) – Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters	  February 2, 2000 
        -    TIAS  		Saint Lucia (00-202) – Treaty on Extradition	  February 2, 2000 
        -    TIAS  		Saint Lucia (99-408) – Defense Assistance Agreement	  April 8, 1999 
        -    TIAS  		Saint Lucia (94-715) – Memorandum of Understanding for the Establishment of Facilities to Provide Temporary Protection for Refugees for Nationals of Haiti	  July 15, 1994 

previous page1…456

Back to Top
1 Cause No. 12

- 15

- 000157

- CR

In the Court of Appeals for the Twelfth Judicial District at Tyler , Texas

Stanford Jones, Jr. , Appellant

v
. State of Texas, Appellee

On Appeal from Cause No. 2013

- 0744 in the 217 th

Judicial District Court of Angelina County, Texas

State’s First Motion for Extension (Unopposed)

To the Honorable Justices of this Court: Appellee, State of Texas, moves for a 3 0

- day extension of time to file its
brief.
I. Undre the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the general deadline to file an appellee’s brief is 30 days after the date the appellant’s brief was filed. Tex. R. ACCEPTED 12-15-00157-CR TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS 11/16/2015 11:43:07 PM

Pam Estes CLERK2 App. P.38.6(b). Appellant’s Brief was filed on October 15 , 2015 , giving the State
until Monday November 16 , 2015 to file its brief.
The State of Texas now re quests a 3 0

- day extension of time in which to file
its brief.
II. Good cause exists for allowing the State additional time to file its brief for the following reasons:
1. Counsel for the State has had a medical emergenc y and has been out of the office since November 2, 2015.
2

. Counsel for the Appellant is unoppos ed to this extension.
III.
From the above

- listed reasons, the State has demonstrated that good cause
for the failure to be able to submit its br ief by the Court’s deadline. This is the
State’s first motion for extension, and it is not brought for purposes of delay or harrassment, but to see that justice is done. Wherefore, Appellee State of Texas prays that the Court grant its requested
3 0

- day e xtension to file its State’s Brief in this matter.3 Respectfully Submitted, /s/ April Ayers

- Perez Assistant District Attorney Angelina County D.A. ’ s Office P.O. Box 908 Lufkin, Texas 7590 2 (936) 632

- 5090 phone (936) 637

- 2818 fax State Bar No. 240 90975 ATT ORNEY FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS

Certificate of Service I certify that on November 16 , 2015 , a true and correct copy of the above
document has been forwarded to John Reeves , by electronic service through efile.txcourts.gov

. /s/ April Ayers

- Perez

Cert ificate of Conference I certify that on N o vember 15 , 201 5, I conferred with John Reeves abou t this motion, and certify that he was unopposed to a 3 0

- day extension.
/s/ April Ayers

- Perez
#### Wagner *v.*Wagner.

Where defendant pays the debt after suit brought, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment for costs.

In error from the District Court of Allegheny.

After suit brought, the defendant filed a plea, that since the issuing of the writ, he had paid the claim on which suit was brought. The plaintiff filed a paper admitting the truth of the plea, and praying judgment for costs.

The court gave judgment for defendant.

*Sept.*18.

Coulter, J.

The pleadings in the cause are neither technical nor formal. The plea *puis darrein continuance*lacks something of what has been considered necessary. It was pleaded, before issue was joined and before continuance, and ought to have prayed judgment as to the further maintenance of the suit by the plaintiff. The single fact is alleged, that he has paid the claim of the plaintiff, since the suit was commenced. The plaintiff admits that the defendant has paid the claim since the suit was brought, and asks judgment for costs. The court below give judgment for the defendant on the ground that the reply of the plaintiff amounts to a demurrer, and that, having settled without providing for the payment of costs, he cannot recover them. We are not over-technical in this state, as to pleadings; and I do not know what course the court below should have prescribed to the plaintiff, when this plea *puis darrein continuance*was put in before there was a continuance or issue joined. It *215seems to me that nothing was more natural than that the plaintiff’s attorneys should adopt the very course which they did; that is, admit the fact to be as alleged by defendant, which they could not deny, and ask judgment for costs.

The plea of defendant was an admission that the action was well brought, and that the plaintiff was entitled to costs up to the time of the payment of the money. Why should the plaintiff demur to what he knew was just and true? His reply has no feature of demurrer, but is simply an admission of the statement of defendant as true, which entitled him to costs; and he asks for costs. What better form could an issue have been thrown into, to determine who was entitled to costs ? The notion that a party who receives a debt and gives an acquittance for it, when suit is pending, thereby gives up his right to costs, is new to me in practice, and I believe to every member of this court. Nothing is more common in practice than to pay the amount of debt, and after-wards pay the costs. The very instance under consideration shows the prevalence of the practice. It is often convenient to receive money at some distance from the public offices, or when perhaps the attorneys are absent from home. Founded on the practice in this state, we think the plaintiff was entitled to costs, and that the judgment of the court below was erroneous.

Judgment reversed, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff for costs.
- Home
- About Us
- Leadership
- Key Topics
- Remarks and Releases
- Reports
- Events
- Careers in IOs
- Contact Us

HomeBureau of International Organization Affairs...Events – Bureau of International Organization Affairs

# 									Events – Bureau of International Organization Affairs							

##### 78th Session United Nations General Assembly

77th Session United Nations General Assembly
IO Junior Professional Officer (JPO) Program
76th Session of the United Nations General Assembly
Engage with International Organizations
Back to Top- White House
- USA.gov
- Office of the Inspector General
- Archives
- Contact Us
follow usFacebookTwitterInstagramYouTubeFlickrGovDelivery- Privacy Policy
- Accessibility Statement
- Copyright Information
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
U.S. Department *of* StateThe Lessons of 1989: Freedom and Our Future
40688.

#### ALEXANDER v. ROZETTA et al.

Bell, Presiding Judge.

This appeal involves a dispute as to the proper dispensation of funds received in a condemnation proceeding. The condemnor is not made a party. There has been no appeal from the assessors’ award as provided in *Code*§ 36-1110. The assessors’ award therefore is the law of the case as constituting just and adequate compensation for all the property and interests taken. It follows that the assessors’ award is payable to all parties to the action in proportion to the value of the interest in the condemned property held by each.

It is admitted by all adversary counsel that Alexander, at the *661time of condemnation, was in possession of the property under a written lease which was invalid and unenforceable. Under these factual circumstances Alexander was a tenant at will by operation of law. *Hayes v. City of Atlanta,*1 Ga. App. 25 (57 SE 1087); *Lynch v. Poole,*138 Ga. 303 (75 SE 158); *Roberts v. Burnett,*164 Ga. 64 (9) (137 SE 773).

Decided November 19, 1964.

*E. E. Moore, Jr., J. C. Daugherty,*for plaintiff in error.

*A. A. Baumstark, Stephens Mitchell,*contra.

“ ‘The estate of a tenant at will is a leasehold estate,’ and an existing tenancy at will is for a definite term of at least sixty days, since the landlord could not terminate it within a less period of time. . . ‘A leasehold interest in premises for a definite term is property within the meaning of that word as it is employed in paragraph 1, section 3, article 1 of the Constitution of this State, in which provision is made against the taking or damaging of private property for public purposes without just and adequate compensation being first paid.’ ” *Ammons v. Central of Ga. R. Co.,*215 Ga. 758, 761 (113 SE2d 438).

Alexander, as the tenant at will of the property condemned, is entitled to receive from the gross amount of the assessors’ award the actual value of the tenancy at will and no more.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed with directions to the trial court to mould the assessors’ award to identify the value of Alexander’s interest so as to do complete justice and avoid confusion of interests. See *Code*§ 36-1111.

*Judgment reversed with directions.*

*Jordan and Eberhardt, JJ., concur.*
HomeRwanda

# Rwanda

110 items

        -    Media Note  		U.S. Ratification of the Kigali Amendment	  September 21, 2022 
        -    Report  		2022 Fiscal Transparency Report: Rwanda	  August 18, 2022 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – August 11, 2022	  Vedant PatelAugust 11, 2022Washington, DC 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken and Rwandan Foreign Minister Vincent Biruta at a Joint Press Availability	  Antony J. BlinkenAugust 11, 2022Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International CooperationKigali, Rwanda 
        -    Special Briefing  		Digital Press Briefing with Molly Phee, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of African Affairs	  August 11, 2022 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken Following his Meeting with Civil Society Representatives from Rwanda	  Antony J. BlinkenAugust 11, 2022U.S. Embassy KigaliKigali, Rwanda 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken At the Kigali Genocide Memorial	  Antony J. BlinkenAugust 11, 2022Kigali Genocide MemorialKigali, Rwanda 
        -    Interview  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken With Christian Lusakueno of Top Congo FM	  August 10, 2022 
        -    Fact Sheet  		The United States and Rwanda: Strategic Partners	  August 10, 2022 
        -    Interview  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken With Romain Chanson of Radio France Internationale (RFI)	  Antony J. BlinkenAugust 9, 2022Future Africa Campus, University of PretoriaPretoria, South Africa 

previous page1…34567…11next page

Back to Top
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                   TOUCHSTONE APPLIED SCIENCE ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                   EXHIBIT 11

                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                    ----------------------------------------



                                                         Three Months Ended
                                                              January 31,
                                                        1 9 9 8         1 9 9 7
                                                        -------         -------
<S>                                               <C>            <C>
Basic earnings:

Net income (loss)                                    $   (33,047)    $  151,442

Shares:
  Weighted common shares outstanding                   8,447,564      7,938,223
  Harriman options                                            --             --
  Employee stock options                                      --             --
  B warrants                                                  --             --
  Underwriter options                                         --             --
	
Total weighted shares outstanding                      8,447,564      7,938,223

Basic earnings per common share                      $        --    $       .02

Diluted earnings:

  Net income (loss)                                  $   (33,047)   $   151,442

Shares:
  Weighted common shares outstanding                   8,447,564      7,938,223
  Harriman options                                            --             --
  Employee stock options                                      --             --
  B warrants                                                  --             --
  Underwriter options                                         --             --

Total weighted shares outstanding                      8,447,564      7,938,223

Diluted earnings per common share                    $        --    $       .02

</TABLE>
#### Lawrence Robert SCOTT, Petitioner, v. Dale CARSON, Respondent.

No. 46393.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 10, 1975.

Petition dismissed.
Editorial Note on Part 414
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 414 appear at 60 FR 50442, Sept. 29, 1995, and 60 FR 53877, Oct. 18, 1995.

§ 414.1360 Data submission criteria for the improvement activities performance category. ( a ) For purposes of the transition year of MIPS and future years, MIPS eligible clinicians, subgroups, or groups must submit data on MIPS improvement activities in one of the following manners: ( 1 ) *Via direct, login and upload, and login and attest.* For the applicable performance period, submit a yes response for each improvement activity that is performed for at least a continuous 90-day period during the applicable performance period. ( i ) Submit a yes response for activities within the improvement activities inventory.
( ii ) [Reserved]
( 2 ) *Groups and virtual groups.* Beginning with the 2022 performance year, each improvement activity for which groups and virtual groups submit a yes response in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section must be performed by at least 50 percent of the NPIs that are billing under the group's TIN or virtual group's TINs or that are part of the subgroup, as applicable; and the NPIs must perform the same activity during any continuous 90-day period within the same performance year.
( b ) [Reserved]
[81 FR 77537, Nov. 4, 2016, as amended at 82 FR 53953, Nov. 16, 2017; 83 FR 60080, Nov. 23, 2018; 84 FR 63196, Nov. 15, 2019; 86 FR 65671, Nov. 19, 2021; 88 FR 79535, Nov. 16, 2023]
§ 405.1054 Effect of dismissal of a request for a hearing or request for review of QIC dismissal. ( a ) The dismissal of a request for a hearing is binding, unless it is vacated by the Council under § 405.1108(b), or vacated by the ALJ or attorney adjudicator under § 405.1052(e).
( b ) The dismissal of a request for review of a QIC dismissal of a request for reconsideration is binding and not subject to further review unless it is vacated by the ALJ or attorney adjudicator under § 405.1052(e).
[82 FR 5120, Jan. 17, 2017]
# C_2005265EN.01001701.xml

| 26.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 265/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 265/17

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3892 — Bayerische Landesbank/Speed)

(2005/C 265/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 6 October 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3892. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3892. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---