alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Small *vs*Browder.

*January 15.*

Appeal from the Logan Circuit.

Debt.

*Case*46.

*Set-off. Notice Assignments.*

Judge Gi; ah am

delivered ihe opinion of the Court.

Upon the trial of this case, the Court instructed the the jury “that if they believe from the evidence tB’at the defendant Robert Browder obtained the note for one hundred dollars on John T. Stout before he had actual notice 'of the transfer of the note sued on to plaintiff, and that said Browder tendered to plaintiff the balance due on the note sued on, except said hundred dollars, before this suit was brought, they must find for the defendant.

Stout in his evidence stated that in October he had apprised Browden of his intention to transfer the note, but did not tell him to whom it would be transferred, and the evidence of Hawkins, conduces (to say the least of it,) to establish the fact that on the 27th of November, Browder knew that his note had passed out of Stout’s hands to some assignee. If he had such information, and was apprised that Stout had no longer any interest in his note, it seems to us that he had no more right afterwards t\jprocure to himself an assignment of Stout’s note, than he would have had, if he had actually known to *whom,*the transfer of the note sued up*213on had been made. The statute authorizing: the assignment of notes and bonds, protects the obligor in a set-off which he may acquire against his payee, before he has notice that the payee has transferred the bond or note to some one else, but to confine this provision as is done in the instruction, to actual notice that the note had been assigned to *the plaintiff*in the action is too restrictive. If Browder was informed that his note was no longer the property of Stout and had been transferred to some other person, he cannot by subsequently purchasing a note on Stout avail himself of it, as an off-set against the bonafide assignee, ajthough the name of the latter was at the time unknown to him. If the instruction had been qualified as here indicated, and had not. been restricted as it is to actual knowledge of the transfer to the plaintiff, the jury might have rei^ dered a different verdict. We think a new trial ought to have been granted to the plaintiff, and that in giving the instruction and refusing a now trial the Court erred.

An obligor who has notice that his note has been assigned by the obligee to a third person, will not be allowed to set off a note thereafter purchased upon the obligee though he may not have notice of the person to whom his note has been assigned.

*W. L. Underwood*for appellant; *Bristow fy Petree*for appellees.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded, with directions to set aside the verdict and judgment, and grant the plaintiff a new trial without payment of costs, and for other proceedings not inconsistent with this opirfiOTt.
46932.

#### ROANE v. SOPHISTICATED DATA RESEARCH, INC. et al.

(383 SE2d 133)

Decided September 11, 1989.

*Hishon & Ranney, Robert H. Hishon, Danny R. Musick,*for appellant.

*Rogers & Hardin, C. B. Rogers, John J. Almond, Ellis, Moore & Simons, Edward P. Ellis, Alan M. Simons,*for appellees.

Weltner, Justice.

Where an agreement among shareholders provided that, in the event of a specified occurrence, the value of their shares would be determined by a designated accounting firm, the refusal of that accounting firm to act makes the evaluation provision of the contract unenforceable by reason of impossibility. “Where parties to an executory agreement for the sale of goods agree that the price to be paid for the property shall be fixed by valuers appointed by them, there is no contract of sale if the persons appointed as valuers fail or refuse to act.” *Elberton Hardware Co. v. Hawes,*122 Ga. 858 (1), 865 (50 SE 964) (1905).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Statement of Financial Condition at September 30, 2000 (Unaudited)
and the Consolidated Statement of Income for the nine months ended September 30,
2000 (Unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          31,725
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,892
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 120,417
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          356,763
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,603,031
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   120,417
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,831,895
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,831,895)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,831,895)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.063)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.062)


</TABLE>
No. 11-9195.

#### Alexce *v.*Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.953 Discontinuance of service or operations. ( a ) *Termination of authorization.* A licensee's authorization will automatically terminate, without specific Commission action, if the licensee permanently discontinues service or operations under the license during the license term. A licensee is subject to this provision commencing on the date it is required to be providing service or operating.
( b ) *180-day Rule for Geographic Licenses.* Permanent discontinuance of service or operations for Covered Geographic Licenses is defined as 180 consecutive days during which a licensee does not operate or, in the case of commercial mobile radio service providers, does not provide service to at least one subscriber that is not affiliated with, controlled by, or related to the licensee.
( c ) *365-day Rule for Site-based Licenses.* Permanent discontinuance of service or operations for Covered Site-based Licenses is defined as 365 consecutive days during which a licensee does not operate or, in the case of commercial mobile radio service providers, does not provide service to at least one subscriber that is not affiliated with, controlled by, or related to the providing carrier.
( d ) *365-day Rule for public safety licenses.* Permanent discontinuance of operations is defined as 365 consecutive days during which a licensee does not operate. This 365-day rule applies to public safety licenses issued based on the applicant demonstrating eligibility under § 90.20 or § 90.529 of this chapter, or public safety licenses issued in conjunction with a waiver pursuant to section 337 of the Communications Act.
( e ) *Channel keepers.* Operation of channel keepers (devices that transmit test signals, tones, color bars, or some combination of these, for example) does not constitute operation or service for the purposes of this section.
( f ) *Filing requirements.* A licensee that permanently discontinues service as defined in this section must notify the Commission of the discontinuance within 10 days by filing FCC Form 601 or 605 requesting license cancellation. An authorization will automatically terminate, without specific Commission action, if service or operations are permanently discontinued as defined in this section, even if a licensee fails to file the required form requesting license cancellation.
( g ) *Extension request.* A licensee may file a request for a longer discontinuance period for good cause. An extension request must be filed at least 30 days before the end of the applicable 180-day or 365-day discontinuance period. The filing of an extension request will automatically extend the discontinuance period a minimum of the later of an additional 30 days or the date upon which the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau acts on the request.
[82 FR 41547, Sept. 1, 2017]
No. 10-11234.

#### Gentis *v.*Miller-Stout, Superintendent, Airway Heights Corrections Center.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                             5
<LEGEND>
                            THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY
                            FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
                            FROM THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
                            CONTAINED IN THE COMPANY'S 1998
                            SECOND QUARTER 10Q AND IS  
		            QUALIFIED BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
                            FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                      1,000
       
<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>               6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>           DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                          221,443
<SECURITIES>                     80,618
<RECEIVABLES>                 1,013,370
<ALLOWANCES>                          0
<INVENTORY>                     898,024
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              2,475,839
<PP&E>                        4,686,214
<DEPRECIATION>                2,788,746
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                4,669,640
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         1,306,400
<BONDS>                               0
<COMMON>                         81,727
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<OTHER-SE>                    2,816,755
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  4,669,640
<SALES>                       2,747,651
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              2,747,651
<CGS>                         1,937,155
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 1,937,155
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               14,976
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 233,148
<INCOME-TAX>                     75,775
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             157,373
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                    157,373
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       .72
<EPS-DILUTED>                       .72
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4177 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4177

  To designate the Post Office building located at 1601 Highway 35 in 
   Middletown, New Jersey, as the ``Candace White United States Post 
                               Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 12, 1994

 Mr. Pallone introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
               Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To designate the Post Office building located at 1601 Highway 35 in 
   Middletown, New Jersey, as the ``Candace White United States Post 
                               Office''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Post Office building located at 1601 Highway 35 in Middletown, 
New Jersey, shall be known and designated as the ``Candace White United 
States Post Office''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the building referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Candace White United States 
Post Office''.

                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             709
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           2,748
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                        127
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           1,829
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             1,822
<LOANS>                                         36,700
<ALLOWANCE>                                        238
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  43,323
<DEPOSITS>                                      37,112
<SHORT-TERM>                                       800
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                201
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,210
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  43,323
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,937
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  140
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   100
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 3,177
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,541
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,600
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,577
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       38
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,134
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    490
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         490
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       325
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .70
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.01
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         1
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   201
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        1
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  238
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            238


</TABLE>
[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:****Guide to federal benefits forcertain temporary employees [electronic resource].**
 
SuDoc Number:PM 1.8/12:

Item Number:0296-C (online) | 0296-C-02 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000776507
 
2009 | 2010| 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015
 
April 22, 2020
024P16

#### State v. Oakland McCulloch

1. State’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA15-290)

1. Allowed 01/21/2016

Dissolved 03/17/2016

2. State’s Petition for *Writ of Supersedeas*

2. Denied

3. State’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

3. Denied
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"18-1151: HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. v. ARKEMA INC. [OPINION], Precedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"XZHrWn08co\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-01-2019-18-1151-honeywell-international-inc-v-arkema-inc-opinion-precedential-18-1151-opinion-10-1-2019\/\">18-1151: HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. v. ARKEMA INC. [OPINION], Precedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-01-2019-18-1151-honeywell-international-inc-v-arkema-inc-opinion-precedential-18-1151-opinion-10-1-2019\/embed\/#?secret=XZHrWn08co\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“18-1151: HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. v. ARKEMA INC. [OPINION], Precedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"XZHrWn08co\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Opinions\/Orders posted: HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. v. ARKEMA INC. [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 18-1151 Origin: PTO Precedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2000 AND THE RELATED CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 24, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-26-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-24-2000
<CASH>                                           3,972
<SECURITIES>                                     7,194
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,068
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,702
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,925
<PP&E>                                          47,629
<DEPRECIATION>                                (11,336)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  53,748
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,528
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             9
<OTHER-SE>                                      44,820
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    53,748
<SALES>                                         26,324
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,324
<CGS>                                            7,892
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,263
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (51)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,175
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (468)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                707
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       707
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 93-2517

GULF STATES INSURANCE CO., Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee,

versus ALAMO CARRIAGE SERVICE, ET AL., Defendants, ALAMO CARRIAGE SERVICE, INC., Defendant-Counter Plaintiff-Appellant.

HERJE CARLSSON, Plaintiff,

versus ALAMO CARRIAGE SERVICE, INC., Defendant-Appellant,

versus GULF STATES INSURANCE CO., Intervenor-Defendant Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING (May 12, 1994)2

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
IT IS ORDERED that Alamo Carriage Service, Inc.'s petition for rehearing is hereby DENIED.
IT IS ORDERED that Gulf States Insurance Co.'s petition for

r ehearing is hereby GRANTED for the limited purpose o f supplementing our opinion to award sanctions and just damages under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38, 28 U.S.C. § 1912, and the inherent discretionary authority of this court. Alamo's appeal was dismissed as frivolous. Granting in part
Gulf States' motion for sanctions and damages, we award to Gulf States, and order Alamo to pay, (1) $398 as double costs, (2) $620

as attorneys' fees and costs incurred by Gulf States in filing and serving its p etition for rehearing, and (3) $1,000 as reasonable (but limited) attorneys' fees for sanctions.