alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Second Judicial District Court of Hudson County.

#### C. I. T. CORPORATION v. HARRY HUNGERFORD AND THERESA O’NEILL.

Decided October 9, 1933.

For the plaintiff, *Pellegrin*¿6 *Pellegrin.*

For the defendant Harry Hungerford, *Collins & Corbin (John P. Leonard,*of counsel).

For the defendant Theresa O’Neill, *Hoberman & Hoberman.*

Carney, J.

This action was instituted by the plaintiff (conditional vendor of an automobile) to recover against the vendee, Theresa O’Neill, and a third party, Harry Hunger-ford, for damages occasioned to said automobile, arising out of an accident that occurred on November 26th, 1931; at which time the automobile was being operated by the son of the defendant Theresa O’Neill, to whom she had loaned the car and who was not, at the time, engaged on any enterprise of the defendant Theresa O’Neill.

As a result of the accident, Theresa O’Neill instituted an action in the Bayonne District Court against the defendant Hungerford to recover for the said damages, which action resulted in a verdict in favor of the defendant of “no cause of action.” The defendant Hungerford now moves to dismiss the state of demand herein, on the ground that the action in the Bayonne District Court is either *res adjudicata,*or a bar to this action.

The law is quite clear that a recovery by the bailee is a full satisfaction and a bar to any action of the bailor; and *898inversely, I am of the opinion that a denial of recovery of the bailee, is a denial of recovery to the bailor; except that no denial or bar may be set up against the bailor for the contributory negligence of the bailee, as in the case of *Commercial Credit Corp.*v. *Satterthwaite,*107 *N. J. L.*17; 150 *Atl. Rep. 235;*108 *N. J. L.*188; 154 *Atl. Rep.*769. As suggested in the cases, the liability of the trespasser is the same, his only concern being that he shall not be put to the hazard of two recoveries. In the case of *Commercial Credit Corp.*v. *Satterthwaite, supra,*upon which the plaintiff relies, it is pointed out that:

“It needs no argument that the owner of a general property in a chattel is entitled to recover for damages to that chattel, at least provided there has been no recovery on behalf of the owner of the special property for the same cause of action.”

It is suggested in the plaintiff’s brief, that the verdict of “no cause of action” in the Bayonne District Court may have been grounded on the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, Theresa O’Neill, and that thus would violence be done to the rule laid down in the case of *Commercial Credit Corp.*v. *Satterthwaite, supra;*but even in that action in the Bayonne District Court, contributory negligence could not have been set up against the defendant Theresa O’Neill, because the evidence is clear that her son was not, at the time of the accident, engaged on any enterprise for her.

In view of the above, the motion made on behalf of the defendant Harry Hungerford to dismiss this cause of action as against him, will be granted.
Exhibit 99.1     Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm    To the Shareholders of NSTAR:  We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balancesheetof NSTAR and its subsidiaries (the "Company")as of June 30, 2008, and the related consolidated statements of income, retained earnings and comprehensive income for each of the three-month and six-monthperiods ended June 30, 2008 and June 30, 2007and the consolidatedstatement of cash flows for the six-month periods ended June 30, 2008 and June 30, 2007.  These interim financial statements are the responsibility of the Companys management.  We conducted our review in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).  A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters.  It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole.  Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.  Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the accompanying consolidated interim financial statements for them to be in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.  We previously audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2007, and the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, retained earnings, and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein), and in our report dated February 11, 2008, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements.  In our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet information as of December 31, 2007 is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.      /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP  August 1, 2008
EX-(4).(e)



 



 
 CONTRACT DATA PAGE Contract Number: [P9999999999] ?1 Contract Date: [May 2, 2016] ?1 Owner: [JOHN DOE] ?1 Date of Birth:
[March 1, 1976] ?1 Age at Issue: [35]?1 2? [Owner: [JANE DOE] ?1 Date of Birth: [June 10, 1976] ?1 Age at Issue: [34] ?1] Annuitant: [JOHN DOE] ?1 Date of Birth: [March 1, 1976] ?1 Age at Issue: [35] ?1 2? [Annuitant: [JANE DOE] Date of Birth: [June
10, 1976] ?1 Age at Issue: [34] ?1] Beneficiary: As named by You Initial Purchase Payment: [$10,000.00] ?1 Maximum Purchase Payment Without Our Approval: [$1,000,000]?3 Purchase Payment Age Limit: [Prior to the 86th birthday]?4 Minimum Subsequent
Purchase Payment: [$500] ?5 Purchase Payments are subject to the limitations defined in this Contract. Fixed Account Options – Minimum Guarantee Rate: [1.0%] ?6 With 30 days advance notice, we may cease offering the Fixed Account Options, Fixed
Account Guarantee Period Options and/or Dollar Cost Averaging Fixed Account Options if market conditions are such that we are not able to credit the Minimum Guarantee Rate Shown on this page. Fixed Account Options: [1 Year Fixed, 6 Month DCA Fixed,
1 Year DCA Fixed] ?7 Minimum Partial Withdrawal Amount: [$1,000] ?8 Maximum Penalty-Free Withdrawal Percentage: [10%]?9 Minimum Systematic Withdrawal Amount: [$100] ?10 Minimum Amount Remaining After a Partial Withdrawal: [$2,500] ?11 Withdrawal
Charge Schedule: Number of Full Years Elapsed Withdrawal Charge as a Between Purchase Payment Contribution Percentage of Withdrawn And Date of Withdrawal Purchase Payment 0 7% 1 7% 12? 2 6% 3 6% 4 5% 5+ 0% See Page [13] for Withdrawal Provisions.
?13 US-803-PSI (12/15) 3 

  

					
	US-803-PSI (12/15)	  	3	  	    









 



 
 CONTRACT DATA PAGE (Cont’d.) Minimum Transfer Amount: [$100] ?14 Separate Account Charge (including guaranteed
death benefit risk charge of [0.10%]): [1.10%]?15 Annual Contract Maintenance Fee: [$50]?16 Transfer Fee: [$25] ?17 Earliest Annuity Date After the Contract Date: 13 months Latest Annuity Date: [1st day of the month following Your 95th Birthday] ?18
Separate Account: [FS VARIABLE SEPARATE ACCOUNT] ?19 Optional Elections: Optional Election Details: Return of Purchase Payment See Attached Endorsement USLE-8027 (5/14) ?20 US-803-PSI (12/15) 4 

  

					
	US-803-PSI (12/15)	  	4
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 133 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 133

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the 
 exclusion for employer-provided educational assistance programs, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 22, 2001

  Mr. Baucus (for himself and Mr. Grassley) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the 
 exclusion for employer-provided educational assistance programs, 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 ``Employee Educational Assistance 
Act''.

SEC. 2. EMPLOYER-PROVIDED EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.

    (a) Permanent Extension.--Section 127 of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 (relating to exclusion for educational assistance programs) is 
amended by striking subsection (d) and by redesignating subsection (e) 
as sub-section (d).
    (b) Repeal of Limitation on Graduate Education.--The last sentence 
of section 127(c)(1) of such Code is amended by striking ``, and such 
term also does not include any payment for, or the provision of any 
benefits with respect to, any graduate level course of a kind normally 
taken by an individual pursuing a program leading to a law, business, 
medical, or other advanced academic or professional degree''.
    (c) Effective Dates.--
            (1) Extension.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
        apply with respect to expenses relating to courses beginning 
        after the date of enactment of this Act.
            (2) Graduate education.--The amendment made by subsection 
        (b) shall apply with respect to expenses relating to courses 
        beginning after December 31, 1998.
                                 <all>
```
From: drpepper

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: reject "religious employers" preventative care exemptions

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 6:35:20 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you

to accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to

coverage of preventive care under the new health care law, and to reject any

exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive services are a critical

element of the new law and would provide countless women better access to

necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women

access to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste

for all contraceptive services, are pushing the government to make exemptions

even larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to

religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations

would be exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they employ people

of all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny

access to thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting

IOM’s recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption

provisions.
No. 607, Misc.

#### Young *v.*Oklahoma.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Certiorari denied.
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (0.82 MB)
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (1.08 MB)
 
 U.S. Navy 5th Fleet USS Ronald Reagan CVN 76 UK Carrier Strike Group 21
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
A

February 8, 2011

Mr. Fred J. Wong

Office of Regulations and Interpretations
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Attn: Definition of Fiduciary Proposed Rule
Room N-5655

U.S. Department of Labor

200 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20210

Subject: Comments on the DOL Proposed Regulation — Definition of the Term “Fiduciary”
Dear Mr. Wong:

Recology is the largest 100% employee-owned company in the waste industry. Recology has over 2,500
active employees with over 2,000 of those employees being “owners” through an Employee Stock
Ownership Plan (“ESOP”). With its waste collection, recycling and disposal programs, Recology
provides a valuable service to more than 100 communities, including the City San Francisco. Recology
offers the highest service levels in the industry -- a commitment born when the company was established
in 1921. These communities can’t live without our services.

I am writing to you today to express our concerns with the proposed regulations that would change the
definition of the term Fiduciary.

We believe that the changes being proposed will significantly increase the cost of our annual appraisal
that is performed by an independent third party, who specializes in ESOP valuation work. In addition, we
question whether high quality firms, like the ones that we have always used, will remain in the business if
the proposed regulations are finalized.

Our employee owners take great pride in their Company. The proposed regulations threaten the viability
of our ESOP which has been in existence for over 25 years.

I hope you will take seriously our comments and those of the entire ESOP community. Please refer to the
submission by the ESOP Association for more explicit detail on this subject matter. There are certainly
better tools at the DOL’s disposal, if the DOL is concerned about bad valuations. Please do not destroy
the entire ESOP community because a few bad apples have fallen off the tree.

Very truly yours,

Mork R.xomle

Mark R. Lomele
Chair of the Recology ESOP Administrative Committee
p.1 

OAR Box 1870 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

19) ll-A-24 

Docket Number: 

A-90-19 

Printed 11/28/2008 7:05:04 AM Sheet 19 of 67 
r r 

x

s

/EFA 

wPitec states 

Environmental Protection 

Agency 

"anmng and Staraards 

Researcn "•"nangie Park NC 2771 

A-90-19 

ll-A-24 

Air 

P.2 

l*7i 

Air Oxidation Processes Draft 

in Synthetic Organic EIS 

Chemical Manufacturing 

Industry — 

Background Information 

for Proposed Standards 

[DJJJ_JLLI 

EPA AIR DOCKET 
P.3 

This report has been reviewed by the Emission Standards and Engineering Division of the Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, EPA, and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or 

commercial products is not intended to constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. Copies of 

this report are available through the Library Services Office (MD-35). U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Caorlina 27711; or, for a fee, from the National Technical 

Information Services, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
|                                                                         |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                         |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|                                                                    | Three Months EndedSeptember 30, |   | Nine Months EndedSeptember 30, |
|                                                                    | 2015 |   | 2014 |   | 2015 |   | 2014 |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Profit                                                                  | $ | 109 |  |   | $ | 148 |  |   | $ | 346 |  |   | $ | 427 |  |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Add:                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Provision for income taxes                                              | 44 |  |   | 47 |  |   | 142 |  |   | 153 |  |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Profit before income taxes                                              | $ | 153 |  |   | $ | 195 |  |   | $ | 488 |  |   | $ | 580 |  |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Fixed charges:                                                          |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Interest expense                                                        | $ | 144 |  |   | $ | 158 |  |   | $ | 445 |  |   | $ | 475 |  |
| Rentals at computed interest*                                           | 1 |  |   | 1 |  |   | 4 |  |   | 4 |  |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Total fixed charges                                                     | $ | 145 |  |   | $ | 159 |  |   | $ | 449 |  |   | $ | 479 |  |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Profit before income taxes plus fixed charges                           | $ | 298 |  |   | $ | 354 |  |   | $ | 937 |  |   | $ | 1,059 |  |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Ratio of profit before income taxes plus fixed charges to fixed charges | 2.06 |  |   | 2.23 |  |   | 2.09 |  |   | 2.21 |  |
|                                                                    |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
From: Robin Last

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Preventative Health is Crucial, no exeptions please

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:08:47 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in

asking you to accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as

pertain to coverage of preventive care under the new health care law, and

to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive

services are a critical element of the new law and would provide countless

women better access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny

women access to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological

distaste for all contraceptive services, are pushing the government to make

exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the

exemption to apply to religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with

religious affiliations would be exempt from the coverage requirement,

even though they employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If granted,

this larger exemption would deny access to thousands of women just

because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by

accepting IOM’s recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious

refusal exemption provisions.

Robin Last

Martin, Tn
From: Glenda Bailey-Mershon

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 7:28:26 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,

Glenda Bailey-Mershon

390 Altara Dr

Saint augustine, Fl 32086
EXHIBIT 32.2

Written Statement of the Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Genzyme Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify that the Annual
Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|/s/MICHAEL S. WYZGAMichael S. Wyzga Chief Financial
OfficerMarch 15, 2004 |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---

QuickLinks