alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
33648.

#### HAZLIP v. MORRIS et al.

Marshall, Justice.

This land line dispute was resolved against the appellant by a jury verdict and judgment in his action to enjoin the defendants’ interference with his possession of property to which he allegedly had fee simple, record title. The errors enumerated — denial of the motions for directed verdict, for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and, alternatively, for a new trial — raise the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence to authorize the verdict. Enumeration 2 argues the weight of the evidence; this court considers only its sufficiency. *Ridley v. State,*236 Ga. 147, 149 (1) (223 SE2d 131) (1976). We affirm.

From a common grantor, the parties were devised two adjoining tracts of land, each being described by the will by bounds and as being "87 1/2 acres, more or less.” The dividing line, which is the issue in the case, was described as "the center of a turn road.” This is a devise of land by the tract and not by the acre. See *Hancock v. Nashville Invest. Co.,*128 Ga. App. 58 (1) (195 SE2d 674) (1973) and cits. "Where the boundaries of lands devised by a will are fixed, and this fact is patent upon the face of the will itself, but the description of the land comprised within those boundaries is ambiguous, parol testimony is admissible to adjust the description to the boundaries so fixed, but not for the purpose of changing the boundaries.” *Napier v. Little,*137 Ga. 242 (1a) (73 SE 3) (1911). "Traditionary evidence as to ancient boundaries and landmarks shall be admissible in evidence, the weight to *8be determined by the jury according to the source whence it comes.” Code § 38-313.

Submitted May 26, 1978

Decided September 5, 1978.

*Charles C. Brooks,*for appellant.

*J. Laddie Boatright,*for appellees.

The jury’s finding of the common boundary to be the land lot line was authorized by testimony of defendants’ witnesses to the effect that the land lot line and the "turn road,” or "turn row,” were identical. Although the plaintiff contends that the line found by the jury gives him less than the 87 1/2 acres devised in the will (although we have held hereinabove that the devise was by the tract and not by the acre), he testified that his own survey of the area south of the land lot line showed a total of an even 87 acres, or within one half acre of the devised acreage. Although the evidence was conflicting as to the location of the property line in dispute, the evidence authorized the jury to find in accordance with the defendant’s contentions; therefore none of the rulings enumerated as error was erroneous. See *Anthony v. Garrett,*236 Ga. 485 (7) (224 SE2d 347) (1976).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### John L. GOHMANN, Movant, v. KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION, Respondent.

No. 98-SC-974-KB.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

June 17, 1999.

ORDER GRANTING REINSTATEMENT TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW

John L. Gohmann of Lexington, Kentucky, was suspended from the practice of law by Order of this Court entered on May 28, 1998, for non-payment of dues to the Kentucky Bar Association, pursuant to SCR 3.050.

Gohmann filed an application for reinstatement to the practice of law in this Commonwealth pursuant to SCR 3.510 and complied with the requirements of the rules regarding reinstatement.

The Board of Governors of the Kentucky Bar Association recommended that the application for reinstatement be granted. We concur with the recommendation of the Board of Governors.

*506IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that John L. Gohmann be and is hereby reinstated to the practice of law.

All concur.

Entered: June 17,1999.

/s/Joseph E. Lambert Chief Justice
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1548 

To extend the National Flood Insurance Program until December 31, 2011. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To extend the National Flood Insurance Program until 

December 31, 2011. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Flood Insur5 ance Program Extension Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE 

7 PROGRAM. 

8 (a) PROGRAM EXTENSION.—Section 1319 of the Na9 tional Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4026) is 

10 amended by striking ‘‘September 30, 2011’’ and inserting 

11 ‘‘December 31, 2011’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1548 IS

1 (b) FINANCING.—Section 1309(a) of the National 

2 Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)) is 

3 amended by striking ‘‘September 30, 2011’’ and inserting 

4 ‘‘December 31, 2011’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2013009EN.01003202.xml

| 12.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/32

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Prešov (Slovakia) lodged on 29 October 2012 — Peter Macinský, Eva Macinská v Getfin s.r.o., Financreal s.r.o.

(Case C-482/12)

2013/C 9/54

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Referring court

Okresný súd Prešov

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Peter Macinský, Eva Macinská

Applicants:

Defendants: Getfin s.r.o., Financreal s.r.o.

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

| 1. | Is Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (‘Directive 93/13/EEC’) to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as Paragraph 151j(1) of the Občianský zákonník (Civil Code) in conjunction with the other provisions of legislation at issue in the present case, which enables a creditor to enforce the fulfilment of unfair contract terms by enforcing a lien by the sale of immovable property despite the objections of the consumer and a dispute regarding the matter and without an assessment of the contract terms by a court or other independent tribunal ? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (‘Directive 93/13/EEC’) to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as Paragraph 151j(1) of the Občianský zákonník (Civil Code) in conjunction with the other provisions of legislation at issue in the present case, which enables a creditor to enforce the fulfilment of unfair contract terms by enforcing a lien by the sale of immovable property despite the objections of the consumer and a dispute regarding the matter and without an assessment of the contract terms by a court or other independent tribunal ?

1

---

(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

1

---
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsEstimating a Large Phased Array Antenna Radiation Pattern by Computer Electromagnetic SimulationThe design of a conformal antenna for use on UAV's (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) and other aircraft can be enhanced with computational electromagnetic modeling to determine the expected radiation patterns of the antenna when mounted on the aircraft. However, detailed simulation of the antenna structure and the aircraft together requires significant computational resources and time which may not be available. This paper details several methods for estimating the radiation pattern of a 50 by 50-element patch antenna. The Conformal Lightweight Antenna Structures for Aeronautical Communication Technologies (CLASACT) Program aims to build and test a 14.25 gigaherz (Ku-band) conformal antenna on a NASA-owned UAV. The antenna is intended for satellite communications and will enable communication between a ground station and a UAV when the separation distance is too great for line-of-sight communication. It is estimated that a 2  degree beamwidth will be necessary, requiring a 50 by 50 array of patch elements. The narrow beamwidth requirement, together with an element spacing of 0.6 lambda means that the array length will be 30 wavelengths, electrically very large. Three methods of varying complexity are described for estimating the total far-field radiation pattern. The results are shown for each method in the form of a normalized power pattern.Document ID20180007920Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsMackenzie, Anne I.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredNovember 29, 2018Publication DateOctober 1, 2018Subject CategoryCommunications And RadarReport/Patent NumberL-20970NASA/TM-2018-220094NF1676L-31484Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 533127.02.17.07.05Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20180007920.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1473 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1473

  To amend Public Law 99-548 to provide for the implementation of the 
 multispecies habitat conservation plan for the Virgin River, Nevada, 
and to extend the authority to purchase certain parcels of public land.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 2, 2011

  Mr. Heller introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend Public Law 99-548 to provide for the implementation of the 
 multispecies habitat conservation plan for the Virgin River, Nevada, 
and to extend the authority to purchase certain parcels of public land.

    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 ``Mesquite Land Conveyances Act of 
2011''.

SEC. 2. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE VIRGIN RIVER MULTISPECIES HABITAT 
              CONSERVATION PLAN.

    Section 3(d)(3)(B) of Public Law 99-548 (100 Stat. 3061, 116 Stat. 
2018) is amended by inserting ``and implementation'' after 
``development''.

SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF PURCHASE AUTHORITY AND WITHDRAWALS.

    Section 3 of Public Law 99-548 (100 Stat. 3061, 113 Stat. 1501A-
166) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (e)--
                    (A) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``For a period 
                of 12 years after the date of the enactment of this 
                Act'' and inserting ``Until November 29, 2021'';
                    (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``Not later than 
                10 years after the date of the enactment of this 
                subsection'' and inserting ``Not later than November 
                29, 2021''; and
                    (C) in paragraph (5), by striking ``the date that 
                is 12 years after the date of the enactment of this 
                subsection'' and inserting ``November 29, 2021''; and
            (2) in subsection (f)(3), by striking ``the date that is 12 
        years after the date of the enactment of this subsection'' and 
        inserting ``November 29, 2021''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1349 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1349

   To amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to clarify the 
 effective date of policies covering properties affected by floods in 
                               progress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 12, 2011

  Mr. Johanns introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
    referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to clarify the 
 effective date of policies covering properties affected by floods in 
                               progress.

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

SECTION 1. EFFECTIVE DATE OF POLICIES COVERING PROPERTIES AFFECTED BY 
              FLOODS IN PROGRESS.

    Paragraph (1) of section 1306(c) of the National Flood Insurance 
Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4013(c)) is amended by adding after the period 
at the end the following: ``With respect to any flood that has 
commenced or is in progress before the expiration of such 30-day 
period, such flood insurance coverage for a property shall take effect 
upon the expiration of such 30-day period and shall cover damage to 
such property occurring after the expiration of such period that 
results from such flood, but only if the property has not suffered 
damage or loss as a result of such flood before the expiration of such 
30-day period.''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 74-752.

#### Russell *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# C_2017006EN.01003701.xml

| 9.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/37

---

Order of the General Court of 9 November 2016 — Biofa v Commission

(Case T-746/15) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - Plant protection products - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2069 - Approval of the basic substance sodium hydrogen carbonate - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))

(2017/C 006/46)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Biofa AG (Münsingen, Germany) (represented by: C. Stallberg and S. Knoblich, and subsequently by C. Stallberg, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Ondrůšek, G. von Rintelen and F. Moro, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2069 of 17 November 2015 approving the basic substance sodium hydrogen carbonate in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2015 L 301, p. 42).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no need to adjudicate on the application to intervene of the Kingdom of Denmark. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to adjudicate on the application to intervene of the Kingdom of Denmark.

| 3. | Biofa AG shall pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Biofa AG shall pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

| 4. | The Kingdom of Denmark shall bear its own costs relating to the application to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Kingdom of Denmark shall bear its own costs relating to the application to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.

1

---
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: StarNet Insurance Company v. RiceTec, Inc.

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 8

- 00 536

- CV

Trial court case number: 94416

- CV

Trial court: 239th District Court of Br a zor i a County, Texas

S t arNet Insurance Co mpany filed a petition for permissive appeal of the interlocutory “Order granting Plaintiff RiceTec, Inc.’s Amended Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment on the Duty to Defend and denying StarNet’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the Duty to Defend.” T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 28.3(a). This Court’s Order granted StarNet’s unoppo sed motion to extend the time to file its petition and requested a response. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 28.3(d) , (f), (j)

. Ricetec filed a response s t at ing that it is un opposed to the petition and, if granted, it will file a brief on the merits

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 28.3(f).

The trial court’s interlocutory order identified a controlling question of law that may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation and granted permission to appeal. See T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN

. § 51.014(d) (Wes t 2014); see also T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 168. A ccordingly, a fter reviewing t he petition , the Court GRANT S the petition

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 28.3(e)

, (j) , (k)

. S t arNet is deemed to have filed a notice of appeal as of the date of this O rder , this appeal is governed by the rules for accelerated appeals , and a separate notice of appeal need not be filed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.1(b), 28.3(k). The appellate records are due within 10 days of the date of this order

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 35.1(b). The Clerk of th is Court is instructed to file a copy of this order with the distr i ct clerk. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 28.3(k).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: __

/s/ Justice Evelyn V. Keyes

_______ x Acting for the Court Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, L andau

. Date: __ March 14, 2019

____
March 3, 1942

No. 46994.

#### Protests 982407-G, etc. of Benj. Wolf Co., Inc.

Government’s motion for rehearing denied.
No. 96-5624.

#### Morgart *v.*Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board of Pennsylvania et al.

Commw. Ct. Pa. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### KAMOSKY et al. v. SCRANTON BEVERAGE CO., Inc., et al.

Civ. A. No. 3109.

United States District Court M. D. Pennsylvania.

Dec. 15, 1948.

Henry M. Biglan, of Edwards & Biglan, all of Scranton, Pa., for plaintiffs.

*272James W. Scanlon, of Scranton, Pa., for Scranton Beverage Co., Inc.

Walter W. Harris, of O’Malley, Harris, Harris & Warren, all of Scranton, Pa., for The Lion, Inc.

C. H. Welles, 3rd, of Welles, Mackie, Mumford & Law, all of Scranton, Pa., for Owens-Illinois Glass Co.

WATSON, Chief Judge.

This is a suit brought by the Plaintiffs to recover damages for personal injuries sustained as a result of the explosion of a bottle of beer alleged to have been caused by reason of the negligence of the three Defendants, or one or more of them, or by reason of a breach of warranty of fitness for purpose.

A Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for want of jurisdiction was filed by the Defendants. The Plaintiffs’ Complaint states that the Plaintiffs are citizens of Pennsylvania, and that the Defendants, The Scranton Beverage Co., Inc., and The Lion, Inc., are corporations organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and that the Defendant, Owens-Illinois Glass Company is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Ohio.

The rule as to diversity of citizenship as a basis for Federal Jurisdiction, as stated by this Court, in Huester et al. v. Gilmour et al., D.C.1936, 13 F.Supp. 630, 631, quoting from Osthaus v. Button et al., 3 Cir., 1934, 70 F.2d 392, is: “Federal courts do not have jurisdiction on the ground of diversity of citizenship unless that diversity exists between all the plaintiffs, on the one hand, and all the defendants, on the other, at the time suit is instituted.” In Levering & Garrigues Co. et al. v. Morrin et al., 2 Cir., 1932, 61 F.2d 115, 121, the Court said; inter alia, speaking of this rule: “The same rule is equally applicable where a plaintiff sues joint and several tort-feasors.”

This Court dismisses actions for want of jurisdiction with reluctance, but counsel must realize that to proceed and determine the merits in an action over which the law does not give to the Federal Court jurisdiction would only result in loss and disappointment to the Plaintiff and no benefit to any party.

Since there was not diversity of citizenship between the Plaintiffs and all of the Defendants, this Court is without jurisdiction, and, in the present state of the record, the action must be dismissed. The Plaintiffs without doubt should have sought by some procedure to discontinue this action against The Scranton Beverage Co-., Inc., and The Lion, Incorporated, and proceed against the other Defendant, Owens-Illinois Glass Company.

The Motion to Dismiss will be granted, and this action will stand dismissed unless within seven days from entry of this order the Plaintiffs make application to discontinue this action as against The Scranton Beverage Co., Inc., and The Lion, Incorporated.-
Exhibit 4.25.4  APPENDIX NO. 3 to Agency Agreement No.                dt. 23
February 2006  Operators Agency Report Under
Contract No.                  
dt. for                             
month (reporting period) of  Form 1.
Operators Report on Telecommunications agreements entered into with Users
during the Reporting Period pursuant to Paragraph 2.1.2. of the Agreement and
Agency agreements with  Associated
operators in the reporting period in accordance with para. 2.1.1. of this
Agreement.  Number of agreements
  entered into in the 
  Reporting Period
  
  Branch 1
  
  Branch 2
  
  Branch 31
  
  With Associated operators in
  accordance with Form 1 (Appendix 1)2.
  
  With Associated operators in
  accordance with Form 2 (Appendix 1)3.
  
  With Users  Form 2.
List of Associated Operators with whom agency agreements have been entered into
during the Reporting period pursuant to para. 2.1.1.of the
Agreement.  Ref. 
  No.
  
  Associated Operators trade
  name
  
  Agreement
  form
  
  Dateof entry
  
  Numberof 
  agreement  Form 3.
Number of agreements entered into during the Reporting Period pursuant to para.
2.1.1.  and 2.1.2.of the
Agreement  Agreements entered into 
  during Reporting Period
  
  Total entered into 
  during Reporting 
  Period
  
  Fee due for agreements
  entered into, in RUR
  
  Total amount, 
  in RUR, net 
  of VATWith
  UsersWith Associated operators in accordance with
  Form 1 (Appendix 1)With Associated operators in accordance with
  Form 2 (Appendix 2)  Operators
fee is RUR                                                 net of VAT VAT
amount @ 18% is RUR                                                 
..


Total Operators fee is RUR                                                 
including VAT  Rostelecom:
  General Director
  OAO RostelecomD.Ye.
  Yerokhin200  
  Seal here
  
  Operator:General Director 
  OJSC Sibirtelecom:
                                    A.I.
  Nikulin 
                                                  2006
  Seal here