alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Raley, *Appellant,*v. Williams.

Estoppel. The plaintiff being familiar with the title to certain lots, was applied to by defendant for information as to the title of one S. thereto. He replied that it was good so far as he knew. Belying upon this information, defendant purchased of S. Plaintiff knew' that the inquiry was made with a view to purchase. At the time of giving the information he had a tax title to the lot, but did not know, or, at least, did not remember it. *Held,*that under these circumstances he was estopped to assert Ms title as against the defendant.

*Appeal from Schuyler Circuit Court.*— Hon. Andrew Ellison, Judge.

Aeeirmed.

*James Raley*for appellant.

*Higbee $ Shelton*for respondent.

Sherwood, C. J.

The plaintiff, when applied to by defendant for information concerning the title of Sumner to the property in dispute, replied that *“*the title was good, so far as he knew.” Plaintiff was familiar with the title to the propérty, and defendant being about to purchase it of Sumner, was directed to plaintiff, by several others, for information respecting the title to the lots, and relying on the information thus obtained, purchased them of Higbee, the attorney of Sumner. At the very time that plaintiff responded, as aforesaid, to the inquiry mentioned, he had in his possession a certificate of purchase of the lots in question, and had been the possessor thereof for over a year prior to the period of the inquiry. The only reason plaintiff gives for the untruthful response he made is, that at the time he made it, he held some one hundred and fifty or two hundred tax certificates, and did not then know, nor did he know until at or after the time he obtained his deed, that the lots sued for were included in such certificates. Granting that plaintiff’s excuse for misleading defendant *311was grounded on fact, a very doubtful matter considering his conduct shortly after defendant’s purchase, still such concession will avail plaintiff nothing. He is estopped from claiming the lots as thoroughly as though every word he uttered was known by him at the time of its utterance to be absolutely false — since the evidence clearly shows that he knew-defendant was about to purchase of Sumner, had come to plaintiff for information, and relied qn the information he was thus obtaining. In such circumstances plaintiff was in duty bound to give what he knew to be correct information, or else to refuse information altogether, and cannot now shelter himself behind the plea of momentary ignorance respecting the desired information. If a man “ makes a misrepresentation as to what he ought to have known, and what he did at one time know, although he alleges that at the particular moment he had forgotten it,” and injury ensues, the maker of the misrepresentation is equally as answerable, equally bound to make such misrepresentation good, equally estopped from asserting the contrary of his misrepresentation, as if he knew when uttering it, it was false. *Burrowes v. Lock,*10 Ves. 470; *Slim v. Croucher,*1 De G., F. & J. 518; Bigelow on Estop., 473, *et seq.;*1 Story Eq. Jur., § 193. Judgment affirmed.

All concur, except Ray, J., absent.
Rockingham,

Dec., 1895.

#### Beckman *v.*Souther.

Upon the question whether unnecessary force was used in arresting the plaintiff, evidence that the defendant knew him to be a violent and dangerous person is competent.

Whether evidence of the defendant’s violence in making a previous arrest is admissible, is a question determinable at the trial term.

The defendant having testified that he was a constable, and having produced a writ with his return thereon, a request for an instruction that there was no evidence he was a constable was rightly refused.

Trespass, for assault and false imprisonment. Plea, the general issue with a brief statement that the defendant arrested and detained the plaintiff under legal process. Verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff’s counsel in opening the case to the jury-stated that he claimed and proposed to show that the defendant in making the arrest used unnecessary and excessive violence. Evidence of the plaintiff’s character and reputation as a dangerous person to the knowledge of the defendant was admitted, and evidence tending to show that the defendant was a violent man and on a former occasion had used unnecessary force and violence in arresting another person was excluded, subject to the plaintiff’s exception.

The defendant testified without objection that he was a constable, and put in evidence the writ upon which the arrest was made, with his return of the arrest thereon signed by him as constable. The court declined to instruct the jury that there was no evidence that the defendant was a constable, and the plaintiff excepted.

*J. Warren*Towle, for the plaintiff.

*Samuel H. Goodall*and *JEmest L.*Gupiill, for the defendant.

Carpenter, J.

Evidence tending to show that the plaintiff was known by the defendant to be a violent and dangerous person was competent. In arresting and detaining such a person, forcible measures might be proper and reasonable which in the case of a person of a different character would be unwarranted.

"Whether the evidence offered of the defendant’s character for violence and of his conduct in making a previous arrest had any legitimate bearing on the issue submitted to the jury, was a *382question of remoteness determinable at the trial term. Its exclusion was not error. *Cook*v. *New*Durham, 64 N. H. 419; *Hilliard*v. Beattie, 59 N. H. 462, 465.

The instruction requested was properly refused. *Jewell*v. Gilbert, 64 N. H. 13.

*.'Exceptions overruled.*

Parsons, J., did not sit: tbe others concurred.
1210-AB32-2-1530.html[7/26/2015 6:52:12 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 10, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jwp-c4d8

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-2027

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

Stop taking away free-market choices. We need more investment options, not fewer. I can manage my own

 account, thank you very much.
#### E. L. Doughty and others *Respondents, v.*The Manhattan Brass Company, *Appellants.*

— Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Davis, P. J.
Calabria Form of Unsecured Prom Note


[CALABRIA ADVISORS LLC LETTERHEAD]

 

PROMISSORY NOTE

 

 

[Insert Date]

 

 

Speedemissions, Inc.

1029 Peachtree Parkway North, #310

Peachtree City, GA. 32069

 

In consideration for an investment of [Insert Alpha Dollar Amount] dollars, ($Insert Numeric Number) Speedemissions agrees to pay Calabria Advisers, LLC an annualized interest rate of Five Percent (5%) for the term of this investment.  Payment of principal and interest is due [Insert Date].

 

Calabria Advisers is a Georgia limited liability corporation with Richard Parlontieri, as Agent and Member.

 

Payment of investment, including interest expense, may be made in the form of the common stock of Speedemissions.  The price of the common stock is to be determined by the "bid" price of the stock on the date the investment is due and payable.  In the event this Promissory Note is satisfied prior to the due date, the "bid" price of the stock on that day will be used to satisfy the outstanding obligation.

 

 

 


	 Signed and accepted	 Signed and accepted
	 	 
	_______________________________ 	_______________________________ 
	 Bahram Yusefzadeh	 Richard Parlontieri
	 Director, Speedemissions, Inc.	 Calabria Advisers, LLC
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2451

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that meals provided

at remote fish processing facilities shall be exempt from the limitation

on the deduction for meals.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 29, 1995

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska (for himself and Ms. DUNN of Washington) introduced

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

that meals provided at remote fish processing facilities

shall be exempt from the limitation on the deduction

for meals.

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

3 SECTION 1. MEALS PROVIDED AT REMOTE FISH PROCESS4 ING FACILITIES EXEMPT FROM LIMITATION

5 ON DEDUCTION FOR MEALS.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (E) of section

7 274(n)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating

8 to exceptions) is amended by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of
2

•HR 2451 IH

1 clause (iii), by striking the period at the end of clause (iv)

2 and inserting ‘‘, or’’, and by inserting after clause (iv) the

3 following new clause:

4 ‘‘(v) provided at a fish processing fa5 cility located in Alaska north of 53 degrees

6 north latitude.’’

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

8 subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning after

9 December 31, 1994.

Æ
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1497.html[7/23/2015 12:11:10 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvo-76f1

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1497

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Lawrence Tucker

General Comment

Dear sir or Madam,

I do not need or want the government involved in handling any aspect of my retirement accounts. I feel that each

 American is capable of doing that for himself or herself.

Sincerely,

Lawrence Tucker.
1210-AB32-2-1125.html[7/24/2015 6:15:53 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvq-sg4d

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1619

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Gerri Tehan

General Comment

I have been planning for my retirement since I got out of college. If government would stay out of economy, and

 everything else, we would all be better off. Stay out of my 401K, and other retirement money.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                         5
<MULTIPLIER>                                                     1,000
       
<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                               Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                                    Jun-30-1997
<CASH>                                                          40,009
<SECURITIES>                                                    30,368
<RECEIVABLES>                                                   43,661
<ALLOWANCES>                                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                                      6,058
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                               133,995
<PP&E>                                                          85,637
<DEPRECIATION>                                                  57,755
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                 168,256
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                           47,654
<BONDS>                                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                0
<PREFERRED>                                                          0
<COMMON>                                                       124,742
<OTHER-SE>                                                      (2,140)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                   168,256
<SALES>                                                         68,519
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                               110,012
<CGS>                                                           16,332
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                   43,228
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                86,520
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                (18,435)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                    (5,161)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                            (13,274)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                      0
<CHANGES>                                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                                   (13,274)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                       (0.88)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                       (0.88)
        
 

</TABLE>
1210-AB32-2-1049.html[7/23/2015 3:20:33 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvp-9tch

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1541

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Deborah Block

General Comment

The people in control of government have made a mess of our country's financial future. If my finances were

 being managed in the same fashion, I would have filed for bankruptcy years ago. I CAN MANGED MY OWN

 FINANCES WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM GOVERNMENT. Please do a better job with the Federal

 budget and leave middle class America alone.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1224 CAF 11-00707 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF PHILEMON GREENE, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SHEILA HANSON, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (TIMOTHY S. DAVIS OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Monroe County (Joan S. Kohout, J.), entered March 4, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4. The order denied petitioner’s objections to the order of the Support Magistrate.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Petitioner father appeals from an order denying his objections to the order of the Support Magistrate, wherein the Support Magistrate found that the father had willfully violated a child support order and denied his petition seeking modification of that order. Family Court properly denied the father’s objections. There is a statutory presumption that the father had sufficient means to support his minor children ( see Family Ct Act § 437; Matter of Powers v Powers , 86 NY2d 63, 68-69), and the father’s failure to pay support as directed in the support order constitutes “prima facie evidence of a willful violation” (§ 454 [3] [a]). The burden then shifted to the father to present “some competent, credible evidence of his inability to make the required payments” ( Powers , 86 NY2d at 70). The father did not meet that burden inasmuch as he “failed to present evidence establishing that he made reasonable efforts to obtain gainful employment to meet his . . . support obligations” ( Matter of Christine L. M. v Wlodek K ., 45 AD3d 1452, 1452 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Indeed, although the father testified that he has been a carpenter for 16 years, he did not testify that he made any efforts to obtain any carpentry work once he ceased to operate his construction company. The father likewise failed to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances that would justify a downward modification of his support obligation because he presented no “evidence establishing that he diligently sought re-employment commensurate with his former employment” ( Matter of Leonardo v Leonardo ,-2- 1224 CAF 11-00707

94 AD3d 1452, 1453, lv denied 19 NY3d 807).

Entered: November 16, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
New Hampshire Revised Nitrogen Dioxide Page 3 Nonattainment Area Boundary Recommendation March 23, 2011



## TABLE 1. Estimated 2006 – 2008 Quarterly 1-Hour NO 2 

## Design Values by Monitor, in parts per billion (ppb)

Location Monitor ID 2007 98 th Percentile 2008 98 th Percentile 2009 98 th Percentile 2010 98 th Percentile 2007- 2009 Design Value 2008- 2010 Design Value NO 2 NAAQS

( 

### ppb )

Manchester 33-011-0020 

### 44 48 47 42 46.3 45.7 100

Nashua 33-011-1011 26 28 

### 10 12 21.3 

### 16.7 100
Miller State Park (Pack Monadnock Mt) 33-011-5001 17 32 8 7 19.0 15.7 100

Portsmouth 33-015-0014 

### 36 40 -- -- 38 1 -- 100
State Maximum 

### -- 44 48 47 42 46.3 45.7 100

1 – Two year average.



## TABLE 2. Proposed Designation of Ar eas for 1-Hour Nitrogen Dioxide NAAQS Nonattainment in New Hampshire

NEW HAMPSHIRE – Lead (QUARTERLY STANDARD) Designation Classification 

# Designated Area Type Type New Hampshire: None Nonattainment --
All portions of all counties Un classifiable Unclassifiable
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 209 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  House Calendar No. 59
107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 209

                          [Report No. 107-163]

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 25, 2001

    Ms. Pryce, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

    Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the 
same day it is presented to the House is waived with respect to any 
resolution reported on the legislative day of July 26, 2001, providing 
for consideration or disposition of the bill (H.R. 2620) making 
appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and 
Urban Development and for sundry independent agencies, boards, 
commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2002.

                                                  House Calendar No. 59

107th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 209

                          [Report No. 107-163]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 25, 2001

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
28 June 2002

Private & Confidential

The Directors

Chyron UK Holdings Limited

Pro-Bel Limited

Danehill

Lower Earley

Reading

BERKSHIRE

RG6 4PB

 

We refer to the facility letter dated 16 January 2002  from Barclays Bank Plc setting out the terms and conditions of an  Overdraft facility to Chyron UK Holdings Limited and its subsidiaries.

The Terms and Conditions of the letter are varied as follows:

Amount

The individual sub-limits are amended as follows:

Name of Borrower

Pro-bel Limited sterling current account - 1,500,000 (pounds sterling)

Pro-bel Limited euro account - 500,000 (pounds sterling)

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

Acceptance of the amended terms and conditions shall be signified by the Borrower returning to the Bank within 14 days:

a)	the  enclosed duplicate of this letter duly signed on the borrower's behalf as evidence of acceptance  of the amended terms and conditions and

b)	a certified copy of a resolution  of the Borrower's Board of  Directors

(i)	accepting the amended terms and conditions stated.

(ii)	Authorising a specified person, or persons, to sign and return to the Bank the duplicate of this Letter.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

/s/ David Smith

David Smith  

Associate Director, Business Support
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0861.html[7/21/2015 4:45:06 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvb-95cv

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0861

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Geoff Harrington

General Comment

I am capable of making my own plans for the retirement money I have saved over the 52 working years of my

 life, please leave our savings for us to plan. Thank you.
§ 179.200-19 Reinforcements, when used, and appurtenances not otherwise specified. ( a ) All attachments to tank and dome shall be applied by approved means. Rivets if used shall be caulked inside and outside.
( b ) Reinforcing pads must be used between external brackets and shells if the attachment welds exceed 6 lineal inches of 1 ⁄ 4-inch fillet or equivalent weld per bracket or bracket leg. When reinforcing pads are used, they must not be less than one-fourth inch in thickness, have each corner rounded to a 1 inch minimum radius, and be attached to the tank by continuous fillet welds except for venting provisions. The ultimate shear strength of the bracket to reinforcing pad weld must not exceed 85 percent of the ultimate shear strength of the reinforcing pad to tank weld.
[29 FR 18995, Dec. 29, 1964. Redesignated at 32 FR 5606, Apr. 5, 1967, and amended by Amdt. 179-10, 36 FR 21351, Nov. 6, 1971]
#### § 236.740 Device, reset.

A device whereby the brakes may be released after an automatic train control brake application.