alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N. Y. SUPERIOR COURT.

#### James O’Brien, sheriff, &c., agt. The Merchants’ Insurance Company. Same agt. The Commercial Fire Insurance Company. Same agt. The Williamsburgh City Fire Insurance Company Same agt. The Mechanics and Traders’ Insurance Company.

*Special Term, October*25, 1874.

*Discontinuance of attachment suits try sheriff.*

Section 232 of the Code limits the right of the sheriff in discontinuing attachment suits brought by him, except “ at such times and upon such terms as the court or judge may direct.”

The court will not allow any discontinuance of such actions on the part of the sheriff that will inure to the injury of the parties interested in the debts attached.

These four actions being brought in this court by the sheriff, to collect four policies of insurance of $2,500 each, by virtue of seven warrants of attachment, amounting to about $7,000, against one E. S. Candler, Jr., the party insured, the defendants, on the eve of trial, offered to pay to the sheriff the amount of the attachments and taxable costs to date, and demanded that on such payment the actions should be discontinued by the sheriff.

Motion to discontinue on said terms, under section 232 of the Code, was made by *Brown, Hall & Vanderpoel,*attorneys of record for the sheriff, and opposed by *Wm. W. Badger,*as attorney in charge of the actions on behalf of the *14attaching creditors; he holding also a power of attorney from said E. S. Candler, Jr., the party insured, and claiming to protect his interest and margin in the surplus in the policies, over and above the amount called for by the attachments.

The defendants, by *George W. Parsons,*as counsel, united in the motion of the sheriff to discontinue.

Curtis, J.

It appears from the papers'that the granting leave to the sheriff to discontinue these suits, commenced by him on behalf of sundry attaching creditors of one Candler, to collect claims in Candler’s favor on policies of insurance, would prejudice Candler’s interest in- any surplus that might be due to him after the claims and costs of the attaching creditors were paid in full.

The effect of such a discontinuance, it is claimed, and seemingly with reason, would be to defeat Candler’s recovery, from the insurers, of such surplus, by reason of the limitations as to the time in which he can sue.

The provisions of the Code (§ 232) limiting the right of the sheriff to discontinue this class of actions, except *“*at such times and upon such terms as the court or judge may direct,” is evidently designed for the protection of the parties interested in the debts attached; and that there shall be no discontinuance, on the part of the sheriff, of actions that will inure to the injury of such parties.

I think it is the duty of the sheriff to prosecute these suits to judgment, and when, as provided in subdivision 4 of section 237 of the Code *“*the judgment and all costs of the proceedings shall have been paid, the sheriff, upon reasonable demand, shall deliver over to the defendant the residue of the attached property, or the proceeds thereof.”

The motion is denied, without costs.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 56 (Friday, March 23, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 13869]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1428]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Advisory Committee on CARES Business Plan Studies; Notice of 
Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the 
Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Advisory 
Committee on CARES Business Plan Studies has scheduled a meeting for 
April 10, 2007 at the Canandaigua VA Medical Center, Building 5, 
Auditorium, 40 Fort Hill Avenue, Canandaigua, New York. The meeting 
will convene at 1 p.m. and conclude at 4 p.m. The meeting is open to 
the public.
    The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice to the Secretary 
of Veterans Affairs on proposed business plans at those VA facility 
sites identified in May 2004 as requiring further study by the Capital 
Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) Decision document.
    The objective of the meeting is to provide the Secretary with 
advice regarding the final selection of a business planning option to 
modernize the medial center from those options previously selected by 
the Secretary for further study. An analysis of the business planning 
options completed by the VA contractor will be presented for Committee 
review in preparation for submitting the Committee's final 
recommendations to VA. The agenda will also accommodate public 
commentary on the options.
    Interested persons may attend and present oral or written 
statements to the Committee. For additional information regarding the 
meeting, please contact Mr. Jay Halpern, Designated Federal Officer, 
(00CARES), at 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, by phone 
at (202) 273-5994, or by e-mal at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0268637b2c6a636e7267706c426a732c6f67662c74632c656d74"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6c060d1542040d001c091e022c041d42010908421a0d420b031a">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: March 16, 2007.

    By direction of the Secretary.
E. Philip Riggin,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 07-1428 Filed 3-22-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2011298EN.01001201.xml

| 8.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 298/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 298/12

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif (Luxembourg) lodged on 18 July 2011 — DI. VI. Finanziaria S.A.P.A. di Diego della Valle & C. v Administration des contributions directes

(Case C-380/11)

2011/C 298/23

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal administratif

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DI. VI. Finanziaria S.A.P.A. di Diego della Valle & C.

Applicant:

Defendant: Administration des contributions directes

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as precluding a measure, such as that governed by Paragraph 8a of the Law on capital tax of 16 October 1934, as amended, subparagraph 1 of which makes the grant of a reduction in capital tax conditional upon remaining liable to Luxembourg capital tax for the next five tax years?

---
#### Daniel A. Hill *v.*George K. Goodrich.

Where a vrife, having a separate income, purchased solely upon her own credit suitable furniture for a house held for her by trustees, and occupied by herself and her husband, and subsequently died, having bequeathed the furniture to her husband, *held*that the vendor, who had thus sold the furniture to her with knowledge of the facts, could not recover for it of the husband in assumpsit.

Assumpsit, for certain articles of furniture. It appeared that said! *42defendant had formerly been considered insolvent, but that his wife, now deceased, had property in her own right, or in the hands of a trustee, of which she had the income and profits; that the farm which she and the defendant had lived on, was in the hands of her trustee, and that she used the income thereof in supporting herself and family ; that these facts were known to the plaintiff; that defendant’s wife, in her lifetime, bought the furniture in question of plaintiff; that he chose to give the credit for the same to the wife, rather than the *defendant;*that he sold her the furniture upon credit, and that it was understood at the time by them both, that the credit was given to the wife, and the articles were charged directly to her, upon the plaintiff’s book. Since then the defendant’s wife has deceased, and this suit is brought against the defendant for that furniture. And it also appeared that the furniture was such as it was proper and necessary that the defendant or his wife should have, if they could get it, to furnish their dwelling-house, and that the wife, at her decease, left a will, in which this furniture with other property was given to the defendant, or left for his use and benefit.

Upon these facts the court ruled that the defendant was not liable, and ordered a nonsuit, and the plaintiff excepted.

*H. P. Rolfe,*for plaintiff.

*Minot & Mugridge,*for the defendant.

Bartlett, J.

As the furniture was sold to the wife solely upon her credit, the husband was not liable. 2 Kent 146: Clancy H. and *W.*25, 26; Chit. Cont. 183; Story Cont. secs. 101, 103. Nor under these circumstances would the mere fact, if shown, that she used it with his knowledge and assent have tended to show a liability on his part, especially as she had a separate income. Story Cont. sec. 100; *Freestone*v. *Butcher,*9. C. & P. 643.

The property came into the defendant’s hands through no contract between him and the plaintiff, and even if he had taken it wrongfully from the plaintiff, the latter could not maintain assumpsit against him for it, in the absence of evidence that he had sold it. *Smith*v. *Smith,*43 N. H. 539. It is immaterial whether by the transaction with the plaintiff, the wife incurred a debt to him, as the defendant would not as husband be liable to him, and is not sued as her executor or administrator, and is under no liability in this action as her legatee. *Ticknor*v. *Harris,*14 N. H. 285. There must be

*Judgment on the nonsuit.*
# C_2013038EN.01002602.xml

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/26

---

Order of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Cementos Molins v Commission

(Case T-424/11) (1)

1

2013/C 38/48

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.

1

---
# C_2012032EN.01001601.xml

| 4.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/16

---

Action brought on 30 November 2011 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-613/11)

2012/C 32/29

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and D. Grespan, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to take, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to recover the State aid considered unlawful and incompatible with the internal market by Commission Decision [2008/92/EC] of 10 July 2007 concerning an Italian State aid scheme to the Sardinian shipping sector (notified on 11 July 2007 and published in OJ 2008 L 29, p. 24), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 5 of that decision and under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to take, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to recover the State aid considered unlawful and incompatible with the internal market by Commission Decision [2008/92/EC] of 10 July 2007 concerning an Italian State aid scheme to the Sardinian shipping sector (notified on 11 July 2007 and published in OJ 2008 L 29, p. 24), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 5 of that decision and under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

| — | order the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for implementing Decision 2008/92 expired on 11 September 2007.

To date, the Italian Republic has not yet undertaken the full recovery of the aid declared unlawful by the decision in question or informed the Commission that recovery has taken place. Moreover, the legal and practical difficulties relied on by Italy as justification for the delay in implementing that decision are not such as to make recovery absolutely impossible in accordance with the case-law of the Court nor has Italy at any stage in fact pleaded that such recovery was absolutely impossible.

In addition, the Commission complains that, in breach of the obligation under the decision in question to communicate information and of the duty of cooperation in good faith, Italy was late in informing it of the progress of the national procedures for implementing the decision.

---
§ 159.005-13 Equipment or material: Approval. ( a ) If from analysis of the material and data required to be submitted under this subpart, the Commandant determines that the equipment or material meets the applicable subpart or has equivalent performance characteristics in accordance with § 159.005-7(c), the Commandant— ( 1 ) Approves the equipment or material;
( 2 ) Issues a certificate of approval to the manufacturer under § 2.75-5 of this chapter;
( 3 ) Retains one set of approved plans and returns all others to the manufacturer; and
( 4 ) Publishes a record of the approval in the Coast Guard Maritime Information Exchange (CGMIX). A listing of current and formerly approved equipment and materials may be found on the Internet at: *http://cgmix.uscg.mil/equipment .*
( b ) If from analysis of the material and data submitted the Commandant determines that the equipment or material does not meet the applicable subpart, the Commandant informs the manufacturer of the reason why that equipment or material does not meet the subpart.
( c ) If an independent laboratory performs the approval inspections or tests, the Commandant will notify the laboratory of the actions taken under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, unless the manufacturer specifically requests that the laboratory not be notified.
[44 FR 73043, Dec. 17, 1979, as amended by CGD 93-055, 61 FR 13928, Mar. 28, 1996; CGD 85-205, 62 FR 25545, May 9, 1997; USCG-2015-0867, 80 FR 62470, Oct. 16, 2015]
§ 11.437 Requirements for mate of Great Lakes and inland self-propelled vessels of unlimited tonnage. ( a ) The minimum service required to qualify an applicant for an endorsement as mate of Great Lakes and inland self-propelled vessels of unlimited tonnage is— ( 1 ) Three years of service in the deck department of self-propelled vessels, at least 3 months of which must have been on vessels on inland waters and at least 6 months of which must have been while performing bridge watchkeeping duties under the supervision of the master or a qualified officer;
( 2 ) Graduation from the deck class of the Great Lakes Maritime Academy; or
( 3 ) While holding a license or MMC endorsement as master of Great Lakes and inland self-propelled vessels of less than 1,600 GRT, 1 year of service as master on vessels of 200 GRT or more. A tonnage limitation may be placed on this license in accordance with § 11.431 of this subpart.
( b ) Service gained in the engine department on vessels of appropriate tonnage may be creditable for up to 6 months of the service requirements under paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

BYRON K. COOK,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 15-cv-10117

AG TRUCKING INC. and KEVEN R.

ROCKENBAUGH,

Defendants.

/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND

Pending before the court is Plaintiff Byron Cook’s Motion to Remand, filed on

February 3, 2015. (Dkt. # 5.) Having reviewed the briefs, the court finds that a hearing

is unnecessary. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(e)(2). For the reasons stated below, the court

will deny the motion.

Plaintiff, a Michigan resident, initiated this civil action on December 4, 2014, in

Wayne County Circuit Court. Defendants subsequently removed the case to this court

on January 12, 2015. Plaintiff’s complaint asserts a claim of negligence against

Defendant Rockenbaugh, an Indiana resident based on an automobile accident on

Interstate 75 in Lincoln Park, Michigan on September 11, 2014. Plaintiff also seeks to

recover from Rockenbaugh’s employer, AG Trucking, Inc., an Indiana corporation with

its principal place of business in Indiana, under a theory of respondeat superior.

A defendant or defendants may remove “any civil action brought in a State court

of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.” 42 U.S.C.

§ 1441(a). Federal district courts have “original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the

2:15-cv-10117-RHC-MJH Doc # 10 Filed 02/27/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 109
matter in controversy exceeds the value of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs,

and is between . . . citizens of different States . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).

Plaintiff argues that diversity is not complete because “Rockenbaugh caused the

accident in Michigan and Defendant AG Tricking Inc. conducts business in the State of

Michigan, as the accident occurred here in Michigan, and therefore the State Courts

have jurisdiction over the matter.” Plaintiff is mistaken. Plaintiff’s argument conflates

personal jurisdiction, which is not contested, with citizenship for the purpose of diversity. 

An individual’s “citizenship for the purpose of diversity requirement is equated with

domicile.” Von Dunser v. Aronoff, 915 F.2d 1071, 1072 (6th Cir. 1990). A corporation is

“deemed to be a citizen of every State . . . by which it has been incorporated and of the

State . . . where it has its principal place of business[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1). The

situs of the accident is irrelevant to the propriety of removal. Because Defendants have

made an uncontested showing that complete diversity exists and that the amount in

controversy exceeds $75,000,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Dkt. # 5) is DENIED.

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: February 27, 2015

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, February 27, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\15-10117.COOK.Remand.ml.wpd

2

2:15-cv-10117-RHC-MJH Doc # 10 Filed 02/27/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 110
----

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002****(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

In connection with the Annual Reportof Golden Elephant Glass Technology, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"),on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Lihui Song, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his knowledge: 

(1)        The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

(2)        The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. 

April 15, 2009 

/S/ LIHUI SONG                                            **Lihui Song Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)**

[A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to Golden Elephant Glass Technology, Inc. and willbe retained by Golden Elephant Glass Technology, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.] 

----
# C_2013171EN.01002602.xml

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 May 2013 — Kieffer Omnitec v Commission

(Case T-288/11) (1)

1

(Public service contracts - Procurement procedure - Maintenance of the HVAC, sprinkler and water and sanitary installations in the Joseph-Bech building in Luxembourg - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Equal treatment - Transparency - Proportionality - Manifest error of assessment - Duty to state reasons)

2013/C 171/50

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: A+P Kieffer Omnitec Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Delvaux, V. Bertrand and M. Devos, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission (represented by: A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët and S. Delaude, acting as Agents, and V. Vanden Acker, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of the Commission’s decision of 1 April 2001 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in the procurement procedure relating to the conclusion of a contract for maintenance of HVAC, sprinkler and water and sanitary installations at the Joseph-Bech Building in Luxembourg and awarding the contract to another tenderer (OJ 2010/S 241 367523)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders A+P Kieffer Omnitec Sàrl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders A+P Kieffer Omnitec Sàrl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 148
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 148 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59783, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 148.21 Necessary information. Each petition for a special permit must contain at least the following: ( a ) A description of the material, including, if a hazardous material— ( 1 ) The proper shipping name from the table in 49 CFR 172.101;
( 2 ) The hazard class and division of the material; and
( 3 ) The identification number of the material.
( b ) A material safety data sheet (MSDS) for the material or— ( 1 ) The chemical name and any trade names or common names of the material;
( 2 ) The composition of the material, including the weight percent of each constituent;
( 3 ) Physical data, including color, odor, appearance, melting point, and solubility;
( 4 ) Fire and explosion data, including auto-ignition temperature, any unusual fire or explosion hazards, and any special fire fighting procedures;
( 5 ) Health hazards, including any dust inhalation hazards and any chronic health effects;
( 6 ) The threshold limit value (TLV) of the material or its major constituents, if available, and any relevant toxicity data;
( 7 ) Reactivity data, including any hazardous decomposition products and any incompatible materials; and
( 8 ) Special protection information, including ventilation requirements and personal protection equipment required.
( c ) Other potentially dangerous characteristics of the material not covered by paragraph (b) of this section, including— ( 1 ) Self-heating;
( 2 ) Depletion of oxygen in the cargo space;
( 3 ) Dust explosion; and
( 4 ) Liquefaction.
( d ) A detailed description of the proposed transportation operation, including— ( 1 ) The type of vessel proposed for water movements;
( 2 ) The expected loading and discharge ports, if known;
( 3 ) Procedures to be used for loading and unloading the material;
( 4 ) Precautions to be taken when handling the material; and
( 5 ) The expected temperature of the material at the time it will be loaded on the vessel.
( e ) Test results (if required under Subpart E of this part).
( f ) Previous approvals or permits.
( g ) Any relevant shipping or accident experience (or any other relevant transportation history by any mode of transport).