alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
42160.

#### DANEKER v. MEGRUE.

Argued July 6, 1966

Decided September 6, 1966

Rehearing denied September 21, 1966.

*313*Hatcher, Stubbs, Land & Rothschild, William B. Hardegree,*for appellant.

*L. B. Kent,*for appellee.

Hall, Judge.

The petition shows no more than that the defendant had constructive knowledge that the dirt upon which he placed one side of the ladder was soft. The allegation that the defendant knew this because the ladder had gone into the earth when he used it two weeks before the plaintiff fell, and the allegation that the defendant had himself successfully climbed the ladder just before the plaintiff do not support a conclusion that the defendant had actual knowledge of the condition at that time. See *Etheridge Motors, Inc. v. Haynie,*103 Ga. App. 676, 679 (120 SE2d 317); 71 CJS 66, Pleading, § 26.

While the defendant owed a duty to exercise ordinary care for the safety of his invitee, this duty imposed a liability only for injuries resulting from such defects as a reasonable inspection would disclose. *Fulton Ice & Coal Co. v. Pece,*29 Ga. App. 507, 515 (116 SE 57).

The petition shows that the defendant took the precaution of climbing the ladder prior to permitting the plaintiff to climb it. In view of this allegation we do not see how any jury would be able to find that the defendant did not make a reasonable inspection or that he should have foreseen that the ground upon which the ladder was placed would not support the plaintiff. The broad test of negligence is what a reasonably prudent person would forsee and would do in the light of this foresight under the circumstances. “Not what actually happened, but what the reasonably prudent person *would then have foreseen as likely to happen,*is the key to the question of reasonableness.” 2 Harper & James, The Law of Torts 929, § 16.9. Accord Prosser on Torts (3rd Ed.) 149, '§ 31; 38 AmJur 669, 679, §§ 24, 32. As Judge Cardozo said in Greene v. Sibley, Lindsay & Curr *314Co., 257 N. Y. 190, 192 (177 NE 416, 417), “Extraordinary prevision might have whispered to him at the moment that the warning would be helpful. What the law exacted of him however, was only the ordinary prevision to be looked for in a busy world.” We hold that the defendant, having tested the ladder by climbing it himself, did not expose the plaintiff to a foreseeable unreasonable probability of harm.

The trial court erred in overruling the general demurrer to the petition.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Deen, J., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME FROM THE
SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 FORM 10-Q REPORT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                      21,046,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,972,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            23,303,000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              75,170,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,565,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       193,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  58,762,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                75,170,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,056,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,094,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,540,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (322,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,744,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   698,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,046,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,046,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       $.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     $.26


</TABLE>
HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2021 Fiscal Transparency Report…Ecuador

# 					2021 Fiscal Transparency Report: Ecuador			

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Ecuador 

## Government-by-Government Assessments: Ecuador

Ecuador made significant progress by ensuring that budget execution did not deviate significantly from budget projections.  During the review period, budget documents were publicly available online, although complete information on debt obligations, including oil-for-loan agreements, was not publicly available.  Budget documents were substantially complete and generally reliable.  However, state-owned enterprises’ financial information, including debt obligations, was unavailable.  Additionally, the Ministry of Economy and Finance has broad discretion to modify income and expense levels established in the national budget by up to 15 percent without National Assembly approval.  Ecuador’s supreme audit institution audited the government’s annual financial statements, and the government made its reports publicly available within a reasonable period of time.  The process for awarding natural resource extraction licenses and contracts was outlined in law and appeared to be followed in practice.  Basic information on natural resource extraction license and contract awards was publicly available. Ecuador’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

- publishing complete information on intragovernmental loans and oil-for-loan agreements;
- making financial information related to state-owned enterprises publicly available, including debts; and
- narrowing Ministry of Economy and Finance’s discretion to modify income and expense levels established in the approved national budget.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Ecuador 

Tags

Bureau of Economic and Business AffairsDivision for International Finance and DevelopmentEcuador

Back to Top

                - White House
                - USA.gov
                - Office of the Inspector General
                - Archives
                - Contact Us

follow us
FacebookXInstagramYouTubeFlickrGovDelivery

              - Privacy Policy
              - Accessibility Statement
              - Copyright Information
              - FOIA
              - No FEAR Act

## U.S. Department *of* State

#### The Lessons of 1989: Freedom and Our Future
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 6- 26 93

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Ro qu e De La Fu en te , als o k no wn as Ro ck y
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.
Io wa Dem oc rat ic Part y ; Pa ul Pat e, ag en t o f Sec ret ary of Sta te
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Des M oi ne s

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 21 , 20 17 Fi le d: Feb ru ary 27 , 20 17 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, MURPHY, an d GRUENDER, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Ro qu e De La Fu en te a p p e a ls aft er th e di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d hi s pr o se 42 1 U.S.C. § 19 83 co m

pl ai nt ag ai ns t th e Io wa Dem oc rat ic Part y an d th e Io wa Secr et ary

Th e Hon or ab le St ep ha ni e M. Ro se , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r t h e 1 So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa

.of St at e, as se r t i n g c l a i ms rel at ed to hi s effo rts to pa rti ci pa te in th e 20 16 Io wa

Dem oc rat ic pr es id en ti al cau cu se s. Afte r c a r e f u l ly rev ie win g th e reco rd , an d th e pa rti es ’ arg um en ts on ap pe al , we co nc lu de th at De La Fu en te ’s co m pl ai nt was m oo t to th e ex te nt he so ug ht in jun ct iv e rel i e f

, a nd th at it was ap pr op ria te to di sm is s th e
co m pl ai nt for fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m

. See Lev y v. Oh l, 4 77 F.3d 98 8, 9 91 (8t h C ir. 20 07 ) (g ran t of m ot io n to di sm is s fo r fai lu re to st at e cl ai m is rev ie wed de no vo ); Doe

v. Goo de n, 21 4 F.3 d 95 2, 95 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (§ 19 83 cl ai m s can no t be pr ed ic at ed on vi ol at io ns of st a t e l aw); se e al so Gall ag he r v. Mag ne r, 63 6 F.3 d 38 0, 38 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (d is cu ss in g st an da rd fo r cl ai m s un de r Tit le VI of th e Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act of 19 64 ). Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm . See 8 th Cir . R. 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
1 The Honorable David S. Doty, United Stat es District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and reco mmendations of the Honorable Raymond L. Erickson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ Nos. 05-2212/2772

___________ Anthony S. Smith, * * Appellant, * * Appeals from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. T. C. Outlaw, Warden, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: April 6, 2006 Filed: April 10, 2006

___________ Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Anthony S. Smith appeals from the district court’s 1 denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition and the court’s denial of hi s subsequent motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). We affirm for the r easons stated by the district court in its thorough and well-reasoned opinion. See8th Cir. R. 47B. We grant Smith’s motion to supplement his brief, and we deny as moot his motion to expedite the appeals.

______________________________
§ 1005.13 Administrative enforcement; record retention. ( a ) *Enforcement by Federal agencies.* Compliance with this part is enforced in accordance with section 918 of the Act.
( b ) *Record retention.* ( 1 ) Any person subject to the Act and this part shall retain evidence of compliance with the requirements imposed by the Act and this part for a period of not less than two years from the date disclosures are required to be made or action is required to be taken.
( 2 ) Any person subject to the Act and this part having actual notice that it is the subject of an investigation or an enforcement proceeding by its enforcement agency, or having been served with notice of an action filed under sections 910, 916, or 917(a) of the Act, shall retain the records that pertain to the investigation, action, or proceeding until final disposition of the matter unless an earlier time is allowed by court or agency order.
Editorial Note on Part 3
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

§ 3.58 Child adopted out of family. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a child of a veteran adopted out of the family of the veteran either prior or subsequent to the veteran's death is nevertheless a *child* within the meaning of that term as defined by § 3.57 and is eligible for benefits payable under all laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
( b ) A child of a veteran adopted out of the family of the veteran is not a child within the meaning of § 3.57 for purposes of any benefits provided under 38 U.S.C. 1115, Additional compensation for dependents. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101(4)(A), 1115).


Cross References:
Child. See § 3.57. Veteran's benefits not apportionable. See § 3.458. [80 FR 48451, Aug. 13, 2015]
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT ROSEBROCK,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

RONALD MATHIS, Chief of Police of

The Veterans Administration Greater Los

Angeles Healthcare System, in his official

capacity and DONNA BEITER, Director

of The Veterans Administration Greater

Los Angeles Healthcare System, in her

official capacity,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-56132

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01878-SJO-SS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 19, 2010** 

San Francisco, California

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

FILED

OCT 22 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-56132

Robert Rosebrock appeals the district court’s denial of his request for

preliminary injunctive relief against Veterans Administration officials in his action

alleging viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.

We express no view on the merits of the complaint. Our sole inquiry is

whether the district court abused its discretion in denying preliminary injunctive

relief. The Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981, 986 (9th Cir. 2008); see

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008) (listing

factors for district court to consider); Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Int’l, Inc.,

686 F.2d 750, 752-53 (9th Cir. 1982) (explaining limited scope of review). We

conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the

district court’s order denying the preliminary injunction.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>        5
<MULTIPLIER>     1
       
<S>                                              <C>       
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS      
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                Jun-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                   Jul-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                     Dec-31-1997
<CASH>                                                320235
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         148948
<ALLOWANCES>                                           88969
<INVENTORY>                                            11100
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      406010
<PP&E>                                                284718
<DEPRECIATION>                                      (265125)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        533528
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 169989
<BONDS>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                               42880
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                            320659
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          533528
<SALES>                                               492919
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      495764
<CGS>                                                 161329
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         161329
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      313143
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        21292
<INCOME-TAX>                                            3200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    18092
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                           18092
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           .004
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           .004
        

</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 3
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

§ 3.106 Renouncement. ( a ) Any person entitled to pension, compensation, or dependency and indemnity compensation under any of the laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs may renounce his or her right to that benefit but may not renounce less than all of the component items which together comprise the total amount of the benefit to which the person is entitled nor any fixed monetary amounts less than the full amount of entitlement. The renouncement will be in writing over the person's signature. Upon receipt of such renouncement in the Department of Veterans Affairs, payment of such benefits and the right thereto will be terminated, and such person will be denied any and all rights thereto from such filing. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5306(a))
( b ) The renouncement will not preclude the person from filing a new application for pension, compensation, or dependency and indemnity compensation at any future date. Such new application will be treated as an original application, and no payments will be made thereon for any period before the date such new application is received in the Department of Veterans Affairs. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5306(b))
( c ) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section, if a new application for pension or parents' dependency and indemnity compensation is filed within one year after the date that the Department of Veterans Affairs receives a renouncement of that benefit, such application shall not be treated as an original application and benefits will be payable as if the renouncement had not occurred. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5306(c))
( d ) The renouncement of dependency and indemnity compensation by one beneficiary will not serve to increase the rate payable to any other beneficiary in the same class.
( e ) The renouncement of dependency and indemnity compensation by a surviving spouse will not serve to vest title to this benefit in children under the age of 18 years or to increase the rate payable to a child or children over the age of 18 years.
[26 FR 1569, Feb. 24, 1961, as amended at 37 FR 5384, Mar. 15, 1972; 39 FR 17222, May 14, 1974; 60 FR 18355, Apr. 11, 1995; 62 FR 5529, Feb. 6, 1997]
HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2021 Fiscal Transparency Report…Guinea-Bissau

# 					2021 Fiscal Transparency Report: Guinea-Bissau			

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Guinea-Bissau 

## Government-by-Government Assessments: Guinea-Bissau

During the review period, the government did not make budget documents or information on debt obligations widely and easily accessible to the general public.  Available budget information did not include allocations to, earnings from, or debt holdings of state-owned enterprises, and the government maintained an off-budget account in several sectors that have not been subject to adequate oversight.  Budget documents provided a substantially full picture, including major sources of revenue and expenditure.  Projected revenues and expenditures reasonably corresponded to those in the enacted budget.  The government made public its military and intelligence budgets.  The supreme audit institution lacks independence that meets international standards and did not audit the executed budget.  The criteria and procedures by which the national government awards contracts or licenses for natural resource extraction were specified in law, but the government did not appear to follow the law in practice.  Basic information on natural resource extraction awards was not publicly available.   Guinea-Bissau’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

- making budget documents and information on debt obligations widely and easily accessible to the general public;
- including allocations to, earnings from, and debt holdings of state-owned enterprises in the budget;
- subjecting off-budget accounts to adequate audit and oversight;
- improving the reliability of budget documents by producing and publishing a supplemental budget when actual revenues and expenditures do not correspond to those in the enacted budget;
- ensuring the supreme audit institution meets international standards of independence;
- ensuring the supreme audit institution audits the government’s budget, including its military and intelligence budgets, and makes its reports publicly available within a reasonable period of time;
- consistently adhering to laws and regulations for contracting and licensing in natural resource extraction; and
- publishing basic information on natural resource extraction awards.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Guinea-Bissau 

Tags

Bureau of Economic and Business AffairsDivision for International Finance and DevelopmentGuinea-Bissau

Back to Top

                - White House
                - USA.gov
                - Office of the Inspector General
                - Archives
                - Contact Us

follow us
FacebookXInstagramYouTubeFlickrGovDelivery

              - Privacy Policy
              - Accessibility Statement
              - Copyright Information
              - FOIA
              - No FEAR Act

## U.S. Department *of* State

#### The Lessons of 1989: Freedom and Our Future
###### Editorial Note on [Part 3](/current/title-38/part-3?toc=1)

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at [61 FR 7216](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/61-FR-7216), Feb. 27, 1996; [62 FR 35970](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/62-FR-35970), July 3, 1997; [62 FR 47532](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/62-FR-47532), Sept. 9, 1997; and [67 FR 46868](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/67-FR-46868), July 17, 2002.

#### § 3.208 Claims based on attained age.

In claims for pension where the age of the veteran or surviving spouse is material, the statements of age will be accepted where they are in agreement with other statements in the record as to age. However, where there is a variance in such records, the youngest age will be accepted subject to the submission of evidence as outlined in [§ 3.209](/on/2024-09-18/title-38/section-3.209).

Cross Reference:

Evidence of dependents and age. See [§ 3.204](/on/2024-09-18/title-38/section-3.204).

[[40 FR 53581](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/40-FR-53581), Nov. 19, 1975, as amended at [52 FR 19349](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/52-FR-19349), May 22, 1987]