alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MASSMAN CONSTRUCTION CO. v. CHISHOLM, Adm’r.

No. 31047.

Nov. 30, 1943.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 1, 1944.

*145 P. 2d 211.*

Bridges, Parry & Krueger, of Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Earl Boyd Pierce and R. M. Mount-castle, both of Muskogee, and Harve N. Langley, of Pryor, for defendant in error.

DAVISON, J.

This is a companion case to No. 30553, Massman' Construction Company v. Donald Chisholm, as Administrator of the Estate of Buck B. Bassham, Deceased, 193 Okla. 473, 145 P. 2d 207, this day decided. The parties are the same. Here in a trial to a jury judgment was rendered on the verdict for $5,377.67 for pain and suffering of the deceased after the injury and prior to death.

The questions in this case include the same questions as were decided adversely to the. plaintiff (defendant in error) in the companion case. There is no essential difference in this evidence and the relative importance thereof.

Our decision in that case governs the disposition of this appeal.

There are certain additional questions herein presented which need not be dis*478cussed since the insufficiency of the evidence on the point discussed in cause No. 30553, supra, requires that the judgment herein rendered be set aside and the cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with the views expressed.

Reversed and remanded.

CORN, C.J., and OSBORN, WELCH, and HURST, JJ., concur. GIBSON, V.C. J., and RILEY, BAYLESS, and ARNOLD, JJ., dissent.
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2013330EN.01000801.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 14.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/8 |

---

Information communicated by the EFTA States regarding State aid granted under the Act referred to in point 1j of Annex XV to the EEA Agreement (Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General Block Exemption Regulation))

2013/C 330/07

PART I

| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Aid No | GBER 11/13/INN | | |
| EFTA State | Norway | | |
| Granting authority | Name | Buskerud fylkeskommune (Buskerud County) | |
| Address | | | | --- | | Postboks 3563 | | 3007 Drammen | | NORWAY | | |
| Web page | http://www.bfk.no | |
| Title of the aid measure | Aid to Driv Inkubator AS in Buskerud county | | |
| National legal basis (reference to the relevant national official publication) | Letter of Commitment from Buskerud County to Driv Inkubator AS, 8 July 2013 | | |
| Web link to the full text of the aid measure | http://www.bfk.no/Politikk-1/Motekalender/Hovedutvalget-for-regionalutvikling-og-kultur/#moter/2013/513 ‘PS 13/8 (08/1795) Tilskudd til innovasjonsselskapene i Buskerud i 2013’ | | |
| Type of measure | Ad hoc aid | X | |
| Date of granting | Ad hoc aid | 8.7.2013 | |
| Economic sector(s) concerned | All economic sectors eligible to receive aid | All sectors | |
| Type of beneficiary | SME | SME | |
| Budget | Annual overall amount of the budget planned under the scheme | NOK 1 million | |
| Aid instrument (Article 5) | Grant | | NOK 1 million |

PART II

| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| General objectives (list) | Objectives (list) | Maximum aid intensity in % or maximum aid amount in NOK | SME — bonuses in % |
| Aid for research, development and innovation (Articles 30-37) | Aid for innovation advisory services and for innovation support services (Article 36) | NOK 1 million | |

---
#### §§ 304.4-304.10 [Reserved]
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed September 13, 2023

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D23

- 0008 Lower Tribunal No. 21

- 25124

________________



### Brenda Serrano , Appellant,

vs. 

### Jeffrey Epstein , Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Valerie R. Manno Schurr , Judge. Andrew M. Kassier, P.A., and Andrew M. Kassier , for appellant.

Law Offices of Kurt R. Klaus, Jr. , and Kurt R. Klaus, Jr., for appellee.

Before SCALES, HENDON, and MILLER , JJ.

PER CURIAM. The plaintiff below, Brenda Serrano , individually and on behalf of her2 minor son (“Serrano”), appeals from the f inal s ummary j udgment entered in

favor of defendant Jeffrey Epstein (“Epstein”)

. We affirm, in part, and reverse, in part. Serrano filed a complaint against several defendants, including Epstein and Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase Bank”). Epstein moved for summary judgment as to the counts alleged by Serrano against him based

on his affirmative defense s . Chase Bank did not move for summary judgment. At the conclusion of the hearing on Epstein’s motion for

summary judgment , at which Chase Bank was not present, the trial court granted Epstein’s motion for summary judgment, and stated that it was entering a final summary judgment as to all count s alleged by Serrano, which would include the counts Serrano alleged against nonmovant Chase Bank. Thereafter, the trial court entered the final summary judgment under

review. Without further discussion, w e affirm the portion of the f inal s ummary j udgment entered as to the claims asserted by Serrano against Epstein , as the issues raised by Serrano as to those claims lack merit. However , we reverse the entry of final summary judgment relating to Serrano’s claims alleged against defendant Chase Bank because Chase Bank did not move for summary judgment, and Serrano was not provided with notice and with3 a n opportunity to respond and prepare for the hearing as to her claims

asserted against Chase Bank. See Ness Racquet Club, LLC, v. Ocean

Four 2108, LLC , 88 So. 3d 200, 202 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (“Where a party has not filed a summary judgment motion or where no notice or opportunity to be heard has been given to the opposing side to present opposing affidavits, a trial court may not sua sponte grant summary jud gment in favor

of the non

- movant.”) ; Hotel 71 Mezz Lender, LLC v. Tutt , 66 So. 3d 1051,

1054 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (reversing summary judgment in favor of nonmoving party where opposing party was not given an opportunity to respond and prepare for hearing). Accordingly, we affirm, in part, and reverse, in part, the final summary judgment entered against Serrano. Affirmed, in part ; reversed, in part.
FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT
SARA L O W R

Y , Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. CIT Y O F SAN DIE G O ,

De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 13-56141 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-00946-M M A-W M C Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , San Die go
O R DE R

T H O M A S , C hie f Judge : Upon thevote of a

m a jority of nonre c use d

a c tive judge s, it is ordere d tha t this c a s e be re he ard e n ba n c pursua nt to Fe de ra l R

ule of Appe lla

te Proc e dure 35(a )
and C irc u it R

ule 35-3. The thre e -judge pa ne l opinion sha

ll not be c ite d a s pre c e de nt by

or to a ny c ourt of theNinth C irc uit. 

# F IL ED
SEP 16 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS
#### § 269b.620 Action by panel.

In any case where it is found, after a hearing, that the respondent has failed to comply with the final decision and order of the panel, the panel shall be empowered to take whatever action may be appropriate and shall expect the full cooperation of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in obtaining such compliance. Among the actions that may be taken by the panel against a noncomplying respondent labor organization, after a show cause hearing, may be suspension of that labor organization's checkoff privileges or recognition as exclusive bargaining representative for such period of time as determined by the panel.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>

This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
quarterly consolidated financial statements of UNUM Corporation and
subsidiaries and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such contained
in UNUM Corporation's SEC Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 1999.

</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         7,972,000
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                      28,800
<MORTGAGE>                                   1,273,300
<REAL-ESTATE>                                  140,000
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               9,824,900
<CASH>                                          77,000
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                           1,806,500
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                       1,357,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,381,200
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              9,449,900
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                          871,600
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                961,100
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        20,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,646,800
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,381,200
<PREMIUMS>                                   1,085,100
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            172,800
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               3,200
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  42,300
<BENEFITS>                                     881,200
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                   (95,600)<F1>
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 48,500
<INCOME-TAX>                                    33,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,500
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,500
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.11
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
<FN>
<F1>This item contains the amounts of deferred and amortized policy acquisition
costs for the period presented.
</FN>


</TABLE>
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

*Notice of Cancellation:*                     This notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on January 13, 2009, Volume 74, Number 8, pages 1689-1690. The meeting previously scheduled to convene on January 28, 2009, has been cancelled. The meeting was cancelled due to inclement weather and airport and facility inaccessibility. A notice will be published if the meeting is rescheduled.                

*Contact Person for More Information:*                     Theodore Katz, Executive Secretary, NIOSH, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, Mailstop E-20, Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone (513) 533-6800, Toll Free 1(800) CDC-INFO, e-mail                     *ocas@cdc.gov.*

                    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                     **Federal Register**                     notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC                           ( print page 6166)                        and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                

Dated: January 30, 2009.

Elaine L. Baker,

Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. E9-2447 Filed 2-4-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
# C_2011314EN.01000401.xml

| 27.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/4

---

State aid — Decision to raise no objections

2011/C 314/04

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following State aid measure:

| Date of adoption of the decision | : | 18 July 2011 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Case number | : | 68562 |
| Decision number | : | 248/11/COL |
| EFTA State | : | Norway |
| Title | : | The Norwegian Energy Fund scheme |
| Legal basis | : | Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement |
| Type of measure | : | Aid scheme |
| Objective | : | Environmental protection |
| Form of aid | : | Direct grants |
| Budget | : | NOK 1 865 million |
| Duration | : | 18 July 2011-31 December 2016 |
| Name and address of the granting authority | : | Enova SF |
| Professor Borchsgt. 2 |
| 7030 Trondheim |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

:

18 July 2011

Case number

:

68562

Decision number

:

248/11/COL

EFTA State

:

Norway

Title

:

The Norwegian Energy Fund scheme

Legal basis

:

Article 61(3)(c) of the EEA Agreement

Type of measure

:

Aid scheme

Objective

:

Environmental protection

Form of aid

:

Direct grants

Budget

:

NOK 1 865 million

Duration

:

18 July 2011-31 December 2016

Name and address of the granting authority

:

Enova SF

Professor Borchsgt. 2

7030 Trondheim

NORWAY

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:

http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 29, 2015

No. 04-15-00374-CV

IN RE Francisco J. AGUERO

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On June 22, 2015, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The court has considered 

relator’s petition and is of the opinion that relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, 

the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). The court’s opinion 

will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on June 29, 2015.

_____________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 29 day of June, 2015.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 1999CVG000760 C1, styled In the Interest of F.J.A., A Child, pending in 

the County Court at Law No. 1, Webb County, Texas, the Honorable Hugo Martinez presiding.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 19

- 00505

- CV

Knot Anymore, LLC, Appellant

v. Cyn Rod, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COUR T AT LAW NO. 2 OF TR AVIS COUNTY, NO. C

- 1

- CV

- 18

- 011897 , THE HONORABLE TODD T. WONG, JUDGE PRES IDING

O R D E R A N D M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

PER CURIAM Appellant Knot Anymore, LLC has filed a n unopposed motion to abate this appeal for a 45

- day period beginning on October 29 to allow th e parties to finalize a settleme nt agreement

. We grant the motion and abate the appeal. The parties shall submit either a joint status report concerning the status of settlement negotiations or a motion to dismiss on or before December 13, 2019

. The appeal will remain abated until fur th er order of this Court.
It is so ordered on N o vember 7 , 2019

.

Before Chie f Justice Rose, Justices Tria na and Smith
Abated
Filed: November 7, 2019
§ 1239.14 Strategic business plan. ( a ) *Adoption of strategic business plan.* Each board of directors shall adopt and have in effect at all times a strategic business plan for the regulated entity that describes, at a minimum, how the significant business activities of the regulated entity will achieve its mission and public purposes consistent with its authorizing statute, the Safety and Soundness Act, and, in the case of a Bank, part 1265 of this chapter. Specifically, each regulated entity's strategic business plan shall at a minimum: ( 1 ) ( i ) In the case of a Bank, articulate measurable goals and objectives for each significant business activity and for all authorized new business activities, which must include plans for maximizing activities that further the Bank's housing finance and community lending mission, consistent with part 1265 of this chapter;
( ii ) In the case of an Enterprise, articulate measurable goals and objectives for each significant existing activity and for significant authorized new activities;
( 2 ) Discuss how the regulated entity will address credit needs and market opportunities identified through ongoing market research and stakeholder consultations;
( 3 ) Describe any significant activities in which the regulated entity is planning to be engaged, including any significant changes to business strategy or approach that the regulated entity is planning to undertake, and discuss how such activities would further the regulated entity's mission and public purposes;
( 4 ) ( i ) In the case of a Bank, be supported by appropriate and timely research and analysis of relevant market developments and member and housing associate demand for Bank products and services;
( ii ) In the case of an Enterprise, be supported by appropriate and timely research and analysis of relevant market developments; and
( 5 ) Identify current and emerging risks associated with the regulated entity's significant existing activities or new activities, and discuss how the regulated entity plans to address such risks while furthering its public purposes and mission in a safe and sound manner.
( b ) *Review and monitoring.* Each board of directors shall: ( 1 ) Review the regulated entity's strategic business plan at least annually;
( 2 ) Re-adopt the strategic business plan for the regulated entity at least every three years; and
( 3 ) Establish management reporting requirements and monitor implementation of the strategic business plan and the goals and objectives contained therein.
[83 FR 52954, Oct. 19, 2018]
§ 263.24 Scope of document discovery. ( a ) *Limits on discovery.* ( 1 ) Subject to the limitations set out in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section, a party to a proceeding under this subpart may obtain document discovery by serving a written request to produce documents. For purposes of a request to produce documents, the term *documents* includes writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, recordings, electronically stored information, and other data or data compilations stored in any medium from which information can be obtained either directly or, if necessary, after translation by the responding party, into a reasonably usable form.
( 2 ) Discovery by use of deposition is governed by § 263.53.
( 3 ) Discovery by use of either interrogatories or requests for admission is not permitted.
( 4 ) Any request to produce documents that calls for irrelevant material; or that is unreasonable, oppressive, excessive in scope, unduly burdensome, or repetitive of previous requests, or that seeks to obtain privileged documents will be denied or modified. A request is unreasonable, oppressive, excessive in scope, or unduly burdensome if, among other things, it fails to include justifiable limitations on the time period covered and the geographic locations to be searched, or the time provided to respond in the request is inadequate.
( b ) *Relevance.* A party may obtain document discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that has material relevance to the merits of the pending action.
( c ) *Privileged matter.* Privileged documents are not discoverable. Privileges include the attorney-client privilege, attorney work-product doctrine, bank examination privilege, law enforcement privilege, any government's or government agency's deliberative process privilege, and any other privileges the Constitution, any applicable act of Congress, or the principles of common law provide.
( d ) *Time limits.* All document discovery, including all responses to discovery requests, must be completed by the date set by the ALJ and no later than 30 days prior to the date scheduled for the commencement of the hearing, except as provided in the Local Rules. No exceptions to this time limit are permitted, unless the ALJ finds on the record that good cause exists for waiving the requirements of this paragraph (d).