alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- 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 > Women Workers in Ten War Production Areas and Their Postwar Employment Plans

              																	United States. Women's Bureau. 						*Women Workers in Ten War Production Areas and Their Postwar Employment Plans : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 209*,												Washington: 								Govt. Print. Off., 										1946,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5480,			accessed on September 5, 2024.						    

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

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
#### VICTORIA GUD v FRANK GUD

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 10317.

Decided Jan. 27, 1930

Reuben Shapiro, Cleveland, for Victoria Gud.

John J. Babka, Cleveland, ¿or Frank Gud.

VICKERY, PJ.

We cannot follow nor can we accede to that doctrine. The Court of Common Pleas is a court of general jurisdiction and has jurisdiction both in law and in equity, and while we,, admit that divorce and alimony matters are not chancery matters within the meaning of our constitution, for they originally belonged to the ecclesiastical courts and were never administered in courts of chancery, yet in a divorce and alimony case brought in the Common Pleas Court of Ohio, which is a court of general jurisdiction and has jurisdiction in law, in divorce and alimony cases, as well as in equity, there is no doubt, by an unbroken line of authorities, that a petition can be so framed as to seek for equitable relief even where alimony and divorce matters are some of the things to be obtained in the litigation. In other words, divorce and alimony matters can be brought by the husband or the wife against his or her spouse and if the husband or wifé as'the case may be, has transferred property for the purpose of defeating the wife’s or the husband’s interest in the property, an action to set aside such a transaction can be joined and maintained in the same action in which divorce and alimony can be maintained, and that is for the purpose of preventing a fraud upon the party who seeks relief and to make a judgment that might be rendered for alimony or the di*132vision of property effective; and in a court of general jurisdiction having equity powers, as well as law powers there can be no reason why these two things should not be asked for and obtained in the same suit.

Now an examination of the petition in case No. 292,451 in the Common Pleas Court will at once show that this was the form of action that the plaintiff sought to and did maintain in that action, and the judgment of the Common Pleas-Court' in that action was rendered in her favor so as to make effective' and of some use her plea for alimony or a division of the property which, she alleged and proved apparently to the satisfaction of the court, was heid by Stanley as the trustee for her husband for the very purpose of preventing her from obtaining what in law she would be entitled to and so the court entered that judgment and, as already stated, that judgment never has been reversed or modified, and so could properly become the basis of an action in this suit; and we think the plaintiff is entitled to have a decree in her favor and the same decree as in -the court below may be entered in this case, that is, decree for plaintiff, order see journal.

Levine, J., concurs. Sullivan, J., dissents.
§ 23.30 Coverage. ( a ) This part applies to any new contract, as defined in § 23.20, with the Federal Government, unless excluded by § 23.40, provided that: ( 1 ) ( i ) It is a procurement contract for construction covered by the Davis-Bacon Act;
( ii ) It is a contract for services covered by the Service Contract Act;
( iii ) It is a contract for concessions, including any concessions contract excluded from coverage under the Service Contract Act by Department of Labor regulations at 29 CFR 4.133(b); or
( iv ) It is a contract entered into with the Federal Government in connection with Federal property or lands and related to offering services for Federal employees, their dependents, or the general public; and
( 2 ) The wages of workers under such contract are governed by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Service Contract Act, or the Davis-Bacon Act.
( b ) For contracts covered by the Service Contract Act or the Davis-Bacon Act, this part applies to prime contracts only at the thresholds specified in those statutes. For procurement contracts where workers' wages are governed by the Fair Labor Standards Act, this part applies when the prime contract exceeds the micro-purchase threshold, as defined in 41 U.S.C. 1902(a).
( c ) This part only applies to contracts with the Federal Government requiring performance in whole or in part within the United States, which when used in a geographic sense in this part means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Outer Continental Shelf lands as defined in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Wake Island, and Johnston Island. If a contract with the Federal Government is to be performed in part within and in part outside the United States and is otherwise covered by the Executive Order and this part, the minimum wage requirements of the Order and this part would apply with respect to that part of the contract that is performed within the United States.
( d ) This part does not apply to contracts for the manufacturing or furnishing of materials, supplies, articles, or equipment to the Federal Government, including those that are subject to the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act, 41 U.S.C. 6501 *et seq.*
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 978 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 978

 To authorize the awarding of the Medal of Honor to Woodrow W. Keeble 
           for his acts of valor during the Korean conflict.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 23, 2007

   Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Thune, and Mr. Conrad) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize the awarding of the Medal of Honor to Woodrow W. Keeble 
           for his acts of valor during the Korean conflict.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO AWARD MEDAL OF HONOR TO WOODROW W. KEEBLE FOR 
              VALOR DURING THE KOREAN CONFLICT.

    Notwithstanding the time limitations specified in section 3744 of 
title 10, United States Code, or any other time limitation with respect 
to the awarding of certain medals to persons who served in the 
military, the President may award the Medal of Honor under section 3741 
of such title to Woodrow W. Keeble for his acts of valor as an acting 
platoon leader on October 20, 1951 during the Korean conflict.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>




<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                                                       <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                                             3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                         Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                              Sep-30-1999
<CASH>                                                          2,653
<SECURITIES>                                                   19,643
<RECEIVABLES>                                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                               22,825
<PP&E>                                                         31,910
<DEPRECIATION>                                                 28,124
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                 31,177
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                           9,621
<BONDS>                                                             0
<COMMON>                                                           28
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                               0
<PREFERRED>                                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                                     (8,746)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                   31,177
<SALES>                                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                   32
<CGS>                                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               11,440
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                504
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               (11,626)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           (11,626)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                     0
<CHANGES>                                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  (11,626)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                     (0.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                   (0.21)



</TABLE>
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 978 

To authorize the awarding of the Medal of Honor to Woodrow W. Keeble 

for his acts of valor during the Korean conflict. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 23, 2007 

Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. THUNE, and Mr. CONRAD) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To authorize the awarding of the Medal of Honor to Woodrow W. Keeble for his acts of valor during the Korean 

conflict. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO AWARD MEDAL OF HONOR TO 

4 WOODROW W. KEEBLE FOR VALOR DURING 

5 THE KOREAN CONFLICT. 

6 Notwithstanding the time limitations specified in sec7 tion 3744 of title 10, United States Code, or any other 

8 time limitation with respect to the awarding of certain 

9 medals to persons who served in the military, the PresiVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:28 Mar 28, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S978.IS S978

jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with DIGEST
2 

•S 978 IS

1 dent may award the Medal of Honor under section 3741 

2 of such title to Woodrow W. Keeble for his acts of valor 

3 as an acting platoon leader on October 20, 1951 during 

4 the Korean conflict. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with DIGEST
GEORGE DUNBAR, MEMBER 

56TH LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT 

Penn Township Office 

Pine Center, Suite 4 

2090 Harrison Avenue (Route 130) 

Jeannette, PA 15644 

Phone: (724) 744-0305 

North Huntingdon Office 

12591 Route 30 

North Huntingdon, PA 15642 

Phone:(724)863-1585 

COMMITTEES 

Gaming Oversight 

Finance 

Local Government 

State Government 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

Harrisburg 

en 

] > 

„ 0 -t-,; -<^-

:^—~sCI>'—^ 

CD 

July 18, 2011 

Aloha Ley 

Small Community Air Service Development Program, X-55 

US Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Dear Ms. Ley: 

It is my pleasure to offer my support to the Westmoreland County Airport Authority's request 

for financial subsidy through the US Department of Transportation's Small Community Air 

Service Development Program. It is my understanding the funds will be used to expand the 

scheduled air service that has shown exceptional potential at Arnold Palmer Regional Airport. 

The Authority has seen remarkable achievement with the launch of Spirit Airlines service to Ft. 

Lauderdale, FL and Myrtle Beach, SC, attracting more than 30,000 passengers through Arnold 

Palmer Regional in less than five months. Load factors have proven unmatched at the airport, 

with averages being in the high 80% and mid 90% ranges. The airline is now considering 

additional destinations to augment this thriving operation, and asks only for assistance in 

marketing the new routes. 

These efforts are heavily dependent upon the tried and true marketing efforts that the airline 

has proven successful. Grant funding through the SCASD program is critical to supporting these 

efforts to expand service and bolster a priceless economic asset to the communities the airport 

serves. 
Your favorable review of the application would be greatly appreciated. If you have further 

questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call my office. 

Sincerely, ncereiy, ^ ^ 

George S Dunbar 

Member, PA House of Representatives 

GSD/lrz
,/ 

From: Levi Tappan [mailto:ltappan@citvofoage.org] 

Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 10:43 PM 

To: EAS (OST) . 

Subject: Boutique Air Service in Page 

To Whom it may concern, 

The City Council is very divided over the issue of EAS to Page. I would like you to consider Boutique Air for a couple 

reasons. Number one reliability. Great Lakes has a pattern of cancelling flights, they are essentially not providing the 

service that tax payers are paying for. 

I am happy to report this is not a Page issue. As Mr. Voss has state this is affecting all of GLA routes. GLA is not 

providing essential se;vice to any communities. 

On a scale From A to F the Better Business Bureau grades them aD with 36 complaints in 3 years. BBB indicate that 

this business has a pattern of complaints concerning the cancellation of flights with short warning due to 

circumstances involving the availability of crew members. BBB has received 12 disputes of a similar nature 

beginning January 1, 2014 to date. Specifically, consumers have alleged that the business routinely cancels flights 

without notification, that the flights are cancelled with little to no warning, and often leave consumers with no time to 

find alternative forms of transportation. Consumers state that these cancellations are due to flight crew issues, and 

are not weather related. 

Consumers also state that customer service representatives are not willing to provide refunds for these cancellations. 

In addition, consumers allege that attempts to contact the business are not successful or that messages are not 

returned. 

At the council presentation when asked about flight competition rates on three separate questions, Mr. Voss again 

spoke about industry trends and did not give a rate. Either as the CEO he does not know or is too embarrassed to 

tell us. 

Consumer Affairs. com rates Great Lakes: 1 out of 5 stars 

This is also affecting medical services to Page: Page Hospital flew a Surgeon to Denver (for GLA Denver to Page) 

because there are usually less cancellations. It was cancelled. He was rerouted to PHX. PHX to Page was then Ca. 

Page Hospital now regularly chartering flights, for doctors, because of GLA unreliability. Dermatologist and ENT 

doctors no longer come to Page from Phoenix because of unreliability. 

These stories are not rare or unique to Page. 

Thank you for your consideration of this matter. I know we can do better and I know DOT can do better. 

Levi Tappan 

City Councilor 

P.O. Box 1180 

697 Vista Ave. 

Page, Arizona 86040 

928.660.8868 

http://www.bbb.org/wyoming-and-northern-colorado/business-reviews/airlines/great-lakes-airlines-in-cheyenne-wv46004332/ 

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/travel/great-lakes-airlines.html 

~·
#### GUARANTEED ACCEPTANCE CORP v GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORP

Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist, Summit Co

No 1611.

Decided April 19, 1929

Herberich & Weick, Akron, for Guaranteed Accept Corp.

Harold H Gorman and Arthur C Keeney, Akron, for General Motors.

WASHBURN, J.

There is no evidence in the record even tending to show that the defendant company owns or has any interest in or right to the possession of said automobiles.

Plaintiff’s evidence established that the Ralph Myers Chevrolet Co., a regular dealer in automobiles, had said' automobiles for sale in its garage, and for the purpose of obtaining money on the same, said company caused two of its employes to execute to it chattel mortgages on said automobiles, and sold and duly assigned said mortgages to plaintiff and obtained from plaintiff the full amount represented by said mortgages.

In the early part of September, 1928, the defendant company took possession of said automobiles, and this action was begun on Sept. 14, 1928.

The record also discloses that at the time these mortgages were executed by these employes, the' Ralph Myers Chevrolet Co. had not executed and delivered to them, bills of sale for s,aid automobiles.

It is said in argument that the employes could not, by way of mortgage, transfer any interest in said automobiles until after *309there had been delivered to them proper bills of sale. That may be true as between certain persons and under certain circumstances, but if no-one were interested in this transaction except the plaintiff and the Ralph Myers Chevrolet Co., the absence of said bills of sale would be of little importance. The only reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence is that the Ralph Myers Chevrolet Co. was the owner of said automobiles; that it borrowed the money from plaintiff and pledged said automobiles to secure the payment of the same; and the fact that instead .of executing mortgages in its own name it had its employes execute mortgages to it and then sold the same, would make no difference as between it and the person to whom the mortgages were sold.

So far as the plaintiff and the Ralph Myers Chevrolet Co. is concerned, the transaction was in effect a mortgage by the Ralph Myers Chevrolet Co. to the plaintiff and therefore, as against a stranger having no interest in the automobiles, plantiff established a case entitling it to the relief sought, and the Common Pleas Court was in error in entering judgment for the defendant.

We do not attempt to anticipate or decide what the effect of the absence of said bills of sale may be under facts and circumstances which will be developed when the defendant company is called upon to make proof of its interest in said automobiles.

The judgment of the Common Pleas Court is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings as provided by law.

Funk, PJ, and Pardee, J, concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 940 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 940

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the 
            subpart F exemption for active financing income.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 20, 2007

   Mr. Baucus (for himself, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Crapo) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                                Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the 
            subpart F exemption for active financing income.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT SUBPART F EXEMPTION FOR ACTIVE FINANCING INCOME.

    (a) Banking, Financing, or Similar Businesses.--Subsection (h) of 
section 954 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special 
rule for income derived in the active conduct of banking, financing, or 
similar businesses) is amended by striking paragraph (9).
    (b) Insurance Businesses.--Subsection (e) of section 953 of such 
Code (relating to exempt insurance income) is amended by striking 
paragraph (10) and by redesignating paragraph (11) as paragraph (10).
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years of a foreign corporation beginning after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, and to taxable years of United 
States shareholders with or within which such taxable years of such 
foreign corporation end.
                                 <all>
```
§ 26.3 Filing. ( a ) *Filing by electronic submission (e-filing) via the Department's electronic case management system* — ( 1 ) *Attorneys and lay representatives.* Except as otherwise provided in this section, beginning on April 12, 2021, attorneys and lay representatives must file all petitions, pleadings, exhibits, and other documents with the ARB via the Department's electronic case management system. Paper copies are not required unless requested by the ARB.
( 2 ) *Good cause exception.* Attorneys and lay representatives may request an exemption to e-filing for good cause shown. Such a request must include a detailed explanation why e-filing or acceptance of e-service should not be required.
( 3 ) *Self-represented persons.* Self-represented persons may use but are not required to use the Department's electronic case management system to file documents.
( 4 ) *Filing—date of receipt.* Unless a different time is set by statute, regulation, executive order, or judge's order, a document is considered filed when received by the Clerk of the Appellate Boards. Documents filed through the Department's electronic case management system are considered received by the Clerk of the Appellate Boards as of the date and time recorded by the Department's electronic case management system.
( 5 ) *Signing.* A filing made through a registered user's account on the Department's electronic case management system and authorized by that person, together with that person's name on a signature block, constitutes the person's signature.
( 6 ) *Relief for Technical Failures.* A person who is adversely affected by a technical failure in connection with filing or receipt of an electronic document may seek appropriate relief from the ARB. If a technical malfunction or other issue prevents access to the Department's case management system for a protracted period, the ARB by special order may provide appropriate relief pending restoration of electronic access.
( b ) *Alternate methods of filing.* Unless a different time is set by statute, regulation, executive order, or judge's order, a document filed using a method other than the Department's electronic case management system is considered filed when received by the Clerk of the Appellate Boards.