alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Natalie Nixon v. General Motors Corporation et al.

Superior Court, Middlesex, SS

No. CA001123C

Memorandum Dated August 24, 2000

van Gestel, J.

This matter is before the Court on a motion by the defendant General Motors Corporation (“General Motors”) pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. Rule 42(a) seeking the complete fusion of this case with an action presently pending as *Mark R. Nixon, et al. v. General Motors Corporation,*Middlesex Superior Court No. 96-1703-J (“the original action”). Both this action and the original action arise out of the same single vehicle motor vehicle accident. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff here was a minor, and a passenger in a vehicle owned by her parents and operated by one of her brothers. Another brother of the plaintiff here was another passenger in the vehicle. For reasons not clear, the plaintiff did not join in the original action brought by her parents and both brothers against General Motors and Gallo Motor Center Corp.

The original action has been through massive discovery and a number of convolutions regarding counsel and other issues. Discovery in the original action by the plaintiffs there has been brought to a conclusion by the court (Sosman. J. and Fahey, J.), despite. severail efforts to extend it.

General Motors here claims, among other things, that this new suit by Natalie Nixon is an attempt to. avoid the discovery cut-off in the original action. It is for that reason that General Motors now seeks fusion and an order rigidly limiting Natalie Nixon’s discovery on liability issues to essentially that which already has been taken by the plaintiffs in the original action.

Viewed from a vantage point of judicial economy, to accede to General Motors’ request has an instinctive appeal to the Court. This Court is also aware, however, that to do so may have at least two inappropriate results. First, the application of the limitation on the plaintiffs discovery in the newly filed case will deprive her of a fair opportunity to prepare and present her case and the theories that support it. Even if this Court, however, can creatively find a way for the plaintiff here to have fair discovery, in addition to that already completed in the original case, there remains a second inappropriate result. The fusion of the two cases, despite the fact that they arise out of the same single vehicle accident, given the current plaintiffs professed different theories of liability, will create substantial potential for confusion before a juiy and for the presiding judge. What evidence, from which expert witness, or which internal General Motors document, or other source, should the jury consider only on behalf of or against the plaintiff here, and what evidence may the jury consider on behalf of or against the plaintiffs in the original action?

The legal disharmony posed by the kind of fusion requested leads this Court to exercise its discretion, at least at this time, and DENY the motion to fuse.
No. 38913.

#### Protest 443742-G of Weiss & Biheller (New York).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of atomizers the same as those passed upon in *Rice*v. *United States*(T. D. 49373). The claim as household utensils at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was therefore sustained.
[Cite as State ex rel. Mahoney v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 130 Ohio St.3d 29, 2011-Ohio4551.] 

THE STATE EX REL. MAHONEY v. LUCAS COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS. 

[Cite as State ex rel. Mahoney v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 

130 Ohio St.3d 29, 2011-Ohio-4551.] 

Writ of mandamus granted based on decision in State ex rel. Coble v. Lucas 

Cty. Bd. of Elections.

(No. 2011-1386—Submitted September 6, 2011—Decided September 9, 2011.) 

IN MANDAMUS. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Based on our decision in State ex rel. Coble v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of 

Elections, 130 Ohio St.3d 132, 2011-Ohio-4550, 956 N.E.2d 282, we grant a writ 

of mandamus to compel respondent, Lucas County Board of Elections, to place 

the name of relator, Neal Mahoney, on the November 8, 2011 election ballot as a 

candidate for Sylvania Township Trustee. 

Writ granted. 

 O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 

 PFEIFER and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur in judgment. 

 LANZINGER, J., dissents. 

__________________ 

LANZINGER, J., dissenting. 

{¶ 2} For the reasons stated in my dissent in State ex rel. Coble v. Lucas 

Cty. Bd. of Elections, 130 Ohio St.3d 132, 2011-Ohio-4550, 956 N.E.2d 282, I 

respectfully dissent. 

__________________ 

 Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, L.L.P., Douglas G. Haynam, and Michael J. 

O’Callaghan, for relator. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

 Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Andrew K. 

Ranazzi, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent. 

 Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Richard N. Coglianese, Erick D. 

Gale, and Michael Schuler, Assistant Attorneys General, for intervening 

respondent, Secretary of State Jon Husted. 

______________________
Exhibit 31.6**CERTIFICATION**I, Mark A. Pytosh, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MSW Energy Holdings II LLC; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand 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 registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.       Date: October 30, 2006               By: /s/ Mark A. Pytosh Mark A. Pytosh      Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer  
49
#### In the Matter of Robert P. Lacker, Appellant, v Board of Trustees of the New York City Fire Department, Article 1-B Pension Fund, et al., Respondents.

[634 NYS2d 504]

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Trustees of the New York City Fire Department, Article 1-B Pension Fund, dated January 22, 1993, denying the petitioner’s application for an accident disability pension, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Huttner, J.), dated April 7, 1994, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Medical Board of the New York City Fire Department, Article 1-B Pension Fund (hereinafter the Medical Board) unanimously determined that, although the petitioner is disabled, his disability is unrelated to his activities in the Fire Department. The Board of Trustees of the Article 1-B Pension Fund (hereinafter the Board of Trustees) was entitled to rely upon the Medical Board’s recommendation *(see, Matter of Russo v Board of Trustees,*143 AD2d 674, 676), and we agree with the Supreme Court that the Board of Trustees’ determination was neither arbitrary nor capricious *(see, Matter of Petchonka v Board of Trustees,*204 AD2d 646; *Matter of Bartsch v Board of Trustees,*142 AD2d 577). Balletta, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

LLOYD RUNCIE and VALERIE T. RUNCIE,

Appellants,

v.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON f/k/a THE BANK OF NEW YORK

AS TRUSTEE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS 

OF THE CWALT 2004-22CB MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH 

CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2004-22CB,

Appellee.

No. 4D2023-1639

[July 18, 2024]

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

Beach County; Roger B. Colton, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502019CA002406.

Lloyd Runcie and Valerie T. Runcie, Royal Palm Beach, pro se.

Adam A. Diaz of Diaz Anselmo & Associates P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for 

appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KLINGENSMITH, C.J., MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 32.2

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

     In  connection  with the  Annual  Report  of  Calypso  Financial  Services,
Inc.(the  "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending  December 31, 2004, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, Edward F. Cowle,  Principal  Accounting  Officer of the  Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (1) The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
     15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


/s/ Edward F. Cowle
------------------------------
Edward F. Cowle
Principal Accounting Officer
April 14, 2005

     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906, or
     other document  authenticating,  acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the
     signature that appears in typed form within the electronic  version of this
     written  statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
     the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its
     staff upon  request.  The foregoing  certifications  are  accompanying  the
     Company's Form 10-KSB solely pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
     Act of 2002  (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title
     18,  United  States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB
     or as a separate disclosure document.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Summit Financial Services Group, Inc. (the Company), for the
quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven C. Jacobs, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do hereby certify, to my knowledge that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Steven C. Jacobs                                
|Steven C. Jacobs                                    
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



Dated: May 16, 2005
No. 47424.

#### Protests 980622-G, etc., of Glensder Textile Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

An examination of the record disclosed that certain items consist of woven silk mufflers, hemmed, imported prior to the effective date of the said trade agreement (T. D. 49753); certain other mufflers, hand hemmed, not block printed by hand, and others not hemmed and not block' printed by hand, imported subsequent to theWective date of the said trade agreement (T. D. 49753). In accordance therewith the protests were sustained in part as set forth in the decision.
No. 53631.

protests 114121-K/142, etc. (Chicago).

#### Philip Blum & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
#### Commonwealth ex rel. Gordy, Appellant, *v.*Lyons.

Argued January 8, 1969.

Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts and Pomerot, JJ.

*166April 23, 1969:

*F. M. Jackson,*with him *8. Allen Needleman*and *Isadore A. Shrager,*for appellant.

*James D. Crawford,*Assistant District Attorney, with him *Richard A. Sprague,*First Assistant District Attorney, and *Arlen Specter,*District Attorney, for appellee.

Opinion by Mb.

Justice Eagen,

On November 8,1967, Dennis Ball, who was eighteen years of age, was shot to death on a street in Philadelphia. Demetrius Gordy, the appellant, was taken into police custody and charged with commission of the crime. On January 25, 1968, Gordy was given a hearing before a juvenile court judge, sitting as a committing magistrate, who directed that Gordy be continued in custody without bail to await action by the grand jury. Gordy filed a petition for habeas corpus in the Court of Common Pleas challenging the lawfulness of his detention on the ground that the evidence presented by the Commonwealth before the committing magistrate was insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish a prima facie case. A hearing1 was held on this petition on February 27, 1968. The court denied habeas corpus relief and Gordy remained in custody. On March 5, 1968, the case was presented to the grand jury and Gordy was indicted for the murder of Ball. On April 1, 1968, Gordy filed an appeal in this Court from the order of the Court of Common Pleas dismissing his action of habeas corpus. The appeal will be quashed.

*167It has been established by a large number of appellate court decisions in this state that an appeal does not lie from the order here involved. This is so because the order is interlocutory in nature and has not been made appealable by statute. *Commonwealth ex rel. Fisher v. Stitzel,*418 Pa. 356, 211 A. 2d 457 (1965); *Commonwealth ex rel. Tiller v.*Dye, 177 Pa. Superior Ct. 388, 110 A. 2d 748 (1955); and *Commonwealth ex rel. DiDio v. Baldi,*176 Pa. Superior Ct. 119, 106 A. 2d 910 (1954).

It is, therefore, unnecessary to reach the question of whether or not the order appealed from is now moot, because Gordy is presently detained as a result of the grand jury indictment rather than the order of commitment by the committing magistrate.

Appeal quashed.

Mr. Justice Roberts would quash the appeal solely on the ground of mootness.

1

 No additional testimony was introduced at this hearing. It was agreed that the recorded notes of the testimony taken before the committing magistrate would constitute the record in the habeas corpus action.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Surface Transportation Board 

          - [STB Ex Parte No. 290 (Sub-No. 5) (2007-2)] 

# AGENCY:

Surface Transportation Board, DOT. 

# ACTION:

Approval of rail cost adjustment factor. 

# SUMMARY:

The Board has approved the second quarter 2007 rail cost adjustment factor (RCAF) and cost index filed by the Association of American Railroads. The second quarter 2007 RCAF (Unadjusted) is 1.147. The second quarter 2007 RCAF (Adjusted) is 0.537. The second quarter 2007 RCAF-5 is 0.511. 

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         April 1, 2007.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mac Frampton, (202) 245-0317. [Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) for the hearing impaired: 1-800-877-8339.] 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Additional information is contained in the Board's decision, which is available on our Web site                     *http://www.stb.dot.gov.*                     To purchase a copy of the full decision, write to, e-mail or call the Board's contractor, ASAP Document Solutions; 9332 Annapolis Rd., Suite 103, Lanham, MD 20706; e-mail                     *asapdc@verizon.net*; phone (202) 306-4004. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through FIRS: 1-800-877-8339.]                 

This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or energy conservation. 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), we conclude that our action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

Decided: March 16, 2007.

By the Board, Chairman Nottingham, Vice Chairman Buttrey and Commissioner Mulvey. 

Vernon A. Williams, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E7-5338 Filed 3-22-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
446 A.2d 671

#### Commonwealth v. Pope, Appellant.

Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied Sept. 13, 1982.

Submitted June 2,1981.

Anthony P. Baratta, for appellant; Gaele McLaughlin Bart-hold, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before ROWLEY, McEWEN and MONTEMURO, JJ.

The judgment of sentence is affirmed on the comprehensive opinion by Judge James D. McCrudden of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County.
#### Jahangir Bral et al., Respondents, v City of New York, Respondent, and Quigg Construction Corp., Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 98]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Salvador Collazo, J.), entered July 12, 1994, which, insofar as appeal-able, denied defendant Quigg Construction’s renewed motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The drastic remedy of summary judgment may not be granted if there is any doubt whatever as to the existence of an unresolved issue of fact *(see, e.g., Phillips v Kantor & Co.,*31 NY2d 307, 311; *Ramsammy v City of New York,*216 AD2d 234, *284236-237). Here, defendant Quigg Construction’s claim, that it did not perform any work at the site of the subject accident, was made solely by its principal and was otherwise unsupported. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, submitted documentary evidence in the form of a building permit issued to, and insurance certificates obtained by, defendant Quigg Construction for the worksite. Thus, there was a triable issue of fact as to whether Quigg actually performed the work. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8446 

AN ACT 

To amend the Energy Act of 2020 to include critical materials in the definition of critical mineral, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 8446 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Critical Mineral Con3 sistency Act of 2024’’. 

4 SEC. 2. CRITICAL MATERIALS INCLUDED AS CRITICAL MIN5 ERALS. 

6 Section 7002 of the Energy Act of 2020 (30 U.S.C. 

7 1606) is amended— 

8 (1) in subsection (a)(3)(A), to read as follows: 

9 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘critical 

10 mineral’ means— 

11 ‘‘(i) any mineral, element, substance, 

12 or material designated as critical by the 

13 Secretary under subsection (c); and 

14 ‘‘(ii) a critical material as determined 

15 by the Secretary of Energy under para16 graph (2)(A).’’; and 

17 (2) in subsection (c)(5), by adding at the end 

18 the following: 

19 ‘‘(C) INCLUSION OF CRITICAL MATE20 RIALS.—Not later than 45 days after the date 

21 on which the Secretary of Energy determines a 

22 non-fuel mineral, element, substance, or mate23 rial to be a critical material under subsection 

24 (a)(2)(A), the Secretary shall update the list of 
3 

•HR 8446 EH

1 critical minerals published under paragraph (3) 

2 to include such critical material.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 14, 

2024. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8446 

AN ACT 

To amend the Energy Act of 2020 to include critand for other purposes. ical materials in the definition of critical mineral,