alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[No. 14639.

Department Two.

April 24, 1918.]

#### Minna Domrese, *Appellant,*v. The City of Roslyn, *Respondent.**1*

Limitation of Actions—-Damaging Property for Public Use— Wrongful Diversion of Water by City—Action on Implied Contract. The riparian owner’s continuing right to take water lawfully appropriated being a right so far incident to the land as to be a part of the land itself, a right of action against a city for' wrongfully diverting the water for public purposes without making compensation is an action on an implied contract or liability, within Rem. Code, § 159, subd. 3, limiting the same to three years from the time when the right of action accrued.

Appeal' from a judgment of the superior court for Kittitas county, Taylor, J., entered May 9, 1917, upon sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, dismissing an action in tort.

Reversed.

*Kern & Henton,*for appellant.

*Harry L. Brown*and *E. E. Wager,*for respondent.

1

Reported in 172 Pac. 243.

Chadwick, J.

The facts in this case are partially stated in our opinion in the case of *Domrese v. Roslyn,*89 Wash. 106, 154 Pac. 140.

Plaintiff makes further allegation of fact that, before the waters of Cedar creek, or Domrese creek, as it is called in this case, were diverted in whole or in part, plaintiff had put a part of her lands to crop and had used the waters of the stream to irrigate them, that her lands are dry and arid, and that crops cannot be grown or matured thereon without the use of water. This action was brought to recover compensation for the diversion of the water and for the right of way for the pipe line. The court held upon demurrer that the action was barred by the statute of limitations.

*373A municipality has a right to take of the waters of a stream for the purpose of supplying its inhabitants with water for domestic and other uses. But, like any other public agency, it cannot do so without condemning and making compensation for the loss of the use of the appropriated waters or the extinguishment of the riparian rights, *in toto*or *pro tanto,*of the affected owners. Rem. Code, §§ 8005, 8010-8.

A right to continue to take water lawfully appropriated, or to have water follow its accustomed flow— the riparian right—is a valuable right of property, and is so far incident to the land that it has been held to be a part of the land itself. *Rigney v. Tacoma Light & Water Co.,*9 Wash. 576, 38 Pac. 147, 26 L. R. A. 425 ; *Judson v. Tide Water Lumber Co.,*51 Wash. 164, 98 Pac. 377; *Still v. Palouse Irr. & Power Co.,*64 Wash. 606, 117 Pac. 466.

This being so, the case falls squarely within the rule of *Aylmore v. Seattle,*100 Wash. 515, 171 Pac. 659; see, also, *Jacobs v. Seattle, 100*Wash. 524, 171 Pac. 662.

Upon the authority of these cases, the judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the cause remanded with instructions to overrule the demurrer and have further proceedings.

Ellis, C. J., Fullerton, Mount, and Holcomb, JJ., concur.
# C_2016191EN.01005302.xml

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/53

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 April 2016 — Hill and Others v Commission

(Case F-29/12) (1)

1

(2016/C 191/78)

Language of the case: French

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 133, 5/5/2012, p. 31.

1

---
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Percy Freedman, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Erie County,

February 23, 1966.

*Francis X. Murphy*for petitioners. *Irwin E. Ginsberg*for respondents.

William J. Regan, S.

This proceeding has been brought by Mona Freedman and Arthur Joseph Freedman, under section 124 of the Decedent Estate Law to compel apportionment of the estate taxes and expenses against Albert Freedman and Aaron Freedman. Both Albert Freedman and Aaron Freedman received property by virtue of decedent’s death outside of the intestate estate for distribution. An answer has been interposed by Albert and Aaron Freedman denying many of the allegations of petitioners, interposing other defenses and counterclaims and also demanding a jury trial in this proceeding.

Section 124 of the Decedent Estate Law specifically vests all questions regarding proceedings of tax apportionment in the *Surrogate*and is, without doubt, in the nature of an accounting proceeding and therefore equitable in nature. This section was enacted in 1930 and at that time created a new statutory right.

Under section 68 of the Surrogate’s Court Act, a right of trial by jury is permitted ‘ ‘ in any proceeding in which any controverted question of fact arises, of which any party has constitutional right of trial by jury ’ ’.

*240“ The right to trial by jury is a constitutional one preserved in those instances where it had heretofore existed in the Constitutions adopted in 1846 and 1894. The right of election was created by chapter 229 of the Laws of 1929 [Decedent Estate Law, § 18], applicable to persons dying after August 31, 1930, and rights created thereby are not therefore determinable by a jury trial as a matter of right.” *(Matter of Littman,*15 Misc 2d 430.) The reasoning of that case most assuredly applies to proceedings under section 124 of the Decedent Estate Law.

The court therefore finds that this proceeding is purely equitable and denies a trial by jury.
#### Severt B. Lendland v. Wesley L. Long.

No. 15,892.

Error from Gove district court; JACOB C. Ruppentpial, judge.

Opinion filed June 5, 1909.

Affirmed.

*John B. Ennis,*for the plaintiff in error.

*R. V. Chambers,*and *Burch & Litowitch,*for the defendant in error.

*Per Curiam:*

The principles upon which the district court decided this case are so well settled and so easy of application that, a formal opinion restating and further elucidating them is unnecessary. The defendant superseded his first answer by an entirely new one, in which he did nothing but defend. He asked for no affirmative relief whatever, but confined himself strictly to resisting judgment against him. The plaintiff’s tax title was based upon defective proceedings. He could not quiet that title; *799against the defendant without the aid of the statute of limitations, and he could not use the statute of limitations affirmatively to make out his cause of action. He did not seek to compel the defendant to redeem from the mortgage pleaded or be barred from redeeming, and until he does this, or the defendant moves aggressively, there can be occasion for adjudicating the mortgage lien or tax lien or claim for improvements. The plaintiff is left in possession, just as he desired to be, and can not be ousted until his rights in respect to the several matters mentioned are protected.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
##### 



Confidential Portions omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange
Commission. Bullet points denote omissions.
 SECOND AMENDING AGREEMENT
TO
AMENDED AND RESTATED MASTER CONTRACT MANUFACTURING SERVICES AGREEMENT
  inter alia,
      MONKSTOWN SYSTEM HOUSE
   1




---



##### 



Confidential Portions omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange
Commission. Bullet points denote omissions.
    rd th
  2




---



##### 



Confidential Portions omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange
Commission. Bullet points denote omissions.
  TERM AND ICR SCHEDULE AND PROCESS
   ICR
  i.
    
    ICR generated through Vertical Integration
transfers of PCBA and Enclosures to Flextronics (including PPV
and Transformation Cost savings) will be shared []
Flextronics and [] Nortel, whenever the transfer occurs;ii.
    
    []
 CALCULATION OF CAP FOR LAST TIME BUY
       3




---



##### 



Confidential Portions omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange
Commission. Bullet points denote omissions.
 FOREIGN CURRENCY CONVERSION
     MISCELLANEOUS
    Flextronics
 Flextronics Company
  4




---



##### 



Confidential Portions omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange
Commission. Bullet points denote omissions.
     NORTEL NETWORKS LIMITED
    
    FLEXTRONICS TELECOM SYSTEMS, LTD.By: /s/ J. Joel Hackney
    
    By: /s/ M. MarimuthuName: Joel Hackney
    
    Name: Manny MarimuthuTitle: Senior Vice-President,
    
    Title: DirectorGlobal Supply Chain and QualityDate: May 8, 2006
    
    Date: May 8, 2006
  5




---



##### 



Confidential Portions omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange
Commission. Bullet points denote omissions.
 SCHEDULE A
 EXHIBIT 3
 SUPPLIER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS MANUAL
 http://mynortelnetworks.com
  6
No. 45302.

#### Protests 17531-K, etc., of Chee Wo Tong (Seattle).

*529Opinion by

Evans, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel certain items were held entitled to free entry under paragraph 1669 and other items dutiable at 10 percent under paragraph 34 as drugs advanced, as claimed. *Oy Wo Tong*v. *United States*(C. D. 372) followed.
hapter 7 - Oregon Cultures

The Peor

References Cited



er Mound )
Mound
ing stick handle fror

tigdon’s Horse

tigdon’s Horse

the Gold Hill Site

‘old Hill Site

n the Gold Hill Sit 4
n th

fiddle Klamat

ity Ware potter







Rock ar

(



Table of Contents

Foreword ....
Preface aes
Acknowledgements
Table of Contents
List of Figures .

List of Tables..

Chapter 1 - Introduction
Time P'
Stratigra
Radiocar

Tvpolc
Typologi

Chapter 2 - Northern Great Bas
Ethnoegr

indscape

Connley ¢
Big M Site
Carlon Villa
Boulder Villa
Seven Mile
Far View Bt





List of Tables





ern Mountain



Chapter 4
# C_2014372EN.01001501.xml

| 20.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2014 — Hansestadt Lübeck v Commission

(Case T-461/12) (1)

1

((State aid - Airport charges - Lübeck Airport - Decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU - Article 107(1) TFEU - Manifest error of assessment - Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999))

2014/C 372/19

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hansestadt Lübeck (Germany) successor in title to Flughafen Lübeck GmbH (represented by: M. Núñez Müller, J. Dammann de Chapto and T. Becker, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 1012 final of 22 February 2012 on State aid No SA.27585 and No SA.31149 (2012/C) (ex NN/2012, ex CP 31/2009 and CP 162/2010) — Germany, in so far as that decision concerns the schedule of charges of Lübeck airport (Germany) adopted in 2006.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Annuls Commission Decision C(2012) 1012 final of 22 February 2012 on State aid No SA.27585 and No SA.31149 (2012/C) (ex NN/2012, ex CP 31/2009 and CP 162/2010) — Germany, in so far as that decision concerns the schedule relating to the airport charges for Lübeck airport adopted in 2006; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Annuls Commission Decision C(2012) 1012 final of 22 February 2012 on State aid No SA.27585 and No SA.31149 (2012/C) (ex NN/2012, ex CP 31/2009 and CP 162/2010) — Germany, in so far as that decision concerns the schedule relating to the airport charges for Lübeck airport adopted in 2006;

| 2) | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3) | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half of those incurred by Hansestadt Lübeck. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half of those incurred by Hansestadt Lübeck.

---

(1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 94 (Wednesday, May 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27547-27548]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9362]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP05-15-006]


Caledonia Energy Partners, L.L.C.; Notice of Compliance Filing

May 9, 2007.
    Take notice that on May 2, 2007, Caledonia Energy Partners, L.L.C.

[[Page 27548]]

(Caledonia) submitted a filing to comply with the April 27, 2007 order 
of the Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development--East of 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in Docket No. CP05-15-003.
    Caledonia states that copies of the filing were served on parties 
on the official service list in the above-captioned proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance 
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests 
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a 
protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the 
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu 
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons 
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies 
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e8aeadbaaba7868481868dbb9d9898879a9ca88e8d9a8bc68f879e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1b5d5e495854757772757e486e6b6b74696f5b7d7e6978357c746d">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Protest Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 23, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-9362 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 39119.

#### Protests 520110-G, etc., of Jaeger Co. et al. (New York).

*360Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Knitted wearing apparel the same as that involved in *United States*v. *International Clearing House*(24 C. C. P. A. 117, T. D. 48416) was held dutiable at 50 cents per pound and 50 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1114 as claimed.
Form of Supply Agreement



 Exhibit 10.II.D 
 

 
 SUPPLY AGREEMENT 
 FEED GRADE PHOSPHATES (MONOCAL) 
 THAILAND 
  

			
	DATE:	  	September 12, 2007
		
	SELLER:	  	 MOSAIC FERTILIZER LLC, d.b.a.
 MOSAIC FEED
INGREDIENTS
 8813 HWY 41 SOUTH
 RIVERVIEW, FL
33569

		
	BUYER:	  	 CARGILL, INCORPORATED
 % CARGILL SIAM LTD.

 18TH FLOOR SINDHORN TOWER III
 BANGKOK 10330 THAILAND

		
	PRODUCT:	  	MONOCALCIUM PHOSPHATE (MONOCAL)
		
	SPECIFICATIONS:	  	TYPICAL MOSAIC SPECIFICATIONS
		
	MARKET:	  	THAILAND
		
	PERIOD:	  	JUNE 1, 2007 THROUGH MAY 31, 2008
		
	PRICING:	  	TO BE NEGOTIATED AT TIME OF PURCHASE
		
	QUANTITY:	  	TO BE NEGOTIATED AT TIME OF PURCHASE
		
	DELIVERY:	  	TO BE NEGOTIATED AT TIME OF PURCHASE
		
	PAYMENT:	  	30 DAYS
		
	TERMS:	  	MOSAIC TERMS AND CONDITIONS TO APPLY. (ATTACHED)

  

									
	CARGILL, INCORPORATED	 		 	MOSAIC FERTILIZER, LLC
					
	By:	 	  
	 		 	By:	 	  

	Name:	 	  
	 		 	Name:	 	  

	Its:	 	  
	 		 	Its:
#### Rolls Razor, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6145.

Invoices dated London, England, March 6, 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., July 3, 1942, etc

Entry No. 19778, etc.

(Decided May 9, 1945)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*special attorney), ' for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement cover certain razors, etc., imported from England.

The uncontradicted evidence discloses the following facts:

1. That the. issues in the instant appeals are the same in all material espects as those involved in *United States*v. *Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc.,*decided on March 5, 1945, Suit No. 4481, C. A. D. 305; and that the record in the cited case has been incorporated herein.

2. That the appraised value of each item, less the addition made-by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cas.es, represents the statutory cost of production thereof.

I therefore find the proper basis of value for the involved merchandise to be the cost of production as defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry'because of advaneéa-by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Before the First Division,

April 10, 1943

No. 48188.

#### Protests 794864-G, etc., of Fish Schurman Corp. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1735 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1735

   To approve the transfer of Yellow Creek Port properties in Iuka, 
                              Mississippi.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 19, 2011

Mr. Cochran (for himself and Mr. Wicker) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To approve the transfer of Yellow Creek Port properties in Iuka, 
                              Mississippi.

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

SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF YELLOW CREEK PORT PROPERTIES.

    In accordance with section 4(k) of the Tennessee Valley Authority 
Act of 1933 (16 U.S.C. 831c(k)), Congress approves the conveyance by 
the Tennessee Valley Authority, on behalf of the United States, to the 
State of Mississippi of the Yellow Creek Port properties owned by the 
United States and in the custody of the Authority at Iuka, Mississippi, 
as of the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
No. 56742.

protests 178929-K, etc. (New York).

#### East West Merchandise Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2014194EN.01003703.xml

| 24.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/37

---

Order of the General Court of 7 May 2014 — Adler Mode v OHIM — Cluett, Peabody (Fairfield)

(Case T-139/12) (1)

1

2014/C 194/50

Language of the case: English

The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.

1

---
@ 0 Al 11 10

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

RODERICK WELLS

NO. 2024 KW 0166

MARCH 22, 2024

In Re: Roderick Wells, applying for supervisory writs, 19th

Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, 

No. 11- 12- 0703. 

BEFORE: MCCLENDON, HESTER, AND MILLER, JJ. 

WRIT DENIED ON THE SHOWING MADE. Relator failed to include

the district court' s ruling on his motion to amend and/ or modify

sentence, the Boykin transcript, pertinent district court

minutes, and any other portions of the district court record

that might support the claims raised in the writ application. 

Supplementation of this writ application and/ or an application

for rehearing will not be considered. See Uniform Rules of

Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Rules 2- 18. 7 & 4- 9. In the event

relator elects to file a new application with this court, he may

do so without the necessity of obtaining a return date. Any

future filing on this issue should include the entire contents

of this application, the missing items noted above, and a

copy

of this ruling. 

PMC

CHH

SMM

RT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

UTY CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
No. 54382.

#### Sale *&*Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 146872-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protest was dismissed.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

OCTOBER 10, 2001

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 98-9169

_______________

D. C. Docket No. 97-03266-1-CV-MHS

LAURA JEANNE JONES, 

WILLIAM LEONARD JONES,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

NORDICTRACK, INC., 

NORDICTRACK FITNESS AT HOME,

Defendants-Appellees.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

______________________________

(October 10, 2001)

Before TJOFLAT, BIRCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.
2

PER CURIAM:

In Jones v. NordicTrack, Inc., 236 F.3d 658 (11th Cir. 2000), we certified

the following question to the Supreme Court of Georgia: “Must a product be in use

at the time of injury for a defendant to be held liable for defective design under

theories of strict liability, negligence, or failure to warn?” Id. at 661. The

Supreme Court of Georgia responded as follows:

The answer is that in a products liability action for defective design the focus

is not on use of the product. Under Georgia law, the proper analysis in a

design defect case is to balance the risks inherent in a product design against

the utility of the product so designed. 

Jones v. NordicTrack, Inc., __ S.E.2d __ (2001). The Georgia Supreme Court thus

made clear that product “use” is not a necessary predicate to liability in design

defect cases, and the court further explained that the appropriate analysis instead

entails a weighing of the risk/utility factors enunciated in Banks v. ICI Americas,

450 S.E.2d 671 (1994). Id. at __. 

In granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of NordicTrack, Inc. and

NordicTrack Fitness at Home (“NordicTrack”), the district judge focused

exclusively on whether Plaintiff-Appellant Laura Jones was using the product at

the time of her accident. Jones v. Nordictrack, Inc., R1-17-3 (N.D. Ga. May 7,
3

1998). Finding that the product was not in “use” when Jones suffered her injury,

the district judge treated this determination as dispositive of Jones’s design defect

claims and declined to balance the risk/utility factors laid down in Banks. Id. at 6. 

Consequently, we REVERSE the district court’s grant of judgment on the

pleadings in favor of NordicTrack and REMAND with instructions that the district

court employ the Banks risk/utility balancing test in reconsideration of whether

NordicTrack’s motion should be granted.