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

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

774 

CAF 13-01206 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF ANNABELLA B.C. 

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

ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, 

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT; 

 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SANDRA L.C., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 1.) 

ALAN BIRNHOLZ, EAST AMHERST, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

JOSEPH T. JARZEMBEK, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

DAVID E. BLACKLEY, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, LOCKPORT.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Lisa Bloch

Rodwin, J.), entered June 5, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to Family

Court Act article 10. The order, among other things, adjudged that

respondent had neglected the subject child. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

without costs.

Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, respondent appeals from an order of

fact-finding and disposition entered on consent of the parties and the

Attorney for the Child determining that her daughter is a neglected

child (see Family Ct Act § 1051 [a]). In appeal No. 2, respondent

appeals from an order settling the record on appeal. Family Court

refused to include in the record on appeal the transcript of a

proceeding before a court attorney referee two months after the

court’s determination wherein respondent told the referee that she

consented to the order because she was coerced by her attorney to do

so. 

Addressing first the order in appeal No. 2, contrary to

respondent’s contention, the court properly refused to include the

transcript in the record on appeal in appeal No. 1 inasmuch as the

court’s determination in appeal No. 1 was not based upon that

information (see Balch v Balch [appeal No. 2], 193 AD2d 1080, 1080;

see also Matter of Cicardi v Cicardi, 263 AD2d 686, 686; see generally

Paul v Cooper [appeal No. 2], 100 AD3d 1550, 1551, lv denied 21 NY3d

855). Inasmuch as the order at issue in appeal No. 1 was entered upon

the consent of the parties, appeal No. 1 must be dismissed (see Matter

of Holly B. [Scott B.], 117 AD3d 1592, 1592; Matter of Cherilyn P., 
-2- 774 

CAF 13-01206 

192 AD2d 1084, 1084, lv denied 82 NY2d 652). 

Entered: June 12, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 282 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 282

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      October 21, 1993.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order, 
any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, to consider in the House 
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 281) making further continuing appropriations 
for the fiscal year 1994, and for other purposes. Debate on the joint resolution 
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final passage 
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 393 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 393

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        March 23, 1994.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 1804) to improve 
learning and teaching by providing a national framework for education reform; to 
promote the research, consensus building, and systemic changes needed to ensure 
equitable educational opportunities and high levels of educational achievement 
for all students; to provide a framework for reauthorization of all Federal 
education programs; to promote the development and adoption of a voluntary 
national system of skill standards and certifications; and for other purposes. 
All points of order against the conference report and against its consideration 
are waived. The conference report shall be considered as read.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### In the matter of JOHN MILES, Adm’r. of WM. T. SMITH, deceased.

In the settlement of administration accounts the Register acts under sec. 21 of Art 6» of the Constitution, and the appeal is to the Orphans’ Court, and not to the Superior Court. . , n

■ Appeal from the act and decree of the Register of wills for New Castle county, on the settlement of ah administration account.

The record showed a citation by the register to the appellant re*245quiring him to settle his administration account on the estate of Wm. T. Smith, deceased; that he appeared personally and by counsel, and at his request the register postponed the matter several times, until he at last neglected to appear altogether: whereupon, “ the register, having the vouchers and materials for settlement before him, proceeded to settle and pass the account, and charged him with the full amount of the debts due the deceased as returned and filed in the register’s office,” from which he' appealed.

The exceptions were 1st. That the acts and proceedings of the register were illegal and unconstitutional. 2d. That the account settled and decreed by the register is not the account of the administrator. 3d. That- the register did not carefully examine the particulars of the said account with the proof thereof, in the presence of the administrator. 4th. That he settled the account of his own motion, and it was not filed or furnished by the administrator. 5th. That the account was not settled according to law; and the proceeding was irregular and illegal. 6th. That the register charged the administrator with desperate debts, and did not allow him proper credits, &c. &c.

*Rogers,*for appellant.

*Gray*and *Rodney,*contra.

*Rogers,*for the appellant,

contended that the register could not of his own motion, state and settle an administration account without the presence of the administrator; but should compel the administrator by attachment and imprisonment to settle. *(Dig.*227, § 15; 8 *vol.*17.)

*Gray*and *Rodney,*contra,

contended that the register, having had the administrator before him with his vouchers and papers, had the power to settle the account though the administrator withdrew himself from the jurisdiction, and refused to complete the account; and that this proceeding being.under sec. 21, and not under sec. 22, of Art. 6, of the Constitution, the appeal was not to this court, even if there was error in that mode of settlement.

*The Court*

dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction; considering that in the matter of settling administration accounts where there was no adversary proceeding, no parties, and no “ litigation of a cause,” the proceeding was under sec. 21 of Art. 6, of the Constitution, and not under sec. 22; and that the appeal was by way of exceptions before the Orphans’ Court, and not to this court. (3 Harr. *Rep.*433, *Robinson*vs. Robinson.)

Appeal dismissed.
#### McGinnis v. GRAHAM CONTRACTING, INC.

No. 38886.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
# Official Journal C 132/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.132.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 132 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 555 May 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.132.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 132

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 555 May 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Court of Auditors |
| 2012/C 132/01 | Report on budgetary and financial management for the financial year 2011 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Court of Auditors

2012/C 132/01

Report on budgetary and financial management for the financial year 2011

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### Preston S. BROOKS, P. S. Brooks, Inc., etc., Petitioners, v. CITY OF WEST MIAMI, etc., Respondent.

No. 41144.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 22, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 246 So.2d 115.

CARLTON, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Roy L. Lawson, Relator, v. Honorable Raymond G. NATHAN, Circuit Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida in and for Dade County, Respondent.

No. 71-789.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 22, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Prohibition dismissed.
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 334

Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House for expenses

of investigations and studies by the Committee on Banking, Finance

and Urban Affairs in the second session of the One Hundred Third

Congress.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 1, 1994

Mr. GONZALEZ submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on House Administration

RESOLUTION

Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House

for expenses of investigations and studies by the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs in the second session of the One Hundred Third Congress.

1 Resolved, That for expenses of investigations and

2 studies by the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban

3 Affairs (hereinafter in this resolution referred to as the

4 ‘‘Committee’’), there shall be paid out of the contingent

5 fund of the House not more than $4,188,650.

6 SEC. 2. Payments under this resolution shall be made

7 on vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the
2

HRES 334 IH

1 chairman of the Committee, and approved by the Commit2 tee on House Administration.

3 SEC. 3. Amounts shall be available under this resolu4 tion for investigations and studies carried out during the

5 period beginning at noon on January 3, 1994, and ending

6 immediately before noon on January 3, 1995.

7 SEC. 4. Amounts made available under this resolution

8 shall be expended in accordance with regulations pre9 scribed by the Committee on House Administration.

Æ
# C_2020271EN.01004401.xml

| 17.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/44

---

Action brought on 17 June 2020 — Tubes Radiatori v EUIPO — Antrax It (Radiator for heating)

(Case T-380/20)

(2020/C 271/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Tubes Radiatori Srl (Resana, Italy) (represented by: S. Verea, K. Muraro, M. Balestriero and P. Menapace, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Antrax It Srl (Resana, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Design at issue: Community design No 169 370 - 0002 (Radiator for heating)

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 March 2020 in Case R 1275/2017-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | find and declare that Community design No 169 370 - 0002, owned by TUBES RADIATORI Srl, is valid in so far as it is new and has individual character; |
| --- | --- |

—

find and declare that Community design No 169 370 - 0002, owned by TUBES RADIATORI Srl, is valid in so far as it is new and has individual character;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 133 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 133

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        March 18, 1993.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration 
of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 64) setting forth the congressional 
budget for the United States Government for the fiscal years 1994, 1995, 1996, 
1997, and 1998. The concurrent resolution shall be considered as read for 
amendment under the five-minute rule. No amendment shall be in order except 
those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed and by the 
named proponent or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable 
for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment except as 
specified in this resolution. All points of order against the amendments printed 
in the report are waived. If more than one amendment in the nature of a 
substitute is adopted, only the last to be adopted shall be considered as 
finally adopted and reported to the House. After the conclusion of consideration 
of the concurrent resolution for amendment and a final period of general debate, 
which shall not exceed twenty minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget, the 
Committee shall rise and report the concurrent resolution to the House with such 
amendment as may have been finally adopted. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution and amendments thereto to 
final adoption without intervening motion except amendments offered by the 
chairman of the Committee on the Budget pursuant to section 305(a)(5) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to achieve mathematical consistency. The 
concurrent resolution shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question of its adoption.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### Dougherty *v.*Edwards.

The failure to entitle the declaration of the court, being only -ground of special demurrer at common law, is not cause of demurrer now.

A declaration, though not drawn in accordance with the precedents, containing the necessary commencement, statement and breach, *held*sufficient.

*Appeal from Phillips Circuit Court.*

Hon. James M. Hanks, Circuit Judge.

C. B. Moore and James C. Davis, for appellant.

The declaration, or statement, shows who is plaintiff as plainly as the forms laid down in *1 Chit., 868; 8 Chit., 18*and *13,*and in *5 Ark., 661. .*The ancient forms and terms of pleading are not necessary, so that the facts plainly appear in the pleading. *Gould’s Dig., ch. 113, sec. 60; 3 Chit., 1109-1111*and *notes.*Though brief and concise, the statement of the cause of action is amply sufficient. *3 Chit., sup.;*see *Roach v. Scogin, 8 Ark., 188;*&nd *Cravens, etal.,v. Milcham, 6 Ark., 815.*

Olendbnin, J.

This was an action of debt on a promissory note. The declaration is as follows:

“ State oe Arkansas, j gg

*County of Phillips.*Í

“John Dougherty demands of Charles A. Edwards money which he owes to and unjustly detains from him: For that on *85the 16th day of October, 1866, the defendant made his promissory note, now here to the court shown, and thereby promised, •seventy days after the date thereof, to pay to James 0. Ward, •or order, $520^0-, at the office of Gregory, Evans & Johnson, in Memphis, Tennessee; and the said Ward indorsed the said note, and delivered the said note, before any payment thereon, to the plaintiff, said indorsement being here to the court shown; whereby the defendant became liable to pay the said money to the plaintiff; yet he hath not paid thereof, to said plaintiff’s damages $550, and thereupon he brings his suit.”

To this declaration the defendant interposed a demurrer, assigning as special cause: 1st, said declaration is not entitled to the circuit court of Phillips county; 2d, said declaration charges that the defendant became liable to pay the said sum of money to the plaintiff, but does not show who is the plaintiff. The demurrer was sustained, and final judgment being rendered for the defendant, the plaintiff appealed.

The first cause assigned in the demurrer was only ground of special demurrer at common law, and nothing which was only cause of special demurrer at common law can now'be specially assigned as cause of demurrer. *Stone v.*Bennett, *et*al., 4 Ark., *73.*

We cannot see the force of the second cause assigned. The declaration, although not drawn in accordance with the established forms and precedents, yet contains the necessary commencement to show who is the plaintiff, the statement to show the contract, and the breach to show the non-payment, and, containing these essentials, was a sufficient declaration; and the circuit court, in sustaining a demurrer to it, therefore erred ; and for that reason the judgment of that court is reversed.
#### Charles Howard HUNSUCKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-222.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 5, 1971.

Appeal from Court of Record, Broward County; Robert W. Tyson, Jr., Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1



Subsidiaries of Borders Group, Inc.


SUBSIDIARY                          STATE OF INCORPORATION
----------                          ----------------------


BB Holdings, Inc.                           Michigan
Borders, Inc.                               Colorado
Borders Fulfillment, Inc.                   Delaware
Borders Management, LLC                     Delaware
Borders Online, LLC                         Delaware
Borders Online, Inc.                        Colorado
Borders Outlet, Inc.                        Colorado
Borders Properties, Inc.                    Delaware
WB Holdings, Inc.                           Michigan
Walden Book Company, Inc.                   Colorado
Waldenbooks Properties, Inc.                Delaware
Borders (UK) Limited
  formerly Books etc. Limited               U.K.
Borders New Zealand Limited                 New Zealand
Borders PTE. Limited                        Singapore
Borders Australia PTY, Limited              Australia
BGI (UK) Limited                            U.K.
BGP (UK) Limited                            U.K.
Borders Canada, Ltd.                        Canada
Evermatch Limited                           U.K.
Books Etc Properties Limited                U.K.
Meridian Books Limited                      U.K.
Borders Superstores (UK) Limited            U.K.
Charing Cross Properties Limited            U.K.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Marquesha Williams v. 16303 Imperial LLC

Appellate case number: 01-19-00914-CV

Trial court case number: 1143136

Trial court: County Civil Court at Law No. 1 of Harris County

On December 10, 2019, this Court granted appellant’s motion to stay and requested a 

response from appellee. Appellee filed a response on December 19, 2019. 

After consideration of the response, the Court withdraws the grant of appellant’s motion 

and withdraws the order staying the eviction. The motion to stay is denied.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Justice Richard Hightower 

Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: January 3, 2020
#### Shirley SMITH, Appellant, v. Lillian SMITH, as Executrix of the Estate of Sol Smith, Deceased, Appellee.

No. 66-960.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Oct. 17, 1967.

Louis Schwarzkopf and Harold Shapiro, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Whitman & Wolfe, for appellees.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of In re Estate of Freeland, Fla.1965, 182 So.2d 425, and Payne v. Payne, Fla.App.1967, 201 So.2d 590. See also Aldrich v, Aldrich, Fla.1964, 163 So.2d 276, 281.
<PAGE>

                            EXHIBIT 16.2



                      THOMAS J. HARRIS C.P.A.
                    3901 Stone Way North, Ste. 202
                          Seattle, WA 98103



March 17, 1999

Office of the Chief Accountant
Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Dear Sir/Madam:

We have read Item 8 of Part II included in the Form 10-KSB of Plenum
Communications, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1998 filed with the
Security and Exchange Commission, and are in agreement with the statements
contained therein.


Very truly yours,


THOMAS J. HARRIS C.P.A.



By:      /s/ THOMAS J. HARRIS C.P.A.
   --------------------------------------
(1)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-88805) pertaining to the Borders Group, Inc. 1998
Stock Option Plan,(2)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-79559) pertaining to the Borders Group, Inc.
Management Stock Purchase Plan, Borders Group, Inc. Stock Option Plan, Borders Group, Inc.
Employee Stock Purchase Plan, Borders Group, Inc. Director Stock Plan, Borders Group, Inc.
401(k) Plan, and Borders Group, Inc. Savings Plan for Employees Working in Puerto Rico,(3)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-114403) pertaining to the Borders Group, Inc. 2004
Long-Term Incentive Plan,(4)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-120367) pertaining to the Borders Group, Inc.
Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Plan,(5)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-134847) pertaining to the Borders Group, Inc. 401(k)
Plan,(6)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-159734) pertaining to the Employment Agreement
between Borders Group, Inc. and Ron Marshall, and(7)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-141863) pertaining to the registration of common
stock, warrants, subscription rights, debt securities, stock purchase contracts and stock
purchase units of Borders Group, Inc.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

                           GTE SOUTHWEST INCORPORATED
               Statement of the Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                   (Unaudited)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
(Dollars in Millions)                                                 Three Months Ended
                                                                         March 31, 1999
                                                                      ------------------
<S>                                                                         <C>    
Net earnings available for fixed charges:
  Income from continuing operations                                         $  53.8
  Add - Income taxes                                                           29.3
      - Fixed charges                                                          20.0
                                                                            -------
Adjusted earnings                                                           $ 103.1
                                                                            =======
Fixed charges:
  Interest expense                                                          $  19.1
  Portion of rent expense
      representing interest                                                     0.9
                                                                            -------
Adjusted fixed charges                                                      $  20.0
                                                                            =======

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                                             5.16
</TABLE>