alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### RAFFAELE PIZZELLA, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. FREDERICK PICHARD, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Submitted October Term, 1932

Decided March 4, 1933.

Before Justices Teenoiiard, Case and Brogan.

For the plaintiff-respondent, *Benjamin Baron.*

For the defendant-appellant, *Jacob Siegal (Louis Ruben-stein,*of counsel).

Per Curiam.

This ease presents an appeal from the Bayonne District Court. It is a case involving personal injuries to the plaintiff while he was a passenger on the bus of the defendant-appellant.

At the end of the whole case, which was tried without a jury, the court indicated that the finding would be in favor of the defendant, remarking, “I do not see any liability in this case. How do you think you have established any negligence on the part of the defendant? * *

“Plaintiff’s version of how this accident happened is highly *171improbable while it is entirely possible and probable that the plaintiff sustained the injuries which he complains of in the manner testified to by the defendant.”

Plaintiff’s counsel, immediately said, “I would like to have permission to take a nonsuit,” which the court granted. Counsel for the defendant objected and his objection was overruled and judgment for nonsuit was entered to which an exception was taken and that is the sole ground of appeal.

We think that the court below was correct in allowing the plaintiff to submit to a voluntary nonsuit and that the case is well within the decisions and provisions of the statute governing matters of this kind. Section 160 of the Practice act takes away the right of plaintiff to submit to a voluntary nonsuit only “after the jury has gone from the bar to consider their verdict.” This section applies to District Courts. *Greenfield*v. *Cary,*70 *N. J. L.*613; 57 *Atl. Rep.*269.

In the instant case, however, the court sat as a jury and it had not pronounced its judgment and at this stage of the trial a voluntary nonsuit was still a matter of right. The remarks of the judge were not dispositive of the case. It was still open to argument. The prospective verdict was still quite clearly under consideration only. *Ciesmelewski*v. *Domalewski,*90 *N. J. L.*34; 100 *Atl. Rep.*179; *Malone*v. *Erie Railroad Co.,*90 *N. J. L. 350;*101 *Atl. Rep.*415.

The judgment of the District Court is therefore affirmed, with costs.
From: Philip Sharpe

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 4:54:30 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Philip Sharpe

2144 Lamplight Drive

Marietta, GA 30062
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         266,047
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,621,050
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (101,642)
<INVENTORY>                                    944,946
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,738,410
<PP&E>                                       6,562,410
<DEPRECIATION>                              (1,497,597)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,213,151
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,706,854
<BONDS>                                      2,065,788
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       164,073
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,276,436
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,213,151
<SALES>                                      4,697,758
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,697,758
<CGS>                                        4,131,682
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,131,682
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               683,281 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             128,406
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (244,346)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (244,346)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 35,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (209,346)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.07)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                         189,152
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,784,973
<ALLOWANCES>                                    39,000
<INVENTORY>                                 25,686,022
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            34,002,145
<PP&E>                                      32,232,490
<DEPRECIATION>                              19,800,671
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              47,163,130
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       18,959,305
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       738,568
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,918,903
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                47,163,130
<SALES>                                    157,522,016
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           157,522,016
<CGS>                                      131,919,939
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              147,298,550
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (262,323)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,642,573
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              8,843,216
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,600,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          7,243,216
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 7,243,216
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 21.1

CT COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AND
SUBSIDIARIES

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

|                                           |  |                
|------------------------------------------ |  | ---------------
|                                           |  | STATE OF       
|                                           |  | INCORPORATION  
|                                           |  | OR REGISTRATION
|                                           |  |                
|The Concord Telephone Company              |  | North Carolina 
|CT Wireless Cable, Inc.                    |  | North Carolina 
|Wavetel, L.L.C.                            |  | Delaware       
|WebServe, Inc.                             |  | North Carolina 
|Wireless One of North Carolina,
    L.L.C. |  | North Carolina 
|CTC Long Distance Services, LLC            |  | North Carolina 
|CT Cellular, Inc.                          |  | North Carolina 
|CTC Exchange Services, Inc.                |  | North Carolina 
|CTC Internet Services, Inc.                |  | North Carolina 
|CTC Video Services, LLC                    |  | North Carolina 
|CT Communications Northeast Wireless Trust |  | Massachusetts  
|CT Communications Northeast Trust          |  | Massachusetts  
|CT Communications Northeast, Inc.          |  | Massachusetts  
|Progress Place Realty Holding Company, LLC |  | North Carolina 
|CT Global, LLC                             |  | North Carolina 
|Wavetel TN, L.L.C.                         |  | Delaware       
|Carolina Personal Communications, Inc.     |  | North Carolina
Russell Chiropractic Care, S.C. 

Quality Care Througn Personal Attention 

Brian J. Russell, D.C. 

Chiropractfor 

August 12,2010 

Office ofConsumer Information and Insurance Oversight 

Department ofHealth and Human Services 

\ Attention: OCII0-9991-IFC 

P.O. Box 8016 

Baltimore, MD 21244--1850 

~'Re: - '-----"interim Fmal"Ruiefor Group HealtliPlans and Healili InsurancirCoverageRela'tmg tt)'StatiiS ;is a Grandfa:thered 

Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

Below are my comments regarding the Interim Final Rule for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Relating to 

Status as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). 

I believe that every effort should be made to increase the number ofindividuals covered by PPACA, especially as ofJanuary 

1,2014 when most ofthe reform components (Insurance Exchanges, Subsidies, Tax Credits, etc.) come into effect. 

The average consumer has a broad definition of "benefits." Consumers view their health plan beyond the covered benefits, 

'cost sharing, and the contribution levels associated with the plan. 

It is my opinion that the Rule will still result in confusion to the marketplace in its application. For example, if an employer 

raised the copayment level beyond the maximum in one area (i.e. outpatient services) but retained the copayment level for 

primary care doctor visits, does that mean a loss ofgrandfather status? Absolute clarity is critical both for the employer and 

the employee. 

E:~~~r1)y the'rittist optimistic estimates, a substantial portion ofthe employee population will remain outside the PPACA as of 

January 2014 based on the current rules. While I understand the difficulty involved in making change, creating another large 

sub-population of excluded individuals will only add to costs, increase confusion, and mitigate the potential beneficial impact 

ofthe legislation. 

The Rule needs to be clear, reasonable, and with no ambiguities involved in determining whether a group health plan is "in or 

out." The decisions the federal government makes today will determine the outcomes for tomorrow. We may need to make 

some difficult decisions to create a sustainable health care system that wtll support a growing economy in the future. That 

'--- --'- ""'meanS"gettmg~a:!rma:ny'Citizen~lleross-thtn;Ouhttyparti:cipatirrg'at'thebeginniiig to make it w(jrk'ariddeliveting on its ~, 

I promises in order to 'retain the public's support: . 

. ,'. « ;", 

,i 1, <.' ;(, : i~, ?} . , .,' " 'Ii ! . ( " ,", • 

100 E. ROb!eveltRriad 1., "', . ", 'I" '.'. ; ,'" t':" , ",. " • -..t., ,i Suite 45 . " 


Villa Park, IL 60181 


(630) 530-0506 t" 

Fax (630) 530-0854 

Russellchiro@comcast.net 

www.docrussell.com '. t,'
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                              ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Zygo Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
333-44333, No. 33-62087, No. 33-57060, No. 33-20880, and No. 33-34619 on Forms
S-8 of Zygo Corporation of our reports dated August 10, 2001, with respect to
the consolidated balance sheets of Zygo Corporation and subsidiaries as of June
30, 2001 and 2000 and the related consolidated statements of earnings,
stockholders' equity, and cash flows and related schedule for each of the years
in the three-year period ended June 30, 2001, which reports appear in or are
incorporated by reference into the June 30, 2001 Annual Report on Form 10-K405/A
of Zygo Corporation.

KPMG LLP

Hartford, Connecticut
July 9, 2003
Page | of 1

HECHEHZ-10

ROC S88NG DY; .
CATION & Rag SION SEP 97 2010

As of: September 07, 2010
Received: August 13, 2010

P U B LIC Status: Posted

Posted: September 07, 2010

SUBMISSION Comments Duet August 16, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Docket: IRS-2010-0010
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Rules Relating to Status as a Grandfathered

Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Afforable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0010-0001
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage: Interim Final Rules for Relating to Status as

a Grandfathered Health Plan under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Document: IRS-2010-0010-0784
Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488

Submitter Information

Name: Michael Travis Petty
Address:
10826 Kingston Pike
Knoxville, TN, 37934
Email: mtpettyvol@earthlink.net
Phone: 865-675-5050
Fax: 865-671-1321
Organization: Concord Chiropractic Clinic
— —

General Comment

To "grandfather" any insurance company from compliance with the Act defeats the purpose of the
Act. If the patient didn't need protection, the Act wouldn't have been necessary. Please do not
yield to the outside pressure of insurance companies who have made the Act necessary.

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=Pr... 9/7/2010
November 18, 2014
Kevin Schlemmer Office ofAviation Analysis US Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Ave SE Washington, D.C. 20590**~-** - -· .. :_

SkyWest Airlines' Essential Air Service Termination Notice for Vernal, UT
Dear Mr. Schlemmer: This letter will serve as SkyWest Airlines termination notice for turboprop air service between Vernal, UT (VEL) and Salt Lake City, UT (SLC). The last day ofservice will be on April 30, 2015. SkyWest will transition to an alljetfleet in 2015 and will eliminate the EMB-120 Brasilia from the SkyWest fleet. This turboprop aircraft is currently used in service from Vernal, UT under the Essential Air Service Program. This fleet change is driven in part by the additional challenges associated with the newFAR 117 flight and duty rules implemented in January 2014. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely,

Michael Thompson ChiefOperating Officer SkyWestAirlines
USS Carl Vinson rescues sailor who went overboard
 By None  , US Naval Forces Central Command
  CENTCOM
 ARABIAN SEA (Feb. 4, 2011) — USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) successfully recovered one of its own Sailors who went overboard on Feb. 4 at approximately 2:15 p.m. local time while the ship was in the Arabian Sea. A look-out spotted the Sailor and the ship immediately directed an already airborne HH-60H helicopter from the HS-15 “Red Lions” to begin search and rescue efforts. Carl Vinson also lowered a rigid hull inflatable boat into the water. The helicopter recovered the Sailor in less than 20 minutes.  The Sailor was returned to the Carl Vinson and was uninjured. Due to privacy considerations, the Sailor’s identity will not be released. Carl Vinson is in the U.S. 5th Fleet area of operations on a routine deployment and is relieving USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) to conduct Maritime Security Operations and provide support to operations ENDURING FREEDOM and NEW DAWN.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1051 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1051

 To expand the boundary of the Booker T. Washington National Monument, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 14, 2001

 Mr. Warner (for himself and Mr. Allen) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To expand the boundary of the Booker T. Washington National Monument, 
                        and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Booker T. Washington National 
Monument Boundary Adjustment Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. BOUNDARY OF BOOKER T. WASHINGTON NATIONAL MONUMENT EXPANDED.

    The Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the establishment of the 
Booker T. Washington National Monument'', approved April 2, 1956 (16 
U.S.C. 450ll et seq.), is amended by adding at the end the following 
new section:

``SEC. 5. ADDITIONAL LANDS.

    ``(a) Lands Added to Monument.--The boundary of the Booker T. 
Washington National Monument is modified to include the approximately 
15 acres, as generally depicted on the map entitled `Boundary Map, 
Booker T. Washington National Monument, Franklin County, Virginia', 
numbered BOWA 404/80,024, and dated February 2001. The map shall be on 
file and available for inspection in the appropriate offices of the 
National Park Service, Department of the Interior.
    ``(b) Acquisition of Additional Lands.--The Secretary of the 
Interior is authorized to acquire from willing owners the land or 
interests in land described in subsection (a) by donation, purchase 
with donated or appropriated funds, or exchange.
    ``(c) Administration of Additional Lands.--Lands added to the 
Booker T. Washington National Monument by subsection (a) shall be 
administered by the Secretary the of Interior as part of the monument 
in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### I. LATIMER LAWRENCE, RECORDER, CALVIN HILL, OVERSEER OF THE POOR, AND TOWNSHIP OF HOPEWELL, RESPONDENTS, v. THOMAS EGBERT STEWART, PROSECUTOR.

Submitted January 18, 1933

Decided July 25, 1933.

Before Justices Paekee, Lloyd and Hehee.

Por the prosecutor, *Nathan N. Schildkraut*and *Henry M. Hartman.*

Por the respondents, *Gassel R. Ruhlman.*

Per Curiam.

This is a rule for a writ of *certiorari*to review a judgment of the recorder in Hopewell township adjudging the prosecutor guilty of being the putative father of an unborn bastard child.

The case was heard before the recorder, the defendant appeared and submitted to the order by giving bond for support of the child as required by the statute, first entering a plea of *non vult.*All this happened in March of last year. The present rule was made in the December following. The affidavit upon which the rule was granted recites his hearing on March 16th and his conviction on the 22d, says he expected and intended to have a jury trial, and refused to plead on that ground; that the evidence adduced was not sufficient to warrant his conviction; that he was not guilty; that he believes the testimony of the complaining witness was the result of collusion between her and her father; that he believes the *651recorder committed legal error by acting on an illgal complaint and warrant.

These facts do not call for allowance of the writ at this late date, nor do they call for serious discussion of reasons why it should not be allowed.

The rule is, therefore, discharged.
[Civ. No. 1563.

Second Appellate District.

June 3, 1914.]

#### FRED A. HOFER, Respondent, v. C. FRED GRUNDY et al., Appellants.

Appeal—Motion to Dismiss fob Failure to File Transcript "in Time —When Premature.—A motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment because of failure to serve and file the transcript within the time prescribed by rule II of the supreme court, is premature if made within forty days after the filing, by stipulation, of a substituted appeal bond.

MOTION to dismiss an appeal from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

H. M. Barstow, and Howard E. Reach, for Appellants, Charles W. Fourl, for Respondent..

CONREY, P. J.

Respondent moves to dismiss defendants’ appeal from the judgment herein upon the ground that appellants have wholly failed to serve and file a transcript within the time prescribed by rule II. The record shows that by stipulation a substituted bond on appeal was filed on March 19, 1914. Respondent’s notice of motion to dismiss the appeal was served and filed on March 21st, and was presented and submitted to the court on April 28th. Manifestly the motion was prematurely made and should be denied. It is so ordered.

'James, J., and Shaw, J., concurred.
#### Miller *v.*Perkerson *et al.*

Submitted November 19,

Decided December 19, 1907.

Petition for injunction. Before Judge Gober. Cobb superior, court. September 7, 1907.

■JET. *B. Moss,*for plaintiff.

*D. W. Blavr*and *B. N. Holland,*for defendants.

Lumpkin, J.

Under the pleadings and evidence, there was no error in refusing to grant an injunction in this case.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All. the Justices concur.*
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 23, 2009

l0615 

# Order

June 23, 2009

138327

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138327 COA: 289797 Jackson CC: 07-003548-FH SETH ELISHA BROWN, 07-003604-FH Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e February 11, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
exv4w1



 





EXHIBIT 4.1




SUMMARY OF EMPLOYMENT ARRANGEMENTS




BETWEEN BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT




AND WERNER WENNING



 


	 	 	 
	Term:

	 	W. Wenning was appointed Chairman of the Board of Management of the
Company by the Supervisory Board effective April 27, 2002. The term will
expire on January 31, 2007.






Compensation: The aggregate remuneration of W. Wenning for 2003 is comprised of
the following elements:



Base salary: EUR 713,877. W. Wenning also received remuneration in kind
totaling EUR 30,319 and consisting mainly of amounts such as the value assigned
to the use of a company car for taxation purposes.



Fixed supplement: EUR 111,773



Variable bonus: EUR 771,399 (determined by attainment of the group gross cash
flow target)



Stock option rights: W. Wenning received a total of 10,950 option rights on the
basis of his own investments. The options from this tranche had an intrinsic
value of EUR 64,167 at the closing date (if they could have been exercised).



Retirement: The Company will pay W. Wenning a monthly pension equal to 80
percent of the last monthly base salary and fixed supplement received while in
service. These amounts are in addition to any amounts received as a result of
his participation in Bayer’s Employee Pension Plan (See Item 6). He will be
entitled to receive the pension upon completion of 30 years of services with
the Bayer group or 8 years of membership in the Executive Board of the Company.