alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Edward Brassack, Appellant, *v.*The Interborough Rapid Transit Company, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

February, 1910.)

Security for costs — Persons who may be required to give — Persons who are non-residents — Office or place of business.

A place where one is regularly employed as an operator on cloaks and suits has an office for the regular transaction of business within the meaning of section 3160 of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to security for costs.

Appeal from an order of the City Court of the city of New York directing the plaintiff to furnish security for costs.

Louis M. Block (Isaac Siegel, of counsel), for appellant.

James L. Quackenbush (Bayard H. Ames and John Montgomery, of counsel), for respondent.

Seabury, J.

The plaintiff is regularly employed at 411⁄2 Division street in the borough of Manhattan, city of ¡New York, as an operator on cloaks and suits.

The question presented for' determination is whether, under the circumstances recited above, the plaintiff can he said to have “ an office for the regular transaction of business in person, within the city of ¡New York.” Code Civ. Pro., § 3160.

The word *“*office,” as used in this statute, means a place where service is rendered or business is done. The expression “ an office for the regular transaction of business in *191person *”*does not necessarily mean one who carries on some business at some particular place of which he is a proprietor. Lewis v. Davis, 8 Daly, 185.

The place where one is regularly employed to render services, where he attends every business day, is a place or office for the regular transaction of business, regardless of the character of the business which one may transact at that place.

The order requiring the plaintiff to give security for costs is reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements; and the motion is denied, with ten dollars costs.

Gut and Whitney, JJ., concur.

Order reversed with ten dollars costs and disbursements and motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
[Civ. No. 1324.

First Appellate District.

July 21, 1914.]

#### ALDEN ANDERSON, Superintendent of Banks of the State of California, Appellant, v. Y. NAWA et al., Respondents.

Banks—Enforcement of Liability of Stockholders—Action by Bank Commissioner—Dismissal for Delay in Service of Summons.—The judgment entered in favor of the respondent J. J. Lerman, on December 12, 1912, is affirmed, and the appeal from the judgment entered on February 14,1913, is dismissed, on the authority of *Anderson*v. *Nawa, ante,*p. 151.

APPEALS from judgments of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. George A. Sturtevant, Judge.

*800The facts are similar to those stated in the opinion in *Anderson*v.- *Nawa, ante,*p. 151.

F. A. Cutler, A. A. De Ligne, and H. W. Johnson, Jr., for Appellant.

J. J. Lerman, C. L. Tilden, and W. F. Postel, for Respondents.

THE COURT.

The parties to the above entitled cause having stipulated that the appeals from the two judgments rendered in the said action in favor of the respondent J. J. Lermen present questions identical to those presented in the appeals in the ease, No. 1359, *Anderson*v. *Nawa et al.,*(opinion filed July 17, 1914), *ante,*p. 151, [143 Pac. 555], and the said parties having further stipulated that the facts in both cases upon which the judgments - of dismissal are respectively based are in all respects substantially the same, and having further stipulated that all briefs and arguments filed or made on the appeal from the judgment in favor of respondent Swayne & Hoyt, a corporation (being case No. 1359, *supra),*may be considered as made and filed in the appeals from the judgments in favor of said respondent J. J. Lermen.

Now, therefore, it is hereby ordered upon the authority of the said ease (No. 1359), and for the same reasons stated in the opinion filed therein, the first judgment, to wit, the judgment entered and recorded December 12, 1912, in favor of said respondent J. J. Lermen, is affirmed, and the appeal from the second judgment, to wit, the judgment entered and recorded February 14, 1913, is dismissed.
Exhibit 10.33

                                                     [Logo Omitted]


                                       International DisplayWorks, Inc.
                                       599 Menlo Drive,
                                       Suite 200 Stanford Ranch/Atherton Centre,
                                       Rocklin, CA  95765
                                       USA




Ian N Bebbington
Hong Kong

6th November 2002

Dear Ian,

                              Employment Agreement
                              --------------------

Further  to our  discussions  on the  organization  structure  of IDW and  human
resource  planning I am pleased to confirm the terms of your employment as Chief
Financial Officer (CFO) of IDW Inc.

Duties and Responsibilities:

You will  report to me directly  whilst  making  such  reports and liaison  with
members of the Audit Committee as required for good governance of the company.

     o All those duties normally  associated with the position of CFO of a group
       with international operations and  subsidiaries  in a number of countries
       including:

     o Organization of accounting and internal control and associated systems to
       ensure  compliance  with  US  and  local  reporting  requirements  of the
       financial and fiscal affairs of each group company including  maintenance
       of  internal  and  disclosure  controls  as  necessary  together with the
       necessary  liaison with the audit committee and external auditors.

     o Control of treasury operations.

     o Risk Management

     o Management Accounting

As  this  position  is  overseas  I  confirm  that  your  employment  will be on
expatriate terms as follows:

     1. An after tax salary of US$100,000 per annum paid monthly in arrear

     2. You will participate in the executive bonus scheme on a deemed salary of
        US$150,000 per annum

     3. Participation in the company's stock option plan

     4. Accommodation and schooling for your children to international standards
        together with appropriate  transport  and  ancillary  benefits  normally
        associated with an overseas posting

     5. In  recognition  of the  commitment an overseas  posting  requires,  the
        initial term of this contract shall be for two years expiring on October
        31st 2004 and shall be renewed annually  for a two year term  commencing
        October 31st 2003.  In  the  event of termination or failure to renew on
        terms at least as  favorable  as those in force when  renewal is due the
        company shall pay the balance of salary due under the unexpired  portion
        of the contract and shall  continue the provision of  accommodation  and
        schooling until the end of the current school year.

Would you please  countersign a copy of this letter to indicate your  acceptance
of the above for our records.

Sincerely,


Steve Kircher.
CEO
No. 11-8775.

#### Guerrier *v.*LeGrand, Warden, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Schedule to Form of Indemnification Agreement



 Exhibit 10.8(a) 
 Schedule to Form of Indemnification Agreement between 
 Ryerson Inc. and the following parties: 
 Jameson A. Baxter 
 Richard G. Cline

 Russell M. Flaum 
 James A.
Henderson 
 Gregory P. Josefowicz 
 James R. Kackley 
 Dennis J. Keller 
 Jerry K. Pearlman 
 Neil S. Novich 
 Martha Miller de Lombera 
 Anré D. Williams 
 Jay M. Gratz 
 Gary J. Niederpruem 

James M. Delaney 
 Stephen E. Makarewicz
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judge Beales, Senior Judge Annunziata and Retired Judge Hodges∗

WALTER J. BOOKER, SR. 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION∗∗

v. Record No. 0568-09-4 PER CURIAM 

 SEPTEMBER 1, 2009 

KENAN ADVANTAGE GROUP, INC. 

 AND AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Walter J. Booker, Sr., pro se, on brief). 

 (Lynn McHale Fitzpatrick; Franklin & Prokopik, P.C., on brief), for 

appellees. 

 Walter J. Booker, Sr. (claimant) appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation 

Commission finding that he had failed to prove his need for unicondylar knee replacement 

surgery is causally related to his work-related accident on March 30, 2006. 

 Notwithstanding the deficiencies in claimant’s opening brief and appendix due to his 

failure to comply with Rules 5A:20(d) and 5A:25, we have reviewed the record and the 

commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Booker v. Kenan Advantage Group, 

Inc., VWC File No. 228-19-73 (Feb. 11, 2009). We dispense with oral argument and summarily 

affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

 ∗

 Retired Judge Hodges took part in the consideration of this case by designation pursuant 

to Code § 17.1-400(D). 

∗∗ Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; 

Rule 5A:27.1

Affirmed.

 1

 In summarily affirming the commission’s decision, we considered only the issues which 

were properly before the commission and considered by it in rendering its decision.
Editorial Note on Part 74
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 74 appear at 64 FR 4055, Jan. 27, 1999.

§ 74.635 Unattended operation. ( a ) TV relay stations, TV translator relay stations, TV STL stations, and TV microwave booster stations may be operated unattended under the following conditions: ( 1 ) The transmitter must be provided with adequate safeguards to prevent improper operation.
( 2 ) The transmitter shall be so installed and protected that it is not accessible to other than duly authorized persons;
( 3 ) TV relay stations, TV STL stations, TV translator relay stations, and TV microwave booster stations used with these stations, shall be observed at the receiving end of the microwave circuit as often as necessary to ensure proper station operation by a person designated by the licensee, who must institute measures sufficient to ensure prompt correction of any condition of improper operation. However, an STL station (and any TV microwave booster station) associated with a TV broadcast station operated by remote control may be observed by monitoring the TV station's transmitted signal at the remote control point. Additionally, a TV translator relay station (and any associated TV microwave booster station) may be observed by monitoring the associated TV translator station's transmitted signal.
( b ) The FCC may notify the licensee to cease or modify operation in the case of frequency usage disputes, interference or similar situations where such action appears to be in the public interest, convenience and necessity.
[28 FR 13718, Dec. 14, 1963, as amended at 31 FR 15314, Dec. 7, 1966; 43 FR 1950, Jan. 13, 1978; 47 FR 55937, Dec. 14, 1982; 49 FR 7131, Feb. 27, 1984; 50 FR 32417, Aug. 12, 1985]
§ 90.555 Information exchange. ( a ) *Prior notification.* Public safety licensees authorized to operate in the 758-775 MHz and 788-805 MHz bands may notify any licensee authorized to operate in the 746-757 MHz or 776-787 MHz bands that they wish to receive prior notification of the activation or modification of the licensee's base or fixed stations in their area. Thereafter, the 746-757 MHz or 776-787 MHz band licensee must provide the following information to the public safety licensee at least 10 business days before a new base or fixed station is activated or an existing base or fixed station is modified: ( 1 ) Location;
( 2 ) Effective radiated power;
( 3 ) Antenna height; and
( 4 ) Channels available for use.
( b ) *Purpose of prior notification.* The prior coordination of base or fixed stations is for informational purposes only. Public safety licensees are not afforded the right to accept or reject the activation of a proposed base or fixed station or to unilaterally require changes in its operating parameters. The principal purposes of notification are to: ( 1 ) Allow a public safety licensee to advise the 746-757 or 776-787 MHz band licensee whether it believes a proposed base or fixed station will generate unacceptable interference;
( 2 ) Permit 746-757 and 776-787 MHz band licensees to make voluntary changes in base or fixed station parameters when a public safety licensee alerts them to possible interference; and,
( 3 ) Rapidly identify the source if interference is encountered when the base or fixed station is activated.
( c ) *Public Safety Information Exchange.* ( 1 ) Upon request by a 746-757 or 776-787 MHz band licensee, public safety licensees authorized to operate radio systems in the 758-775 and 788-805 MHz bands shall provide the operating parameters of their radio system to the 746-757 or 776-787 MHz band licensee.
( 2 ) Public safety licensees who perform the information exchange described in this section must notify the appropriate 746-757 or 776-787 MHz band licensees prior to any technical changes to their radio system.
[72 FR 27713, May 16, 2007, as amended at 72 FR 67578, Nov. 29, 2007; 79 FR 601, Jan. 6, 2014]
§ 73.1225 Station inspections by FCC. ( a ) The licensee of a broadcast station shall make the station available for inspection by representatives of the FCC during the station's business hours, or at any time it is in operation.
( b ) In the course of an inspection or investigation, an FCC representative may require special equipment tests, program tests or operation with nighttime or presunrise facilities during daytime hours pursuant to § 0.314, part 0, of the FCC rules.
( c ) The following records shall be made available by all broadcast stations upon request by representatives of the FCC. ( 1 ) Equipment performance measurements required by §§ 73.1590 and 73.1690.
( 2 ) The written designations for chief operators and, when applicable, the contracts for chief operators engaged on a contract basis.
( 3 ) Application for modification of the transmission system made pursuant to § 73.1690(c).
( 4 ) Informal statements or drawings depicting any transmitter modification made pursuant to § 73.1690(e).
( 5 ) Station logs and special technical records.
( d ) Commercial and noncommercial AM stations must make the following information also available upon request by representatives of the FCC. ( 1 ) Copy of the most recent antenna or common-point impedance measurements.
( 2 ) Copy of the most recent field strength measurements made to establish performance of directional antennas required by § 73.151.
( 3 ) Copy of the partial directional antenna proofs of performance made in accordance with § 73.154 and made pursuant to the following requirements: ( i ) Section 73.68, Sampling systems for antenna monitors.
( ii ) Section 73.69, Antenna monitors.
( iii ) Section 73.61, AM direction antenna field strength measurements.
[43 FR 45846, Oct. 4, 1978; 43 FR 50683, Oct. 31, 1978, as amended at 51 FR 41629, Nov. 18, 1986; 51 FR 44478, Dec. 10, 1986; 57 FR 48333, Oct. 23, 1992]
§ 90.673 Obligation to abate unacceptable interference. ( a ) *Strict Responsibility.* Any licensee who, knowingly or unknowingly, directly or indirectly, causes or contributes to causing unacceptable interference to a non-cellular licensee in the 800 MHz band, as defined in this chapter, shall be strictly accountable to abate the interference, with full cooperation and utmost diligence, in the shortest time practicable. Interfering licensees shall consider all feasible interference abatement measures, including, but not limited to, the remedies specified in the interference resolution procedures set forth in this chapter. This strict responsibility obligation applies to all forms of interference, including out-of-band emissions and intermodulation.
( b ) *Joint and Several Responsibility.* If two or more licensees knowingly or unknowingly, directly or indirectly, cause or contribute to causing unacceptable interference to a non-cellular licensee in the 800 MHz band, as defined in this chapter, such licensees shall be jointly and severally responsible for abating interference, with full cooperation and utmost diligence, in the shortest practicable time. This joint and several responsibility rule requires interfering licensees to consider all feasible interference abatement measures, including, but not limited to, the remedies specified in the interference resolution procedures set forth in this chapter. This joint and several responsibility rule applies to all forms of interference, including out-of-band emissions and intermodulation. ( 1 ) This joint and several responsibility rule requires interfering licensees to consider all feasible interference abatement measures, including, but not limited to, the remedies specified in the interference resolution procedures set forth in § 90.674(c). This joint and several responsibility rule applies to all forms of interference, including out-of-band emissions and intermodulation.
( 2 ) Any licensee that can show that its signal does not directly or indirectly, cause or contribute to causing unacceptable interference to a non-cellular licensee in the 800 MHz band, as defined in this chapter, shall not be held responsible for resolving unacceptable interference. Notwithstanding, any licensee that receives an interference complaint from a public safety/CII licensee shall respond to such complaint consistent with the interference resolution procedures set forth in this chapter.
[69 FR 67849, Nov. 22, 2004]
RICK SNYDER 

GOVERNOR 

The Honorable Anthony R. Foxx 

Secretary 

US Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

S TATE-OF MICHIGAN 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE 

LANSING 

May 13,2015 

The Honorable John F. Kerry 

Secretary 

US Department of State 

2201 C Street NW 

Washington, DC 20520 

Dear Secretary Foxx and Secretary Kerry: 

BRIAN CALLEY 

LT. GOVERNOR 

I am writing to urge you to request consultations with the governments of Qatar and the 

United Arab Emirates to investigate subsidies provided to their state-owned airlines in accordance 

with the Open Skies agreements held between the United States and the respective countries. It Is 

of the utmost importance that existing agreements between the countries are upheld and enforced. 

It has been brought to my attention that state-owned carriers from the UAE and Qatar have 

been provided with more than $40 billion of subsidies and other unfair benefits that are putting U.S. 

carriers at a significant competitive disadvantage. These subsidies and unfair benefits have enabled 

their state-owned carriers to expand international routes to the U.S. beyond the scope of passenger 

demand, causing US carriers to cut back on existing International routes due to their inability to 

compete fairly in a distorted market. These subsidies and benefits have been documented by the 

U.S. airline Industry and warrant federal attention. This situation has an impact on the entire US 

economy and can be acutely felt in the State of Michigan. 

The airline Industry is critical to the nation's economy: It drives nearly $1.5 trillion In U.S. 

economic activity, It directly employs 580,000 Americans, and It supports more than 11 million jobs 

nationwide. Delta Air Lines alone employs more than 7,500 people at Detroit Metropolitan Airport 

and generates over $210 million in annual tax revenue. Delta Air Lines and its regional carrier Delta 

Connection employ 10,000 people statewide in Michigan. The commercial airline industry as a 

whole provides an estimated economic Impact of $17.6 billion In Michigan. 

Reducing International routes has a domino effect that will cause a reduction in domestic 

routes and a loss of economic activity throughout the US. Fewer routes to cities and towns with 

small and mid-sized airports affect not just airline employees, but also the service network that exists 

to support our country's robust air travel network. 

The Open Skies agreements between the United States, Qatar and the UAE, respectively, 

provide a mechanism to call for consultations In order to ensure the agreements are upheld and that 

state subsidies are addressed. I ask that you exercise your right to address these subsidies and 

ensure fair competition pursuant to the agreements. 

Sincerely, 

Rick Snyder 

Governor 

GEORGE W. ROMNEY BUILDING • 111 SOUTH CAPITOL AVENUE • LANSING, MICHIGAN 48909 

s 10-150513-0 15 www.mlchlgan.gov
#### § 95.325 Interference.

Operators of Personal Radio Service stations experiencing or causing interference must first attempt to eliminate the interference by means of mutually satisfactory arrangements. If the operators are unable to resolve an interference problem, the FCC may impose restrictions including specifying the channels, maximum transmitting power, maximum antenna height and geographic area or hours of operation of the stations concerned.
§ 80.515 Limitations on use. A private coast station or marine utility station using telephony must: ( a ) Not be used for public correspondence;
( b ) Not be used to transmit program material for radio broadcasting; and
( c ) Not be used to transmit press material or news items which are not required to serve the needs of ships.
§ 80.71 Operating controls for stations on land. Each coast station, Alaska-public fixed station and Alaska-private fixed station must provide operating controls in accordance with the following: ( a ) Each station using telegraphy or telephony must be capable of changeover from transmission to reception and vice versa within two seconds excluding a change in operating radio channel.
( b ) During it hours of service, each station must be capable of: ( 1 ) Commencing operation within one minute after the need to do so occurs;
( 2 ) Discontinuing all emission within five seconds after emission is no longer desired. The emission of an unattended station in an automated multistation system at which restoration to standby is automatic on conclusion of a call must be discontinued within three seconds of the disconnect signal or, if a disconnect signal is not received, within twenty seconds after reception of the final carrier transmission from a ship station.
( c ) Each station using a multichannel installation for telegraphy must be capable of changing from one telegraphy channel to any other telegraphy channel within the same sub-band below 525 kHz within five seconds. This requirement need not be met by equipment intended for use only in emergencies and not used for normal communication.
( d ) Every coast station using a multi-channel installation for radiotelephony must be capable of changing from one telephony channel to another telephony channel within: ( 1 ) Five seconds within the frequency band 1605-3500 kHz; or
( 2 ) Three seconds within the band 156-162 MHz. This requirement also applies to marine utility stations.