alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
42633.

#### BUCKHEAD DOCTORS’ BUILDING, INC. v. OXFORD FINANCE COMPANIES, INC. et al.

Argued March 6, 1967

Decided April 5, 1967.

*535*Moretón Rolleston, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Robert B. Harris, Nancy Pat Phillips, Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, D. R. Cumming, Jr., W. Laurens Walker, J. Robert Coleman,*for appellees.

Felton, Chief Judge.

Even assuming the existence of a binding loan commitment to the plaintiff on the part of the appellee, the amended petition, properly construed, shows that the alleged cancellation of such commitment was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s alleged damages.

“When considered on general demurrer ... a petition must be construed most strongly against the pleader; in apply*536ing this rule the petition will be construed in the light of its omissions as well as its averments. *Mackler v. Lahman,*196 Ga. 535, 537 (27 SE2d 35); *Toler v. Goodin,*200 Ga. 527, 534 (37 SE2d 609). The pleader’s failure to allege essential facts and his reliance upon allegations that fall short of essential facts will be construed to import the absence of those facts. *Hulsey v. Interstate Life &c. Ins. Co.,*207 Ga. 167, 170 (60 SE2d 353); *Sterling Materials Co. v. McKinley,*218 Ga. 574 (1) (129 SE2d 770).” *Covil v. Robert & Co. Associates,*112 Ga. App. 163, 168 (144 SE2d 450). “If an inference unfavorable to the right of a party claiming a right under such pleadings may be fairly drawn from the facts stated therein, such inference will prevail in determining the rights of the parties.” *Chalverus v. Wilson Mfg. Co.,*212 Ga. 612 (1) (94 SE2d 736).

Under Georgia law, the grantee-seller under power of sale in a security deed has a duty to sell the property at its fair market value. *Langley v. Stone,*112 Ga. App. 237, 239 (2) (144 SE2d 627). In the absence of any allegation that the security deed under which the plaintiff’s property was sold contained a provision relieving the grantee-bank of this duty, it must be assumed that the duty was incumbent on it. Tire allegations that the fair market value of the property at the time of its sale was $2,415,000, that the total amount of outstanding loans thereon was $1,300,000 and that the plaintiff’s equity therein was $815,000, for which it sues, can be construed to mean only that the property was sold for at least $815,000 less than the alleged fair market value. So construed, the petition fails to state a cause of action against the appellee, since it shows that the proximate cause of the alleged loss of the plaintiff’s equity was the grantee-bank’s failure to conduct its foreclosure proceedings in accordance with the duty required of it under the law hereinabove stated, rather than any act or omission of the appelleedefendant.

Accordingly, the court did not err in its judgment sustaining the renewed general demurrer to the petition as amended.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Hall and Eberhardt, JJ., concur.*
sourceTypeID roadTypeID roadTypeVMTFraction

11 1 0.000000

11 2 0.070000

11 3 0.319999

11 4 0.239998

11 5 0.370003

21 1 0.000000

21 2 0.070000

21 3 0.319999

21 4 0.239998

21 5 0.370003

31 1 0.000000

31 2 0.070000

31 3 0.319999

31 4 0.239998

31 5 0.370003

32 1 0.000000

32 2 0.070000

32 3 0.319999

32 4 0.239998

32 5 0.370003

41 1 0.000000

41 2 0.070000

41 3 0.319999

41 4 0.239998

41 5 0.370003

42 1 0.000000

42 2 0.070000

42 3 0.319999

42 4 0.239998

42 5 0.370003

43 1 0.000000

43 2 0.070000

43 3 0.319999

43 4 0.239998

43 5 0.370003

51 1 0.000000

51 2 0.070000

51 3 0.319999

51 4 0.239998

51 5 0.370003

52 1 0.000000

52 2 0.070000

52 3 0.319999

52 4 0.239998

52 5 0.370003

53 1 0.000000

53 2 0.070000

53 3 0.319999

53 4 0.239998

53 5 0.370003

54 1 0.000000
54

2 0.070000

543 0.319999

544 0.239998

545 0.370003

611 0.000000

612 0.070000

613 0.319999

614 0.239998

615 0.370003

621 0.000000

622 0.070000

623 0.319999

624 0.239998

625 0.370003
#### § 34.61 Purpose and scope.

This subpart, issued pursuant to section 304 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991, 12 U.S.C. 1828(o), prescribes standards for real estate lending to be used by national banks in adopting internal real estate lending policies.
§ 35.9 Compliance provisions. ( a ) *Willful failure to comply with disclosure and reporting obligations.* ( 1 ) If the OCC determines that a NGEP has willfully failed to comply in a material way with § 35.6 or § 35.7, the OCC will notify the NGEP in writing of that determination and provide the NGEP a period of 90 days (or such longer period as the OCC finds to be reasonable under the circumstances) to comply.
( 2 ) If the NGEP does not comply within the time period established by the OCC, the agreement shall thereafter be unenforceable by that NGEP by operation of section 48 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1831y).
( 3 ) The OCC may assist any insured depository institution or affiliate that is a party to a covered agreement that is unenforceable by a NGEP by operation of section 48 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1831y) in identifying a successor to assume the NGEP's responsibilities under the agreement.
( b ) *Diversion of funds.* If a court or other body of competent jurisdiction determines that funds or resources received under a covered agreement have been diverted contrary to the purposes of the covered agreement for an individual's personal financial gain, the OCC may take either or both of the following actions— ( 1 ) Order the individual to disgorge the diverted funds or resources received under the agreement;
( 2 ) Prohibit the individual from being a party to any covered agreement for a period not to exceed 10 years.
( c ) *Notice and opportunity to respond.* Before making a determination under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, or taking any action under paragraph (b) of this section, the OCC will provide written notice and an opportunity to present information to the OCC concerning any relevant facts or circumstances relating to the matter.
( d ) *Inadvertent or de minimis errors.* Inadvertent or de minimis errors in annual reports or other documents filed with the OCC under §§ 35.6 or 35.7 will not subject the reporting party to any penalty.
( e ) *Enforcement of provisions in covered agreements.* No provision of this part shall be construed as authorizing the OCC to enforce the provisions of any covered agreement.
#### §§ 303.47-303.59 [Reserved]
#### Max Scheuer et al., Respondents, *v.*Selig Rosenbaum et al., Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment, after trial, before a jury, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

Rose & Putzel (Gibson Putzel, of counsel), for appellants.

Louis Hess, for respondents.

Conlan, J.

The simple question before us on this appeal was whether or not certain goods ordered by the defendants from the plaintiffs were delivered.or tendered in time.

Upon this question, the evidence upon the trial was in conflict, and the charge of the trial justice, to which there was no exception, clearly stated the whole case to the jury. In addition to this, the defendants, at the close of all the testimony, asked the court to submit to the jury this precise, question of delivery, and the court acquiesced. The jury determined the whole matter in favor of the plaintiffs, and we have no inclination to disturb their finding

Judgment and order appealed from must, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.

Hascall and Schuchman, JJ., concur.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

925 KA 08-01253
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RABAH E. MORAN, ALSO KNOWN AS TERRY MCKEE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JANET C. SOMES OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL C. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (John R. Schwartz, A.J.), rendered January 14, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a nonjury verdict, of rape in the first degree and false personation.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a nonjury verdict of, inter alia, rape in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.35 [1]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contentions that his purported waiver of the right to a jury trial is invalid because the record does not establish that he signed the written waiver in open court, as required by CPL 320.10 and article I, § 2 of the New York Constitution ( see People v Magnano , 158 AD2d 979, affd 77 NY2d 941, cert denied 502 US 864; People v Brown , 81 AD3d 499), and that he did not voluntarily waive his right to a jury trial ( see People v Dixon
, 50 AD3d 1519, lv denied 10 NY3d 958; People v White , 43 AD3d 1407, lv denied 9 NY3d 1010; People v Jackson , 26 AD3d 781, 781-782, lv denied 6 NY3d 849). In any event, those contentions are without merit. Defendant repeatedly waived his right to a jury trial in open court and executed a written waiver of that right prior to the commencement of trial, and the record establishes that defendant’s waiver was knowing, voluntary and intelligent ( see People v O’Diah , 68 AD3d 787, 787-788, lv denied 14 NY3d 803, 15 NY3d 776; People v LaConte , 45 AD3d 699, lv denied 10 NY3d 767; People v Jackson , 26 AD3d 781, 781-782, lv denied 6 NY3d 849). Although the transcript of the waiver proceedings does not conclusively establish that defendant signed the written waiver in open court, we note that the waiver form, which was signed by defendant, defense counsel, and the trial judge, expressly states that the waiver was made in open-2- 925 KA 08-01253

court ( see Brown , 81 AD3d at 500; see also Magnano ,158 AD2d 979). Further, the record contains an extensive colloquy concerning defendant’s waiver of his right to a jury trial ( see Brown , 81 AD3d at 500; People v Badden , 13 AD3d 463, lv denied 4 NY3d 796; People v Perez , 213 AD2d 351, lv denied 85 NY2d 978).

Finally, we reject defendant’s contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel by the cumulative effect of alleged errors at trial. Viewing the evidence, the law and the circumstances of this case, in totality and as of the time of the representation, we conclude that defense counsel provided meaningful representation ( see generally People v Baldi , 54 NY2d 137, 147).

Entered: September 30, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
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 Agriculture

###### Agricultural Research Service

# AGENCY:

Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice and request for comments.

# SUMMARY:

                        The notice to seek comment on the Agricultural Research Services (ARS) intent to seek approval from OMB to reinstatement the ARS Animal Health National Program Assessment Survey was published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on August 6, 2009. The document contained the wrong date for public comment.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. Cyril G. Gay, 301-504-4786.

## Correction

                        In the                         **Federal Register**                         of August 6, 2009, in FR Doc. E9-18848, on page 1501, in the Dates column, correct section to read as follows:                    

# DATES:

Comments must be submitted on or before October 9, 2009.

Dated: October 5, 2009.

Yvette Anderson,

Federal Register Liaison Officer for Agriculture Research Service.

[FR Doc. E9-24375 Filed 10-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
§ 22.4 Exemptions. The flood insurance requirement prescribed by § 22.3 does not apply with respect to: ( a ) Any State-owned property covered under a policy of self-insurance satisfactory to the Administrator of FEMA, who publishes and periodically revises the list of States falling within this exemption;
( b ) Property securing any loan with an original principal balance of $5,000 or less and a repayment term of one year or less; or
( c ) Any structure that is a part of any residential property but is detached from the primary residential structure of such property and does not serve as a residence. For purposes of this paragraph (c): ( 1 ) “A structure that is a part of a residential property” is a structure used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, and not used primarily for agricultural, commercial, industrial, or other business purposes;
( 2 ) A structure is “detached” from the primary residential structure if it is not joined by any structural connection to that structure; and
( 3 ) “Serve as a residence” shall be based upon the good faith determination of the national bank or Federal savings association that the structure is intended for use or actually used as a residence, which generally includes sleeping, bathroom, or kitchen facilities.
#### §§ 3.54-3.60 [Reserved]
```

[Federal Register: March 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 45)]
[Notices]               
[Page 10791]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09mr10-42]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

 
Sunshine Act Notice

AGENCY: U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Public Meeting Agenda.

Date and Time: Thursday, March 11, 2010, 10 a.m.-12 p.m. EST.

Place: U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 1225 New York Ave, NW., 
Suite 150, Washington, DC 20005 (Metro Stop: Metro Center).

Agenda

    The Commission will hold a public meeting to discuss identifying 
and mitigating risk in elections operations. Commissioners will receive 
an update on re-accrediting Wyle Laboratories, Inc. Commissioners will 
consider other administrative matters.
    Members of the public may observe but not participate in EAC 
meetings unless this notice provides otherwise. Members of the public 
may use small electronic audio recording devices to record the 
proceedings. The use of other recording equipment and cameras requires 
advance notice to and coordination with the Commission's Communications 
Office.*
    * View EAC Regulations Implementing Government in the Sunshine Act.
    This meeting and hearing will be open to the public.

Person to Contact for Information: Bryan Whitener, Telephone: (202) 
566-3100.

Thomas R. Wilkey,
Executive Director, U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-5052 Filed 3-5-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-KF-P
```
# C_2010325EN.01002101.xml

| 2.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 325/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/21

---

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 26 March 2010 in the case of Þór Kolbeinsson v the Icelandic State

(Case E-2/10)

2010/C 325/05

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 26 March 2010 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 6 April 2010, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Þór Kolbeinsson v the Icelandic State, on the following questions:

| 1. | Is it compatible with the provisions of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work and Council Directive 92/57/EEC of 24 June 1992 on the implementation of minimum safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile construction sites (eighth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) that a worker, due to his own contributory negligence, is held liable for losses suffered as a result of an accident at work, when it has been established that the employer has not on his own initiative complied with rules regarding safety and conditions in the work place? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it compatible with the provisions of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work and Council Directive 92/57/EEC of 24 June 1992 on the implementation of minimum safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile construction sites (eighth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) that a worker, due to his own contributory negligence, is held liable for losses suffered as a result of an accident at work, when it has been established that the employer has not on his own initiative complied with rules regarding safety and conditions in the work place?

| 2. | If the answer to the above question is in the negative, is the Icelandic State then liable to award damages to a worker who suffered an accident at work and had to, contrary to the aforementioned directives, partly or wholly bear the losses suffered, due to his own contributory negligence, on the grounds that the State had not correctly implemented these directives into Icelandic law? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the above question is in the negative, is the Icelandic State then liable to award damages to a worker who suffered an accident at work and had to, contrary to the aforementioned directives, partly or wholly bear the losses suffered, due to his own contributory negligence, on the grounds that the State had not correctly implemented these directives into Icelandic law?

---
# C_2022201EN.01000301.xml

| 18.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

17 May 2022

(2022/C 201/03)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0541 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 136,32 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4414 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84400 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,4393 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0457 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 138,70 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,1780 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,712 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 386,30 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,6488 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9478 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 16,6027 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4993 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3517 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,2744 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6561 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4589 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 333,66 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,8440 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,0899 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5245 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 433,23 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6211 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 55,137 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | |
| THB | Thai baht | 36,361 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,2621 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,0273 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 81,6515 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0541

JPY

Japanese yen

136,32

DKK

Danish krone

7,4414

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84400

SEK

Swedish krona

10,4393

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0457

ISK

Iceland króna

138,70

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,1780

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,712

HUF

Hungarian forint

386,30

PLN

Polish zloty

4,6488

RON

Romanian leu

4,9478

TRY

Turkish lira

16,6027

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4993

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3517

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,2744

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6561

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4589

KRW

South Korean won

1 333,66

ZAR

South African rand

16,8440

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,0899

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5245

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 433,23

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6211

PHP

Philippine peso

55,137

RUB

Russian rouble

THB

Thai baht

36,361

BRL

Brazilian real

5,2621

MXN

Mexican peso

21,0273

INR

Indian rupee

81,6515

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
§ 1239.5 Board committees. ( a ) *General.* The board of directors may rely, in directing a regulated entity, on reports from committees of the board of directors, provided, however, that no committee of the board of directors shall have the authority of the board of directors to amend the bylaws and no committee shall operate to relieve the board of directors or any board member of a responsibility imposed by applicable law, rule, or regulation.
( b ) *Required committees.* The board of directors of each regulated entity shall have committees, however styled, that address each of the following areas of responsibility: Risk management; audit; compensation; and corporate governance (in the case of the Banks, including the nomination of independent board of director candidates, and, in the case of the Enterprises, including the nomination of all board of director candidates). The risk management committee and the audit committee shall not be combined with any other committees. The board of directors may establish any other committees that it deems necessary or useful to carrying out its responsibilities, subject to the provisions of this section. In the case of the Enterprises, board committees shall comply with the charter, independence, composition, expertise, duties, responsibilities, and other requirements set forth under rules issued by the NYSE, and the audit committees shall also comply with the requirements set forth under section 301 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Public Law 107-204.
( c ) *Charter.* The board of directors shall adopt a formal written charter for each committee that specifies the scope of a committee's powers and responsibilities, as well as the committee's structure, processes, and membership requirements.
( d ) *Frequency of meetings.* Each committee of the board of directors shall meet regularly and with sufficient frequency to carry out its obligations and duties under applicable laws, rules, regulations, and guidelines. Committees that are structured to meet only on an as-needed basis shall meet in the manner specified by their charter. All such committees shall also meet with sufficient timeliness as necessary in light of relevant conditions and circumstances to fulfill their obligations and duties.