alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### METTETZKO v ELF MOTOR CO

Ohio Supreme Court

No. 21105.

Decided Jan 30, 1929

Opinion by

MAHSHALL, CJ

ERROR PROCEEDINGS

(260 W) Where in an error proceeding, prosecuted to the court of appeals one of the assignments of error challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict and judgment and the court of appeals reverses the judgment for alleged error apparent upon an examination of the record without more specifically stating the grounds of reversal and error is prosecuted therefrom to this court it will be presumed by this court that the court of appeals reversed the judgment on the ground that it was against the weight of the evidence and the judgment of the court of appeals will therefore be affirmed in accordance with the provisions of Rule XIX of this court.

(260 A) Section 12248, General Code, requiring the court of appeals to pass upon all assignments of error presented in that court is a procedural statute and its provisions are mandatory.

CONTRACTS

(150 I5a) Contracts of an infant except those authorized by law, those entered into in performance of a legal duty and for the purchase of necessities are voidable at the election of the infant and may be disaffirmed by him at any time before or within reasonable time after reaching his majority.

Where an infant purchases personal property not a necessity and as an inducement to the vendor to make the sale represents himself to be of lawful age and thereby deceives the vendor and causes the vendor to believe that he is in fact of lawful age- and the contract is fair and free from fraaud or other imposition and the infant elects to rescind upon reaching majority and sues to recover back the full amount paid without restoring the property purchased, the vendor may counterclaim as damages the fair value of the property not in excess of the purchase price if not restored, or if restored, then the deterioration in value by use and abuse.

Kinkade, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ, concur. Robinson, J, concurs in propositions one and three of the syllabus and in, the judgment.
§ 1470.43 Enforcement. ( a ) *Remedies for noncompliance.* If a grantee or subgrantee materially fails to comply with any term of an award, whether stated in a Federal statute or regulation, an assurance, in a State plan or application, a notice of award, or elsewhere, the awarding agency may take one or more of the following actions, as appropriate in the circumstances: ( 1 ) Temporarily withhold cash payments pending correction of the deficiency by the grantee or subgrantee or more severe enforcement action by the awarding agency,
( 2 ) Disallow (that is, deny both use of funds and matching credit for) all or part of the cost of the activity or action not in compliance,
( 3 ) Wholly or partly suspend or terminate the current award for the grantee's or subgrantee's program,
( 4 ) Withhold further awards for the program, or
( 5 ) Take other remedies that may be legally available.
( b ) *Hearings, appeals.* In taking an enforcement action, the awarding agency will provide the grantee or subgrantee an opportunity for such hearing, appeal, or other administrative proceeding to which the grantee or subgrantee is entitled under any statute or regulation applicable to the action involved.
( c ) *Effects of suspension and termination.* Costs of grantee or subgrantee resulting from obligations incurred by the grantee or subgrantee during a suspension or after termination of an award are not allowable unless the awarding agency expressly authorizes them in the notice of suspension or termination or subsequently. Other grantee or subgrantee costs during suspension or after termination which are necessary and not reasonably avoidable are allowable if: ( 1 ) The costs result from obligations which were properly incurred by the grantee or subgrantee before the effective date of suspension or termination, are not in anticipation of it, and, in the case of a termination, are noncancellable, and,
( 2 ) The costs would be allowable if the award were not suspended or expired normally at the end of the funding period in which the termination takes effect.
( d ) *Relationship to debarment and suspension.* The enforcement remedies identified in this section, including suspension and termination, do not preclude grantee or subgrantee from being subject to “Debarment and Suspension” under E.O. 12549 (see § 1470.35).
#### YAHRAUS et v STEVENS

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 9300.

Decided Feb 25, 1929

M S Farmer, Cleveland, for Yahraus.

G A Sayle, for Stevens.

SULLIVAN, J.

It is true that more positive language could be used and it is also apparent that the allegation is not as definite and certain *201as it might be but in the absence of a motion to make more definite and certain we are compelled to resort alone to the language and it is our conclusion that a reasonable interpretation thereof is that when the term “fixtures” was used and the word “stripped” in connection therewith, that a reasonable conclusion is that the plumbing apparatus had been installed and had become fixtures in the leg.al sense and had been/ stripped from their installation. Therefore it is our judgment that there was error in the sustaining of the demurrer. That a plaintiff has a right as a mortgagee to maintain an action against one who entered mortgaged premises and reduced the mortgage security, we think is supported by Allison vs McCune 15 Ohio, 726;'Mathews vs Selby, 201 Northwestern, 94; Og'.den Lumber Co. vs Busse, 86 N. Y. Supp. 1098 and other similar authorities in various States of the Union.

It is argued by able counsel for defendant in error that because there was no motion for new trial filed in the court below, after judgment, in accordance with the judgment that the judgment rendered is not a final judgment and therefore not the, basis for error proceedings but we are inclined to disagree with this view for the reason that the judgment was based upon the demurrer, a question of law, and that therefore a motion for new trial was not necessary in order to impose final judgment.

Thus holding, the judgment of the lower court on demurrer is hereby reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings according to law and the Common Pleas Court is hereby instructed to overrule the demurrer in accordance with the judgment of this court.

Vickery, PJ, and Levine, J, concur.
#### Stass *v.*The State.

Crime.

(Decided December 19, 1916.

73 South. 749.)

1. Appeal and Error; Record; Arrest of Judgment. — While the filing in writing of the motion in arrest of judgment automatically gives appellant an exception to the court’s adverse ruling thereon, the ruling of the court should also be made to appear by the record proper.

2. New Trial; Criminal Case; Review. — Where there is no bill of exceptions setting forth the substance of the evidence, the appellate courts are without data upon which to review a motion made by a defendant for new trial in a criminal case, as authorized by Acts 1915, p. 722.

Appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court.

Heard before Hon. A. H. Alston.

Walter Stass-was convicted of crime and he appeals.

Affirmed.

F. E. Blackburn, for appellant.

W. L. Martin, Attorney-General, and Harwell G. Davis, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

EVANS, J.

This appeal is upon the record proper, no bill of exceptions being incorporated in the transcript.

(1) It does not appear what, if any, ruling or order the trial court made upon the motion in arrest of judgment. On the assumption that said motion was in writing, and hence an exception automatically given by the statute upon the ruling of the court thereon, the order or ruling of the court should also be made to appear by the record proper.- — Acts 1915, p. 598; *Tom Moran’s Case, infra,*73 South. 748. See, also, *Taylor’s Case,*112 Ala. 69, 20 South. 848; *Hampton’s Case,*133 Ala. 180, 32 South. 230.

(2) By recent statute (Acts 1915, p. 722) the defendant in a criminal case is authorized to move for a new trial, and to the refusal of the trial court to grant the motion may reserve his exception for review by this court. Since there is no bill of exceptions setting forth the substance of the evidence, there is no data before us for intelligent revision of this motion.— *Mitchell’s Case,*14 Ala. App. 104, 72 South. 507.

*383An inspection of the record proper reveals no reversible error; the judgment entry was in accordance with count 2 of the indictment, to which the conviction is referred; and, the proceedings had in support of the judgment appearing to be regular, the judgment of the trial court is accordingly affirmed.

Affirmed.
§ 1420.1 Functions of the Service in health care industry bargaining under the Labor-Management Relations Act, as amended (hereinafter “the Act”). ( a ) *Dispute mediation.* Whenever a collective bargaining dispute involves employees of a health care institution, either party to such collective bargaining must give certain statutory notices to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (hereinafter “the Service”) before resorting to strike or lockout and before terminating or modifying any existing collective bargaining agreement. Thereafter, the Service will promptly communicate with the parties and use its best efforts, by mediation and conciliation, to bring them to agreement. The parties shall participate fully and promptly in such meetings as may be called by the Service for the purpose of aiding in a settlement of the dispute. (29 U.S.C. 158(d) and 158(g).).
( b ) *Boards of inquiry.* If, in the opinion of the Director of the Service a threatened or actual strike or lockout affecting a health care institution will substantially interrupt the delivery of health care in the locality concerned, the Director may establish within certain statutory time periods an impartial Board of Inquiry. The Board of Inquiry will investigate the issues involved in the dispute and make a written report, containing the findings of fact and the Board's non-binding recommendations for settling the dispute, to the parties within 15 days after the establishment of such a Board. (29 U.S.C. 183.)
#### Ellis v. The State.

Assault with Intent.

(Decided August 1, 1916.

72 South. 578.)

1. Charge of Court; Credibility of Witness. — A charge asserting that the jury might disregard the entire testimony of a witness if they found he had testified falsely, is improper because omitting the'element of willfulness.

2. Assault with Intent to Murder; Ignoring Lower Degree. — Where defendant was indicted and convicted of an assault with intent to murder, the court properly refused to instruct to acquit unless the intent was proven, for defendant could be convicted of a lesser crime in which the intent to kill was not an ingredient under § 7315, Code 1907.

Appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court.

Heard before Hon. A. H. Alston.

Albert Ellis was convicted of an assault with intent to murder and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Prosch & Prosch, for appellant.

W. L. Martin, Attorney General, and Harwell G. Davis, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

*100EVANS, J. —

Appellant was indicted and convicted of an assault with intent to murder one Eugene Lowery.

(1, 2) Several written charges were requested by appellant which the court refused. Charge numbered first was properly refused. A similar charge was condemned in *Prater’s Case,*107 Ala. 26, 18 South. 238. If this charge had hypothesized the “willful” false testimony, it would have been good. Charges second and third were as follows: “Second: If you believe from all the evidence that the defendant did not intend to take the life of said Eugene Lowery, then you must acquit him.

“Third: Before you can convict the defendant in this case you must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the shot was fired by the defendant with the intent to take the life of Eugene Lowery.”

These charges would be correct had they been limited to assault with intent to murder; but under this indictment appellant could have been convicted of a lessor crime where the intent to take life was not an ingredient; hence the court properly refused charges second and third. — Code 1907, § 7315; *Sankey v. State,*128 Ala. 51, 29 South. 578; *Bell v. State,*170 Ala. 16, 54 South. 116. Charge fourth was a request for the general affirmative charged Not only was the evidence conflicting, but it was sufficiently strong to carry conviction to the minds of the jury, and it goes without saying its refusal was correct.

After a careful examination of the record and appellant’s brief, we are of opinion that no reversible error is shown, and the judgment of the court below must be affirmed.

Affirmed.
#### § 1614.705 Comparative data—all Federal agencies.

Commencing on January 31, 2004 and no later than January 31 of each year thereafter, each Federal agency shall post year-end data corresponding to that required to be posted by § 1614.704 for each of the five immediately preceding fiscal years (or, if not available for all five fiscal years, for however many of those five fiscal years for which data are available). For each category of data, the agency shall post a separate figure for each fiscal year.
# EUR-Lex - 31995R1307 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31995R1307

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1307/95 of 8 June 1995 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2273/93 determining the intervention centres for cereals **

*
Official Journal L 126 , 09/06/1995 P. 0019 - 0020 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1307/95 of 8 June 1995 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2273/93 determining the intervention centres for cereals

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organization of the market in cereals (1), as last amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden and by Regulation (EC) No 3290/94 (2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,

Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2273/93 of 28 July 1993 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3129/94 (4), has had to be adapted to bring it into line with the provisions of the Act of Accession;

Whereas the number of intervention centres determined for Sweden has proved insufficient to ensure that the intervention arrangements function properly in that country; whereas the number of intervention centres should accordingly be increased; whereas the additional intervention centres in Sweden have been determined on the basis of their geographical location and their storage facilities, which must permit the stockpiling and disposal of substantial quantities of cereals;

Whereas, if intervention is to function effectively in Sweden as from the 1994/95 marketing year, the changes introduced pursuant to this Regulation should come into effect as quickly as possible; whereas this Regulation should accordingly apply as soon as is feasible;

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

That part of the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 2273/93 concerning Sweden is hereby replaced by the Annex hereto.

Article 2

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

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

Done at Brussels, 8 June 1995.

For the Commission Franz FISCHLER Member of the Commission

ANNEX

>TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Winnifred Villovic, Appellant, against Lewis J. Valentine, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York and as Trustee of the Police Pension Fund, Respondent.

Argued April 27, 1937;

decided May 25, 1937.

*549
      *Tesse L. Segel*for appellant.

*Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel (Arthur Bainbridge Hoff, Paxton Blmr*and *Charles E. Hirsimaki*of counsel), for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rifpey, JJ.
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA - 2014 - 0228 Directorate Identifier: 2013NM216AD

A330 - 27 - 3195 --- 12/7/12 A340 - 27 - 4188 --- 12/7/12 A340 - 27 - 5059 --- 4/10/13

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Fe deral Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 0 3/05/2008
630 A.2d 1171

#### OLNEY TOWN CENTER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY COUNCIL.

No. 86,

Sept. Term, 1993.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Sept. 21, 1993.

Reconsideration Denied Oct. 1, 1993.

Price O. Gielen, Bruce M. Luchansky (Neuberger, Quinn, Gielen, Rubin & Gibber, P.A.), Baltimore, for petitioner.

Joyce R. Stern, County Atty., A. Katherine Hart, Sr. Asst. County Atty., Karen L. Federman Henry, Associate County Atty., Rockville, for respondent.

Submitted To: MURPHY, C.J., and ELDRIDGE, RODOWSKY, McAULIFFE, CHASANOW, KARWACKI, and ROBERT M. BELL, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The Court having considered and granted the petition for a writ of certiorari in the above captioned case, it is this 21st day of September, 1993,

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals be, and it is hereby, vacated with directions to that Court to remand the case to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County to decide the constitutional issue in the case. Costs in this Court and in the Court of Special Appeals to be paid by the Respondent, Montgomery County Council.
electionform43.htm
























SecureFoundationSM

GROUP [FIXED] DEFERRED ANNUITY CERTIFICATE

Election Form









 

OWNER INFORMATION

 


	
Last Name

 

 
	
First Name and MI

 

	
Street Address

 

 
	
City, State, Zip

 

	
Home Phone

 

 
	
Gender

 

	
Date of Birth

 

 
	
Social Security Number

 

 












 


	
  
	
By signing below, I acknowledge that I have received a copy of the prospectus for the Group [Fixed] Deferred Annuity Certificate and elect to purchase this Certificate.















 













DATE________________________SIGNATURE OF ELECTOR _______________________________________
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACTAPPEALS Appeals of

-- ) ) American International Contractors, Inc. ) ) Under Contract No. W912ER-14-C-0002 ) APPEARANCES FORTHE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA Nos. 60948, 61166

Scott M. Heimberg, Esq. Mark J. Groff, Esq.

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP Washington, DC Michael P. Goodman, Esq.

Engineer ChiefTrial Attorney Rebecca L. Bockmann, Esq. Sarah L. Hinkle, Esq.

Engineer Trial Attorneys U.S. Army Engineer District, Middle East Winchester, VA OPINION BYADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE O'CONNELL On May 29, 2018, the Board denied appellant's motion for summaryjudgment and granted the government's cross-motion for summaryjudgmentexcept with respect to: 1) the liquidated damages withheld from May 19-28, 2015, for which we found there was a material dispute offact as to whether appellant had completed the work: and 2) the correct calculation ofliquidated damages that should be released to appellant based on the contracting officer's final decision. On October 29, 2018, the Board denied appellant's motion for reconsideration. Appellant advised the Boardby letter dated November 8, 2018, that it "no longer disputed the amount ofliquidated damages withheld by the government as calculated in the Contracting Officer's final decision, includingthe amounts held from May 19-28, 2015, but only the government's right to withhold those damages." The Boardhadresolved this latter issue in its opinion on the cross-motions for summary judgment. Thus, appellant requested "thatthe Board enter finaljudgment in the government's favor on the entire case, as there are no remaining open issues in this matter" so that it can exercise its appellate rights. The government informed the Boardby letter dated November21, 2018, that it has no objection to appellantwithdrawing the unresolvedportion ofthe appeals. Accordingly, these appeals are denied. Dated: December4, 2018

I concur

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD Administrative Judge Acting Chairman Armed Services Board ofContractAppeals 

# '1~1.J4)1J.c·G~~ MICHAEL N:-O'CONNELL Administrative Judge Armed Services Board ofContractAppeals I concur

OWEN C. WILSON Administrative Judge Vice Chairman Armed Services Board ofContractAppeals
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Opinion and Decision ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 60948, 61166, Appeals of American International Contractors, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

2 JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals 

# f f 

### '· 

## f 

# l f



# I I 

# I
ft

BOX 1 BOX 2

ISSN 2331-1258 (online)

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141004

Open-File Report 2014–1004

Plate 1
BOX 3 BOX 4

ft
BOX 5

ft

BOX 6
BOX 7

ft

BOX 8
BOX 9

ft

BOX 10
BOX 11

ft

BOX 12
BOX 13

ft

BOX 14
BOX 15 BOX 16

ft
BOX 17

ft

BOX 18
ft

BOX 19 BOX 20
BOX 21

ft

BOX 22 
BOX 23

ft

BOX 24
BOX 25

ft

BOX 26
BOX 27

ft

BOX 28 8
BOX 29

ft

BOX 30
BOX 31

ft

BOX 32 
BOX 33

ft

BOX 34 
BOX 35

ft

BOX 36
BOX 37

ft

BOX 38 
BOX 39

ft

BOX 40
BOX 41

ft

BOX 42
BOX 43

ft

BOX 44
BOX 45 BOX 46

ft
BOX 47

ft

BOX 48 
BOX 49 BOX 50

ft
BOX 51

ft

BOX 52 
BOX 53

ft

BOX 54
BOX 55

ft

BOX 56
BOX 57 BOX 58

ft
BOX 59

ft

BOX 60
BOX 61 BOX 62

ft
BOX 63 BOX 64

ft
BOX 65 BOX 66

ft
BOX 67 BOX 68

ft
BOX 69 BOX 70

ft
BOX 71 BOX 72

ft
BOX 73 BOX 74

ft
BOX 75 BOX 76

ft
BOX 77 BOX 78

ft
BOX 79 BOX 80

ft
BOX 81 BOX 82

ft
BOX 83 BOX 84

ft
BOX 85 BOX 86

ft
BOX 87 BOX 88

ft
BOX 89 BOX 90

ft
BOX 91 BOX 92

ft
BOX 93 BOX 94

ft
BOX 95 BOX 96

ft

 Wainwright coal bed
BOX 97 BOX 98

ft

Wainwright coal bed

Wainwright coal bed
BOX 99 BOX 100

ft
BOX 101 BOX 102

ft
BOX 103 BOX 104

ft
BOX 105 BOX 106

ft
BOX 107 BOX 108

ft
BOX 109 BOX 110

ft
BOX 111 BOX 112

ft
BOX 113 BOX 114

ft
BOX 115 BOX 116

ft
BOX 117 BOX 118

ft
BOX 119 BOX 120

ft
BOX 121 BOX 122 

ft
BOX 123 BOX 124

ft
BOX 125

ft

ISSN 2331-1258 (online)

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141004
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Motor vehicle use map.Willamette National Forest. Middle Fork Ranger District, South Half, Oregon**
 
2010: Front | Back
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.28:W 66/12/
Item Number:A 13.28:W 66/12/
CGP systemNumber:000930317
 
January 12, 2018