alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DOUGLAS M. CHERTOK and §

VAST VENTURES LLC, a Florida §

Limited Liability Company, § No. 363, 2021

§

Plaintiffs Below, §

Appellants, § Court Below: Court of Chancery

§ of the State of Delaware

v. §

§

ZILLOW, INC., a Washington § C.A. No. 2019-0849

corporation (successor to NMD §

INTERACTIVE, INC., a Delaware §

corporation, aka STREETEASY, INC.), §

§

Defendants Below, §

Appellee. §

Submitted: May 11, 2022

Decided: June 1, 2022

Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices. 

O R D E R 

This 1st day of June 2022, having considered this matter on the briefs of parties and 

the record below, and having concluded that the same should be affirmed on the basis of 

and for the reasons assigned by the Court of Chancery it its Opinion dated October 18, 

2021.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of Chancery 

be and the same hereby is AFFIRMED. 

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I,
Lisa R. Hood, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of FairPoint Communications, Inc. (the "Company");

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
Company's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Company and have:



5.     The
Company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company's auditors
and the audit committee of the Company's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
May 27, 2010

/s/ LISA R. HOODLisa R. Hood Interim Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
§ 13.12 Department of Labor requirements. ( a ) *Notice* — ( 1 ) *Wage Determinations OnLine Web site.* The Administrator will publish and maintain on Wage Determinations OnLine (WDOL), *http://www.wdol.gov*, or any successor site, a notice that Executive Order 13706 creates a requirement to allow employees performing work on or in connection with contracts covered by Executive Order 13706 and this part to accrue and use paid sick leave, as well as an indication of where to find more complete information about that requirement.
( 2 ) *Wage determinations.* The Administrator will publish on all wage determinations issued under the Davis-Bacon Act and the Service Contract Act a notice that Executive Order 13706 creates a requirement to allow employees performing work on or in connection with contracts covered by Executive Order 13706 and this part to accrue and use paid sick leave, as well as an indication of where to find more complete information about that requirement.
( b ) *Notification to a contractor of the withholding of funds.* If the Administrator requests that a contracting agency withhold funds from a contractor pursuant to § 13.11(c), or suspend payment, advance, or guarantee of funds pursuant to § 13.11(d), the Administrator and/or contracting agency shall notify the affected prime contractor of the Administrator's request to the contracting agency.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4569 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4569

 To modify the boundary of the Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument 
            in the State of Arizona, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 15, 2020

Ms. McSally (for herself and Ms. Sinema) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To modify the boundary of the Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument 
            in the State of Arizona, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Sunset Crater Volcano National 
Monument Boundary Adjustment Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) Federal land.--The term ``Federal land'' means the 
        approximately 97.71 acres of Forest Service land identified as 
        ``Proposed transfer from USDA Forest Service to National Park 
        Service'' on the Map.
            (2) Map.--The term ``Map'' means the map entitled ``Sunset 
        Crater Volcano National Monument Draft Proposed Boundary 
        Adjustment'', numbered 039/80,053d, and dated March 2020.
            (3) Monument.--The term ``Monument'' means the Sunset 
        Crater Volcano National Monument established by Presidential 
        Proclamation 1911 (54 U.S.C. 320301 note; 46 Stat. 3023) and 
        redesignated by section 15 of the Smith River National 
        Recreation Area Act (Public Law 101-612; 104 Stat. 3222).
            (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
        of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National 
        Park Service.

SEC. 3. SUNSET CRATER VOLCANO NATIONAL MONUMENT BOUNDARY MODIFICATION.

    (a) Boundary Modification.--The boundary of the Monument is 
modified to include the Federal land.
    (b) Map Availability.--The Map shall be on file and available for 
inspection in the appropriate offices of the National Park Service.
    (c) Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction to National Park 
Service.--Administrative jurisdiction over the Federal land is 
transferred from the Forest Service to the National Park Service.
    (d) Administration.--Subject to valid existing rights, the 
Secretary shall administer the Federal land added to the Monument under 
subsection (a)--
            (1) as part of the Monument; and
            (2) in accordance with applicable laws (including 
        regulations).
                                 <all>
```
#### BULL, EXECUTOR, v. UNITED STATES

[79 C. Cls. 133; 295 U. S. 247]

*976Mr. Justice Roberts

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court.
#### BAIZE v. CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INS. CO. et al.

No. 29453.

April 16, 1940.

*102 P. 2d 171.*

B. A. Hamilton, S. J. Clendinning, and Eben L. Taylor, all of Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Harper, Williams & Boesche, of Tulsa, for defendants in error.

CORN, J.

The plaintiff in error, plaintiff below, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying motion to vacate verdict and judgment against him in favor of defendants in error, defendants below, and to enter an order on the dismissal without prejudice of this cause by plaintiff in accordance with his attempted dismissal at the conclusion of the trial.

The respective parties having introduced their testimony in chief and rested, the defendants, in the absence of the jury, severally moved for a directed verdict, which motions were argued to the court, and the trial judge indicated his intention of sustaining same. The jury was recalled and the plaintiff thereupon asked leave to reopen his case for the introduction of additional testimony, which leave was granted, the defendants not objecting. Whereupon the plaintiff called a witness to the stand and the inquiry was ruled out on the ground of repetition. Then the plaintiff announced the dismissal of the case without prejudice as to each of the defendants. The court refused to enter an order of dismissal, but proceeded to direct the verdict for the defendants and each of them.

The decisive question presented by the appeal is whether or not the court erred in refusing the plaintiff permission to dismiss the action without prejudice.

This question was passed upon and settled by this court in Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Reynolds, 157 Okla. 268, *11012 P. 2d 208, and in White v. Tulsa Iron & Metal Corp., 185 Okla. 606, 95 P. 2d 590. In said cases it was held that plaintiff’s motion to dismiss action as a matter of right, under section 418, O. S. 1931, 12 Okla. St. Ann. § 683, when made after the court indicated ruling adverse to plaintiff on defendants’ demurrer to the evidence, comes too late.

It is also held in said decisions and others cited therein that such motion is addressed to the court’s discretion. No good reason is shown in the record why the court should have permitted the dismissal of the action.

The judgment is affirmed.

BAYLESS, C. J., and OSBORN, GIBSON, and DAVISON, JJ„ concur.
§ 29.993 Fuel system lines and fittings. ( a ) Each fuel line must be installed and supported to prevent excessive vibration and to withstand loads due to fuel pressure, valve actuation, and accelerated flight conditions.
( b ) Each fuel line connected to components of the rotorcraft between which relative motion could exist must have provisions for flexibility.
( c ) Each flexible connection in fuel lines that may be under pressure or subjected to axial loading must use flexible hose assemblies.
( d ) Flexible hose must be approved.
( e ) No flexible hose that might be adversely affected by high temperatures may be used where excessive temperatures will exist during operation or after engine shutdown.
#### § 1403.4 Assignment of mediators.

The Federal Service will assign one or more mediators to each labor-management dispute in which it has been determined that its services should proffered.
#### Day and others *vs.*Gallup.

A *certiorari*to remove a cause from the common pleas, cannot be issued after one trial had in that court.

In this case a *certiorari*to remove the cause into this court from a court of common pleas, was filed after a trial had been had and a new trial granted. The court quashed the writ, on the ground that the statute on this subject manifestly requires diligence in a party who wishes to remove a cáuse by *certiorari,*and that *after one tried had*it is too late to remove the cause.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4810 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4810

     To require employee consent for any deferral of payroll taxes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 19, 2020

  Mr. Van Hollen (for himself, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Warner, Mr. Markey, Ms. 
 Warren, Mr. Bennet, Ms. Sinema, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Reed, Mr. Kaine, Mr. 
 Blumenthal, Mr. Whitehouse, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Manchin, Mrs. 
Murray, Mrs. Feinstein, and Ms. Collins) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To require employee consent for any deferral of payroll taxes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Employees from Surprise 
Taxes Act of 2020''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT OF EMPLOYEE CONSENT FOR ANY DEFERRAL OF PAYROLL 
              TAXES.

    (a) In General.--In the case of an employee of any employer, 
including any Federal Government employer, the withholding and payment 
of the tax imposed by section 3101(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986, and so much of the tax imposed by section 3201 of such Code as is 
attributable to the rate in effect under such section 3101(a), with 
respect to such employee shall not be deferred pursuant to section 
7508A of such Code for any pay period ending after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, unless the employee provides written consent to 
such deferral to the employer.
    (b) Liability for Failure To Remit Taxes.--In the case of any 
employee who does not provide the written consent required under 
subsection (a), the employer of such employee shall be solely liable 
according to the rules of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for any 
failure to withhold and remit the taxes described in such subsection.
    (c) Notice.--Each employer who participates in any deferral of the 
withholding and payment of the taxes imposed by sections 3101(a) and 
3201 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 pursuant to section 7508A of 
such Code shall provide notice, in such manner as the Secretary of the 
Treasury (or the Secretary's delegate) may prescribe as soon as 
possible after the date of the enactment of this Act, to each employee 
of the employer of the employee's right to provide or withhold written 
consent under this section, and of the future tax liability which would 
be incurred as a result of providing consent to the deferral of such 
taxes.
                                 <all>
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 213

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 213 appear at 61 FR 34725, July 3, 1996.

#### § 213.7 Filing requirements for adherence to Montreal Agreement.

It shall be a condition upon the holding of a foreign air carrier permit or other authority authorizing direct foreign scheduled air transportation that the holder have and maintain in effect and on file with the Department a signed counterpart of Agreement 18900 (OST Form 4523), and a tariff (for those carriers otherwise generally required to file tariffs) that includes its provisions, and comply with all other requirements of part 203 of this chapter. That form can be obtained from the Foreign Air Carrier Licensing Division (X-45), Office of International Aviation, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 3024-0064)

[ER-1330, 48 FR 8050, Feb. 25, 1983, as amended by ER-1346, 48 FR 31014, July 6, 1983; 61 FR 34725, July 3, 1996]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

39–011 2014

113th Congress, 2d Session – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 113–120 

DESIGNATION OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR OF 

THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION 

MESSAGE 

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRANSMITTING

NOTIFICATION OF THE DESIGNATION OF MEREDITH M. 

BROADBENT AS CHAIR AND DEAN A. PINKERT AS VICE CHAIR 

OF THE UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, 

EFFECTIVE JUNE 17, 2014, PURSUANT TO 19 U.S.C. 1330(c)(1) 

JUNE 17, 2014.—Message and accompanying papers referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means and ordered to be printed 


tjames on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTSE:\Seals\Congress.#13

tjames on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(1) 

To the Congress of the United States: 

Consistent with the provisions of 19 U.S.C. 1330(c)(1), this is to 

notify the Congress that I have designated Meredith M. Broadbent 

as Chair and Dean A. Pinkert as Vice Chair of the United States 

International Trade Commission, effective June 17, 2014. 

BARACK OBAMA. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, June 17, 2014. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DOUGLAS M. CHERTOK and §

VAST VENTURES LLC, a Florida §

Limited Liability Company, § No. 363, 2021

§

Plaintiffs Below, §

Appellants, § Court Below: Court of Chancery

§ of the State of Delaware

v. §

§

ZILLOW, INC., a Washington § C.A. No. 2019

- 0849

corporation (successor to NMD §

INTERACTIVE, INC., a Delaware §

corporation, aka STREETEASY, INC.), §

§

Defendants Below, §

Appellee. §

Submitted: May 11, 2022

Decided: June 1 , 2022

Before VALIHURA

, VAUGHN and MONTGOMERY

- REEVES , Justices.

O R D E R

This 1st day of June 2022, having considered this matter on the briefs of parties and

the record below, and having concluded that the same should be affirmed on the basis of

and for the reasons assigned by the Court of Chancery it its Opinion dated October 18,

2021.

NOW, THE REFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of Chancery

be and the same hereby is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice
#### Gary Sazer et al., Appellants, v Vera G. Marino, Respondent.

[698 NYS2d 867]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for breach of warranty of habitability, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Segal, J.), entered August 24, 1998, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 which was to dismiss stated portions of the first cause of action asserted in the complaint and struck all of the allegations in the first cause of action except those which relate to defects in the subject intake grill and flues, and water leaks.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the provisions thereof which struck all of the allegations in the first cause of action except those which relate to defects in the subject intake grill and flues, and water leaks, are deleted, and that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the first cause of action is denied in its entirety.

*449The Supreme Court properly held that the implied warranty of habitability protects against only conditions that materially affect the health and safety of tenants, or deficiencies that in the eyes of a reasonable person deprive a tenant of those reasonable functions that *“a*residence is expected to provide” *(Solow v Wellner,*86 NY2d 582, 587, quoting *Park W. Mgt. Corp. v Mitchell,*47 NY2d 316, 328, *cert denied*444 US 992). It cannot be said, as a matter of law, that the plaintiffs’ allegations in the first cause of action of their complaint failed to meet that standard *(see, Concord Vil. Mgt. Co. v Rubin,*101 Misc 2d 625, 627). Bracken, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Smith, JJ., concur.
#### LEWANDOWSKI et v SZYMANSKI.

Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist., Lucas Co.

No. 2114.

Decided Nov. 13, 1928.

Alonzo *G*Duer, Toledo, for Lewandowski.

S A Fazekas, Toledo, for Szymanski.

WILLIAMS,J.

There is no question that the plaintiff was badly beaten up. The defendant Peter Lewandowski claimed by way of defense that he was defending his person against an assault made by the plaintiff, and was also protecting certain wooden timbers of which he claimed to be the owner. The defendant Charles Lewandowski asserted that in using force upon and against the plaintiff he was defending the person of Peter Lewandowski, his aged father, from an assault by plaintiff.

Upon the trial of the case the court refused to give defendants’ request No. 7, which reads as follows:

> “The law recognizes the natural right of the defendant, Peter Lewandowski, to acquire and own property, and as an incident to such ¡right, the right to protect his property against the trespass of other individuals. If the plaintiff was trespassing upon or about to take away said defendant’s personal property, and failed and refused when requested by the defendant,' Peter Lewandowski, to desist from so doing, then the defendant, Peter Lewandowski, had a legal right to act promptly and use such force in the protection of his property as was reasonably necessary under the circumstances, and for such force he is not liable in this action.”

This request was duly submitted and requested by defendants to be given to the jury before argument. It stated a correct proposition of law and the refusal to 'give it was prejudicial error.

The charge consisted largely of reading -the pleadings to the jury, and did not define the specific issues which were submitted. It was erroneous, therefore, to the prejudice of the defendants. Railroad v Lockwood, 72 Ohio St, 586.

In passing, we call attention to the fact that the charge contains no reference to punitive or exemplary damages.

There is no other error apparent upon the face of the record.

For the reasons stated the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Richards and Lloyd, JJ, concur.
§ 91.1035 Passenger awareness. ( a ) Prior to each takeoff, the pilot in command of an aircraft carrying passengers on a program flight must ensure that all passengers have been orally briefed on— ( 1 ) *Smoking:* Each passenger must be briefed on when, where, and under what conditions smoking is prohibited. This briefing must include a statement, as appropriate, that the regulations require passenger compliance with lighted passenger information signs and no smoking placards, prohibit smoking in lavatories, and require compliance with crewmember instructions with regard to these items;
( 2 ) *Use of safety belts, shoulder harnesses, and child restraint systems:* Each passenger must be briefed on when, where and under what conditions it is necessary to have his or her safety belt and, if installed, his or her shoulder harness fastened about him or her, and if a child is being transported, the appropriate use of child restraint systems, if available. This briefing must include a statement, as appropriate, that the regulations require passenger compliance with the lighted passenger information sign and/or crewmember instructions with regard to these items;
( 3 ) The placement of seat backs in an upright position before takeoff and landing;
( 4 ) Location and means for opening the passenger entry door and emergency exits;
( 5 ) Location of survival equipment;
( 6 ) Ditching procedures and the use of flotation equipment required under § 91.509 for a flight over water;
( 7 ) The normal and emergency use of oxygen installed in the aircraft; and
( 8 ) Location and operation of fire extinguishers.
( b ) Prior to each takeoff, the pilot in command of an aircraft carrying passengers on a program flight must ensure that each person who may need the assistance of another person to move expeditiously to an exit if an emergency occurs and that person's attendant, if any, has received a briefing as to the procedures to be followed if an evacuation occurs. This paragraph does not apply to a person who has been given a briefing before a previous leg of that flight in the same aircraft.
( c ) Prior to each takeoff, the pilot in command must advise the passengers of the name of the entity in operational control of the flight.
( d ) The oral briefings required by paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section must be given by the pilot in command or another crewmember.
( e ) The oral briefing required by paragraph (a) of this section may be delivered by means of an approved recording playback device that is audible to each passenger under normal noise levels.
( f ) The oral briefing required by paragraph (a) of this section must be supplemented by printed cards that must be carried in the aircraft in locations convenient for the use of each passenger. The cards must— ( 1 ) Be appropriate for the aircraft on which they are to be used;
( 2 ) Contain a diagram of, and method of operating, the emergency exits; and
( 3 ) Contain other instructions necessary for the use of emergency equipment on board the aircraft.