alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Rockingham,

Dec., 1894.

#### Folsom, *Adm’r, v.*Concord & Montreal Railroad.

A new trial may be granted when it appears from a discrepancy between a special and a general verdict that the jury failed to comprehend the instructions given them.

Case, for negligently causing the death of the plaintiff’s intestate, George F. McMurphy, who was struck by a locomotive while driving over a highway crossing of the defendants’ railroad, and sustained injuries which resulted in his death. At the defendants’ request and against the plaintiff’s objection, the following questions were submitted to the jury: (1) Whether the act of McMurphy contributed to cause the accident? (2) Whether the act of the railroad' contributed to cause the accident? The jury answeréd both questions in the affirmative, and returned a general verdict for the plaintiff.

*Edwin G. Eastman*and *Gremleaf K. Bartlett,*for the plaintiff.

*Frank S. Streeter*and *Joseph W. Fellows,*for the defendants.

Smith, J.

Ordinarily the special will control the general verdict. *Richardson*v. *Weare,*62 N. H. 80. The instructions in this case were correct, and if it were certain that the jury in answering the first question were not confused or misled, the defendants would be entitled to judgment. There is ground for contending that the *“*act” was understood by them to mean want of ordinary care. Undoubtedly that was what was intended by the propounder of the interrogations. But if the *179jury so understood, it is difficult to explain by what process they reached the conclusion embodied in the general verdict. The decedent’s act in driving over the crossing undoubtedly caused his death, for if he had not so driven he would not have been injured. Bo, also, the defendants’ act in moving their train over the crossing caused the accident, for if they had run it more ■slowly, or, as was said in argument, at a slightly slower rate of speed, the deceased would have escaped injury. While, as the jury found, the joint acts of the deceased and the defendants ■contributed to cause the accident, it has not been found that those acts were negligent, except by inference from the result reached in the general verdict. There is such a strong probability that the jury failed to comprehend the instructions, that we think a new trial should be granted.

*Verdict set aside.*

Clark, Chase, and Wallace, JL, did not sit: the others concurred.
#### David Dales, Respondent, v. Mary Truesdell, Appellant.

Judgment reversed, new trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Bockes, J.
§ 840.4 Information to be given in notification. The notice required by § 840.3 shall include the following information: ( a ) Name and title of person reporting.
( b ) Name of railroad.
( c ) Location of accident (relate to nearest city).
( d ) Time and date of accident.
( e ) Description of accident.
( f ) Casualties: ( 1 ) Fatalities.
( 2 ) Injuries.
( g ) Property damage (estimate).
( h ) Name and telephone number of person from whom additional information may be obtained.
[41 FR 13925, Apr. 1, 1976]
#### Charles Harris, Jr., v. The State of Delaware.

*112
      *(June*1, 1951.)

Carey, J., sitting.

*Edmund N. Carpenter*(of Richards, Layton and Finger) for appellant.

*John Metten*for the State.

Superior Court for New Castle County,

No. 42,

September Term, 1950.

*113Carey, J.:

The record of the Court below plainly shows that the conviction was not based upon the information actually filed therein but was based upon a different charge verbally entered by the Court. An information, as the word is used in the Family Court Act, is a formal accusation of crime, differing from an indictment only in that it is presented by a prosecuting officer instead of a grand jury. *U. S. v. Borger, (C. C.)*7 *F.*193; *State v. Barrell,*75 *Vt.*202, 54 *A.*183. Only by information may prosecutions be carried on in that Court. Certainly, a charge entered by the Court itself is not an information nor can it take the place of one.

In this case, there was no information whatever upon which to base a finding of guilt for a violation of Code Section 3527. To give a Court jurisdiction over a criminal case, there must be a formal accusation in the particular mode or form prescribed by constitution or statute. 42 *C. J. S., Indictments and Informations,*§ 1, *p.*833; 27 *Am. Jur.*384. We are not here concerned with the type of case where a person charged with a crime may be convicted of a lesser crime included in the greater offense; indeed, no attempt is made to justify the judgment upon that theory. The State’s sole argument is that appellant, by pleading and going to trial on the merits, waived the filing of an information charging violation of Code Section 3527. This argument necessarily assumes that the requirement of a formal accusation as prescribed by statute involves only jurisdiction of the person. That assumption is inherent in the contention because it is everywhere held that jurisdiction over subject matter or cause of action cannot be conferred upon á Court by consent or waiver, but may be questioned at any stage of the proceedings. In my opinion, the assumption is incorrect. Notwithstanding a contrary expression in some few instances, 61 *A. L. R.*802, the better reasoning is that, in the absence of a formal accusation of the required type, there is nothing before the Court for it to act upon and, in such event, the Court acquires *114no jurisdiction over the case itself. *Albrecht v. U.*S., 273 *U. S.*1, 47 S. *Ct.*250, 71 *L. Ed.*505; *State v. McKinley,*341 *Mo.*1186, 111 S. *W.*2d 115; *Davis v. State,*150 *Tex. Cr. R.*463, 202 S. *W.*2d 943; *Kyser v. State,*22 *Ala. App.*431, 117 *So.*157; *State v. Mee,*67 S. *D.*335, 297 *N. W.*40.

The Court below had no jurisdiction to try this appellant upon the charge of non-support. Discussion of the other questions raised by counsel would be superfluous. Appellant’s motion must be granted for the reason given. .
----

(2004/C 88 E/0535)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0725/04

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Accession of Latvia

Latvia will join the EU on 1 May 2004. As the Commission is aware, the population of Latvia is made up of several ethnic groups, including Russians. The ‘acquis communautaire’, pursuant to which Latvian legislation may not contain discriminatory provisions, will come into force in Latvia on its accession to the EU.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2004)

As the Commission spelled out in its Regular Reports on EU accession preparation, Latvia meets the political criteria for EU accession, which includes the protection of minorities.

The 2003 Comprehensive Monitoring Report on Latvia (1) mentioned remaining restrictions concerning citizenship and language requirements in the field of the four freedoms. The Commission underlined that legislative requirements on language proficiency and their implementation must be in full respect of the principles of justified interests, proportionality and non-discrimination and can only be applied in very exceptional circumstances, on a case by case basis. Since then, and according to the follow-up monitoring, Latvia has further amended its legislation, e.g. by eliminating restrictions regarding security services and lawyers, in line with the ‘acquis’.

In the context of the anti-discrimination legislation, Latvia has addressed the remaining shortcomings in this field, including further legislative alignment and the establishment of the Equality Body. Latvia has committed itself to completing alignment on outstanding issues before accession.

As regards ethnic minorities in particular, Latvia was strongly encouraged to promote the integration of the Russian minority by, in particular, continuing to accelerate the speed of naturalisation procedures, and by taking other proactive measures to increase the rate of naturalisation. Since then, several further steps have been taken to ease the process and the rate of applications for naturalisation has doubled.

As regards the freedom of travel, it falls to the competence of Member States to decide whether holders of non-Latvian passports are exempted from visa requirements or not. After accession, Member States will be able to continue to waive visa requirements for holders of non-citizen passports. Once a member of Schengen, non-citizens will be able to travel to the Schengen area on the basis of their passports and a residence permit without applying for a visa.

----

(1)  COM(2003) 675 final.

----
From: Joe Waldau [mailto:jwaldau@sternberglighting.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 4:46 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: Against the DOL 29 CFR Part 2510 RIN 1210-AB32

Our company established an Employee Stock Ownership Plan in 1997 at a 40% ownership level.  

As of 2001 we are proud to be at the  100% employee ownership level.  The ESOP is providing

wealth‐creation opportunities through equity ownership for our staff of over 100 employees. I

can’t think of a better tool to share the risks/rewards of business success with the people who

make it possible: our employees.  

I was alarmed to learn that the Department of Labor is proposing a rule that would treat

appraisers as fiduciaries. Conceptually, I support regulations that insure the integrity of

appraisals and the rights of ESOP plan participants. However, I don’t support measures that

unwittingly increase the costs of compliance and reduce the number of options – in this case the

pool of valuation firms – that are available to ESOPs.  

I enthusiastically support the recommendations submitted to the DOL by Corey Rosen of the

National Center for Employee Ownership on November 30, 2010.  

Thank you for your consideration.  

Suncerely, 

  

Joe Waldau

  

Joe Waldau

Sternberg Lighting Inc

President & CEO

555 Lawrence Ave

Roselle, IL 60172

PH: 847-588-3400 ext 223

Fax: 847-588-3440

Email: jwaldau@sternberglighting.com

Website: www.sternberglighting.com

DISCLAIMER 

The information in this e-mail message is privileged and confidential and is only intended for the addressee. If you 

received this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or use of this message 

and any attachments is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail without copying or 

disclosing its contents to any other person. No legal consequences can be derived from the contents of this e-mail. 

Neither the sender nor Sternberg Lighting accept liability for any damage resulting from the use and/or acceptance of the 

content of this e-mail message.

Please consider the environment before printing this message.
IV

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 445

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with regard to the

United States National Soccer Team and its historic performance in

the 2002 FIFA World Cup tournament.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 17, 2002

Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma submitted the following resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Government Reform

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with

regard to the United States National Soccer Team and

its historic performance in the 2002 FIFA World Cup

tournament.

Whereas the performance of the United States National Soccer Team in the 2002 FIFA World Cup is the most successful in the history of our participation in the tournament;

Whereas the United States National Team surprised the

world by advancing out of the first round of play and

reaching the quarterfinals;

Whereas by reaching the quarterfinals the United States signaled that it has become a leading competitor in international soccer;
2

•HRES 445 IH

Whereas the 3 goals scored in the first game victory were the

most ever scored in 1 game by a United States men’s

team in the World Cup;

Whereas the United States National Team advanced out of

group play into the second round of the World Cup for

just the third time;

Whereas the 2 to 0 win in the second round was the first

time the United States National Team has won a game

in a ‘‘knock-out’’ round of the World Cup;

Whereas this win marks the first time since 1930 that a

United States team has advanced to the quarterfinals of

the World Cup;

Whereas the Team’s achievement reflects the explosive

growth in popularity of soccer in the United States;

Whereas the United States National Team’s performance

symbolizes the emerging role of soccer for young Americans in sports and society; and

Whereas the United States National Team’s performance

speaks to parents about the importance of athletic participation for building character and confidence in their

children: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

2 (1) congratulates the United States National

3 Soccer Team for its historic performance in the

4 2002 World Cup;

5 (2) recognizes Bruce Arena, the head coach of

6 the United States Team, and every player on the

7 Team for their dedication to excellence; and
3

•HRES 445 IH

1 (3) commends the United States Soccer Federa2 tion and coaches and parents of young soccer play3 ers around the country for their role in the success

4 of soccer in the United States.

Æ
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Securities and Exchange Commission [Release No. 34-98208]
 ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Elion, Senior Counsel, Office of Municipal Securities, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or at (202) 551-5680. For the Commission, by the Office of Municipal Securities, pursuant to delegated authority.[1] Sherry R. Haywood, Assistant Secretary.
 Appendix Registrant name
SEC ID No.Betnun Nathan S
867-02495Christen Group, Inc
867-02467Southern Cross Financial Group LLC
867-02544TLHocking & Associates LLC
867-01054OCONNOR & Co SECURITIES, INC
867-01245Capital Alaska LLC
867-02604Fray Municipal Securities
867-02064Massena Associates LLC
867-02569SUMMERS, CARROLL, WHISLER LLC
867-01938


# Footnotes

1.
    
                                 17 CFR 200.30-3a(a)(1)(ii). Back to Citation


[FR Doc. 2023-18552 Filed 8-28-23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsSimplified model for solar cosmic ray exposure in manned Earth orbital flightsA simple calculational model is derived for use in estimating solar cosmic ray exposure to critical body organs in low-Earth orbit at the center of a large spherical shield of fixed thickness. The effects of the Earth's geomagnetic field, including storm conditions and the astronauts' self-shielding, are evaluated explicitly. The magnetic storm model is keyed to the planetary index K(sub p).Document ID19900012399Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsWilson, John W.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA., United States)*Khandelwal, Govind S.*(Old Dominion Univ. Norfolk, VA., United States)*Shinn, Judy L.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA., United States)*Nealy, John E.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA., United States)*Townsend, Lawrence W.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA., United States)*Cucinotta, Francis A.*(Rockwell International Corp. Houston, TX., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateMay 1, 1990Subject CategorySpace RadiationReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:4182L-16738NASA-TM-4182Accession Number90N21715Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 199-22-76-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900012399.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
-----Original Message----- 

From: Michael Truog [mailto:mjtruog@gmail.com] 

Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 1:30 AM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: RIN 1210-AB33 

Hi, 

Please do not make 401k accounts a new type of annuity. You would be 

stealing money from the public, in the sense that you would be forcing 

their investments into a vehicle that is not inflation adjusted. That 

would allow government spending to inflate the currency in a way that 

has a more severe impact on the non-elite class within America that 

still depends on common things like 401k accounts. As an American 

citizen, I want the freedom to invest as I choose. 

Thanks, 

Michael
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0739.html[7/21/2015 11:22:41 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvb-zd3i

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-0739

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Connie Anonymous

Address:

555 N Heritage Ave

Castle Rock, CO,

General Comment

Enough already!!
#### Eisek Korn et al., Respondents, *v.*Max Lipman et al., Appellants.

(Submitted April 24, 1911;

decided May 2, 1911.)

Motion for re-argument or to amend remittitur denied, with ten dollars costs. (See 201 N. Y. 404.)
----

**EXHIBIT        32.5**

**CERTIFICATION        PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO § 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY        ACT OF 2002**

|   | (1) | the                  Report fully complies with the requirements of § 13(a) or 15(d) of the                  Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;                  and |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | the                  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of                  the                  Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:   August                    14, 2007 | By:    | /s/                    W. Douglas Hobbs           |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|
|                                                      |   | W.                    Douglas Hobbs               |
|                                                      |   | President                    and                  |
|                                                      |   | Chief                    Executive Officer        |
|                                                      |   | Texas-New                    Mexico Power Company |
----

Action brought on 10 February 2004 by Qualcomm Wireless Business Solutions Europe B.V., against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-48/04)

(2004/C 94/139)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 10 February 2004 by Qualcomm Wireless Business Solutions Europe B.V., Waalre, The Netherlands, represented by Dr G.Berrisch, lawyer and Mr D. Hull Solicitor.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant supplies throughout Europe a satellite-based truck fleet management system called EutelTRACS. It seeks the annulment of the Commission's decision of 30 April 2003 (1). With the contested decision, the Commission found the acquisition of joint control by DaimlerChrysler Services and Deutsche Telekom over a joint venture, Toll Collect GmbH, to be compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement.

The applicant states that Toll Collect was formed after a consortium of DaimlerChrysler Services, Deutsche Telekom AG, and Compagnie Financière et Industrielle des Autoroutes S.A. won a contract from the German government for the establishment and operation of a system for collecting tolls from heavy goods vehicles using German motorways. The contested decision did not deal with the toll collection activities of Toll Collect, but with the question of whether the partners could offer telematics services through Toll Collect. As submitted by the applicant, the Commission established that the partners would obtain a dominant position in the market for traffic telematics for transport and logistics undertakings, but concluded that the commitments offered would be sufficient.

In support of its application, the applicant submits that when finding that the commitments would be sufficient to prevent Toll Collect's on-board-unit from becoming the dominant platform for the provision of telematics services, the Commission committed a manifest error of appraisal, wrongly established the facts, and contradicted its own competitive assessment. According to the applicant, the commitments fail to remedy the competition concerns identified by the Commission, namely that Toll Collect's on-board-unit, which allows the provision of all core telematics services, is provided free of charge and that truck operators will not pay for alternative systems if they can obtain telematics services through Toll Collect's on-board-unit. The applicant furthermore claims that the contested decision is not supported by sufficient reasoning.

----

(1)  2003/792/EC: Commission Decision of 30 April 2003 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.2903 - DaimlerChrysler/Deutsche Telekom/JV) (Text with EEA relevance.) (notified under document number C(2003) 1409) (OJ L 300, p. 62)

----