alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Gilbert L. O’NEAL and Marta O’Neal, his wife, Appellants, v. Stella BOLLING, Appellee.

No. 81-931.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 16, 1982.

Anthony J. Scremin, Miami, for appellants.

Alfred Manheim, Miami, for appellee.

Before NESBITT, DANIEL S. PEARSON and JORGENSON, JJ.

DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.

Whether Mrs. Bolling, as she asserted, made a loan of $22,800 to Gilbert O’Neal in 1972 or, as O’Neal asserted, Mrs. Bolling gave him this money as a gift, was most clearly an issue which could not be resolved by a summary judgment where the sole undisputed fact is that O’Neal received the money. Even if, arguendo, the trial court premised the summary judgment on the theory that any gift was presumptively invalid because O’Neal occupied some fiduciary relationship with Bolling, *see, e.g., Crane v. Stulz,*136 So.2d 238 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961), the material facts concerning the relationship were in dispute; and, in any event, this presumption of invalidity may be overcome by showing the fairness and *1172validity of the gift, matters which were also in dispute.

Accordingly, we must reverse that part of the judgment in Bolling’s favor which awarded her $2,800 with interest at seven per cent commencing December 13, 1972, and $20,000 with interest at seven per cent commencing December 26, 1972. We affirm that part of the judgment, conceded by O’Neal to be based on an unrepaid loan, which awards Bolling $5,000 with interest at seven per cent per annum commencing December 4, 1972, and which denies Bolling attorneys’ fees on her claim.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part, and remanded for trial.1

1

. Since the case is remanded for trial, we note for the future guidance of the trial court that Mrs. Bolling’s recently-fashioned typed likenesses of the $2,800 and $20,000 promissory notes are not duplicates as defined by Section 90.951(4), Florida Statutes (1981). *See*Law Revision Council Note (1976) (manually reproduced copies, as by typing or handwriting, are excluded from the definition [of duplicate]). The Advisory Committee Note to Federal Rule of Evidence 1001(4) provides that: “Copies *subsequently*produced manually, whether handwritten or typed, are not within the definition [of duplicate].” (emphasis supplied). If the trial court is satisfied with Bolling’s predicate proof that the originals are lost and no duplicates ever existed, it may allow Bolling to establish the contents of the notes in the manner provided in Section 90.954, Florida Statutes (1981), which may be by oral testimony. *See United States v. Standing Soldier,*538 F.2d 196, 203 (8th Cir.), *cert. denied,*429 U.S. 1025, 97 S.Ct. 646, 50 L.Ed.2d 627 (1976); *Klein v. Frank,*534 F.2d 1104, 1107 (5th Cir. 1976); *see also Action Fire Safety Equipment, Inc. v. Biscayne Fire Equipment Company, Inc.*, 383 So.2d 969 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
Editorial Note on Part 460
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 460 appear at 67 FR 61504, Oct. 1, 2002.

§ 460.138 Committees with community input. A PACE organization must establish one or more committees, with community input, to do the following: ( a ) Evaluate data collected pertaining to quality outcome measures.
( b ) Address the implementation of, and results from, the quality improvement plan.
( c ) Provide input related to ethical decisionmaking, including end-of-life issues and implementation of the Patient Self-Determination Act.
[64 FR 66279, Nov. 24, 1999, as amended at 84 FR 25676, June 3, 2019]
Exhibit 21.1
                   Subsidiaries of Omega Financial Corporation


Name of Subsidiary                       State or Jurisdiction       Trade Name
                                           of Incorporation           (if any)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Omega Bank, N.A.                             United States               -
P.O. Box 298
State College, PA    16804

Hollidaysburg Trust Company                  Pennsylvania                -
224 Allegheny Street
Hollidaysburg, PA  16648

Penn Central National Bank                   United States               -
431 Penn Street
Huntingdon, PA  16652

Montour Bank                                 United States               -
1519 Bloom Road
Danville, PA  17821

Central Pennsylvania Investment Company      Delaware                    -
1105 N. Market Street
Wilmington, DE 19899

Central Pennsylvania Life Insurance Company  Arizona                     -
1421 E. Thomas Road
Phoenix, AZ  85014

Central Pennsylvania Leasing, Inc.           Pennsylvania                -

Central Pennsylvania Real Estate, Inc.       Pennsylvania                -
HomeAssisted Schools...Munich, Germany: Munich International School: 2024 Special Needs Profile

# 									Munich, Germany: Munich International School: 2024 Special Needs Profile							

Special Needs Profile

Office of Overseas Schools

February 22, 2024

## 								School Contact Information							

        -  Tel: +49-8151-366-0 | Overseas School Fact Sheet | Regional Education Officer: Tim Stuart 
        -  E-mail: info@mis-munich.de | Website: www.mis-munich.de 
        -  Additional details on special needs support at post found on the **School Summary Information Portal**(must have OKTA login to access).  For more information, contact A/OPR/OS (**overseasschools@state.gov** / +1-202-261-8200), MED/CFP Child and Family Program Team (**MEDCFP@state.gov**/ +1-202-663-1815), or the school directly.    

**Download the Special Needs Profile** (Munich 2024 Special Needs Profile Germany) for this school to learn more about their capability to support students with exceptionalities.

 

**Munich International School**(MIS), founded in 1966 as the first international school in Munich, is an independent, nonprofit, International Baccalaureate (IB) World School. MIS is a community school where around 1,200 students from more than 70 countries learn together on a single, purpose-built campus. The school year commences in late August and ends in late June.

*This is intended to provide general information. Prospective users of the schools may wish to inquire further of A/OPR/OS or contact the school directly for more specific and up-to-the-minute information. Information and statistics are current as of December 2023 and provided by the school.*

NOTE: School situations can change quickly, particularly as schools face cutbacks to learning support programs due to the pandemic, unrest, and economic uncertainty. For the most current information, work with the REO and school. Information in this document was collected by the Department of State’s Office of Overseas Schools directly from the school in December 2023 and shows the availability of services rather than an assessment of the quality of the services. The profile is intended as a jumping off point for a conversation with the REO and school to understand the best fit for your child. Definitions may vary school to school.

Tags

GermanyOffice of Overseas Schools

Back to Top
- Division Home
- About Us
- Contact Us

HomeCivil Air Transport Agreements...Open Skies Partners

# 									Open Skies Partners							

Division for Transportation Affairs

*Note:  The method of first application of Open Skies has varied depending on the situation, including prior bilateral agreement, application on the basis of comity and reciprocity (usually set out in a signed memorandum of conversation or public statement), provisional application after signature of the agreement, entry into force of the agreement upon signature, or entry into force of the agreement through the procedure provided therein (such as an exchange of diplomatic notes).*

----

1. The U.S.-EU Air Transport Agreement, signed in Brussels April 25 and in Washington April 30, 2007, superseded prior agreements as set out in Annex I and was provisionally applied from March 30, 2008 for all 27 European Union Member States at that time. Norway and Iceland became party to the U.S.-EU agreement pursuant to an agreement signed at Luxembourg on June 16, 2011 and at Oslo on June 21, 2011 and provisionally applied from June 21, 2011. 

2. Multilateral Agreement on the Liberalization of International Air Transportation (MALIAT). Effective March 9, 2019, Samoa withdrew from the MALIAT and for the time being DOT is permitting operation of Samoan air carriers to the United States on the basis of comity and reciprocity pending negotiation of a new bilateral air transport agreement.

3. Applied on the basis of comity and reciprocity (C&R).

4. The agreement is between the United States and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, relating to air transport between Curaçao and the United States.

5. The agreement is between the United States and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, relating to air transport between the Caribbean part of the Netherlands and the United States.

6. The agreement is between the United States and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, relating to air transport between Sint Maarten and the United States.

Tags

Air SafetyAir Transport AgreementsBureau of Economic and Business AffairsDivision for Transportation AffairsTransportation

Back to Top
#### § 435.640 Protected Medicaid eligibility for individuals eligible in December 1973.

In determining whether individuals continue to meet the income requirements used in December 1973, for purposes of determining eligibility under §§ 435.131, 435.132, and 435.133, the agency must deduct increased OASDI payments to the same extent that these deductions were in effect in December 1973. These deductions are required by section 306 of the Social Security Amendments of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-603) and section 1007 of Pub. L. 91-172 (enacted Dec. 30, 1969), modified by section 304 of Pub. L. 92-603.

[43 FR 45204, Sept. 29, 1978. Redesignated at 58 FR 4932, Jan. 19, 1993]
# C_2006074EN.01000901.xml

| 25.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 74/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/9

---

Action brought on 30 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Czech Republic

(Case C-46/06)

(2006/C 74/16)

Language of the case: Czech

An action against the Czech Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by L. Jelinek and W. Wils, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, (1) or in any event by not informing the Commission thereof, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the following provisions of that directive: Article 3(3); Article 6(1) as regards the wording ‘any effective technological measures, which the person concerned carries out in the knowledge, or with reasonable grounds to know, that he or she is pursuing that objective’; Article 6(3); the first, fourth and fifth subparagraphs of Article 6(4); the second subparagraph of Article 7(1); Article 7(2); Article 8(2) as regards the wording ‘as well as of devices, products or components referred to in Article 6(2)’; Article 8(3); Article 10(1); and Article 11(2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, (1) or in any event by not informing the Commission thereof, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the following provisions of that directive: Article 3(3); Article 6(1) as regards the wording ‘any effective technological measures, which the person concerned carries out in the knowledge, or with reasonable grounds to know, that he or she is pursuing that objective’; Article 6(3); the first, fourth and fifth subparagraphs of Article 6(4); the second subparagraph of Article 7(1); Article 7(2); Article 8(2) as regards the wording ‘as well as of devices, products or components referred to in Article 6(2)’; Article 8(3); Article 10(1); and Article 11(2);

1

any effective technological measures, which the person concerned carries out in the knowledge, or with reasonable grounds to know, that he or she is pursuing that objective

as well as of devices, products or components referred to in Article 6(2

| 2. | order the Czech Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for implementing the directive in national law expired on 1 May 2004.

---

(1)  OJ L 167 of 22.6.2001, p. 10.

1

---
SCWC-12-0000578

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

STATE OF HAWAI#I,

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

MANAIAKALANI N.K. KALUA,

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-12-0000578; 3DTC-11-040282)

ORDER OF CORRECTION

(By: Wilson, J.)

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Opinion of the Court

filed on January 15, 2019, is corrected as follows:

The attorney credits for petitioner on page 28 shall be

revised to read as follows:

John M. Tonaki

Tyler I. Gomes 

(Jon N. Ikenaga on the briefs)

for Petitioner

The Clerk of the Court is directed to take all

necessary steps to notify the publishing agencies of this change.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 22, 2019.

 /s/ Michael D. Wilson

 Associate Justice

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-12-0000578

22-JAN-2019

11:31 AM
HomeUpdates – Office of Overseas Schools...Gifted and Talented Booklet Released by Advisory Committee

# 									Gifted and Talented Booklet Released by Advisory Committee							

Office of Overseas Schools

March 22, 2023

The Office of Overseas Schools’ Advisory Committee on Exceptional Children and Youth has released a new guide entitled, *What Can You Expect to Find in Overseas Schools for Your Gifted Child?* The guide is designed to help U.S. Government families think through decisions in bidding for positions and contains links to useful Internet and publication resources for children needing accelerated challenges. Follow this link to download a digital copy of the guide What Can You Expect to Find in Overseas Schools for Your Gifted Child 2023. 

For general questions about gifted education international schools, please reach out to OverseasSchools@state.gov or Regional Education Officer (REO), Andrew Hoover.  For questions about specific schools and programs, please reach out to the appropriate REO.

Back to Top
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3572 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3572

 To designate the bridge on United States Route 231 which crosses the 
   Ohio River between Maceo, Kentucky, and Rockport, Indiana, as the 
                     ``William H. Natcher Bridge''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 4, 1996

Mr. Lewis of Kentucky introduced the following bill; which was referred 
         to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the bridge on United States Route 231 which crosses the 
   Ohio River between Maceo, Kentucky, and Rockport, Indiana, as the 
                     ``William H. Natcher Bridge''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The bridge on United States Route 231 which crosses the Ohio River 
between Maceo, Kentucky, and Rockport, Indiana, shall be known and 
designated as the ``William H. Natcher Bridge''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the bridge referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``William H. Natcher Bridge''.
                                 <all>
```
Editorial Note on Part 460
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 460 appear at 67 FR 61504, Oct. 1, 2002.

§ 460.152 Enrollment process. ( a ) *Intake process.* Intake is an intensive process during which PACE staff members make one or more visits to a potential participant's place of residence and the potential participant makes one or more visits to the PACE center. At a minimum, the intake process must include the following activities: ( 1 ) The PACE staff must explain to the potential participant and his or her representative or caregiver the following information: ( i ) The PACE program, using a copy of the enrollment agreement described in § 460.154, specifically references the elements of the agreement including but not limited to § 460.154(e), (i) through (m), and (r).
( ii ) The requirement that the PACE organization would be the participant's sole service provider and clarification that the PACE organization guarantees access to services, but not to a specific provider.
( iii ) A list of the employees of the PACE organization who furnish care and the most current list of contracted health care providers under § 460.70(c).
( iv ) Monthly premiums, if any.
( v ) Any Medicaid spenddown obligations.
( vi ) Post-eligibility treatment of income.
( 2 ) The potential participant must sign a release to allow the PACE organization to obtain his or her medical and financial information and eligibility status for Medicare and Medicaid.
( 3 ) The State administering agency must assess the potential participant, including any individual who is not eligible for Medicaid, to ensure that he or she needs the level of care required under the State Medicaid plan for coverage of nursing facility services, which indicates that the individual's health status is comparable to the health status of individuals who have participated in the PACE demonstration waiver programs.
( 4 ) PACE staff must assess the potential participant to ensure that he or she can be cared for appropriately in a community setting and that he or she meets all requirements for PACE eligibility specified in this part.
( b ) *Denial of Enrollment.* If a prospective participant is denied enrollment because his or her health or safety would be jeopardized by living in a community setting, the PACE organization must meet the following requirements: ( 1 ) Notify the individual in writing of the reason for the denial.
( 2 ) Refer the individual to alternative services, as appropriate.
( 3 ) Maintain supporting documentation of the reason for the denial.
( 4 ) Notify CMS and the State administering agency in the form and manner specified by CMS and make the documentation available for review.
[64 FR 66279, Nov. 24, 1999, as amended at 71 FR 71337, Dec. 8, 2006; 84 FR 25676, June 3, 2019]
#### STATE of Louisiana in the Interest of Russell GIANGROSSO, Lonnie Gros and Scott Hood.

No. 65295.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 21, 1979.

In re Russell Giangrosso, Lonnie Gros, Scott Hood, applying for writ of certiorari. Parish of Ascension. No. 13,043.

Writ denied.
HomeOffice to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in PersonsRemarks & Releases...Model Contract of Employment

# 									Model Contract of Employment							

Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons

						Download Word Format						(docx)						[83 KB]

Download a model contract for domestic workers to use with their employers. Learn more»

Tags

Human TraffickingOffice to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons

Back to Top
§ 421.200 Carrier functions. A contract between CMS and a carrier specifies the functions to be performed by the carrier. The contract may include any or all of the following functions: ( a ) Any or all of the program integrity functions described in § 421.304 provided the following conditions are met: ( 1 ) The carrier is continuing those functions under a contract entered into under section 1842 of the Act that was in effect on August 21, 1996.
( 2 ) The functions do not duplicate work being performed under a Medicare integrity program contract, except that the function related to developing and maintaining a list of DME may be performed under both a carrier contract and a Medicare integrity program contract.
( b ) Receiving, disbursing, and accounting for funds in making payments for services furnished to eligible individuals within the jurisdiction of the carrier.
( c ) Determining the amount of payment for services furnished to an eligible individual.
( d ) Undertaking to adjust incorrect payments and recover overpayments when it is determined that an overpayment was made.
( e ) Furnishing to CMS timely information and reports that CMS requests in order to carry out its responsibilities in the administration of the Medicare program.
( f ) Maintaining records and making available to CMS the records necessary for verification of payments and for other related purposes.
( g ) Establishing and maintaining procedures under which an individual enrolled under Part B is granted an opportunity for a redetermination.
( h ) Upon inquiry, assisting individuals with matters pertaining to a carrier contract.
( i ) Serving as a channel of communication to and from CMS of information, instructions, and other material as necessary for the effective and efficient performance of a carrier contract.
( j ) Undertaking other functions as mutually agreed to by CMS and the carrier.
[72 FR 48886, Aug. 24, 2007]
No. 99-682.

#### Garcia *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### § 435.901 Consistency with objectives and statutes.

The Medicaid agency's standards and methods for providing information to applicants and beneficiaries and for determining eligibility must be consistent with the objectives of the program and with the rights of individuals under the United States Constitution, the Social Security Act, title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, and all other relevant provisions of Federal and State laws and their respective implementing regulations.

[81 FR 86457, Nov. 30, 2016]
#### UNITED STATES NAT. BANK IN JOHNSTOWN, PA., v. BLAUNER’S AFFILIATED STORES, Inc., et al.

No. 5473.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Feb. 1, 1935.

Harry Doerr, of Johnstown, Pa., for appellant.

J. C. Davies and D. P. Weimer, both of johnstown, Pa., for appellees.

Before BUFFINGTON, WOOLLEY, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The pertinent facts in this bankruptcy case were found and stated' by the court below as follows (7 F. Supp. 850): “It is clear to us that under the agreements by which these claimants occupied space in Kline’s Department Store, Kline, held the position merely of agent or trustee in the collection of moneys due and owing for goods sold on credit by the several departments. The agreements so plainly state, and provide for a separate account of these items of money collected. After bankruptcy intervened, by the order of the referee the receiver and trustee kept separate accounts of these items. There is therefore no difficulty in tracing the sums collected by the receiver and trustee on these credit-items. We are therefore of the opinion that the relation of debtor and creditor did not exist between the bankrupt and the several claimants as to the moneys collected by the receiver and trustee on these credit-accounts; but that this money was trust-fund money and was properly allotted by the referee to these claimants. This conclusion is supported by In re Steele-Smith Dry Goods Co. (D. C.) 298 F. 812; Harvey Brokerage Co. v. Ambassador Hotel Corporation (D. C.) 57 F.(2d) 727.”

Finding no error in the court so holding, we limit ourselves to affirming the decree on the judge’s opinion.