alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Charles E. Larson, Appellant, *v.*The Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company, Respondent.

*Larson*v. *Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co.,*134 App. Div. 679, affirmed.

(Argued May 5, 1911;

decided May 19, 1911.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, *564entered November 27, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of defendant, his employer.

*Frederick S. Martyn*for appellant.

*D. A. Marsh*and *George D. Yeomans*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Vann, Werner, Willard Bartlett and Chase, JJ.
#### § 178.255 Specification 60; steel portable tanks.
|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | A review of the activities of the Servicer and of its performance under the Servicing Agreement during the period that commenced January 1, 2019 and ended December 31, 2019 has been made under the supervision of the undersigned pursuant to Section 3.03 of the Servicing Agreement; and |
|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | To the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations in all material respects under the Servicing Agreement throughout the period that commenced January 1, 2019 and ended December 31, 2019. |

|                                             |
|---------------------------------------------|
|                                             |  |  |
| THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY |
|                                        |   |
| By:                                         |  /s/ Steven R. Staub    |   |
|                                        |   |   |
| Name:                                       | Steven R. Staub |   |
| Title:                                      | Vice President and Treasurer |   |
From: Steve Birdsell [mailto:steve.birdsell@icloud.com] 

Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 11:44 AM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210 – AB32 

Retirement plans and retirement accounts should be provided the best possible consumer 

protection. All advisors should be required to be fiduciaries. All costs of investment options 

should be simple, clear, and presented up-front so that consumers can make informed decisions 

on their investment choices. I believe that complex and/or disguised fees are done for only one 

reason, to confuse consumers into choosing options that are not in their best interest. 

Sincerely,

Stephen Birdsell

1335 La Mirada Cir.

Los Alamos, NM 87544
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                          47,508
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  245,104
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               292,612
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 292,612
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          142,593
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     150,019
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   292,612
<SALES>                                        177,185
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               207,601
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  137,692
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               308,613
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (236,704)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (236,704)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (236,704)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.47


</TABLE>
-----Original Message----- 

From: lesliebwooten@gmail.com [mailto:lesliebwooten@gmail.com] 

Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 3:28 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

May 03, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Leslie Wooten 

6020 Graygate Ln Apt B 

Charlotte, NC 28210
way of extraordinary relief is warranted. SeeNRS 34.160; Pan,120 Nev. 

at 228, 88 P.3d at 844. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED.' 

Gibbons 

Saitta 

cc: Brian Keith Lawhorn 

Attorney General/Carson City 

"We direct the clerk of this court to file petitioner's letter, which was 

provisionally received in this court on March 26, 2012. As this court has 

granted petitioner's motion to waive the filing fee, no action will be taken 

as to that letter. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2
§ 1152.1 Purpose and scope. ( a ) 49 U.S.C. 10903 *et seq.* governs abandonment of rail lines and discontinuance of rail service by common carriers. Section 10903(d) provides that no line of railroad may be abandoned and no rail service discontinued unless the Board finds that the present or future public convenience and necessity require or permit the abandonment or discontinuance.
( b ) Part 1152 contains regulations governing abandonment of, and discontinuance of service over, rail lines. This part also sets forth procedures for providing financial assistance to assure continued rail freight service under 49 U.S.C. 10904, for acquiring rail lines for alternate public use under 49 U.S.C. 10905, and for acquiring or using a rail right-of-way for interim trail use and rail banking.
#### Blodgett *v.*Stone.

An action may be maintained for nominal damages for the wrongful diversion of the water of a natural watercourse, by one whoso legal right is invaded, without proof of actual injury.

Case, for diverting tlie water of a natural stream from tlie plaintiff’s aqueduct. The defendant offered' a brief statement alleging that the plaintiff had previously filed a bill in equity for an injunction against tlie defendant, based substantially on the facts now stated in his declaration, upon which an application for a temporary injunction had been denied after a full hearing of the facts before one of the justices of tbe court, and the equity suit had been entered k‘ neither party,” after the defendant had filed an answer denying the equity of the bill. No replication was filed, and no decree was ever entered up. The brief statement was rejected, and the defendant excepted. The defendant requested the following instructions to the jury, which the court declined to give, and the defendant excepted : “ If the jury find, that what Stone did was done from malice, still he is not liable unless his act caused actual damage to the plaintiff, and then only for the actual damages caused to the plaintiff, and the verdict in that case would settle nothing as to the legal rights of the parties.” Verdict for the plaintiff.

*Ladd f Fletcher,*for the defendant.

*Bay, Drew 8f Heywood,*for the plaintiff.

Clark, J.

The facts stated in the brief statement constituted no defence, and. it was properly rejected. The proceedings in the bill in equity ware immaterial. No decree was entered up. If the judge who heard the application for a temporary injunction denied it on the merits, it would not be a bar to a subsequent hearing on the bill, and it is no bar to this suit. The request for instructions, that the defendant was not liable unless his act caused actual damage to the plaintiff, was rightly refused. The plaintiff was entitled to a verdict for nominal damages upon proof of the infringement of his right, although no actual injury was shown. *Tillotson*v. *Smith,*32 N. H. 90 ; *Bassett*v. *Company,*28 N. H. 438; *Woodman*v. *Tufts,*9 N. H. 88; *Munroe*v. *Stickney,*48 Me. 462; *Chaffee*v. *Pease,*10 Allen 537; *Stowell*v. *Lincoln,*11 Gray 434.

*Judgment on the verdict.*

Smith, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
#### Albert H. Dollard, Appellant, *v.*Benjamin Koronsky et al., Doing Business under the Firm Name of B. Koronsky & Son, Defendants. In the Matter of the Motion to Adjudge Max E. Bloch, Respondent, Guilty of Contempt.

*Dollard*v. *Koronsky,*138 App. Div. 213, affirmed.

(Argued September 26, 1910;

decided October 11, 1910.)

Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered May 20, 1910, affirming an order of the Appellate Term which reversed an order of the City Court of the city of New York adjudging the respondent herein guilty of contempt of court.

The following question was certified :

*“*Where the eourt orders the release, *pendente lite, oí*a challenged levy of execution, provided the debtor cause to be substituted in its place, for the creditor’s protection, an undertaking conditioned for the payment of the supporting judgment and certain expenses in case the attack on the levy should ultimately fail; and where, to procure such release, such an undertaking, joint and several in form, is thereupon furnished, reciting in terms said order and its said protectory provision; and where the sureties thereon are, at the time of qualifying, each worth double the amount of such undertaking; and where the levy is thereupon released; and such *559attack on such levy ultimately fails — is it a civil contempt of court for one of the sureties on sucíi undertaking to willfully divest himself of all of his property for the deliberate and successful purpose of rendering valueless any judgment which might be recovered against him upon said undertaking, thus destroying the protection granted to the creditor as a condition of releasing the levy of the execution and defeating, impeding and prejudicing the rights and remedies of the creditor *1*”

*YorTce Allen*for appellant.

*Louis Marshall*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs, and question certified answered in the *negative;*no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Cli. J., Haight, Vann, Werner, IIiscook and Chase, JJ. Absent: Willard Bartlett, J.
exv10w1



 






EXHIBIT 10.1




COVANTA HOLDING CORPORATION

40 Lane Road

Fairfield, New Jersey 07004




March 2, 2006




Mr. John Garamendi, Insurance Commissioner
  as
Trustee of the MIC, MNIC and EIC Trusts

c/o Conservation & Liquidation Office

425 Market Street, 23rd Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105-2204

Attention: David E. Wilson, Special Deputy Insurance Commissioner




Re:     Amendment to Rehabilitation Plan Implementation Agreement



Ladies and Gentlemen:




Reference is made to that certain Amendment to Rehabilitation Plan Implementation Agreement,
dated as of January 11, 2006 (the “Original Agreement”), between John Garamendi, Insurance
Commissioner of the State of California, in his capacity as Trustee of the Mission Insurance
Company Trust, the Mission National Insurance Company Trust and the Enterprise Insurance Company
Trust (the “Insurance Commissioner”), on the one hand, and Covanta Holding Corporation
(f/k/a Danielson Holding Corporation and as Mission Insurance Group, Inc.), on the other hand. The
purpose of this letter (this “Amendment Letter”) is to amend Paragraph 75 of the Original
Agreement for the purpose of extending the period of time to satisfy or waive the conditions
precedent contained in the Original Agreement.



The parties hereto agree that Paragraph 75 of the Original Agreement is hereby amended by
inserting the date “May 31, 2006” in place of “March 31, 2006” therein.



Except as amended hereby, the terms and conditions of the Original Agreement shall remain in
full force and effect. Any references in the Original Agreement to “this Agreement,” “herein,”
“hereafter,” “hereto,” “hereof,” and words of similar import shall, unless the context otherwise
requires, mean or refer to the Original Agreement as amended by this Amendment Letter. This
Amendment Letter may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an
original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.



 









 





If the Insurance Commissioner is in agreement with the foregoing, please so indicate by
signing below and returning to Covanta Holding Corporation one signed copy of this Amendment
Letter.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	COVANTA HOLDING CORPORATION:

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Craig Abolt
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Craig Abolt 	 
	 	 	Title:  	Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial
Officer 	 
	 



Accepted and agreed to this

17th day of March, 2006:



John Garamendi, Insurance Commissioner of the State of California, in his capacity as Trustee of
the Mission Insurance Company Trust, the Mission National Insurance Company Trust and the
Enterprise Insurance Company Trust




    /s/ David E. Wilson



 




David E. Wilson, Special Deputy Insurance Commissioner




	 	 	 
	cc:

	 	Mohsen Sultan

Jack Hom

Robert H. Nunnally, Jr.

Timothy J. Simpson

David S. Stone

C. Guerry Collins
§ 238.7 Waivers. ( a ) A person subject to a requirement of this part may petition the Administrator for a waiver of compliance with such requirement. The filing of such a petition does not affect the person's responsibility for compliance with that requirement while the petition is being considered.
( b ) Each petition for waiver under this section shall be filed in the manner and contain the information required by part 211 of this chapter.
( c ) If the Administrator finds that a waiver of compliance is in the public interest and is consistent with railroad safety, the Administrator may grant the waiver subject to any conditions the Administrator deems necessary.
#### § 232.401 Scope.

This subpart contains the requirements related to the performance, operation, and testing of end-of-train devices. Unless expressly excepted in this subpart, the requirements of this subpart apply to all trains operating on track which is part of the general railroad system of transportation.
§ 210.31 Operation standards (stationary locomotives at 30 meters). ( a ) For stationary locomotives at load cells: ( 1 ) Each noise emission test shall begin after the engine of the locomotive has attained the normal cooling water operating temperature as prescribed by the locomotive manufacturer.
( 2 ) Noise emission testing in idle or maximum throttle setting shall start after a 40 second stabilization period in the throttle setting selected for the test.
( 3 ) After the stabilization period as prescribed in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the A-weighted sound level reading in decibels shall be observed for an additional 30-second period in the throttle setting selected for the test.
( 4 ) The maximum A-weighted sound level reading in decibels that is observed during the 30-second period of time prescribed in paragraph (a)(3) of this section shall be used for test measurement purposes.
( b ) The following data determined by any locomotive noise emission test conducted after December 31, 1976, shall be recorded in the “Remarks” section on the reverse side of Form F 6180.49: ( 1 ) Location of test;
( 2 ) Type of test;
( 3 ) Date of test; and
( 4 ) The A-weighted sound level reading in decibels obtained during the passby test, or the readings obtained at idle throttle setting and maximum throttle setting during a load cell test.
( c ) Any locomotive subject to this part that is found not to be in compliance with the Standards as a result of a passby test shall be subjected to a load cell test or another passby test prior to return to service, except that no such retest shall be required if the cause of the noise defect is readily apparent and is corrected by the replacement of defective components or by a normal maintenance or repair procedure.
( d ) The last entry recorded on Form F 6180.49 as required in paragraph (b) of this section shall be transcribed to a new Form FRA F 6180.49 when it is posted in the locomotive cab.
( e ) Locomotives tested pursuant to the procedures prescribed in this part and in the Standards shall be considered in noncompliance wherever the test measurement, minus the appropriate tolerance (§ 210.25), exceeds the noise emission levels precribed in appendix A of this part.
Editorial Note on Part 195
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 195 appear at 71 FR 33409, June 9, 2006.

§ 195.18 How to notify PHMSA. ( a ) An operator must provide any notification required by this part by: ( 1 ) Sending the notification by electronic mail to *InformationResourcesManager@dot.gov ;* or
( 2 ) Sending the notification by mail to ATTN: Information Resources Manager, DOT/PHMSA/OPS, East Building, 2nd Floor, E22-321, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590.
( b ) An operator must also notify the appropriate State or local pipeline safety authority when an applicable pipeline segment is located in a State where OPS has an interstate agent agreement, or an intrastate pipeline segment is regulated by that State.
( c ) Unless otherwise specified, if an operator submits, pursuant to § 195.258, § 195.260, § 195.418, § 195.419, § 195.420 or § 195.452 a notification requesting use of a different integrity assessment method, analytical method, sampling approach, compliance timeline, or technique (e.g., “other technology” or “alternative equivalent technology”) than otherwise prescribed in those sections, that notification must be submitted to PHMSA for review at least 90 days in advance of using that other method, approach, compliance timeline, or technique. An operator may proceed to use the other method, approach, compliance timeline, or technique 91 days after submittal of the notification unless it receives a letter from the Associate Administrator of Pipeline Safety informing the operator that PHMSA objects to the proposal, or that PHMSA requires additional time and/or information to conduct its review.
[Amdt. 195-105, 87 FR 20987, Apr. 8, 2022]
#### § 213.51 Scope.

This subpart prescribes requirements for the gage, alinement, and surface of track, and the elevation of outer rails and speed limitations for curved track.
#### § 236.793 Rod, lock.

A rod, attached to the front rod or lug of a switch, movable-point frog or derail, through which a locking plunger may extend when the switch points or derail are in the normal or reverse position.
#### § 25.200 Application.

Except as provided in §§ 25.205 through 25.235(a), these Title IX regulations apply to every recipient and to each education program or activity operated by such recipient that receives Federal financial assistance.
#### § 22.61 Loan guarantee extensions.

An extension of the original loan guarantee may be requested, in writing, by the Participating Lender. The Participating lender must submit to OSDBU a form DOT F 2310-1 to request an extension of the original loan guarantee for a maximum period of ninety (90) days. The form is available at *http://www.osdbu.dot.gov/financial/docs/Loan_Extension_DOT_F_2310-1.pdf.* The request must comply with the terms and conditions described in the guarantee agreement and with the STLP policies and procedures. All extension requests must be approved by the Director.
§ 218.125 Specific passenger and tourist train operation exceptions to crew size safety requirements. The requirements in this subpart are not applicable to the following passenger and tourist train operations that are operated with a one-person train crew: ( a ) The train is a tourist train operation that is not part of the general railroad system of transportation;
( b ) A tourist train operation that is part of the general system of transportation or a passenger operation in which: ( 1 ) The locomotive engineer is moving cars empty of passengers; and
( 2 ) Passengers will not board the train's cars until the crew conducts a safety briefing on the safe operation and use of the train's exterior side doors, in accordance with § 238.135 of this chapter;
( c ) A tourist train operation that is part of the general system of transportation or a passenger operation involving a single self-propelled car or married-pair unit, *e.g.,* an MU locomotive operation, where the locomotive engineer has direct access to the passenger seating compartment and (for passenger railroads subject to part 239 of this chapter) the passenger railroad's emergency preparedness plan for this operation is approved under § 239.201 of this chapter;
( d ) A rapid transit operation in an urban area, *i.e.,* an urban rapid transit system that is connected with the general railroad system of transportation under the following conditions: ( 1 ) The operation is temporally separated from any conventional railroad operations;
( 2 ) There is an FTA-approved and designated State Safety Oversight (SSO) Agency that is qualified to provide safety oversight; and
( 3 ) The operator has an FTA/SSO-approved Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan in accordance with parts 673 and 674 of this title; or
( e ) Each passenger train operation with a one-person train crew established before June 10, 2024 with an approved passenger train emergency preparedness plan under part 239 of this chapter for the operation.