alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### SAMUEL ATKINS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. HUMPHREY PRICE AND ROBERT S. PRICE, TRADING AS PRICE BROTHERS, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Decided January 4, 1929.

Before Justices Tbenchaed, Kalisoh and Lloyd.

Eor the appellants, *Kellogg & Chance.*

Eor the appellee, *Feinberg & Femberg.*

Pee Cueiam.

The prime question raised on this appeal is whether the testimony adduced in the cause was sufficient in law, to entitle the plaintiff to have the facts of the case submitted to a jury for its determination.

There was a motion for a nonsuit and a motion for a directed verdict for the defendant, both of which motions were denied, and we think properly so.

If the plaintiff’s version of the happening of the accident is true, then the appellant’s driver was guilty of negligence. On the other hand, if the testimony of the driver of appellant’s truck is true, then there was no negligence on his part, and the accident was solely the result of the plaintiff’s negligence.

According to the plaintiff’s story he was proceeding south with his car on Arlington avenue at a speed of about fourteen miles an hour, at five-forty o’clock, or thereabouts in the evening, at which time it was dark, and when he had reached *71the corner of Union street, he says he looked to his right and could see about twenty feet, and seeing no vehicle or person approaching, he continued his course across, and when the front end of his car was past the south corner of Union street, appellant’s truck, without any lights, came out of the street and crashed into the rear end of the plaintiff’s car with such force as to carry it completely across the street against a telephone pole.

Now, if this story be true it is difficult to perceive on what reasonable theory any negligence can be attributed to the plaintiff, either as a matter of law or of fact.

The testimony of the driver of appellant’s truck is to the effect that he was operating the truck at about four miles an hour, and upon reaching the intersection of Union street and Arlington avenue, stopped and looked both ways; that he saw a car a block away from his left and thereupon continued to proceed across Arlington avenue; that he was about three-quarters across Arlington avenue when he was hit by the plaintiff’s automobile, sideways.

Of course, if the accident happened as testified to by appellant’s driver, then there was no negligence on his part, and atiy injury which the plaintiff sustained was solely due to his own carelessness.

These diverse statements as to how the accident happened raised a question of credibility of the witnesses, which question was pre-eminently one for the jury to decide. There is nothing contained in the plaintiff’s testimony which allowed a permissible inference to be drawn that he was guilty of negligence contributing to his injury, because he did not discover in the dark a truck which had no lights upon it coming out of the intersecting street, before he started to cross with his automobile. At most it was a jury question.

Judgment is affirmed, with costs.
#### § 32.65-5 Scantlings, material, and workmanship—TB/ALL.

The hull and deck houses shall be of steel or iron construction except that the pilothouse and decks over quarters may be constructed of wood. Scantlings, material, and workmanship, subdivision of cargo spaces, fitting of cofferdams, and testing of tanks shall be at least equivalent to the requirements of the American Bureau of Shipping or other recognized classification society.
§ 72.03-10 Woodwork insulated from heated surfaces. ( a ) Internal combustion engine exhausts, boiler and galley uptakes and similar sources of ignition shall be kept clear of and suitably insulated from any woodwork or other combustible matter.
( b ) [Reserved]
#### William H. Peacock, Respondent, *v.*Daniel E. Comstock, *Appellant.*

Judgment affirmed, with costs. .Mem. by

Learned, P. J.
#### William McCarter, appellant, v. Ed A. Lavery, County Commissioner, appellee.

Filed November 3, 1917.

No. 19679.

1. Appeal: Dismissal: Extrinsic Evidence. An appeal by tbe plaintiff may be dismissed, where, .during its pendency, without any fault of the defendant, an event occurs to prevent the appellate court *749from granting plaintiff any effectual relief in case of a decision in his favor, and an event of that nature may he shown hy extrinsic evidence.

2. -: -: -. An appeal hy a taxpayer from a dismissal of his suit to oust a county commissioner for misdemeanors in office may he dismissed, where it is shown that the official term of defendant expired pending the appeal, that another holds the office, that no effort was made to advance the appeal for a hearing during the incumbency of defendant, and that he did not prevent an early hearing.

Appeal from the district court for Dawson county: Hanson M. Grimes, Judge.

*Appeal dismissed.*

*Niles E. Olsen, I. J. Nisley*and *Wilcox &*Halligan, for appellant.

*J. B. Strode, D. H. Moulds, W. A. Stewart, T. M. Hewitt, II. D. Rhea*and *E. A. Ooolc, contra.*

Rose, J.

This is a proceeding by a taxpayer to remove from office a county commissioner of Dawson county “for corruption” and “for wilful maladministration” — two statutory grounds. Rev. St. 1913, sec. 5698. Approval of excessive claims against- the county and misconduct resulting in their allowance and payment are the foundations of plaintiff’s charges. From a dismissal of the proceeding after a trial on the merits, plaintiff has appealed.

The appeal will not be determined. The purpose of the proceeding is to oust defendant from office. His term has long since expired and the office is now occupied by his successor. No effort to advance the appeal for a decision during the incumbency of defendant was made. The delay is not attributable to him. He made a successful defense in the trial court. Being out of office he cannot now be removed therefrom. His retirement at the expiration of his official term pending the appeal was an event making it impossible for the appellate court to grant plaintiff any effectual relief on the cause of action pleaded. That event is a ground for dismissing the *750appeal, and, when not appearing on the record, may be shown by extrinsic evidence. *Mills v.*Green, 159 U. S. 651. The change in officers is asserted by defendant, and not denied. Courts properly decline to express an opinion on a mere abstraction, and may act on their own motion in dismissing an appeal involving only an inquiry of. that nature. *Heesch v. Snyder,*85 Neb. 778.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
 (2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Stephen L. Day
    
    /s/ Michael W. BrunsStephen L. Day
    
    Michael W. BrunsPresident, Chief Executive Officer and Director
    
    Chief Financial Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
    
    (Principal Financial Officer)Date: November 13, 2009
    
    Date: November 13, 2009
§ 56.30-40 Flexible pipe couplings of the compression or slip-on type. ( a ) Flexible pipe couplings of the compression or slip-on type must not be used as expansion joints. To ensure that the maximum axial displacement (approximately 3/8′′ maximum) of each coupling is not exceeded, positive restraints must be included in each installation.
( b ) Positive means must also be provided to prevent the coupling from “creeping” on the pipe and uncovering the joint. Bite type devices are not generally accepted for this purpose. Machined grooves or centering pins are considered positive means.
( c ) The installation must be such as to preclude appreciable difference in the vibration magnitudes of the pipes joined by the couplings. The couplings must not be used as a vibration damper. The vibration magnitude and frequency should not exceed that recommended by the coupling manufacturer.
( d ) Flexible couplings made in accordance with the applicable standards listed in table 2 to § 56.60-1 and of materials complying with subpart 56.60 may be used within the material, size, pressure, and temperature limitations of those standards and within any further limitations specified in this subchapter. Flexible couplings fabricated by welding must also comply with part 57 of this subchapter.
( e ) Flexible couplings must not be used in cargo holds or in any other space where leakage, undetected flooding, or impingement of liquid on vital equipment may occur, or in tanks where the liquid conveyed in the piping system is not compatible with the liquid in the tank.
( f ) Damaged or deteriorated gaskets must not be reinstalled.
( g ) Each coupling must be tested in accordance with § 56.97-5.
[CGFR 68-82, 33 FR 18843, Dec. 18, 1968, as amended by CGD 77-140, 54 FR 40606, Oct. 2, 1989]
# C_2012331EN.01002501.xml

| 27.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/25

---

Order of the General Court of 5 September 2012 — Farage v Parliament and Buzek

(Case T-564/11) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - Decision of the President of the Parliament imposing on a Member of the Parliament the penalty of forfeiture of entitlement to the daily subsistence allowance for a period of 10 days - Decision of the Committee on Legal Affairs of the Parliament declaring inadmissible the Member’s request for defence of his Parliamentary immunity - Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the General Court - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2012/C 331/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nigel Paul Farage (Brussels (Belgium)) (represented by: P. Bennett, solicitor)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz and D. Moore, acting as Agents) and Jerzy Buzek (Brussels (Belgium))

Re:

ACTION for annulment, first, of the decision of the President of the Parliament of 2 March 2010 imposing on the applicant the penalty of forfeiture of entitlement to the daily subsistence allowance for a period of 10 days, secondly, of the decision of the Bureau of the Parliament of 24 March 2010 confirming the above decision of the President of the Parliament, thirdly, of the decision of the Committee on Legal Affairs of the Parliament declaring inadmissible the applicant’s request for defence of immunity and, fourthly, of an unspecified decision of the Parliament.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Nigel Paul Farage is to bear his own costs and to pay those of the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Nigel Paul Farage is to bear his own costs and to pay those of the European Parliament.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

---
§ 61.01-1 Scope. ( a ) Periodic tests and inspection must be made of the main and auxiliary machinery, boilers, and other equipment as prescribed in this part.
( b ) The inspections and tests must ensure that the equipment and associated structure are in satisfactory operating conditions and fit for the service for which they are intended.
[CGFR 68-82, 33 FR 18890, Dec. 18, 1968, as amended by CGD 95-012, 60 FR 48050, Sept. 18, 1995
*Friday, January 15, 1999*

MERIT DOCKET

99-14.

#### State ex rel. Fries v. Williamson.

In Prohibition. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of prohibition and was considered in a manner prescribed by law. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
§ 58.30-50 Requirements for miscellaneous fluid power and control systems. ( a ) All fluid power and control systems installed on a vessel, except those listed in § 58.30-1(a), must meet the following requirements: ( 1 ) Diagrams of the system providing the information required by § 58.30-40(a)(1) through (4) must be submitted. These are not approved but are needed for records and for evaluation of the system in accordance with § 58.30-1(a)(14).
( 2 ) The hydraulic fluid used in the system must comply with § 58.30-10.
( 3 ) The installed system must be tested in accordance with § 58.30-35(c)(2).
( 4 ) All pneumatic cylinders must comply with § 58.30-30.
( 5 ) Additional plans may be required for “fail-safe” equipment and for cargo hatch systems with alternate means of operation.
( b ) [Reserved]
§ 76.35-90 Installations contracted for prior to November 19, 1952. ( a ) Installations contracted for prior to November 19, 1952, shall meet the following requirements: ( 1 ) Existing arrangements, materials, and equipment previously approved shall be considered satisfactory so long as they meet the minimum requirements of this paragraph, and they are maintained in good condition to the satisfaction of the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection. Minor repairs and alterations may be made to the same standards as the original installation.
( 2 ) The details of the systems shall be in general agreement with §§ 76.35-5 through 76.35-15 insofar as is reasonable and practicable.
( b ) [Reserved]
§ 58.30-1 Scope. ( a ) This subpart contains requirements for fluid power transmission and control systems and appurtenances. Except as otherwise provided for in this section, these requirements are applicable to fluid power and control systems where installed for the following equipment: ( 1 ) Steering apparatus, main and auxiliary, including bow thruster systems.
( 2 ) Cargo hatch operating systems unless fitted with an alternate mechanical means of operation and approved by the Commandant as hydraulically or pneumatically fail-safe. A system is considered to be fail-safe if a component failure will result in a slow and controlled release of the loading so as not to endanger personnel.
( 3 ) Watertight door operating system.
( 4 ) Automatic propulsion boiler control systems.
( 5 ) Starting systems for internal combustion engines used for main propulsion, auxiliary power, as the prime mover for any required emergency apparatus, or as the source of propulsion power in ship maneuvering thruster systems.
( 6 ) Centralized control system of main propulsion and auxiliary machinery.
( 7 ) Lifeboat handling equipment.
( 8 ) Controllable pitch propeller system.
( 9 ) Installations used to remotely control components of piping systems listed in § 56.01-10(c)(1) of this subchapter.
( 10 ) All systems containing a pneumatic or hydropneumatic accumulator.
( 11 ) Materials and/or personnel handling equipment systems, *i.e.*, cranes, hydraulic elevators, etc., not approved by the Commandant as fail-safe as defined in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
( 12 ) Any fluid power or control system installed in the cargo area of pump rooms on a tank vessel, or in spaces in which cargo is handled on a liquefied flammable gas carrier.
( 13 ) All pneumatic power and control systems having a maximum allowable working pressure in excess of 150 psig.
( 14 ) Any other hydraulic or pneumatic system on board that, in the judgment of the Commandant, constitutes a hazard to the seaworthiness of the ship or the safety of personnel either in normal operation or in case of failure.
( b ) Other fluid power and control systems do not have to comply with the detailed requirements of this subpart but must meet the requirements of § 58.30-50.
§ 61.30-10 Hydrostatic test. All new installations of thermal fluid heaters must be given a hydrostatic test of 11 ⁄ 2 times the maximum allowable working pressure. The test must be conducted in the presence of a marine inspector. No subsequent hydrostatic tests are required unless, in the opinion of the Officer in Charge Marine Inspection, the condition of the heater warrants such a test. Where hydrostatic tests are required, an inspection is made of all accessible parts under pressure. The thermal fluid may be used as the hydrostatic test medium.
§ 326.7 Litigation. ( a ) If a court suit of a P&I nature is filed which arises out of the activities of the Agent under its Agreement, wherein the Agent is named as the party defendant or one of the parties' defendant irrespective of whether the risk is covered by P&I insurance, the Agent shall immediately forward copies of the pleading and all other related legal documents, by first class mail, to the Chief Counsel, Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590, and to the Attorney General, Attn: Civil Division, Torts Branch, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530. No agent or authorized subagent shall incur any legal expenses in connection with any claim of a P&I nature, unless approved in advance by MARAD, and by the underwriter, where applicable. However, the Agent may incur legal expenses if the mission of the vessel will be frustrated or impeded and/or time will not permit such prior approval.
( b ) In the event of any attachment or seizure of a vessel, whether or not the risk is of a P&I nature, the Agent shall immediately notify the Chief Counsel, Maritime Administration, Washington, DC 20590, Tel. (202) 366-05711, by telegram, radio, or cable.
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: 2
Federal Reserve Bank of: New York

## Filings received during the week ending January 23, 2010

|Filer                               | Filing Type     | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             | End of Comment Period                             
|----------------------------------- | --------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------
|FIRST NIAGARA FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. | * 4c8* 3A1* 3A3 | First Niagara Financial Group, Inc., Buffalo, New York ("FNFG"), to become a bank holding company by acquiring Harleysville National Corporation and Harleysville National Bank and Trust Company, both of Harleysville, Pennsylvania.  FNFG to retain First Niagara Bank, Buffalo, New York ("FNB"), and thereby operate a savings association.  FNFG to retain FNB upon conversion of FNB to a national bank, pursuant to Section 3(a)(3) of the BHC Act. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:02/19/2010
|Newspaper:                          | Not available  
|Federal Register:                   | 02/19/2010     

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

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

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

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
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DAVID WYGOCKI, 

 Plaintiff, 

 

v. 

DR. LARSON, ET. AL., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 15-12488 

SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

ARTHUR J. TARNOW

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

MONA K. MAJZOUB

 / 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [27]; GRANTING IN PART 

DEFENDANT LARSON’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS [21];

DISMISSING UNNAMED DEFENDANT AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT IN 

ITS ENTIRETY

On January 4, 2017, Magistrate Judge Majzoub issued a Report and 

Recommendation [27] on Defendant Larson’s Motion for Judgment on the 

Pleadings [21]. Neither party has filed any objection to the Report and 

Recommendation. 

 The Court having reviewed the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and 

the Report and Recommendation [27] granting in part Defendant Larson’s Motion 

for Judgment on the Pleadings [21], dismissing unnamed Defendant, and 

dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint in its Entirety, the Report and Recommendation 

2:15-cv-12488-AJT-MKM Doc # 28 Filed 02/17/17 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 160
Page 2 of 2

[27] is hereby ADOPTED and entered as the findings and conclusions of the 

Court. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Larson’s Motion for Judgment on the 

Pleadings [21] is GRANTED insofar as she seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims 

against her, and DENIED insofar as Defendant Larson requests costs and 

attorneys’ fees. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the unnamed Defendant is dismissed 

and Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed in its entirety. 

SO ORDERED. 

 

s/Arthur J. Tarnow 

 Arthur J. Tarnow 

Dated: February 17, 2017 Senior United States District Judge 

2:15-cv-12488-AJT-MKM Doc # 28 Filed 02/17/17 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 161
§ 97.37-1 Application. ( a ) The provisions of this subpart, with the exception of § 97.37-90, shall apply to all vessels contracted for on or after November 19, 1952. Vessels contracted for prior to November 19, 1952, shall meet the requirements of § 97.37-90.
§ 5.309 Proof of service. ( a ) The person serving a subpoena shall make a written statement setting forth the date, time and manner of service and shall return such report with or on a copy of the subpoena to the investigating officer or Administrative Law Judge who issued it. In case of failure to make service of a subpoena, the person assigned to serve such subpoena shall make a written statement setting forth the reasons the subpoena was not served. The statement should be placed on the subpoena or attached to it and returned to the investigating office or Administrative Law Judge who issued the subpoena.
( b ) When service of a subpoena is made by certified mail with return receipt to be signed by the addressee only, the person mailing the subpoena shall make a written statement on a copy of the subpoena or attached to it, setting forth the date, time and location of the post office where mailed, the post office number assigned thereto. If delivered, the receipt requested shall be returned, by the person receiving the receipt, to the investigating officer or Administrative Law Judge who issued the subpoena. In case the subpoena is not delivered, any information reported by the post office regarding non-delivery shall be given to the investigating officer or Administrative Law Judge who issued the subpoena.