alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Aldrich *et al.*v. Wilmarth.

Rule 13 of this court contemplates that the respondent may serve and file a further or additional abstract to supply defects and omissions in appellant’s abstract, necessary to a proper presentation of the case on the part of the respondent for the determination of the same by this court; but, when such further or additional abstract largely duplicates matter contained in appellant’s abstract, the respondent will only be entitled to tax as costs for printing such new or additional matter as was necessary to be inserted in such further or additional abstract.

(Syllabus by the court.

Opinion filed April 19, 1893.)

Action by George W. Aldrich and Jacob E. Huffman, partners as Aldrich *&*Huffman, against Alma E. Wilmarth. From *39a taxation of costs defendant appeals.

Bill of costs amended.

*A. B. Melville*and *A. W.*Wilmarth, for appellant.

*Mouser & Volrath,*for respondent.

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from the decision of the clerk of this court taxing the costs in this case. The only item really in contention is one for printing the amended abstract. The appellant insists that this item should not be allowed for the reason that an amended abstract was not necessary, and is incorrect in several particulars, which the counsel for the appellant specifies. The amended abstract was, we think, necessary to present certain evidence moré fully to the court than it appeared in the original abstract; but it seems to contain also some portions of the evidence embodied in the original. As no reference is made to the pages' or folios of the original sought to be amended, it is quite impossible for us, therefore, to determine definitely how much new matter is inserted, not contained in the original. We are of the opinion, also, that the errors in the amended abstract are too slight to warrant us in saying it was incorrect and we do not see that the verbal errors pointed out materially affect the sense, or would be calculated to mislead the court. While we shall insist that abstracts and amended abstracts shall be substantially correct, and that parties shall in good faith endeavor to ’ have them so, yet slight verbal errors, evidently inadvertantly made and not intentional, and not calculated to mislead the court or counsel, will be disregarded. We are of the opinion, from an examination of the original and amended abstracts,'that about one-half of the amended abstract is made up of evidence omitted from the original, or not so stated in the original as to fully present the respondents’ case. We have concluded, therefore, to allow one-half the amount claimed for the printing of the amended abstract, and the bill of costs will be amended accordingly. When a claim is made for printing an amended abstract the clerk will ordinarily allow it, as he has no means of ascertaining whether the amended *40abstract was necessary, or how much of it was required, and these facts can only be determined by the court. The clerk, therefore, very properly allowed the item in the first instance, leaving the party aggrieved to appeal to this court.
#### Susannah L. Dorland, *as Administratrix, etc., Appellant, v.*The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, *Respondent.*

Judgment affirmed. Opinions by

Brady and

Daniels, JJ.;

Davis, P. J., dissenting.
#### § 172.127 Definitions.

*Length* or *L* means load line length (LLL).
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 23, 2013

t1216 

# Order

Clerk December 23, 2013

147721

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGA N,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147721

COA: 303236

Berrien CC: 2010

- 001540

- FH

LOREN TROUEZE ROBINSON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 30, 2013

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                           APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                             JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                        53,506
<SECURITIES>                                  15,833
<RECEIVABLES>                                  7,152
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (1,090)
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             106,659
<PP&E>                                        49,448
<DEPRECIATION>                                 9,298
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               250,654
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         28,285
<BONDS>                                      184,544
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        3
<COMMON>                                          23
<OTHER-SE>                                    34,118
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 250,654
<SALES>                                        8,753
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               8,753
<CGS>                                          7,409
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  7,409
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              12,841
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             7,613
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (19,110)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   3,212
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (15,898)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (15,898)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.68)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.68)



</TABLE>
Type Public

Traded as NYSE: WEC 

(http://www.nyse.com/about/listed/lcddata.html?

ticker=wec) 

S&P 500 Component

Industry Diversified Utilities

Founded 1987

Headquarters Milwaukee, Wisconsin, U.S.

Key people Gale E. Klappa, Chairman, CEO, and President

Revenue $4.43 billion USD (2008)

Employees 4,545 (2009)

Website http://www.wisconsinenergy.com

Wisconsin Energy Corporation

Wisconsin Energy Corporation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wisconsin Energy Corporation, based in 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin serves more than 

1.1 million electric customers in Wisconsin 

and Michigan's Upper Peninsula and more 

than 1 million natural gas customers in 

Wisconsin through its utility subsidiary, 

We Energies. Other subsidiaries are We 

Power, which designs, builds and owns 

electric generating plants; and Wispark, 

LLC, which develops and invests in real 

estate, industrial/office buildings and urban 

redevelopment projects.

The corporation and utility headquarters 

are located at 231 W. Michigan Street in 

Milwaukee.

Contents

■ 1 Utility companies 

1.1 Wisconsin Electric 

Power Company

■

■ 2 History

■ 3 Nonutility companies 

■ 3.1 We Power, LLC

■ 3.2 Wispark, LLC

■ 4 Primergy merger

■ 5 Tax criticism

■ 6 References

■ 7 External links

Utility companies

Wisconsin Electric Power Company

Wisconsin Electric Power Company, which does business as We Energies, provides electrical service 

for over one million customers, primarily located in southeastern and eastern Wisconsin as well as the 

Upper Peninsula of Michigan. We Energies also supplies nearly one million natural gas customers 

located throughout the state of Wisconsin.

Wisconsin Energy Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 1 of 6

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Energy_Corporation 7/17/2013
# C_2013079EN.01001403.xml

| 16.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of of 31 January 2013 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-235/11) (1)

1

(Cohesion Fund - Reduction of the financial assistance initially granted by the Fund to five projects concerning the implementation of certain lines of the high-speed railway network in Spain - Time-limit for the adoption of a decision - Article H(2) of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 - Article 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1386/2002 - Additional deliveries - Additional works or services - Concept of ‘unforeseen circumstance’ - Article 20(2)(e) and (f) of Directive 93/38/EEC)

2013/C 79/25

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez and N. Díaz Abad initially, then by N. Díaz Abad and A. Rubio González, abogados del Estado)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Adserá Ribera and D. Recchia, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Primarily, application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 1023 final of 18 February 2011 reducing assistance from the Cohesion Fund for the project phases entitled ‘Supply and assembly of track materials for the Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-French border High-Speed Line. Madrid-Lleida section’ (CCI 1999.ES.16.C.PT.001), ‘Madrid-Barcelona High-Speed Rail line. Lleida-Martorell section (Platform, 1st phase)’ (CCI 2000.ES.16.C.PT.001), ‘Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-French border High-Speed Line. Approaches to Zaragoza’ (CCI 2000.ES.16.C.PT.003), ‘Madrid- Barcelona-French border High-Speed Line. Lleida-Martorell section. X-A sub-section (Olérdola — Avinyonet del Penedés)’ (CCI 2001.ES.16.C.PT.007), ‘New High-Speed rail access to Levante. La Gineta-Albacete sub-section (Platform)’ (CCI 2004.ES.16.C.PT.014) and, in the alternative, application for partial annulment of the same decision so far as concerns the corrections made by the Commission.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 186, 25.6.2011.

1

---
§ 167.20-10 Means of escape. ( a ) On all nautical school ships where the arrangements will possibly permit, all enclosures where persons may be quartered, or where anyone may be employed, shall be provided with not less than two avenues of escape, so located that if one of such avenues is not available another may be.
[CGFR 51-11, 16 FR 3218, Apr. 12, 1951, as amended by USCG-2014-0688, 79 FR 58286, Sept. 29, 2014]
<TABLE>

Exhibit 11.0  Statement Regarding Computation Of Earnings Per Share
------------

                                                             (Unaudited)
                                         (In thousands, except share and per share amounts)

                                                             Three Months Ended                       Six Months Ended
                                                                June 30,2003                            June 30,2002
                                                                ------------                            ------------
                                                             2003           2002                      2003         2002
                                                             ----           ----                      ----         ----
<S>                                                         <C>             <C>                      <C>           <C>
Net income available to

   common shareholders                                 $       782     $       799              $     1,580   $     1,517
                                                       -----------     -----------              -----------   -----------

Total weighted average
   common shares outstanding                             1,471,263       1,446,226                1,460,457     1,443,332
                                                         ---------       ---------                ---------     ---------

Basic earnings per common share                        $       .53     $       .55              $      1.08   $      1.05
                                                       ===========     ===========              ===========   ===========

Total weighted average
   common shares outstanding                             1,471,263       1,446,226                1,460,457     1,443,332

Dilutive effect of stock options using
   the treasury stock method                                76,431          50,818                   70,028        43,598
                                                            ------          ------                   ------        ------

Total average common and common
   equivalent shares                                     1,547,694       1,497,044                1,530,485     1,486,930
                                                         ---------       ---------                ---------     ---------

Diluted earnings per common share                      $       .51     $       .53              $      1.03   $      1.02
                                                       ===========     ===========              ===========   ===========
</TABLE>
# C_2011145EN.01003702.xml

| 14.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 145/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/37

---

Action brought on 26 March 2011 — Schönberger v Parliament

(Case T-186/11)

2011/C 145/63

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Peter Schönberger (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: O. Mader, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the defendant’s decision, of which the applicant was informed by letter of 25 January 2011, with which the examination of his petition No 1188/2010 was concluded without the content of the petition having been addressed by the Committee on Petitions; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the defendant’s decision, of which the applicant was informed by letter of 25 January 2011, with which the examination of his petition No 1188/2010 was concluded without the content of the petition having been addressed by the Committee on Petitions;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | The contested decision was adopted in infringement of the applicant’s fundamental right to petition, since, despite the admissibility of the applicant’s petition, the Parliament Committee on Petitions refused to hear the concerns submitted therein, and so the applicant’s right to have the content of his petition considered was refused. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The contested decision was adopted in infringement of the applicant’s fundamental right to petition, since, despite the admissibility of the applicant’s petition, the Parliament Committee on Petitions refused to hear the concerns submitted therein, and so the applicant’s right to have the content of his petition considered was refused.

| 2. | The Parliament breached the applicant’s right to a statement of reasons, since the decision challenged makes no reference to the grounds for the refusal of the Committee on Petitions to hear the petition. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Parliament breached the applicant’s right to a statement of reasons, since the decision challenged makes no reference to the grounds for the refusal of the Committee on Petitions to hear the petition.

---
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2315 

To prohibit the use of funds to transfer enemy combatants detained at 

Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to facilities in Ohio or to construct facilities in Ohio for such enemy combatants. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2009 

Mr. AUSTRIA (for himself, Mr. LATTA, Mr. TIBERI, Mr. JORDAN of Ohio, and 

Mrs. SCHMIDT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of funds to transfer enemy combatants 

detained at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to 

facilities in Ohio or to construct facilities in Ohio for 

such enemy combatants. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO TRANSFER 

4 ENEMY COMBATANTS DETAINED AT NAVAL 

5 STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA, TO FA6 CILITIES IN OHIO. 

7 None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 

8 available to any Federal department or agency may be 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2315 IH

1 used to transfer any enemy combatant detained by the 

2 United States at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, 

3 to any facility in Ohio or to construct any facility in Ohio 

4 for any enemy combatant. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
# C_2012025EN.01007203.xml

| 28.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/72

---

Action brought on 24 November 2011 — ZZ v FRONTEX

(Case F-124/11)

(2012/C 25/141)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. A. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders (FRONTEX)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decision to revoke a previous decision concerning the renewal of the contract of employment of the applicant.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the European Union Civil Service Tribunal should:

| — | Annul the decision of 28 March 2011 of the Executive Director of FRONTEX; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 28 March 2011 of the Executive Director of FRONTEX;

| — | annul the decision of 11 August 2011 of the FRONTEX Executive Director; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 11 August 2011 of the FRONTEX Executive Director;

| — | order FRONTEX to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order FRONTEX to pay the costs.

---
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

MELVIN BOWNES, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. Case No. 14-11691 

Hon. Laurie J. Michelson 

HEIDI WASHINGTON, et al., 

Defendants. 

__________________________________/ 

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

MODIFYING CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 

 The parties have stipulated that the Case Management Order will be 

modified in the following areas: 

 Depositions of fact witnesses will be completed, and the parties will 

disclose their experts, on January 8, 2021. 

Expert reports will be exchanged by the parties by March 1, 2021. 

Expert discovery is to be completed by April 30, 2021. 

An evidentiary hearing on whether Plaintiff Bownes exhausted the claim(s) 

of the classes he represents will take place May 28, 2021. 

Dispositive motions must be filed by June 30, 2021. 

Challenges to experts must be filed by July 15, 2021. 

Pretrial and trial dates are to be determined by the Court at a later date. 

Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 308, PageID.7839 Filed 12/21/20 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 21, 2020 

 

 s/Laurie J. Michelson 

 LAURIE J. MICHELSON 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Approved by counsel: 

s/ Daniel E. Manville s/ Sara Trudgeon signed w/permission 

Daniel E. Manville (P39731) Sara E. Trudgeon (P82155) 

Counsel for Plaintiffs Counsel for Defendants 

Case 2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM ECF No. 308, PageID.7840 Filed 12/21/20 Page 2 of 2
Editorial Note on Part 154
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 154 appear part 154 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50466, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 154.235 Cargo tank location. ( a ) For type IG hulls, cargo tanks must be located inboard of: ( 1 ) The transverse extent of damage for collision penetration specified in Table 172.180 of this chapter;
( 2 ) The vertical extent of damage for grounding penetration specified in Table 172.180 of this chapter; and
( 3 ) 30 inches (760 mm) from the shell plating.
( b ) For type IIG, IIPG, and IIIG hulls, cargo tanks must be located inboard of: ( 1 ) The vertical extent of damage for grounding penetration specified in Table 172.180 of this chapter; and
( 2 ) 30 inches (760 mm) from the shell plating.
( c ) In vessels having membrane and semi-membrane tanks, the vertical and transverse extents of damage must be measured to the inner hull.
( d ) For type IIG, IIPG, and IIIG hulls, cargo tank suction wells may penetrate into the area of bottom damage specified as the vertical extent of damage for grounding penetration in Table 172.180 of this chapter if the penetration is the lesser of 25% of the double bottom height or 13.8 in. (350 mm).
[CGD 74-289, 44 FR 26009, May 3, 1979, as amended by CGD 79-023, 48 FR 51010, Nov. 4, 1983]