alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### SUNSHINE STATE DIESEL, INC. v SLOCUM

Case No. 85-361 AP

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Appellate Division, Dade County

October 14, 1986

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Angelo P. Demos for appellant.

Hubert G. Roberts for appellee.

Before HENDERSON, SALMON, MASTOS, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

MICHAEL H. SALMON, Judge.

*130This is an appeal of an order granting a motion to set aside a default judgment. The appellant brought the suit to recover payment for certain repair services. The appellee answered and counterclaimed, but failed to comply with pre-trial conference orders. The Court entered a default judgment after the appellee failed to appear for a pre-trial conference whereupon the appellee obtained counsel and filed a motion to set aside default judgment that same day, July 11, 1985. On August 14, 1985, the Court denied the motion, commenting that the motion was not verified, nor did it includes grounds upon which a default might be set aside. Appellee then filed a motion styled “Verified Motion for Rehearing to Set Aside Default” on August 23, 1985. The Court granted the order setting aside the default on October 22, 1985, and also awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. It is this order which we are asked to review.

After considering the record on appeal, particularly the appellee’s two motions to set aside the default judgment, we are of the opinion that while the motions are styled differently, they are alike in substance. Therefore, because the lower court denied appellee’s first motion, it lost jurisdiction over the case and improperly heard the second motion. The Third DCA has repeatedly said that “the applicable rules of procedure make no provision for a motion for rehearing in a law action of an order denying a motion for new trial.” *Volumes in Value, Inc. v. Buy Mail International, Inc.,*177 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965), *Lee v. Elliot,*155 So.2d 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). The appellee proceeded in a procedurally unauthorized manner. His proper remedy was by way of a timely appeal. *Markevitch v. Van Harren,*429 So.2d 1255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).

Because the lower court had already exhausted its jurisdiction over the case when it heard appellee’s second motion, it follows that the order of October 21, 1985, setting aside the default and awarding attorneys fees and costs is a nullity and is vacated accordingly. This cause is remanded with directions to reinstate the final judgment previously entered.

Reversed.

HENDERSON and MASTOS, JJ., concur.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Bank Protection Act of 1968

              														Bank Protection Act of 1968, July 7, 1968.						https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5842,			accessed on September 9, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
[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:****Annual performance report onexecutive agency actions to assist tribal colleges and universities (TCUs).**
 
2008 | 2009 | 2010
 
SuDoc Number:VA 1.1/11:
Item Number:0983-H-05 (online)
CGP systemNumber:
 
January 17, 2018
Editorial Note on Part 1904
Editorial Note: At 82 FR 20548, May 3, 2017, as required by the Congressional Review Act and Public Law 115-21, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration removed all amendments to part 1904 published at 81 FR 91792, Dec. 19, 2016.

§ 1904.11 Recording criteria for work-related tuberculosis cases. ( a ) *Basic requirement.* If any of your employees has been occupationally exposed to anyone with a known case of active tuberculosis (TB), and that employee subsequently develops a tuberculosis infection, as evidenced by a positive skin test or diagnosis by a physician or other licensed health care professional, you must record the case on the OSHA 300 Log by checking the “respiratory condition” column.
( b ) *Implementation* — ( 1 ) *Do I have to record, on the Log, a positive TB skin test result obtained at a pre-employment physical?* No, you do not have to record it because the employee was not occupationally exposed to a known case of active tuberculosis in your workplace.
( 2 ) *May I line-out or erase a recorded TB case if I obtain evidence that the case was not caused by occupational exposure?* Yes, you may line-out or erase the case from the Log under the following circumstances: ( i ) The worker is living in a household with a person who has been diagnosed with active TB;
( ii ) The Public Health Department has identified the worker as a contact of an individual with a case of active TB unrelated to the workplace; or
( iii ) A medical investigation shows that the employee's infection was caused by exposure to TB away from work, or proves that the case was not related to the workplace TB exposure.
Rule 221. Funds of clients and third persons. Mandatory overdraft notification.

***

(h) An Eligible Institution shall be approved as a depository for Trust Accounts 

of attorneys if it shall be in compliance with applicable provisions of Rule 1.15 of the 

Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct and the Regulations of the IOLTA Board 

and shall file with the Disciplinary Board an agreement [(]in a form [provided]

approved by the Board[)] to comply with IOLTA Regulations governing approved 

Eligible Institutions and to make a prompt report to the Lawyers Fund for Client 

Security Board whenever any check or similar instrument is presented against a Trust 

Account when such account contains insufficient funds to pay the instrument, 

regardless of

(1) whether the instrument is honored, or

(2) whether funds are subsequently deposited that cover the overdraft 

or the dishonored instrument is made good.

***

(k) A failure on the part of an Eligible Institution to make a report to the 

Lawyers Fund for Client Security Board called for by this rule or to comply with 

IOLTA Regulations governing approved Eligible Institutions may be cause for 

termination of approval by the Supreme Court, but such failure shall not, absent gross 

negligence, give rise to a cause of action, by any person who is proximately caused 

harm thereby.

* * *
§ 1606.8 Harassment. ( a ) The Commission has consistently held that harassment on the basis of national origin is a violation of title VII. An employer has an affirmative duty to maintain a working environment free of harassment on the basis of national origin.[8]
( b ) Ethnic slurs and other verbal or physical conduct relating to an individual's national origin constitute harassment when this conduct: ( 1 ) Has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment;
( 2 ) Has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance; or
( 3 ) Otherwise adversely affects an individual's employment opportunities.
( c ) [Reserved]
( d ) With respect to conduct between fellow employees, an employer is responsible for acts of harassment in the workplace on the basis of national origin, where the employer, its agents or supervisory employees, knows or should have known of the conduct, unless the employer can show that it took immediate and appropriate corrective action.
( e ) An employer may also be responsible for the acts of non-employees with respect to harassment of employees in the workplace on the basis of national origin, where the employer, its agents or supervisory employees, knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. In reviewing these cases, the Commission will consider the extent of the employer's control and any other legal responsibility which the employer may have with respect to the conduct of such non-employees.
Appendix A to § 1606.8—Background Information The Commission has rescinded § 1606.8(c) of the Guidelines on National Origin Harassment, which set forth the standard of employer liability for harassment by supervisors. That section is no longer valid, in light of the Supreme Court decisions in *Burlington Industries, Inc.* v. *Ellerth,* 524 U.S. 742 (1998), and *Faragher* v. *City of Boca Raton,* 524 U.S. 775 (1998). The Commission has issued a policy document that examines the Faragher and Ellerth decisions and provides detailed guidance on the issue of vicarious liability for harassment by supervisors. EEOC Enforcement Guidance: Vicarious Employer Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors (6/18/99), EEOC Compliance Manual (BNA), N:4075 [Binder 3]; also available through EEOC's web site, at *www.eeoc.gov .,* or by calling the EEOC Publications Distribution Center, at 1-800-669-3362 (voice), 1-800-800-3302 (TTY).
[45 FR 85635, Dec. 29, 1980, as amended at 64 FR 58334, Oct. 29, 1999] Footnotes -
1606.8
[8] See CD CL68-12-431 EU (1969), CCH EEOC Decisions ¶ 6085, 2 FEP Cases 295; CD 72-0621 (1971), CCH EEOC Decisions ¶ 6311, 4 FEP Cases 312; CD 72-1561 (1972), CCH EEOC Decisions ¶ 6354, 4 FEP Cases 852; CD 74-05 (1973), CCH EEOC Decisions ¶ 6387, 6 FEP Cases 834; CD 76-41 (1975), CCH EEOC Decisions ¶ 6632. See also, Amendment to *Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Sex,* § 1604.11(a) n. 1, 45 FR 7476 sy 74677 (November 10, 1980).
§ 1650.206 Notification to Treasury. ( a ) When referring a debt to Treasury, EEOC will certify that the debt meets all of the requirements in § 1650.202 and will provide the name, taxpayer identifying number (as defined in 26 U.S.C. 6109) of the debtor, the amount of the debt, the date on which the debt became past-due, and the designation of EEOC as the agency referring the debt.
( b ) After EEOC's initial notification and referral of a debt to Treasury for offset against a debtor's Federal income tax refund, EEOC will promptly notify Treasury of any changes in the notification, if EEOC: ( 1 ) Determines that an error has been made with respect to the information contained in the notification;
( 2 ) Receives a payment or credits a payment to the account of the debtor named in the notification that reduces the amount of the debt referred to Treasury for offset; or
( 3 ) Refunds all or part of the offset amount to the debtor.
( c ) When EEOC requests Treasury to increase the amount of a debt owed by a debtor named in EEOC's original notification to Treasury, EEOC will certify that the additional amount meets all of the requirements in § 1650.202.
( d ) If the amount of a debt is reduced after referral by EEOC and offset by the Treasury, EEOC will refund to the debtor any excess amount and will promptly notify the Treasury of any refund made by EEOC.
[No. 49819-3-I.

Division One.

October 21, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Ernest Lamar Alexander, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 01-1-05404-6, Richard A. Jones, J., entered December 6, 2001. *Reversed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 18

- 0023 2

- CV

I N THE M ATTER OF H.C. §

§

§

§ On Appeal from County Court at

Law No. 1

of Denton County (JV

- 201 7

- 00 916 )

March 14, 2019

Per Curiam

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the rec ord on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s order . It is ordered that the amended order of

adjudication and disposition is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 19

- 00646

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF N.A.V. , P.A.V., A.J.V., L.V., and J.G., Children

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015

- PA

- 00244

Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr., Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ

, JUSTICE RIOS , AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial

court is AFFIRMED.

SIGNED March 17, 2020.

_____________________________ Irene Rios, Justice
The Honorable Christine Gregoire

Governor ofWashington 

### P.O. Box 40002 Olympia, WA98504 0002 The Honorable Ted Kulongoski Governor of Oregon 

### 900 Court Street NE Salem, OR97301 4047 

## SEP 3 - 1810

Dear Governors Gregoire and Kulongoski : Thankyou for yourjoint letter ofAugust 11, 2010 regarding the Deepwater Horizon (Gulf Coast) oil spill . We greatly appreciate your support for the work of the U .S. Coast Guard and Environmental Protection Agency in responding to this spill . We also greatly appreciate your states providing oil spill response resources and other assistance during this unprecedented tragedy. At the same time, we recognize your priority to maintain response capabilities to protect the Pacific Northwest's environment in light ofthe June 28, 2010joint Coast Guard-EPA emergency interimrule, which provided additional resources for the unprecedented response in the Gulf. Following the explosion ofthe Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit "Deepwater Horizon," a number ofsteps were taken to surge resources and oil spill response vessels capable ofskimming oil released by the BP Deepwater Horizonwell . This interimrule, one ofthe many steps taken to allow for additional resources, allowed vessels that otherwise may be required to stay in port to deploy to the Gulf and assist in this response on a voluntary basis. The rule will remain in effect until the end ofthis calendar year, to allowfor return travel time. During this interimrule, local Coast Guard commanders, in coordination with EPA, state and local governments and affected local industries, will continue to work in close coordination to maintain a level ofequipment able to best protect all localities. If there were to be a scenario in whichmore response resources were needed in the Gulf, we would work closely with these partners and the Regional Response Teams andArea Committees, to ensure that we do not deploy equipment and personnel that would result in the loss of response capability below worst case and maximummost probable discharge response time requirements in the Pacific Northwest. Any decision to request or accept such deployment ofequipment or personnel will consider carefully the distances and travel time from the West Coast to the Gulf Coast spill .Again, thank you for your letter. Ifyou have further questions please contact us, or your

staff may call Sarah Hospodor-Pallone, EPA's Deputy Associate Administrator for Intergovernmental Relations, at 202-564-7178, or Captain Peter Gautier, National Incident Command Chiefof Staffat (202) 372-1731 .

Sincerely, Sincerely,

THADW

. ALLEN Admiral, U

.S. Coast Guard (Ret.) National Incident Commander .JACKSON Administrator Environmental Protection Agency
§ 1430.4 Filing of advisory committee charter. ( a ) *Filing charter with Director.* Before an advisory committee takes any action or conducts any business, a charter shall be filed with the Director, the standing committees of Congress with legislative jurisdiction over the Service, and the Library of Congress. Except for a committee in existence on the effective date of the Act, or when authorized by statute, Presidential directive, or by the secretariat, such charter shall be filed no earlier than 30 days after publication of the committee's certification in the Federal Register.
( b ) *Charter information.* A charter shall contain the following information: ( 1 ) The committee's official designation;
( 2 ) The committee's objectives and scope of activity;
( 3 ) The period of time necessary for the committee to carry out its purposes;
( 4 ) The agency or official to whom the advisory committee reports;
( 5 ) The agency responsible for providing necessary support;
( 6 ) A description of the committee's duties;
( 7 ) The estimated number and frequency of committee meetings;
( 8 ) The estimated annual operating costs in dollars and man-years;
( 9 ) The committee's termination date, if less than two years; and
( 10 ) The date the charter is filed.
( c ) *Preparation and filing of initial charter.* Responsibility for preparation of the initial committee charter shall be with the head of the appropriate program within the Service, in cooperation with the committee management officer. The Director of Administration shall have responsibility for assuring the appropriate filings of such charters.
FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT MAR 14 2000 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK [PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-4007 D.C. Docket No. 97-01586-CV-ASG VIDEO TRAX, INC., a Florida Corporation, on behalf of itself and all other persons and entities similarly situated, Plaintiff -Appellant,

versus NATIONSBANK, N.A. (SOUTH), a National Banking Association, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (March 14, 2000) Before TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge, FAY, Senior Circuit J udge, and HANCOCK*, Senior District Judge.

__________________________________________ * Honorable James H. Hancock, Senior District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama, sitting by designation. PER CURIAM:The facts and procedural history of this case are set out in the district court's opinion reported at 33 F. Supp. 2d 1041 (S.D. Fla. 1998). For the reasons stated by the district court, id. at 1047-55 (part III.A. through III.C.), we find that the fees at issue do not constitute “interest” for purposes of the usury provisions of the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 85-86 (1994). Accordingly, the judgment of the court is AFFIRMED.
#### § 102.125 Action on petition.

Upon the filing of such petition, the Board will consider the same and may either grant or deny the petition in whole or in part, conduct an appropriate hearing thereon, or make other disposition of the petition. Should the petition be denied in whole or in part, prompt notice will be given of the denial, accompanied by a simple statement of the grounds unless the denial is self-explanatory.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DEBRA K. ASHER,

Appellant,

v.

McCORMICK 105, LLC,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-2237

[March 5, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Barry Stone, Senior Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE 

18002083.

Debra K. Asher, Fort Lauderdale, pro se.

Evan R. Raymond of Howard Law Group, Boca Raton, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ., concur

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
§ 1912.33 Minutes. ( a ) Detailed minutes of advisory committee meetings shall be prepared, as directed, and certified as accurate, by the Chairman of the committee. In addition to the minutes there shall be kept verbatim transcripts of all advisory committee meetings.
( b ) The minutes shall include at least the following: ( 1 ) A list of the advisory committee members and agency employees who were present at the meeting;
( 2 ) Any significant conclusions reached which are not recommendations;
( 3 ) Any written information made available for consideration by the committee, including copies of all reports received, issued, or approved by the committee;
( 4 ) Any recommendations made by the committee to the Assistant Secretary and the reasons therefor;
( 5 ) An explanation of the extent, if any, of public participation, including a list of interested persons who presented oral or written statements; and an estimate of the number of the members of the public who attended the meeting.
#### Andrew J. Clark, Adm’r, etc., of Susan J. Clark, deceased, Resp’t, *v.*Henry L. Coe, App’lt.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,*

*Filed May 18, 1889.)*

Executors and administrators—Chattel mortgage. Where an executor makes a personal mortgage on the property of his testatrix, to recover his individual debt, the mortgagee acquires no title.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court of Kings county in favor of the plaintiff.

*Blair & Budd,*for app’lt; *John H. Atkinson,*for resp’t.

Barnard, P. J.

The goods in question belonged to Susan J. Clark, at the time of her death. Charles Z. Pond was her executor. After her death, Pond took possession of the property, which consisted of household furniture, and it was in use by the executor in his private residence. The defendant was the lessor of Pond, and the rent was in arrears. Pond, as an individual, executed a personal mortgage on the property to the defendant, to secure the payment of the executor’s own debt for rent. The question is whether the landlord could hold the title against the plaintiff who has been appointed administrator under the will annexed in the place of the executor Pond, who was removed from his trust. The cases are uniform that a purchaser for value and in good faith from an executor, will acquire a good title, even if the executor misapplies the proceeds. *Leitch*v. *Wells,*48 N. Y., 585.

So also, one who loans money on the securities of the estate, is protected, *McNeil*v. *Tenth National Bank,*46 N. Y., 325. This case does not fall within these cases. The executor only conveyed his own individual title, and had none. If the evidence is to be judged as if he conveyed as executor, the conveyance was in payment of his private debt, and is on this account an exception to the rule that purchasers for value are protected. In *Field*v. *Schieffelin*(7 Johns. Ch., 150), the chancellor states the rule in such cases as follows, in reference to purchasers, for an executor in payment of the present debt of the executor, “ the better doctrine is that in such a case he does buy at his peril.” The very fact that a purchaser extinguished this debt of the executor to him with the goods of the testator, carries its own consideration on the face of 0the transaction.

The judgment should be affirmed with costs.

All concur.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 12, 2021

No. 04-21-00181-CV

Robert CORLEY,

Appellant

v.

Timothy CORLEY, Jason Corley and Century Oaks Land LLC,

Appellees

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CI02547

Honorable Norma Gonzales, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Petitioner’s unopposed first motion for an extension of time to file a petition for 

permissive appeal is GRANTED. Petitioner’s petition for permissive appeal filed on May 10, 

2021 is deemed timely filed. 

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

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

court on this 12th day of May, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court