alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### WEINSTEIGER v GRAY

Ohio Appeals, 2nd Dist, Montgomery Co

No. 904.

Decided June 26, 1929

Messrs. Shively and Holmes, Dayton, for Weinsteiger.

Mr. John C. Ernst, Swanders, for Gray.

ALLREAD, J.

Now it may conceded that so far as Mrs. Weinsteiger was concerned, she did not expect to pay the bill at the time. She was, however, taken to the hospital in a private ambulance which was paid for by Mr. Robinette. When she went to the hospital she was not taken in a charity ward but was placed in a private room, for which payment was afterwards made. Dr. Gray testifies that he entered up charges against Mrs. Weinsteiger at the time but made no effort to collect the same until later on.

The question is as to whether there was an impliéd contract between Dr. Gray and Mrs. Weinsteiger. It is clear that Mrs. Weinsteiger at the time her aunts were present at the house fully understood what was being done far .her and also when she came to the hospital she was fully conscious because she testified to a conversation between her and the Sister. She was, therefore, competent to enter into an implied contract.

It was not only necessary that Mrs. Weinsteiger herself should understand that she was to be a charity patient, but also that Dr. Gray was to know and understand that she was a charity patient in the hospital and perform the services upon the faith thereof.

We are clear from the undisputed testimony, or at least by .the great weight of the testimony, that Dr. Gray did not so understand. He knew that there was no money in sight to be paid at once upon the operation, but he made his charges on his books at the time. Under these circumstances we think that Dr. Gray had the right at any time, when Mrs. Weinsteiger received her estate, to charge her with the amount of his bill.

While .it is true that upon disputed evidence, the trial court had the right to make a finding, yet where the judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence or against the undisputed evidence, the reviewing court has a right to consider the judgment in connection, with the evidence and reverse the same as contrary thereto.

*696We are of opinion that the judgment of the Common Pleas Court, holding, that the judgment of the Municipal Court was contrary to the weight of the evidence, should be sustained.

Kunkle and Hornbeck, JJ, concur.
| (1) | Registration      Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-41532) pertaining to the 2000 Equity Incentive      Plan and to the 2000 Non-Employee Directors’ Stock Option Plan of Lexicon      Pharmaceuticals, Inc., |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2) | Registration      Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-66380) pertaining to the Coelacanth      Corporation 1999 Stock Option Plan of Lexicon Pharmaceuticals,      Inc.,                                              |
| (3) | Registration      Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-67294) of Lexicon Pharmaceuticals,      Inc.,                                                                                                                   |
| (4) | Registration      Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-101549) of Lexicon Pharmaceuticals,      Inc.,                                                                                                                  |
| (5) | Registration      Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-108855) of Lexicon Pharmaceuticals,      Inc.,                                                                                                                  |
| (6) | Registration      Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-111821) of Lexicon Pharmaceuticals,      Inc.,                                                                                                                  |
| (7) | Registration      Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-122214) of Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,      and                                                                                                              |
| (8) | Registration      Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-144933) of Lexicon Pharmaceuticals,      Inc.;                                                                                                                  |
Editorial Note on Part 1251
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1251 appear at 81 FR 3709, Jan. 22, 2016.

§ 1251.200 Discrimination prohibited. ( a ) *General.* No qualified individual shall, on the basis of disability, be subjected to discrimination in employment under any program or activity to which this part applies.
( b ) *Employment discrimination standards.* The standards used to determine whether paragraph (a) of this section has been violated shall be the standards applied under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12111 *et seq.*) and, as such sections relate to employment, the provisions of sections 501 through 504 and 510 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12201-12204 and 12210), as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-325), as such standards are implemented in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's regulation at 29 CFR part 1630. The procedures to be used to determine whether paragraph (a) of this section has been violated shall be the procedures set forth in § 1251.400 of this part.
[81 FR 3712, Jan. 22, 2016]
#### Richard Schwarz, Appellant, v Bear Stearns Companies, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[698 NYS2d 855]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered August 27, 1998, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court properly dismissed plaintiffs cause of action under General Business Law § 349, since the securities transactions at issue are outside the scope of the statute (see, *Smith v Triad Mfg. Group,*255 AD2d 962, 964). In any event, defendants, as clearing brokers, had no duty to disclose to the introducing broker’s clients, and thus the statutory cause of action, as well as the negligence claim, was properly dismissed (see, *In re Blech Sec. Litig.,*928 F Supp 1279, 1295-1296). Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Williams, Lerner, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.
#### STATE OF FLORIDA v McLEOD

Appellate Case No. 86-1703 (County Court Case No. 056907 MT)

Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County

November 9, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Bill James, State Attorney, for the appellant.

Hiram R. McLeod, pro se.

OPINION OF THE COURT

MANUEL MENENDEZ, JR., Circuit Judge.

Defendant-Appellee, Hiram R. McLeod (hereafter the Defendant) was charged with driving while under the influence of alcoholic beverages. The defendant subsequently entered a plea of “no contest”. Prior to sentencing, defendant’s counsel asked the trial court to consider waiving any community service requirements as part of the defendant’s sentence. In support of this request, counsel noted that the defendant was an elderly individual (age 78) who cared for a sickly and elderly wife (she was an 80 year old who had recently undergone *132bypass surgery). Under these circumstances, defendant’s counsel urged the trial court to exercise its discretion and for humanitarian reasons waive any community service work requirement. The Plaintiff-Appellant, State of Florida (hereafter the State) objected. Over the State’s objection the trial court opted to temper justice with mercy and compassion and did not impose any community service work requirement as part of its sentence. The State again objected and then pursued this appeal. No appearance was made on appeal or behalf of the Defendant.

Fla. Stat. §316.193 (1985) in setting out the penalties for driving while under the influence of alcoholic beverages provides in pertinent part that the court “shall order the defendant to participate in public service or a community work project for a minimum of 50 hours”. Fla. Stat. § 316.656(1) (1985) provides in pertinent part that “no court may suspend, defer, or withhold adjudication of guilty or imposition of sentence for any violation of s. 316.193. . . .”

In an analogous situation the Second District Court of Appeal in *State v. Muoio,*438 So.2d 160 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) held that the trial court, in a driving while under the influence case, could not impose community service in lieu of a minimum mandatory fine. Since the legislature had mandated a minimum mandatory fine, the trial court was required to impose it.

The determination of maximum and minimum penalties lies within the legislative prerogative. *Dorminey v. State,*314 So.2d 134, 136 (Fla. 1975). The minimum mandatory provisions of section 316.193 cannot be said to be, on their face, cruel and unusual, accordingly they must be imposed. *See Sowell v. State,*342 So.2d 969 (Fla. 1977); *State v. Muoio, supra.*Therefore, it would appear that the trial court herein was bound to impose a “public service or . . . community work project” requirement as part of defendant’s sentence. In failing to do so, the court erred, albeit with good intentions. The case is hereby remanded for resentencing consistent with this opinion.

RECORDED this 9th day of November, 1987.
#### § 1202.1 Mediation.

The mediation services of the Board may be invoked by the parties, or either party, to a dispute between an employee or group of employees and a carrier concerning changes in rates of pay, rules, or working conditions not adjusted by the parties in conference; also, concerning a dispute not referable to the National Railroad Adjustment Board or appropriate airline adjustment board, when not adjusted in conference between the parties, or where conferences are refused. The National Mediation Board may proffer its services in case any labor emergency is found by it to exist at any time.
# EUR-Lex - 31998D0008 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31998D0008

**98/8/EC: Commission Decision of 16 December 1997 on the list of establishments in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia approved for the purpose of importing fresh meat into the Community (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 002 , 06/01/1998 P. 0012 - 0013 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 16 December 1997 on the list of establishments in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia approved for the purpose of importing fresh meat into the Community (Text with EEA relevance) (98/8/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 72/462/EEC of 12 December 1972 on health and veterinary inspection problems upon importation of bovine, bovine and caprine animals and swine and fresh meat or meat products from third countries (1), as last amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, and in particular Articles 4 (1) and 18 (1) (a) and (b) thereof,

Whereas establishments in third countries cannot be authorized to export fresh meat to the Community unless they satisfy the general and special conditions laid down in that Directive;

Whereas, in accordance with Article 4 (3) of Directive 72/462/EEC, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has forwarded a list of the establishments authorized to export to the Community;

Whereas, following a Community veterinary mission, it appears that the animal health situation in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia compares favourably with that in Community countries particularly as regards disease transmissible through meat;

Whereas Community on-the-spot inspections have shown that the hygiene standards of these establishments are sufficient and they may therefore be entered on a first list of establishments, drawn up in accordance with Article 4 (1) of that Directive, from which imports of fresh meat may be authorized;

Whereas imports of fresh meat from the establishments on the list in the Annex hereto continue to be subject to provisions already laid down, the general provisions of the Treaty and in particular the other Community veterinary regulations, particularly as regards health protection;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

1. The establishments in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia listed in the Annex are hereby approved for the purposes of exporting fresh meat to the Community.

2. Imports from those establishments shall remain subject to the Community veterinary provisions laid down elsewhere, and in particular those concerning health protection.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 16 December 1997.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 302, 31. 12. 1972, p. 28.

ANNEX

LIST OF ESTABLISHMENTS

>TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Calogero Callari, Respondent, against New York State Railways, Appellant. State Industrial Board, Respondent.

(Argued November 17, 1936;

decided December 1, 1936.)

*657
      *George D. Ogden*for appellant.

*Leonard D. Marafioti*and *Henry Redman Dutcher*for claimant, respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
Before the U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration ppp ^ q 

HCEIVEC 

) 

In the matter of ) 

EARING DOCKET 

) Docket No. CPlOSOOOll 

M & R HELICOPTER ) FAA Case No. 2009SO950434 

) Chief Judge Ronnie A. Yoder 

) :.:> 

) ^^ 

NOTICE OF CONTINUING OBJECTION 'f' ~ i^' 35 

Complainant hereby files this notice of a continuing objection to all future-i ;p^9:i 

pleadings filed by Respondent that reiterate the same or substantially similar argument--'' " 

CD r^.-j 

*...J 

raised in pleadings already filed in this matter. The sheer number of and nature of the 

pleadings filed by Respondent and redundancy of the arguments raised in them clearly 

indicates that Respondent is abusing the litigation process. At least 63 pleadings have 

been filed by Respondent, most of which raise redundant and baseless arguments. This is 

resulting in a waste of government resources as Complainant files responses to 

Respondent's pleadings that merely reiterate and redirect the Chief Administrative Law 

Judge to prior responses filed by Complainant. 

To the extent Respondent continues to file pleadings that raise redundant and 

meritless arguments, Complainant objects to those pleadings and respectfiilly submits this 

notice as Complainant's response to those pleadings. Complainant will file a response to 

any fiature pleadings that raise arguments that warrant a response, but will no longer 

respond to pleadings that abuse the process of law and raise arguments already addressed 

in other pleadings absent an order or intervention by the Chief Administrative Law Judge. 
Respectfully submitted, 

Peter J. Lynch 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

Date: February 18, 2011 

UAJi-^-^f^^';,^ CE^ ^ 

ra Ponto 

Attorney 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Phone: (202)267-9863 

Facsimile: (202)267-5106 
Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that on this date I have placed in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, 

certified return-receipt, a copy of Complainant's Notice of Continuing Objection In the 

Matter ofM&R Helicopters, Docket No. CPlOSOOOl 10, FAA Case no. 2009SO950434, 

addressed to: 

Dr. Michael B. Selig 

President 

M & R Helicopters, LLC 

2045 Westgate Dr., Suite 205 

Bethlehem, PA 18017 

In addition, I hereby certify that on this date I have sent by the U.S. mail, postage 

prepaid, certified return-receipt and facsimile one copy of the foregoing document to: 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Facsimile: 202-366-7536 

In addition, I hereby certify that on this date I have sent by the U.S. mail, postage 

prepaid, certified return-receipt, the original and one copy of the foregoing document to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

^rVtiiN ^^ot^HK 

Dated: February 18, 2011
#### C. W. Schmidt et al., Appellants, v. M. E. Gruber, Appellee.

Appeal from decree of the Circuit Court for the County of Dade.

Appeal dismissed on praecipe of counsel for Appellants.

Geo. A. Worley, for Appellants.
# EUR-Lex - 31994R0822 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31994R0822

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 822/94 of 13 April 1994 adjusting the CN codes for apples listed in the Annex to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2019/93 introducing specific measures for the smaller Aegean Islands concerning certain agricultural products **

*
Official Journal L 095 , 14/04/1994 P. 0001 - 0001 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 56 P. 0289 Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 56 P. 0289 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 822/94 of 13 April 1994 adjusting the CN codes for apples listed in the Annex to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2019/93 introducing specific measures for the smaller Aegean Islands concerning certain agricultural products

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 234/79 of 5 February 1979 on the procedure for adjusting the Common Customs Tariff nomenclature used for agricultural products (1), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3209/89 (2), and in particular Article 2 (1) thereof,

Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2505/92 of 14 July 1992 amending Annexes I and II to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (3) contains the combined nomenclature in force at the time of the entry into force of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2019/93 of 19 July 1993 introducing specific measures for the smaller Aegean islands concerning certain agricultural products (4);

Whereas the combined nomenclature code used to designate apples in the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 2019/93 is the code which was in force in 1992 and whereas that code does not correspond to the code in force since 1993; whereas the code in question should consequently be adjusted;

Whereas such adjustment must take effect on the date of entry into force of the Regulation (EEC) No 2019/93;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fruit and Vegetables,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 2019/93, CN codes '0808 10 91 to 0808 10 99` designating apples are hereby replaced by CN codes '0808 10 31 to 0808 10 89`.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

It shall apply from 30 July 1993.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 13 April 1994.

For the Commission

René STEICHEN

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 34, 9. 2. 1979, p. 2.

(2) OJ No L 312, 27. 10. 1989, p. 5.

(3) OJ No L 267, 14. 9. 1992, p. 1.

(4) OJ No L 184, 27. 7. 1993, p. 1.
#### § 1602.35 Political jurisdiction's exemption from reporting requirements.

If it is claimed that the preparation or filing of the report would create undue hardship, the political jurisdiction may apply to the Commission for an exemption from the requirements set forth in this part by submitting to the Commission or its delegate a specific proposal for an alternative reporting system prior to the date on which the report is due.
EX-10.7






Exhibit 10.7




Confirmation




By signing below, Linkage Technology (Nanjing) Co., Ltd. (the “Company”), a wholly foreign-owned
enterprise legally registered and validly existing under the laws of the People’s Republic of
China, and Lianchuang Technology Company Limited (“Lianchuang Technology”), a limited company
legally registered and validly existing under the laws of the People’s Republic of China,
acknowledges and confirms to each other the following:




	1.	 	During the period from January 1, 2006 to September 14, 2009 the Company had extended credit
to Lianchuang Technology in the form of interest-free, unsecured and short-term loans in such
amounts as set forth in Annex I attached hereto (“Loans”);






	2.	 	No credit agreement, promissory note or similar document or instrument was entered into with
respect to such Loans;






	3.	 	54% of such Loans were repaid within one (1) month of the date of borrowing and all such
Loans were repaid within six (6) months of the date of borrowing. As of the date here of, no
such Loan is outstanding; and






	4.	 	No further extension of credit was made by the Company to Lianchuang Technology after
September 14, 2009.





Date: September 16, 2009




Lianchuang Technology Company Limited

Legal representative or authorized representative (signature):




/s/ Libin Sun




Name:Sun Libin

Title: Chairman




Linkage Technology (Nanjing) Co., Ltd.

Legal representative or authorized representative (signature):




/s/ Libin Sun




Name:Sun Libin

Title: Chairman and CEO





 









 





ANNEX I




(USD 000)




	 	 	 	 	 
	As of January 1, 2006
	 	 	—	 
	Lend
	 	 	10,539	 
	Repaid
	 	 	10,365	 
	As of December 31, 2006
	 	 	174	 
	Lend
	 	 	5,160	 
	Repaid
	 	 	5,334	 
	As of December 31, 2007
	 	 	—	 
	Lend
	 	 	15,579	 
	Repaid
	 	 	15,579	 
	As of December 31, 2008
	 	 	—	 
	Lend
	 	 	6,063	 
	Repaid
	 	 	6,063	 
	As of September 14, 2009
	 	 	—
#### § 0.737-1 Applicability.

This subpart is applicable to any former employee of the Department of Labor leaving Government service on or after July 1, 1979 and prior to January 1, 1991.

[64 FR 73853, Dec. 30, 1999]
§ 1470.50 Closeout. ( a ) *General.* The Federal agency will close out the award when it determines that all applicable administrative actions and all required work of the grant has been completed.
( b ) *Reports.* Within 90 days after the expiration or termination of the grant, the grantee must submit all financial, performance, and other reports required as a condition of the grant. Upon request by the grantee, Federal agencies may extend this timeframe. These may include but are not limited to: ( 1 ) Final performance or progress report.
( 2 ) Financial Status Report (SF-269) or Outlay Report and Request for Reimbursement for Construction Programs (SF-271) (as applicable).
( 3 ) Final request for payment (SF-270) (if applicable).
( 4 ) Invention disclosure (if applicable).
( 5 ) Federally-owned property report: In accordance with § 1470.32(f), a grantee must submit an inventory of all federally owned property (as distinct from property acquired with grant funds) for which it is accountable and request disposition instructions from the Federal agency of property no longer needed.
( c ) *Cost adjustment.* The Federal agency will, within 90 days after receipt of reports in paragraph (b) of this section, make upward or downward adjustments to the allowable costs.
( d ) *Cash adjustments.* ( 1 ) The Federal agency will make prompt payment to the grantee for allowable reimbursable costs.
( 2 ) The grantee must immediately refund to the Federal agency any balance of unobligated (unencumbered) cash advanced that is not authorized to be retained for use on other grants.