alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

88 CA 16-00414 PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, NEMOYER, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

RICHARD WILLIAMSON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ANNE J. HODSON, AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT P. HODSON, D.D.S., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

TRONOLONE & SURGALLA, P.C., BUFFALO (RICHARD P. VALENTINE OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

ANSPACH MEEKS ELLENBERGER LLP, BUFFALO (DAVID M. STILLWELL OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John M. Curran, J.), entered December 14, 2015. The judgment was entered upon a jury verdict in defendant’s favor.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover for damages for injuries that he allegedly sustained as a result of decedent’s dental malpractice. On appeal from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict in defendant’s favor, plaintiff contends that Supreme Court erred in denying his motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401. We reject that contention. Given the conflicting testimony of the parties’ experts, we conclude that it cannot be said that there is “ ‘no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [persons] to the conclusion [advocated by the nonmovant] on the basis of the evidence presented at trial’ ” ( Szczerbiak v Pilat , 90 NY2d 553, 556, quoting Cohen v Hallmark Cards , 45 NY2d 493, 499).

Plaintiff further contends that the court erred in failing to grant his posttrial motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence and for a new trial. We conclude that plaintiff’s contention is not properly before us inasmuch as he abandoned that contention at oral argument of his motion ( see Webb v Salvation Army , 83 AD3d 1453, 1453; see generally Ciesinski v Town of Aurora , 202 AD2d 984, 985). Here, the record establishes that plaintiff’s counsel responded in the affirmative when the court at oral argument asked whether plaintiff was requesting that the court direct entry of judgment in his favor on the issue of negligence and was “not asking for a new trial on the question of-2- 88 CA 16-00414
negligence,” i.e., the appropriate relief when a jury verdict is set aside as against the weight of the evidence ( see Rogers v DiChristina
, 195 AD2d 1061, 1062, lv denied 82 NY2d 852). In any event, plaintiff’s contention lacks merit inasmuch as “ ‘the trial was a prototypical battle of the experts, and the jury’s acceptance of [defendant’s] case was a rational and fair interpretation of the evidence’ ” ( Schultz v Excelsior Orthopaedics, LLP [appeal No. 2], 129 AD3d 1606, 1607).

Entered: February 10, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
<PAGE> 32

                                                                  Exhibit 12


             AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
            Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                               (Unaudited)



                                                         Six Months Ended
                                                             June 30,
                                                        2004          2003
                                                      (dollars in thousands)

Earnings:
  Income before provision for income
    taxes                                             $332,954      $277,032
  Interest expense                                     284,561       279,841
  Implicit interest in rents                             8,990         9,034

Total earnings                                        $626,505      $565,907


Fixed charges:
  Interest expense                                    $284,561      $279,841
  Implicit interest in rents                             8,990         9,034

Total fixed charges                                   $293,551      $288,875


Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                        2.13          1.96
05/15/2012 14:22 5137911583 GEYGAN AND GEYGAN 

Geygan & Geygan, Ltd. 

Attorneys at Law 

8050 Hosbrook Road, Suite 107 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45236 

Telephone (513) 791-1673 

Facsimile (513) 791-1683 

Thof'llQs J. Geygan. Sr. (thomassr@goygan.com) 

Thomas J. Goygan, Jr. 

VIA FACSJMJLE (202-493-2251.) AND REGULAR MAIL 

June 15,2012 

Docket Management Facility 

Attn: Comments to Docket No. FAA-2012-0350 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE, Room W12-140 

Washington, D. C. 20590 

Re: fi'AA-2012"0350 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

PAGE 02/03 

My name is Thomas J. Gcygan, Sr. T can be reached at the above address, phone number and email address. 

Tam a private pilot with instrument rating with over 3,400 hours total flying time. I have a third 

class medical and have been flying since 1957. I currently fly approximately 75 hours per year 

for pleasure only. I own two aircraft and am rebuilding a third. I am about to retire from my Jaw 

practice and expect to fly more. 

I am writing in favor of the EAA/AOP Medical Exemption Request. The length oftime T have 

been flying and my flight hours are an indication of how careful a pilot I am. If I am suffering 

from a severe cold or any medical condition that would affect my ability to :fly safely, I will not 

fly. I also use the three strike rule and if I have three problems with myself, my car and my 

airplane on the way to the airport, I consider each to be a strike and will not fly. It has been my 

rule for years. 

I consider seminars and on~ line medical education courses necessary now and have taken them 

both through the internet as well as at the EAA convention in Oshkosh, and by CDs and by the 
05/15/2012 14:22 5137911583 

Docket Management Facility 

Attn: Comments to Docket ~o. FAA-2012-0350 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

June 15,2012 

Page2 

GEYGAN AND GEYGAN PAGE 03/03 

Amel'ican Bonanza Society Pilot Proficiency Course. I am fully aware that the pilot is the first to 

arrive at the scene of an accident and take more than the usual precautions to avoid accidents. 

I feel that if the Medical Exemption Request is adopted by the FAA, more people will fly safer 

and the economy will benefit and FAA costs will go down. Please carefully consider the 

Medical Exemption Request. 

Sincerely, 

2
#### E. J. RANSON & SONS, INC. v. Albert J. GUNTHER.

No. 5261.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Feb. 6, 1973.

*44Emile J. Ramirez, Trial Atty., David E. Hogan, Atty. of Counsel, Hogan & Ramirez, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.

Benjamin Hatfield, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

Before REDMANN, STOULIG and BOUTALL, JJ.

REDMANN, Judge.

Defendant appeals1 from a judgment casting him for $204.48 as the balance due for his mother’s funeral.

Defendant had excepted that the New Orleans city court was “without jurisdiction over the person of the defendant” because defendant “is domiciled” in Jefferson parish (where he was in fact served with process).

The trial court treated the exception as one to its jurisdiction and overruled it. No doubt the court had jurisdiction over the person of defendant, because he was personally served; C.C.P. art. 6. The court also had jurisdiction over the subject matter; Const. art. 7 § 91. Still the trial court should have ignored defendant’s erroneous reference to “jurisdiction” and treated the exception as one to the venue based on C.C.P. art. 42 subd. (1); Surridge v. Benanti, 261 La. 282, 259 So.2d 324 (1972).

The issue presented is one of venue, and the exceptor was not permitted to introduce evidence of domicile.

Despite the fact (evidenced on the merits) that defendant signed the contract showing his address as in New Orleans (at the address also shown as his mother’s last residence) on a date less than a year prior to suit, perhaps defendant could have presented evidence proving that his contract-stated address was not then his domicile. If this were proven, C.C.P. art. 71’s exception to art. 42 would not apply. Although there was no proffer under C.C.P. art. 1636, counsel advises us that he was prepared to offer such proof as well as proof that defendant presently remains domiciled in Jefferson.

The judgment is set aside and the matter is remanded to allow defendant to present evidence on the exception to venue. Costs are to await final disposition.

Remanded.

1

. The author notes that defendant’s appeal bond was filed more than ten days after oral refusal of new trial before judgment was signed (as recorded in the trial transcript). However, the bond was filed on the tenth day after the delay for applying for a new trial would ordinarily have expired. The author’s personal view is that, assuming the oral refusal was a refusal within the meaning of C.C.P. art. 5002, the appeal bond is nevertheless timely and the possible problem of this court’s jurisdiction is resolved in favor of jurisdiction, because the two periods of art. 5002 are stated as simple alternatives (unlike those of art. 2087 which, grammatically if not logically, could be interpreted to make an appeal from a district court untimely under our circumstances).
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 228 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

2141 Ferry Street in Anderson, California, as the ‘‘Norma Comnick 

Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 6, 2021 

Mr. LAMALFA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 2141 Ferry Street in Anderson, California, 

as the ‘‘Norma Comnick Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. NORMA COMNICK POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 2141 Ferry Street in Anderson, 

6 California, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Norma 

7 Comnick Post Office Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 228 IH

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Norma Comnick Post 

3 Office Building’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
RESTORE ACT Direct Component Multiyear Plan Matrix — Department of the Treasury 

Applicant Name: Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government

1. MULTIYEAR PLAN VERSION (INITIAL OR AMENDMENT NUMBER): Amendment No. 02 2a. DATE OF INITIAL MULTIYEAR PLAN ACCEPTANCE (mm/dd/yyyy): 11/13/2017 2b

3. CUMULATIVE DIRECT COMPONENT ALLOCATION AVAILABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION TO APPLICANT: $4,138,416.06 4. TOTAL ALLOCATIONS PLUS KNOWN FUNDS NOT YET 

5. Primary Direct Component EligibleActivity Further Described in Application

(Static Field)

6. Activity Title (Static Field) 7. Location (Static Field)

8. Estimated Total Funding Contributions For Proposed Activity(ies)(refer to Instructions) 

8a. Direct ComponentContribution

8b. Other RESTORE Act

Contribution

8c. Other Third Party

Contribution

8d. Total Contribution

Coastal flood protection andrelated infrastructure

North Lake Boudreaux Forced

Drainage/Flood Risk Reduction

Project

Riparian land east of LA Hwy 57

and northwest of LakeBoudreaux in Section 11, T18S‐

R17E, Terrebonne Parish,

Louisiana

$2,450,386.04 $2,558,039.96 $4,658,752.00 $9,667,178.00 

Coastal flood protection andrelated infrastructure

North Lake Boudreaux Forced

Drainage/Flood Risk Reduction

Project

Riparian land east of LA Hwy 57

and northwest of LakeBoudreaux in Section 11, T18S‐

R17E, Terrebonne Parish,

Louisiana

‐$2,450,386.04 ‐$2,558,039.96 ‐$4,658,752.00 ‐$9,667,178.00 

Workforce development and jobcreation

Fletcher Technical CommunityCollege Water

Management/CoastalRestoration Curriculum/CoastalRestoration and ProtectionInstitute

Fletcher Technical CommunityCollege Campus, 1407 Hwy 311,

Schriever, LA 70395

$250,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $250,000.00 

Coastal flood protection andrelated infrastructure

Bayou Little Caillou Flood Risk

Reduction System (Pump

Station, Conveyance Channeland Access Road)

(See Map) $2,685,525.00 $0.00 $9,189,307.00 $11,874,832.00 

Infrastructure projects benefittingthe economy or ecological

resources, including port

infrastructure

Hollywood Road ExtensionBridge Across Bayou Black

90° 45’ 46.08” W and 29° 34’

22.49” N (See Maps)

$1,177,891.00 $0.00 $787,439.00 $1,965,330.00 

$0.00$0.00
$0.00

$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00

12. ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDING CONTRIBUTIONS FOR ACTIVITY(IES) (refer to

Instructions) $4,113,416.00 $0.00 $9,976,746.00 $14,090,162.00

Pl

es

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 1505‐0250

review instructions, search existing data resources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information, should be directed to the Department of the Treasury, Office of Gulf Coast Restor




 

Vicinity Map of Proposed Hollywood Rd. Extension Bridge located in Terrebonne Parish 

Location Map of Proposed Hollywood Rd. Extension Bridge over Bayou Black 

(90° 45’ 46.08” W / 29° 34’ 22.49” N)
#### Linda Ruth OLDAKER, Petitioner, v. Larry Dale OLDAKER, Respondent.

No. 42770.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 17, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 263 So.2d 250.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Continental  Information  Systems Corporation as of and for the six months ended
November 30, 1997.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                           4,771
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,988
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (79)
<INVENTORY>                                      6,774
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,454
<PP&E>                                          11,857
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,011)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  39,913
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,235
<BONDS>                                          1,315
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            71
<OTHER-SE>                                      34,292
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    39,913
<SALES>                                          7,539
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,813
<CGS>                                            6,424
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,114
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,595
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     9
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 321
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (226)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (86)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (140)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (140)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 15

Cotton States Life Insurance Company, Inc.
Atlanta, Georgia

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Re: Registration Statement No. 2-39729 on Form S-8

With respect to the subject registration statement, we acknowledge our awareness
of the use therein of our report dated August 6, 2002, related to our review of
interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436 (c) under the Securities Act of 1933, our report dated
August 6, 2002 related to our review of interim financial information is not
considered part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an
accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning
of section 7 and 11 of the Act.



/S/ KPMG LLP


Atlanta, Georgia
August 6, 2002


                                       20
#### Michael Lenchyshyn et al., Respondents, v Pelko Electric, Inc., et al., Appellants.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[721 NYS2d 845]

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Same opinion by Kehoe, J., as in *Lenchyshyn v Pelko Elec.*(281 AD2d 42 [decided herewith]). Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.
From: Jennifer P. Hughes <JHughes@hobbsstraus.com> 

Sent: Monday, September 16, 2019 1:03 PM 

To: Treasury Tribal Consultation <TRIBAL.CONSULT@treasury.gov>

Subject: Oglala Sioux Tribe: Comment to TTAC 

The following is a comment to the Treasury Tribal Advisory Committee from the Oglala Sioux 

Tribe: 

Our Tribe has been growing increasingly concerned about the future of the Internal 

Revenue Service’s (IRS) Office of Indian Tribal Governments (ITG) as IRS continues to 

downsize and reorganize. Our concern arises out of the cutbacks in ITG staffing, because 

the IRS needs to retain and hire staff for ITG in order to maintain a staff presence in 

locations that are accessible to Tribes. 

The Tribe has heard reports of the long-term plans to consolidate IRS offices into 

hubs. Our Tribe urges the IRS to maintain and grow offices that are near Indian Country so 

that our Tribe and Tribes like ours can easily access the offices and IRS staff, particularly 

the technical assistance made available through ITG. We have limited resources and 

cannot travel to far away offices when we are seeking ITG’s technical assistance. 

Jennifer P. Hughes, Partner

T 202.822.8282 | F 202.296.8834

HOBBS STRAUS DEAN & WALKER, LLP

1899 L Street NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20036

HOBBSSTRAUS.COM

Hobbs, Straus, Dean and Walker, LLP. Confidentiality Statement

This message is intended only for the use of the individuals to which this e-mail is addressed, and may contain 

information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. If you are not the 

intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this 

communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately 

and delete this e-mail from both your "mailbox" and your "trash." Thank you.
#### Willie HAMPTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-924.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 9, 1977.

*1102Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Henry Prettyman, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert L. Bogen, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See *State v. Heath,*343 So.2d 13 (Fla.1977).

ANSTEAD and LETTS, JJ., concur.

DAUKSCH, J., concurs specially, with opinion.

DAUKSCH, Judge,

concurring specially:

This appeal involves the question presented in *Pace v. State,*350 So.2d 1075 (Fla. 4th DCA, Opinion filed June 24, 1977), in which I dissented. See also dissent upon denial of rehearing, Opinion filed October 11, 1977. The rule is now established that the trial court may impose the restriction discussed in *Pace,*supra. Therefore, I concur in the result here but do not recede from my opinion in that dissent.
Proposed IFC Investment in COFCO International Limited for the Nidera-COFCO 

Project and the Noble-COFCO Project

(World Region)

September 25, 2014 

The United States thanks IFC staff for their detailed bilateral engagement us on this project. 

However, the United States would like to stress at the outset that this project does not strike us a 

good use of resources and the United States strongly encourages IFC to be more selective in 

determining when to finance major corporate operations.

The entities involved are all large and well capitalized, and there is no evidence that donor

financing is needed to facilitate this transaction, especially as IFC is providing only $140

million in what is ultimately a $2.8 billion operation.

In addition to the lack of clear financial additionality, the United States has major questions 

about the potential for this operation to have any meaningful impact on development objectives, 

such as support for poor or smallholder farmers. While the project document suggests that this

investment offers potential benefits to global food security by expanding storage and

processing globally, no persuasive argumentation is provided to suggest that this will

improve food security for poor or low income families. In this context, the United States would 

ask IFC management to clarify how it will calculate the indicator for millions of people fed 

under this program, and whether there is any way to discern whether this includes the poorest.

The project also poses significant environmental risks associated with crop production in

ecologically sensitive areas. As one benefit of IFC engagement should be its ability to

positively influence environmental management, the United States urges the IFC to closely 

monitor this investment for any potential environmental and social concerns.

In sum, the United States is very skeptical that this project will in any way advance the World 

Bank Group’s twin corporate goals: eliminating the number of absolute poor and supporting

inclusive growth, and wish to be recorded as opposing this investment.
#### Warren DUNBAR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-385.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 20, 1972.

Walter R. Talley, Public Defender, and Edwin T. Mulock, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and David Luther Woodward, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant did not file a motion for new trial in the lower court. The only question *46on appeal involves the sufficiency of the evidence.

The judgment is affirmed on authority of State v. Wright, Fla.1969, 224 So.2d 300.

Affirmed.

PIERCE, C. J., and LILES and MANN, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk April 1, 2013

p0325 

# Order

April 1, 2013

146248

JENNIFER JAVORSKY,

Petitioner

- Appellant,

v SC: 146248

COA: 308443

State Tenure Comm: 10

- 000045

HURON VALLEY SCHOOLS,

Respondent

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 18, 2012

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.