alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### ELEANOR BROWN, BY HER NEXT FRIEND, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. WEBSTER REALTY COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Submitted May term, 1929

Decided June 28, 1929.

*588Before Justices Parker, Black and Bodine.

Eor the plaintiffs-respondents, *Jolm L. Ridley.*

Eor the defendant-appellant, Harley, *Gox Walburg.*

Per Curiam.

This suit was commenced in the Second District Court of Jersey City to recover damages for personal injuries. The plaintiff Clarence Brown was a tenant of premises No. 228 Hancock avenue, Jersey City, living with his child and wife, the other plaintiffs. The charge is that on September 28th, 1928, the kitchen ceiling of the premises fell, striking Eleanor Brown and Mabel Brown, causing the injuries complained of. Negligence in maintaining the ceiling in a defective condition is charged. The case was tried by the court with a jury, resulting in verdicts for the plaintiffs Eleanor Brown,'$50; Clarence Brown, $18; Mabel Brown, $100. The defendant appeals and files fourteen specifications of determinations, with which it is dissatisfied in point of law. The judgments will have to be reversed on account of trial errors. The case was submitted to the jury by the trial judge in the charge to the jury on a theory of the law that is fundamentally unsound. It is the settled law in New Jersey applied to the liability of a landlord for injuries to the tenant, viz.: As a general rule the landlord is not liable for injuries sustained by a tenant or his family or guests by reason of the injurious condition of the premises demised, there being in the letting of a house or lands no implied contract or condition that the premises are or shall be fit and suitable for the use of the *589tenant. *Reilly*v. Feldman, 103 *N. J. L.*517, 518; *Siggins*v. *McGill,*72 *Id.*264.

Therefore, it was error to submit the case to the jury on the theory that liability might be predicated upon the mere fact that the agent of the defendant company had been told of the crack in the ceiling and that he looked at the crack and it was for the jury to say whether he had notice of the crack, it was his duty to repair it. So, it was error to charge the jury: “If you find that the accident was caused by the negligent act of the defendant company, you may bring in a verdict in the sum of whatever you feel like after a discussion of the testimony and an agreement, among you men, as you do in the jury room, up to $500.”

The vice of this instruction is, it fails to fix a standard for the guidance of the jury on the subject of damages. The judgments of the Second District Court of Jersey City is therefore reversed.
# C_2013225EN.01007302.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/73 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/73

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — McNeil v OHIM — Alkalon (NICORONO)

(Case T-580/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark NICORONO - Earlier Community word mark NICORETTE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 225/161

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: McNeil AB (Helsingborg, Sweden) (represented by: I. Starr, Solicitor, and G. Tritton, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Alkalon ApS (Copenhagen, Denmark)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 August 2011 (Case R 1582/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between McNeil AB and Alkalon ApS.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 3 August 2011 (Case R 1582/2010-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 3 August 2011 (Case R 1582/2010-2);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

1

---
- 1 - 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 15-CV-11946 

vs. HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH 

 

JACK V. GIACALONE, 

 

 Defendant. 

__________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING THE GOVERNMENT’S MOTIONS 

TO COMPEL (Doc. 10 and 11) WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

 Now before the court is the government’s motion to compel 

Defendant Jack Giacalone to answer post-judgment interrogatories and 

requests for production of documents, and for sanctions for the costs 

incurred in bringing the motion. (Doc. 10). The parties asked the court to 

delay ruling on the motion as they were working to settle the matter 

themselves. However, Defendant failed to produce all of the requested 

materials as promised and the government filed a renewed motion to 

compel and for sanctions (Doc. 11). That motion is now also before the 

court and has been fully briefed. Since the government filed its initial 

motion, Defendant has answered the interrogatories. Also, in response to 

the government’s renewed motion, Defendant has requested additional 
- 2 - 

time to respond to the document requests as defense counsel has been in 

trial in another matter and has been involved in extensive trial preparation. 

Defendant requests an additional 14-days to produce any responsive 

documents. The court GRANTS Defendant’s request for an additional 14-

days to produce the requested documents, and DENIES WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE the government’s motions to compel (Doc. 10 and 11) as 

moot. Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant respond to the government’s 

document requests within 14-days of the entry of this order. Should 

Defendant fail to timely respond to the government’s document requests in 

full, the court shall sanction Defendant, and shall award attorney’s fees to 

the United States and against the Defendant. 

Dated: June 18, 2018 

 s/George Caram Steeh 

 GEORGE CARAM STEEH 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on 

June 18, 2018, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

s/Marcia Beauchemin 

Deputy Clerk
#### § 201.175 Answers to petition to reopen.

Answers to petitions to reopen shall conform to the requirements of subpart D of this part.
§ 194.15-11 Flushing systems. ( a ) Working spaces in which chemical stores are used shall be equipped with a fresh water supply shower.
( b ) There shall be a provision for flushing away chemical spills.
§ 30.10-69 Tank vessel—TB/ALL. The term *tank vessel* means a vessel that is constructed or adapted to carry, or that carries, oil or hazardous material in bulk as cargo or cargo residue, and that— ( a ) Is a vessel of the United States;
( b ) Operates on the navigable waters of the United States; or
( c ) Transfers oil or hazardous material in a port or place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
[CGD 79-116, 62 FR 25135, May 8, 1997]
Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW   ECF No. 34-9, PageID.410   Filed 01/09/17   Page 1 of 3

Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW   ECF No. 34-9, PageID.411   Filed 01/09/17   Page 2 of 3

Case 4:15-cv-11765-TGB-RSW   ECF No. 34-9, PageID.412   Filed 01/09/17   Page 3 of 3
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2119 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2119

 To amend the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to require 
 that repayments of assistance from the Troubled Asset Relief Program 
                funds go to paying down the public debt.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2009

Mr. McCarthy of California (for himself, Mr. Bachus, Mr. McCotter, Mr. 
Neugebauer, Mr. Jones, Mr. Lance, Ms. Jenkins, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Garrett 
of New Jersey, and Mr. Castle) introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to require 
 that repayments of assistance from the Troubled Asset Relief Program 
                funds go to paying down the public debt.

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

SECTION 1. TARP REPAYMENTS USED TO REDUCE PUBLIC DEBT.

    (a) In General.--Title I of the Emergency Economic Stabilization 
Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5201 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 
the following new section:

``SEC. 137. TARP REPAYMENTS USED TO REDUCE PUBLIC DEBT.

    ``(a) Repayments Used To Pay Down Public Debt.--Each time a 
financial institution makes a repayment of assistance provided under 
this title, the Secretary shall transfer such repayment to the special 
account established by section 3113(d) of title 31, United States Code.
    ``(b) Corresponding Reduction in Authorization To Purchase.--Each 
time a financial institution makes a repayment of assistance provided 
under this title, the authorization to purchase authority under section 
115 shall be reduced by a corresponding dollar amount.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents for such Act is 
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 136 the 
following new item:

``137. TARP repayments used to reduce public debt.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 99.17

CONSENT OF EXPERT

Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F (the Form 40-F) of Cameco Corporation (the Corporation) to be
filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

I hereby consent to reference to my name and my involvement in the preparation of, or supervision of the preparation of, scientific and
technical information in the following instances:



| | (a) | under the headings Operations and Projects  Uranium Operating Properties  Inkai, Mineral Reserves and Resources and Governance  Interest of Experts in the
Corporations Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2014 dated March 6, 2015 for the Inkai property; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | under the headings Our Operations and Projects  Uranium Operating Properties  Inkai and Mineral Reserves and Resources in Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operation for the year ended December 31, 2014 dated February 9, 2015 for the Inkai property,
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(collectively the Technical Information) in the Form 40-F, and to the inclusion and incorporation by reference of information derived from the
Technical Information in the Form 40-F.

I also hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of such Technical Information in the
registration statements (Nos. 333-11736, 333-6180 and 333-139165) on Form S-8 for the Cameco Corporation Stock Option Plan, registration statement
(No. 333-196422) on Form S-8 for the Cameco Corporation Employee Share Ownership Plan and registration statements (Nos.333-181577 and 333-200678) on Form F-10.

Sincerely,



|                     |  |                                                                                   
|-------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Lawrence Reimann
|Name:                |  | Lawrence Reimann, P. Eng.                                                         
|Title:               |  | Manager, Technical Services,
Power Resources, Inc.
(operating as Cameco Resources)

Date: March 6, 2015
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 97 (Monday, May 21, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 28475]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2530]


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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date: 11 a.m., Friday, June 15, 2007.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: Surveillance Matters.

Contact Person for More Information: Eileen A. Donovan, 202-418-5100.

Eileen A. Donovan,
Acting Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 07-2530 Filed 5-17-07; 11:21 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
#### § 28.310 Launching of survival craft.

A gate or other opening must be provided in the deck rails, lifelines, or bulwarks adjacent to the stowage location of each survival craft which weighs more than 110 pounds (489 Newtons), to allow the survival craft to be manually launched.
§ 184.404 Radars. ( a ) A vessel must be fitted with a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) type accepted general marine radar system for surface navigation with a radar screen mounted at the primary operating station if: ( 1 ) The vessel is self-propelled;
( 2 ) The vessel has an oceans, coastwise, limited coastwise, or Great Lakes route; and
( 3 ) The vessel carries more than 49 passengers.
( b ) A ferry that carries more than 49 passengers on a rivers route not within one mile of land must be fitted with a FCC Type Accepted general marine radar system for surface navigation with a radar screen mounted at the primary operating station.
( c ) The radar and its installation must be suitable for the intended speed and route of the vessel.
( d ) A vessel operated on a short restricted route need not be fitted with a radar if the cognizant OCMI determines that a radar is not necessary due to the vessel's route and local weather conditions.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 4
Federal Reserve Bank of: Cleveland

## Filings received during the week ending March 4, 2006

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location         | RSSDID | Exam Date  | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|------------------------------ | ------ | ---------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|METAMORA ST BK, METAMORA, OHIO | 533227 | 12/05/2005 | 02/26/2006     | O         | Small Bank 

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
EXHIBIT 21.1



                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

              (All Subsidiaries are Wholly Owned by the Registrant)



         Arterial Vascular Engineering Canada, Inc. (Canada)

         AVE International Sales, Inc. (Barbados)

         AVE Manufacturing, Inc. (California)

         Arterial Vascular Engineering UK Limited (United Kingdom)

         Arterial Vascular Engineering GmbH (Germany)

         Arterial Vascular Engineering SARL (France)

         Arterial Vascular Engineering B.V. (the Netherlands)

         AVE Arterial Vascular Engineering  (Schweiz) AG (Switzerland)

         Proprietary Extrusion Technologies, Inc. (California)
#### REGINA BOHAN, BY NEXT FRIEND, AND FRANK THOMAS BOHAN, v. MICHAEL GULYA.

Submitted May 17, 1929

Decided September 12, 1929.

Before Justices Paeker, Black, and Bobine.

For the plaintiffs, *George R. Morrison.*

For the defendant, *Henry G. Berg.*

Pek Cueiam.

This is an assault and battery case. The infant plaintiff, a young girl of eighteen, had a verdict of $2,500, which may properly be considered to have included punitive damages, and her father had a verdict of $100 for damages *per quod.*

As to the physical injury admittedly inflicted by defendant on llegina, the dispute of fact is principally whether he hit her in the head with a large stone, or whether it was merely a clod of dirt. The evidence seems fairly clear that her scalp was cut to the bone and that she had severe bruises on the leg. Making allowance for a certain amount of exaggeration of the alleged nervous injury, the ease shows an unreasonable and unnecessary assault by an irascible grown man on a young woman, and the jury quite properly took advantage of the instruction that they might include exemplary damages. As to the verdict of $100 for loss of services, the actual expense proved was only $10, but there are other elements in such a verdict besides actual expense sustained, which may be assessed by a jury though incapable of definite arithmetical calculation.

The rule will he discharged.
New Jersey Department of Labor, Workmen’s Compensation Bureau.

#### CHARLES STONE, PETITIONER, v. J. T. SIMMEN, RESPONDENT.

For the petitioner, *Theodore Strong, Jr.*

For the respondent, *Arthur F. Mead.*

^ sji }|i $ # ^ ' $ $

1. The petitioner alleged that while working for the respondent as a route foreman he froze his left foot.

❖ . ❖ sjc sH ❖ # *%*

3. He did not tell the respondent that he had suffered an accident but mentioned that he had frozen his toes, not saying how it had occurred.

##****❖*

6. Several lay witnesses testified for the petitioner, to the effect that they knew that he had frozen his toes' and that he wa's wearing a boot on his foot and that his foot was giving him discomfort. None of these witnesses, however, were superiors óf the petitioner, and although they might have known of this condition; this knowledge was not noticed to the respondent.

7. The burden of proof is upon the petitioner to prove knowledge or notice of the employer within ninety days of the injury which the man is alleged to have suffered, and the petitioner has failed to sustain this burden of proof. *Bryant*v. *Fissell,*84 *N. J. L.*72; section 15, Workmen Compensation law.

It is therefore ordered that this petition be dismissed.

W. E. Stubbs, *Deputy Commissioner.*
#### Joseph Medberry, *Respondent, v.*Seneca M. Short, *Appellant, Impleaded, etc*.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Smith, P. J.
# C_2011298EN.01002702.xml

| 8.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 298/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 298/27

---

Action brought on 17 August 2011 — Valeo Vision v Commission

(Case T-457/11)

2011/C 298/51

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Valeo Vision (Bobigny, France) (represented by: R. Ledru, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul in its entirety Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 603/2011 of 20 June 2011 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul in its entirety Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 603/2011 of 20 June 2011 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature;

| — | Order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission 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 one plea in law, alleging infringement of the rules of classification in the Combined Nomenclature in so far as the applicant considers that the general rules for interpretation Nos 1, 3(a), 3(b), 3(c) and 6; note No 2(a) of Section XVI; and note No 8 of Chapter 85 of the Combined Nomenclature mean, first, that an ‘LED electronic card’ should be classified under heading 8541 or, in the alternative, under heading 8542 of the Combined Nomenclature and, secondly, that its classification under heading 8512 should be precluded. The applicant disputes, first, the Commission’s statement of reasons and classification and submits, secondly, that the statement of the reasons on which the classification regulation is based is unfounded and has no legal basis.

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

§ 148.50 Cargoes subject to this subpart. The regulations in this subpart apply to each bulk shipment of— ( a ) A material listed in Table 148.10 of this part; and
( b ) Any solid material shipped under the terms of a Coast Guard special permit.
#### § 197.454 First aid and treatment equipment.

The diving supervisor shall ensure that medical kits are checked monthly to insure that all required supplies are present.