alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### GRACE v WILLIAMS

Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist, Hamilton Co

No 3571.

Decided Feb 24, 1930

J. A. McDonald, Cincinnati, for Grace.

Thos. L. Michie and A. J. D. Bussdicker, both of Cincinnati, for Williams.

*431ROSS, J.

The petition fails to state a cause of action and no liability was proved against the landlord.

A motion was made at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence for an instructed verdict, but this motion was not renewed at the close of all the evidence.

In view of the defect in the petition and the failure of proof, the court, under such state of facts ought to have instructed a verdict at the close of plaintiff’s case for defendant, and the charge of the court was manifestly and prejudicially erroneous, in submitting the case to the jury, there being no evidence of any liability on the part of the landlord.

Two rules of law are involved: First, the landlord is under no obligation to repair premises, if he has not covenanted to do so. 16 R. C. L. 552; Goddall v. Deters, 121 Ohio St., 267, (O. L. B. January 27, 1930). Second, the promise to make repairs during tenancy must be supported by a new consideration. 16 R. C. L. 553: “It has frequently been held that the landlord is under no obligation to make repairs, unless such a stipulation is made a part of the original contract, and that any subsequent promise to make repairs, founded merely on the relation of the parties, and not one of the conditions of the lease, is without consideration, and for that reason creates no liability.”

In the case of Schiff v. Pottlitzer, 51 Misc. New York, 611, the syllabus is as follows:

“Where, in an action by a tenant to recover for personal injuries caused without fault on her part by the fall of the kitchen ceiling, the evidence does not disclose the nature of the lease, the landlord is not liable, although, prior to the accident, his attention had been repeatedly called to the condition of the ceiling and he had failed to keep his promise to put it in proper condition, such promise being without consideration.

In the absence of proof or an admission to the contrary, the presumption is that a lease in an apartment includes the ceilings of the rooms; and the mere fact that the landlord had, on several occasions, made some repairs, does not of itself warrant a conclusion that he retained control of the ceiling or that by the lease he was obligated to repair the ceiling.”

See also: Note, 43 A. L. R. 1494.

For the reasons given, the judgment will be reversed, and judgment will be entered here in favor of the plaintiff in error.

Cushing, PJ, and Hamilton, J, concur.
Exhibit 99.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer of

HORIZON BANCORPORATION, INC.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
(Adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

The undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Horizon Bancorporation, Inc., hereby certifies that:

1. Horizon Bancorporation, Inc's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2003, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Horizon Bancorporation, Inc.

/S/ James J. BazataJames J. Bazata
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

May 9, 2003
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

966 TP 11-00735 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, CARNI, GORSKI, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF PATRICIA A. CUMMINGS, PETITIONER,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, RESPONDENT.

BURGIO, KITA & CURVIN, BUFFALO (HILARY C. BANKER OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (OWEN DEMUTH OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Erie County [Timothy J. Drury, J.], entered March 30, 2011) to review a determination of respondent. The determination, among other things, found that petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146.

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: We conclude in this CPLR article 78 proceeding that, contrary to petitioner’s contention, the determination to suspend her driver’s license is supported by substantial evidence ( see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights
, 45 NY2d 176, 181-182; Matter of Guarino v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs. , 80 AD3d 697). The evidence presented at the administrative hearing established that petitioner was making a left-hand turn in her vehicle at a T-intersection when she struck and killed a pedestrian. Petitioner contends that the evidence did not establish, however, that the pedestrian was in the crosswalk at the time of the accident and thus that her alleged violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146 is not supported by substantial evidence. The record belies that contention. According to both the accident report completed by a police officer and the testimony of the officer at the hearing, petitioner told the officer that she struck a pedestrian who was crossing the street “in [the] crosswalk from west to east.” Petitioner’s further contention that the Administrative Law Judge should have adduced additional evidence before rendering her decision is raised for the first time on appeal, and “ ‘[t]he scope of [this] CPLR article 78 proceeding, following an administrative hearing, is-2- 966 TP 11-00735

limited to review of the issues raised and addressed in that hearing’ ” ( Matter of Vicari v Wing , 244 AD2d 974, 976).

Entered: September 30, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
#### In the Matter of McNeel Marble Company, Appellant, against Mark Graves et al., Constituting the State Tax Commission of the State of New York, Respondents.

Argued September 30, 1937;

decided October 19, 1937.

*602
      *Eugene J. Steiner*for appellant.

*John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney-General (Joseph M. Mesnig*of counsel), for respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
#### BOWDEN v WILLIAMS et

Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist, Summit Co

No 1671.

Decided March 3, 1930

Johnathan Taylor, Akron, for Bowden.

Meade & Weygandt, Akron, for Williams et.

PER CURIAM

, The minds of' the parties never met in agreement as to the location of the driveway; therefore said deed cannot be reformed as requested by Williams, and for a like reason it cannot be enforced against Williams, as requested by Bowden — the provisions of the deed as to the driveway having been inserted by the mutual mistake of said parties.

Under all the evidence in the case — there being no meeting of the minds and said provision having been inserted in the deed by mistake of all parties — said deed may be reformed by striking therefrom said provision in reference to the driveway, and there being no contract &s to a driveway, the title to lot 78 may be quieted in Williams and the title to lot 79 may be quieted in Bowden, and such is the order of the court; the entire eosts in both courts being assessed against Williams.

Funk, PJ.,. Pardee, J., and Washburn, J., concur.
#### KAUFFMAN v INDUST COMM

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21905.

Decided Dec. 18, 1929

Kinkade, Robinson, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.
792 A.2d 589

#### In the Matter of Sandra Crafton KEMRER. Petition for reinstatement from inactive status.

No. 146 DB 2001.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Jan. 23, 2002.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 23rd day of January, 2002 The Report ¡and Recommendations of The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme *79Court of Pennsylvania dated December 14, 2001, are approved and IT IS ORDERED that SANDRA CRAFTON KEMRER, who has been on inactive status, has never been suspended or disbarred, and has demonstrated that she has the moral qualifications, competency and learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is, hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of the Petition for Reinstatement shall be paid by the Petitioner.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 23, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 33326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12946]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Office of the Secretary


Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB 
Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the 
Secretary publishes a list of information collections it has submitted 
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance in 
compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 
35) and 5 CFR 1320.5. The following are those information collections 
recently submitted to OMB.

1. Survey of Grant Recipients--NEW--The Office of Grants and 
Acquisition Management.

    OGAM, in compliance with Executive Order 12862, is requesting 
Office of Management and Budget approval for surveys of HHS grantees to 
gather information on the performance of the grants management 
operations in the Department's Operating Divisions (OPDIVs) and their 
grant awarding components. These surveys will provide OGAM, the OPDIVs, 
and their awarding components with a necessary tool for the evaluation 
of the awarding components performance.
    Respondents. State or local governments, businesses or other for-
profit organizations, non-profit institutions, small businesses.
    Annual Number of Respondents: 2,667.
    Frequency of Response: Once every three years.
    Average Burden per Response: 15 minutes.
    Annual Burden: 667 hours.
    OMB Desk Officer: Allison Eydt.
    Copies of the information collection packages listed above can be 
obtained by calling the OS Reports Clearance Officer on (202) 690-6207. 
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent directly to the OMB desk officer designated 
above at the following address: Human Resources and Housing Branch, 
Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 
10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503.
    Comments may also be sent to Cynthia Agens Bauer, OS Reports 
Clearance Officer, Room 503H, Humphrey Building, 200 Independence 
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20201. Written comments should be received 
within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: May 15, 2000.
Dennis P. Williams,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Budget.
[FR Doc. 00-12946 Filed 5-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-04-M
----

Action brought on 8 April 2004 by Kelvin William Stephens against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-139/04)

(2004/C 168/13)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 April 2004 by Kelvin William Stephens, resident in Brussels, represented by N. Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

In these proceedings, the applicant, who, on his recruitment in October 1985, was classified in Grade A7, step 3, challenges the decision of the appointing authority refusing to revise that classification, placing him in Grade A6, step 2, and not in Grade A6, step 3, refusing to reconstitute his career and limiting the date of effect of the decision on his reclassification to 5 October 1995.

The pleas relied on by the applicant in support of his claims are the same as those relied on by the applicant in Case T-125/04 Rousseaux v Commission.

----
Editorial Note on Part 1926
Editorial Notes: 1. At 44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at 44 FR 20940, Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of 29 CFR part 1926 together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in 29 CFR part 1910, which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at 84 FR 21597, May 14, 2019.

§ 1926.35 Employee emergency action plans. ( a ) *Scope and application.* This section applies to all emergency action plans required by a particular OSHA standard. The emergency action plan shall be in writing (except as provided in the last sentence of paragraph (e)(3) of this section) and shall cover those designated actions employers and employees must take to ensure employee safety from fire and other emergencies.
( b ) *Elements.* The following elements, at a minimum, shall be included in the plan: ( 1 ) Emergency escape procedures and emergency escape route assignments;
( 2 ) Procedures to be followed by employees who remain to operate critical plant operations before they evacuate;
( 3 ) Procedures to account for all employees after emergency evacuation has been completed;
( 4 ) Rescue and medical duties for those employees who are to perform them;
( 5 ) The preferred means of reporting fires and other emergencies; and
( 6 ) Names or regular job titles of persons or departments who can be contacted for further information or explanation of duties under the plan.
( c ) *Alarm system.* ( 1 ) The employer shall establish an employee alarm system which complies with § 1926.159.
( 2 ) If the employee alarm system is used for alerting fire brigade members, or for other purposes, a distinctive signal for each purpose shall be used.
( d ) *Evacuation.* The employer shall establish in the emergency action plan the types of evacuation to be used in emergency circumstances.
( e ) *Training.* ( 1 ) Before implementing the emergency action plan, the employer shall designate and train a sufficient number of persons to assist in the safe and orderly emergency evacuation of employees.
( 2 ) The employer shall review the plan with each employee covered by the plan at the following times: ( i ) Initially when the plan is developed,
( ii ) Whenever the employee's responsibilities or designated actions under the plan change, and
( iii ) Whenever the plan is changed.
( 3 ) The employer shall review with each employee upon initial assignment those parts of the plan which the employee must know to protect the employee in the event of an emergency. The written plan shall be kept at the workplace and made available for employee review. For those employers with 10 or fewer employees the plan may be communicated orally to employees and the employer need not maintain a written plan.
[58 FR 35083, June 30, 1993]
# EUR-Lex - 31999D0487 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31999D0487

**1999/487/EC: Commission Decision of 2 July 1999 amending Decision 98/568/EC laying down special conditions governing imports of fishery products originating in Guatemala (notified under document number C(1999) 1828) (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 190 , 23/07/1999 P. 0036 - 0038 *

COMMISSION DECISION

of 2 July 1999

amending Decision 98/568/EC laying down special conditions governing imports of fishery products originating in Guatemala

(notified under document number C(1999) 1828)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(1999/487/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991 laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of fishery products(1), as last amended by Directive 97/79/EC(2), and in particular Article 11 thereof,

(1) Whereas Article 1 of Commission Decision 98/568/EC of 6 October 1998 laving down special conditions governing imports of fishery and aquaculture products originating in Guatemala(3), which states that the Dirección General de Servicios Pecuarios (Digesepe) del Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería y Alimentación shall be the competent authority in the Guatemala for verifying and certifying compliance of fishery and aquaculture produts with the requirements of the Directive 91/493/EEC;

(2) Whereas, following a restructuring of the Guatemala Government, the competent authority for health certificates for fishery products (Digesepe) has changed to the Area de Inocuidad de Alimentos - Unidad de Normas y Regulaciones (AIA - UNR) and this new authority is capable of effectively verifying the application of the laws in force; whereas it is, therefore, necessary to modify the nomination of the competent authority named by Decision 98/568/Ec and the health certificate model included in Annex A to this Decision:

(3) 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

Commission Decision 98/568/EC is amended af follows.

1. Article 1 shall be replaced by the following: "Article 1

The Area de Inocuidad de Alimentos - Unidad de Normas y Regulaciones (AIA - UNR) of the Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganaderia y Alimentación shall be the competent authority in Guatemala for verifying and certifying compliance of fishery and aquaculture products with the requirements of Directive 91/493/EEC."

2. Annex A shall be replaced by the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 2 July 1999.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 268, 24.9.1991, p. 15.

(2) OJ L 24, 30.1.1998, p. 31.

(3) OJ L 277, 14.10.1998, p. 27.

ANNEX

"ANNEX A

>PIC FILE= "L_1999190EN.003703.EPS">

>PIC FILE= "L_1999190EN.003801.EPS">"
Order entered August 15, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 13 - 00401 - CV JOANN BROOKS AND MARY ROZANSKI , Appellant s V. PAUL HEDLEY BATCHELO R, Appellee On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas Tr ial Court Cause No. PR10 - 1373 - 2



### O RDER The Court has before it appellants’ August 13, 2013 “motion to request submission of minor edited revision for clarity of appellants JoAnn Barron Brooks’ and Mary Barron Hurst Rozanski’s Amended Brief Filed on 6

- 18

- 2 013.” The Court DENIES the motion.
/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Please submit the attached Denial Letter to JetBlue Airways Corporation 

(Docket No. FAA-2013-0764). If granted, that exemption would allow JetBlue to delay 

implementing 14 CFR part 117 until the period between January 7, 2014 and January 31, 

2014.
#### Benjamin Westbrook *against*Evert Van Auken.

on certiorari.

In action on the *“*Act to ascertain the toll of millers,” &c. the verdict must shew on theconviotíon is had. (a)

ATTORNEY GENERAL for plaintiff.

(a)

*Whitlock vs. Tompkins, Pen. *273. Crawford vs. N. J. R. R. Co., 4 Dutch. 479. Clark vs. Collins, 3 Gr. 473.*

Opinion of the Court.

Southard J.

The state of demand claims 63 dollars, for twenty-one different violations of the law, entitled “ An act to ascertain the toll of millers, passed the 25th of *May*1799,” and gives the necessary specifications of time, &c. The jury found a verdict, “ that the defendant oweth the plaintiff eighteen dollars, debt, and six- cents, costs.” And the judgment was “ for the plaintiff, for the said sum of eighteen dollars, debt, it being for six several offences, and six dollars and ninety-six cents, costs.”

The objection taken, is to the verdict and judgment; that they do not specif}' the offences for which they were, given ; and the objection is well founded. The particular offences on which the conviction is had, should have been specified in the verdict. *Pen.*411, 412, 928, 1007. *Cro. Jac.*953.

Let the judgment be reversed.
[No. 49495-3-I.

Division One.

November 18, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Jimmy Hill, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 01-1-03376-6, Michael J. Fox, J., entered October 26, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
[No. 48581-4-I.

Division One.

December 23, 2002.]

#### *In the Matter of the Marriage*of Michael C. Fisher, *Respondent,*and Kristi L. Nobles-Fisher, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 97-3-07011-6, James A. Doerty, J., entered December 10, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
§ 2570.81 In general. Section 502(l) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA or the Act) requires the Secretary of Labor to assess a civil penalty against a fiduciary who breaches a fiduciary responsibility under, or commits any other violation of, part 4 of title I of ERISA or any other person who knowingly participates in such breach or violation. The penalty under section 502(l) is equal to 20 percent of the “applicable recovery amount” paid pursuant to any settlement agreement with the Secretary or ordered by a court to be paid in a judicial proceeding instituted by the Secretary under section 502 (a)(2) or (a)(5). The Secretary may, in the Secretary's sole discretion, waive or reduce the penalty if the Secretary determines in writing that: ( a ) The fiduciary or other person acted reasonably and in good faith, or
( b ) It is reasonable to expect that the fiduciary or other person will not be able to restore all losses to the plan or any participant or beneficiary of such plan without severe financial hardship unless such waiver or reduction is granted.
The penalty imposed on a fiduciary or other person with respect to any transaction shall be reduced by the amount of any penalty or tax imposed on such fiduciary or other person with respect to such transaction under section 502(i) or section 4975 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code).
#### NEIGHBORS v STATE

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21941.

Decided Jan. 15, 1930

Kinkade, Jones, Matthias and Allen, JJ., concur. Marshall, CJ., and Day, J., not participating.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 99 (Monday, May 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32140-32141]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12692]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster #3253]


State of California

    Los Angeles County and the contiguous counties of Kern, Orange, San 
Bernardino, and Ventura in the State of California constitute a 
disaster area as a result of severe storms that occurred on April 18, 
2000. Applications for loans for physical damage as a result of this 
disaster may be filed until the close of business on July 10, 2000 and 
for economic injury until the close of business on February 9, 2001 at 
the address listed below or other locally announced locations: U.S. 
Small Business Administration, Disaster

[[Page 32141]]

Area 4 Office, P.O. Box 13795, Sacramento, CA 95853-4795.
    The interest rates are:

For Physical Damage

Homeowners with credit available elsewhere: 7.625%
Homeowners without credit available elsewhere: 3.812%
Businesses with credit available elsewhere: 8.000%
Businesses and non-profit organizations without credit available 
elsewhere: 4.000%
Others (including non-profit organizations) with credit available 
elsewhere: 6.750%

For Economic Injury

Businesses and small agricultural cooperatives without credit available 
elsewhere: 4.000%

    The numbers assigned to this disaster are 325311 for physical 
damage and 9H3200 for economic injury.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 
59008)
    Dated: May 9, 2000.
Kris Swedin,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 00-12692 Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P