alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Searched for **http://fueleconomy.gov/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://fueleconomy.gov/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
#### Harold Gitseg et al., Respondents, v Edward Herbst et al., Appellants.

[631 NYS2d 894]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to re*381cover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), dated March 30,1994, which, *inter alia,*denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against Edward Herbst in his individual capacity, and granted the plaintiffs’ cross motion for leave to serve an amended complaint and bill of particulars.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against Edward Herbst in his individual capacity and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion, and by deleting the provision which granted the plaintiffs’ cross motion for leave to serve an amended complaint and bill of particulars, and substituting therefor a provision denying the cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The court properly denied the corporate defendants’ application for summary judgment as issues of fact clearly exist with regard to those defendants *(see, Gordon v Pellillo,*184 AD2d 494). The plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate, however, that they possess any viable claims sounding in breach of contract against the individual defendant who was not a party thereto. Nor have the plaintiffs established that the "corporate veil” of the defendant East Broadway Management Corp. should be pierced so as to expose Edward Herbst to personal liability for the alleged breach by the corporate defendants. Therefore, the defendants’ motion should have been granted to the extent of dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against Edward Herbst in his individual capacity.

Moreover, the court erred in granting the plaintiffs’ cross motion for leave to serve an amended complaint alleging fraud. While leave to amend a complaint should be freely given absent prejudice or surprise *(Corsale v Pantry Pride Supermarket,*197 AD2d 659), a meritless application should not be granted *(Staines v Nassau Queens Med. Group,*176 AD2d 718). In this case, while the plaintiffs possess viable claims sounding in breach of contract, they possess no actionable fraud claims *(see, Teller v Bill Hayes, Ltd.,*172 AD2d 604). Therefore, the cross motion should have been denied. Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DIEGO SANJUAN,

Appellant,

v.

GUARDIANSHIP OF MARIA ANGELICA MENA,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-2857

[September 7, 2022]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Maxine Cheesman, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 

502020GA00623XXXMB and 502021MH000512XXXXMB.

Ricardo Corona, Ricardo M. Corona, Yung Truong, and Laura 

Hernandez of Corona Law Firm, P.A., Miami, for appellant.

Barry W. Taylor of Taylor & Taylor Law, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, for 

appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Diego Sanjuan timely appeals the circuit court’s order appointing coguardians over the person and property of a ward. Sanjuan argues the 

circuit court erroneously appointed the brothers as co-guardians over the 

ward. He also argues the court erred when it revoked the ward’s 

appointment of a health care surrogate. We affirm the court’s appointment 

of the brothers as co-guardians without further discussion. But we reverse 

the court’s revocation of the ward’s appointment of a health care surrogate 

for failure to “express[] which grounds supported revocation and absent 

evidence of any of the grounds set forth in section 765.105[, Florida 

Statutes (2007)].” Graham v. Florida Dep’t of Child. & Families, 970 So. 2d 

438, 443 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); see also Martinez v. Guardianship of Smith, 

159 So. 3d 394, 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). On remand, the court must 

determine what grounds under section 765.105 require revocation of the 

health care surrogate if it determines any such grounds exist.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
2

WARNER, GROSS and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
(Reap. Dec. 11074)

#### Sam Yeung Co. et al *v.*United States

Entry No. 950241, etc.

(Decided September 29, 1965)

*Lane, Young & Fox*for the plaintiffs.

*Jolm W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Donlon, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, attached to and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision on the following stipulation of counsel for the parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court:

> That the merchandise covered by the above appeals for reappraisement consists of canned bamboo shoots and water chestnuts, whole, sliced, or diced, packed in eases or cartons, exported from Taiwan subsequent to February 27,1958.

> That the said merchandise is not included in the Final List published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54521, effective February 27, 1958; and that said merchandise was entered for consumption subsequent to February 27,1958.

> *616That the merchandise and issues involved herein are the same in all material respects as those involved in *Sam Yeung Co.*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 10864; and that the record in said case may be incorporated in and made a part of the record herein.

> That on or about the date of exportation of the said merchandise, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold, or, in the absence of sales, offered for sale in the principal markets of Taiwan, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the invoice unit values, per case or per carton, net packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the above appeals for reappraisement may be deemed to be submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

Ill *Sam Yeung Co., supra,*the merchandise included canned water chestnuts that were whole and also canned water chesnuts that were sliced. There were no diced water chestnuts, as there are here. I find that this is not a material difference.

Accepting the stipulation as an agreed statement of facts, and on authority of the decision cited therein, I find and hold that export value, as' defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (T.D. 54165), is the proper basis for determining value of the canned bamboo shoots and water chestnuts, whole, sliced, or diced, packed in cases or cartons, described on the invoices of the schedule A appeals, and that such values are the invoice unit values, per case or per carton, net packed, as shown on the invoices which are included in the official papers filed with the court in the several suits.

As to all other merchandise, these appeals to reappraisement are dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Case 3:06-cv-05314-RBL Document 17 Filed 08/30/07 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:06-cv-05314-RBL Document 17 Filed 08/30/07 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:06-cv-05314-RBL Document 17 Filed 08/30/07 Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT
23.1


CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 
 American
Bancorp of New Jersey, Inc.
 365 Broad
Street
 Bloomfield,
New Jersey 07003
 
 We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-131398, 333-131397 and 333-137801 on Form S-8 filed by American Bancorp of
New Jersey, Inc., of our report dated December 8, 2008, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of American Bancorp of New Jersey, Inc., and
the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which reports
appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of American Bancorp of New Jersey,
Inc. for the year ended September 30, 2008.
 
 Crowe
Howarth LLP
 
 
 /s/ Crowe
Howarth LLP
 
 Livingston,
New Jersey
 December
10, 2008
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-04-00177-CR

Kenneth Tuck, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 403RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 9020859, HONORABLE WILLIAM E. BENDER, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant’s motion to withdraw his notice of appeal is granted. See Tex. R. App. P.

42.2(a). The appeal is dismissed.

__________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Waldrop and Henson

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: December 12, 2008

Do Not Publish
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

MINUTE ORDER- 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

HENRY C. ROSENAU,

Defendant.

CASE NO. CR06-157MJP

MINUTE ORDER

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable Marsha J. 

Pechman, United States District Judge:

The Court, having received and reviewed Defendant’s motion for reconsideration 

concerning the Court’s Order regarding live video testimony in Canada (Dkt No. 97), hereby 

calls for a response from the government on the issues raised therein. 

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.

Filed this 16th day of April, 2012.

Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 100 Filed 04/16/12 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

MINUTE ORDER- 2

William M. McCool

Clerk of Court

s/Mary Duett

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 100 Filed 04/16/12 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

JAMES ERNEST DICKERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O KORZILIUS, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-5301

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION DISMISSING

ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

The Magistrate Judge recommends that this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights action be

dismissed without prejudice for failure of Plaintiff to comply with Court Order to submit service

documents. The Plaintiff has filed an Objection contending generally that this Court has failed to aid

Plaintiff in his endeavor to argue his case before the Court. Plaintiff’s argument is unpersuasive. 

Plaintiff has been granted in forma pauperis status. Plaintiff was directed to provide service through

the Marshall service and provide this Court with a copy of the complaint and service form on or

before September 1, 2006. Plaintiff failed to comply and the Magistrate recommends dismissal.

The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge J. Kelly

Arnold, the Objections of Plaintiff and the remaining record, does hereby find and ORDER:

Case 3:06-cv-05301-FDB Document 14 Filed 10/17/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER - 2

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with the

Court's Order to provide service documents; and 

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff and to the Hon. J. Kelly

Arnold.

DATED this 17th day of October, 2006.

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05301-FDB Document 14 Filed 10/17/06 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant, v Harry Rothbart et al., Respondents.

[632 NYS2d 481]

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered March 8, 1994, which denied the application.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

By participating in the arbitration with the respondents, the petitioner has waived its right to appeal *(see, Matter of Beagle [MVAIC],*19 NY2d 834). Sullivan, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       9,422,588
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               36,220,923
<ALLOWANCES>                                 3,039,531
<INVENTORY>                                107,558,671
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           156,739,598
<PP&E>                                      64,521,448
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             375,460,421
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      120,757,251
<BONDS>                                     40,692,584
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        41,208
<OTHER-SE>                                 211,644,411
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               375,460,421
<SALES>                                    165,540,268
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           165,540,268
<CGS>                                      124,241,379
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              124,241,379
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,578,497
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (9,918,482)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    30,129
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (9,948,611)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (9,948,611)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.25)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1

                          CERTIFICATIONS

I, Scott Emerson Lybbert, certify that:

        1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of TGFIN
Holdings, Inc.;

        2.   Based upon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statements 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 represent in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;

        4.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

               a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

               b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date
of this report (the Evaluation Date"); and

               c)   presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

        5.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the
audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

               a)   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for
the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

               b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal controls; and

        6.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated
in this report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions
with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


     /s/ Scott Emerson Lybbert       Chief Executive Officer
    --------------------------
         Scott Emerson Lybbert       August 13, 2007
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 77-1 Filed 02/22/12 Page 1 of 10
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 77-1 Filed 02/22/12 Page 2 of 10
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 77-1 Filed 02/22/12 Page 3 of 10
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 77-1 Filed 02/22/12 Page 4 of 10
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 77-1 Filed 02/22/12 Page 5 of 10
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 77-1 Filed 02/22/12 Page 6 of 10
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 77-1 Filed 02/22/12 Page 7 of 10
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 77-1 Filed 02/22/12 Page 8 of 10
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 77-1 Filed 02/22/12 Page 9 of 10
Case 2:06-cr-00157-MJP Document 77-1 Filed 02/22/12 Page 10 of 10
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
     Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet at September 30, 1996 and Consolidated
     Statement of Operations  for the nine (9) months ended  September 3o, 1996,
     and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
                                               (Restated
                                               See Note 1)
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-1996
<CASH>                                           1,601,079
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,983,634 
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,102,575
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,353,754
<PP&E>                                         129,912,395
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,883,121
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 163,495,411
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,233,811
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             9,257
<OTHER-SE>                                      75,534,188
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   163,495,411
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                53,708,980
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   51,752,927
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   786,695
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,293,831
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,697,820)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       207,711
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,905,531)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,905,531)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (.45)
        



</TABLE>
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

# WIniteb**~tate5** 

# (!Courtof**~peaI5** 

# fortbe jf

# eberaI (!Circuit

LEO PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS, LTD. Appellant, 

### v. DAVID J. 

### KAPPOS, DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Appellee, AND 

### GALDERMA R&D, Appellee. 2012-1520 (Reexamination No. 95/000,153) Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board ofPatent Appeals and Interferences. 

### ON MOTION

ORDER Case: 12-1520 Document: 31 Page: 1 Filed: 09/27/2012LEO PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS V. KAPpos 2 The Director ofthe United States Patent and Trademark Office and Galderma R&D ("Galderma") each move for a 50-day extension oftime, until November 16, 2012, to file their principal briefs. Leo Pharmaceutical Products, Ltd. opposes. Upon considerationthereof, IT Is ORDERED THAT: The motions are granted. Galderma's and the Director's principal briefs are due November 16, 2012. FOR THE COURT 

## SEP 21 2012 Date

cc: Andrew D. Meikle, Esq. Raymond T. Chen, Esq. Martin B. Pavane, Esq. s27 /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk


## u.s.**COuJ't~~** fOR 11fEFEDERAtCrRCUIT



### SEP 272012 JANHORBALY 

### ClERK Case: 12-1520 Document: 31 Page: 2 Filed: 09/27/2012
No. 58313.

protests 171366-K, etc. (Pembina) .

#### F. C. Mackay et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise are similar in all material respects to the Western white spruce lumber the subject of *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(31 Cust. Ct. 13, C. D. 1538), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained as to said items.