alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Joseph Pangallo, Respondent, v Mitsubishi International Corp. et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[632 NYS2d 647]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Mitsubishi International Corp. and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, America, Inc., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), dated June 8, 1994, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as it is asserted against the defendants Mitsubishi International Corp. and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, America, Inc., and the action is severed as to the remaining defendants.

The plaintiff suffered injuries as the result of the alleged malfunction of a forklift. He then commenced the instant ac*651tion to recover damages against four defendants, including Mitsubishi International Corp. (hereinafter MIC), and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, America, Inc. (hereinafter MHIA).

In support of their motion for summary judgment, MIC and MHIA made a prima facie showing that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Specifically, they submitted (1) deposition testimony and an affidavit from the Corporate Secretary of MHIA which indicated that MHIA did not design, manufacture, import, sell, distribute, or deal in any way with forklifts generally or the subject forklift in particular, and (2) an affidavit to the same effect with respect to MIC from the Executive Vice President of that corporation *(see, Porter v LSB Indus.,*192 AD2d 205; *Smith v City of New York,*133 AD2d 818).

The plaintiff’s opposition to this probative evidence consisted solely of a photograph of a plate affixed to the forklift. The plate reads: "[Defendant] MACHINERY DISTRIBUTION, INC. [hereinafter MDI], a subsidiary of [Defendant] MITSUBISHI INTERNATIONAL CORP. [MIC]”. Indeed, MIC conceded that it was a minority shareholder in MDI. Nevertheless, MHIA’s name is not on the plate at all, and that MDI is named on the plate as a subsidiary of MIC is insufficient, standing alone, to create an issue of fact as to MIC’s liability *(see, Billy v Consolidated Mach. Tool Corp.,*51 NY2d 152, 163; *Zwirn v Bic Corp.,*181 AD2d 574).

Accordingly, the motion of MHIA and MIC for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against them must be granted. Mangano, P. J., Miller, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.
No. 427.

#### Vanacek *v.*St. Louis Public Service Co.

*William L. Weiss*and *William L. Mason, Jr.*for petitioner.

*William M. Corrigan*and *George P. Bowie*for respondent.

Supreme Court of Missouri. Certiorari denied.
No. 259, Misc.

#### Black *v.*Moore, Warden.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1332 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1332

Recognizing the importance of connecting foster youth to the workforce 
  through internship programs, and encouraging employers to increase 
                   employment of former foster youth.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 10, 2008

Mr. Cardoza (for himself, Mr. McDermott, and Mr. Fattah) submitted the 
following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education 
                               and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Recognizing the importance of connecting foster youth to the workforce 
  through internship programs, and encouraging employers to increase 
                   employment of former foster youth.

Whereas, on any given day, there are more than 500,000 youth in foster care in 
        the United States;
Whereas an estimated 26,000 of these youth are discharged from the foster care 
        system or ``age out'' with little to no resources to start their own 
        lives;
Whereas the people of the United States have a sincere appreciation for the 
        circumstances that place children in foster care;
Whereas foster youth possess unique qualities and skills that make them ideal 
        candidates for employment, but compared to youth nationally and youth 
        from low-income families, they are less likely to be employed or 
        employed regularly;
Whereas, when afforded comprehensive support, this resilient population excels 
        in the job market;
Whereas, within 18 months after leaving foster care, 25 percent of foster youth 
        become homeless and comprise more than a quarter of the United States 
        homeless population;
Whereas, without positive intervention, youth who age out of foster care often 
        have bouts of homelessness, criminal activity, and incarceration;
Whereas addressing job readiness early in the transition to adulthood is 
        critical to shaping the future trajectories of these youth; and
Whereas youth who begin connecting to the workforce prior to discharge from 
        foster care maintain the highest probability of employment: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes the importance of connecting foster youth to 
        the workforce through internship programs, such as the Orphan 
        Foundation of America's InternAmerica program, that provide 
        foster youth the foundation upon which to build their careers 
        and to be successful members of the work force; and
            (2) encourages employers of all sectors and Federal, State, 
        and local governmental agencies to increase employment of the 
        young men and women who have been discharged from foster care 
        in the United States.
                                 <all>
```
From: Flyinfu@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:19:52 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Michele Douglass

, 90803
EXHIBIT 31(a)

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Eric Montandon, certify that:  

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB (“Report”) of WWA Group, Inc.;  

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Report;   

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the period presented in this Report;   

 

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the small business issuer and have:  

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business 

issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this Report is being prepared;   

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this Report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this Report based on such evaluation; and  

 

c) Disclosed in this Report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and  

 

5. I have disclosed based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):   

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and   

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal controls over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 14, 2007

 

 

/s/ Eric Montandon 

Eric Montandon, Chief Executive Officer
From: harmonyhomesland@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:10:29 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Kent Hendricks

Bothell, WA 98012
From: mjgracey@kc.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:18:03 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Joseph Gracey

Kansas City, MO 64145
#### McFARLAND v. CONSOLIDATED GAS CO.

(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

August *24,*1903.)

1. Pleading—Bill op Particulars—New York Practice.

A plaintiff, in an action for a personal injury, required on motion of defendant to furnish a bill of particulars under the statute of New York, where he had previously obtained extensions of time to serve such bill.

On Motion for Bill of Particulars.

James W. Osborne, for plaintiff.

Theron G. Strong, for defendant.

HOLT, District Judge.

It is difficult to harmonize the cases in which it has been held that bills of particulars should be given or should not be given in negligence suits. They appear to have been ordered much more freely in cases brought by the person inj'ured than in cases brought by the personal representatives of the person injured. I think that among the cases cited those most similar to the case at bar have ordered bills of particulars to be furnished. Wilson v. American, etc., Co., 56 App. Div. 527, 67 N. Y. Supp. 508; Myers v. Albany Ry. Co., 5 App. Div. 596, 39 N. Y. Supp. 446; Field v. N. Y. Central Ry. Co., 35 Misc. Rep. 111, 71 N. Y. Supp. 220. The fact, too, that the plaintiff repeatedly obtained extensions of time in order to serve a bill of particulars is of considerable weight, as tending to prove an acquiescence in the propriety of the claim that one should be delivered.

My conclusion is that the motion should be granted.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

           I, John D. Idol, as Chief Executive Officer of Kasper A.S.L., Ltd.
(the "Company") certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as adopted by Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

           (1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the quarter ended September
27, 2003 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 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.

Dated:  November 12, 2003
                                               /s/ John D. Idol
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              John D. Idol
                                              Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.52

                           FOURTH ADDENDDUM TO LEASE

                            LESSOR: FRANK F. PARKER

                LESSEE: DENTAL/MEDICAL DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEMS, INC.
                            A DELAWARE CORPORATION

              ADDRESS: 16722 MILLIKAN AVENUE, IRVINE, CALIFORNIA

                             DATED: AUGUST 8, 1997


1. Lease term:             The above referenced lease is extended for one (1)
                           year commencing November 1, 2000, and ending October
                           31, 2001.

2. Base Rental Rate:       The base rental rate during the extended term
                           shall be $10,000.00 per month.



THE FOREGOING IS HEREBY              THE FOREGOING IS HEREBY
ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED TO           ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED TO

DATED: August 14, 2000.              DATED: August 14, 2000.

LESSOR: FRANK F. PARKER              LESSEE: DENTAL/MEDICAL DIANOSTIC
                                             SYSTEMS, INC.

BY: /s/ FRANK F. PARKER              BY: /s/ DENTAL/MEDICAL DIANOSTIC
                                             SYSTEMS, INC.
ITS:                                 ITS:
From: ybarton@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:10:45 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Yvonne Barton

Littleton, CO 80122
From: margaret@furtadotax.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:13:28 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Margaret Furtado

Puyallup, WA 98375