alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BOYNE CITY *v.*PINE SHORES REALTY CO.

1. Judgment — ^Default—Setting Aside — Failure to Attend Summons.

Motion to sot aside default and judgment against corporation and individual directors was properly denied, where defendants’ failure to attend command of summons is wholly unexeused, although one of defendants, whose funds have been garnisheed, may have had meritorious defense.

2. Same — Excusing Failure to Attend Summons.

That defendant director relied upon some officer or agent of defendant corporation to see that he would be represented does not excuse his failure to attend command of summons.

Appeal from Charlevoix; Doty (Frank L.), J., presiding.

Submitted January 13, 1932.

(Docket No. 126, Calendar No. 35,860.)

Decided March 2, 1932.

*290Assumpsit by First National Bank of Boyne City against Pine Shores Realty Company, a Michigan corporation, and its director^ on two promissory notes. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

*E. A. Buegsegger,*for plaintiff.

*Cornelius Hoffius*and *Dorr Kuieema,*for defendants.

Clark, C. J.

The declaration, filed June 19, 1930, is in assumpsit on two promissory notes made by defendant corporation in 1929, and indorsed by certain of the individual defendants, who were directors. Liability against the individual defendants as directors is asserted also because of the statutory liability for failure to file annual reports for 1928 and 1929, 2 Comp. Laws 1929, §§ 10127, 10128.

Summons was served duly and personally on the defendants.

Default of all defendants was regularly entered on August 23, 1930. Judgment against the defendants followed on October 27,1930.

Plaintiff brought garnishment upon the judgment, and, on January 16, 1931, the writ was served on Grand Rapids National Bank, which disclosed indebtedness to N. R. White, one of the principal defendants.

On January 17, 1931, N. R. (Rugee) White and other of the individual principal defendants filed motion to set aside the judgment, and, as they also prayed leave to answer and to make proof, the motion is regarded as one to set aside default and judgment. Showing of meritorious defense was attempted and, the showing in behalf of N. R. White, whose funds were caught by the garnishment, ap*291pears to have some merit. But the neglect of the defendants in failing to attend the command of the summons remains wholly unexcused. No neglect of an attorney is shown. In law and in fact it remains defendants’ own pure neglect, and this is true although it may be that defendant White relied upon some officer or agent of the defendant corporation to see that he “would be represented.” *Huddleston*v. *Charles Amos & Co.,*180 Mich. 253; *Kowalsky*v. *Wayne Circuit Judge,*221 Mich. 457; 34 C. J. p. 305.

Affirmed.

McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1039

To require the use of child restraint systems on commercial aircraft.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 27 (legislative day, APRIL 19), 1993

Mr. BOND introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to

the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To require the use of child restraint systems on commercial

aircraft.

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

3 SECTION 1. CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS ON COMMERCIAL

4 AIRCRAFT.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 601 of the Federal Avia6 tion Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. App. 1421) is amended by

7 adding at the end the following new subsection:

8 ‘‘(g) CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS.—Not later than

9 90 days after the date of enactment of this subsection,

10 the Administrator shall issue regulations requiring the use

11 of child safety restraint systems approved by the Adminis-
2

•S 1039 IS

1 trator on air carriers providing interstate air transpor2 tation, intrastate air transportation, and overseas air

3 transportation. Such regulations shall establish age or

4 weight limits for children who are to use such systems.’’.

5 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of con6 tents contained in the first section of such Act is amended

7 by inserting at the end of the matter relating to section

8 601 the following new item:

‘‘(g) Child restraint systems on commercial aircraft.’’.

9 SEC. 2. INTERNATIONAL STANDARD.

10 It is the sense of the Congress that the United States

11 representative to the International Civil Aviation Organi12 zation should seek an international standard to require

13 that passengers on a civil aviation aircraft be restrained

14 on takeoff and landing and when directed by the captain

15 of such aircraft.

Æ
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on June 7, 2018, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Southwest Research Institute—Cooperative Research Group on Particle Sensor Performance and Durability (“PSPD-II”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Faurecia Systemes D'Echappement (FSE), Nanterre, FRANCE, has been added as a party to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and PSPD-II intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On March 15, 2017, PSPD-II filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on April 14, 2017 (82 FR 18012).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on February 6, 2018. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on March 19, 2018 (83 FR 12025).                

Suzanne Morris,

Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics Unit, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2018-14584 Filed 7-6-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
T HE U NITED B UILDING

77 W EST W ACKER D RIVE

C HICAGO

, IL 60601 D AN W EISS

M ANAGING D IRECTOR

- I NTERNATIONAL A FFAIRS AND R EGULATORY

P HONE /F AX : ( 312) 997

-

7573

DAN

. WEISS @ UNITED

. COM

August 20 , 2012

Mr. Paul L. Gretch

Director

Office of International Aviation

Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Joint Application o f GoJet, Mesa, SkyWest and Shuttle America

( Avianca share share)

Docket DOT

- OST

- 2012

- 0139

Dear M r. Gretch :

United has completed its poll of carrier representati v es i n the attached service list. No carrier

objects to the ap prov al of GoJet, Mesa, Shuttle America and SkyWest ’s application to code share

with Avianca . United asks that th e requested authorit ies be awarded promptly so that the carriers

can secure fore ign authority, make final operating plans and begin marketing the se services

.

Respectful ly submitted

,

D an W eiss

Managing Director

– International Affairs and

Regulat ory

UNITED AIR LINES, INC.

cc: Esta Rosenberg

Robert Finamore

Ri chard D. Mathias

David M. EndersbeeCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the foregoing document on all

persons named below by causi ng a copy to be sent via email.

msi nick@ssd.com (Alaska)

francis.heil@aa.com

robert.wirick@aa.com

rsilverberg@sgbdc.com (ABX/ Air Transport Intl.) jrichardson@johnlrichardson.com (Amerijet) jcanny@amerijet.com

stephen.lachter@lachterlaw.com (ASTAR) rpommer@atlasair.com

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

charters@evergreenairlines.com (Evergreen)

cefelts@fedex.com

anbird@fedex.com

nssparks@fedex.com

robert.cohn@hoganlovells.com ( Front ier ) patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com ( Frontier ) jhill@dowlohnes.com (Hawaiian/JetBlue) matwood@cozen.com (Kalitta) kevin.montgomery@polaraircargo.com

bob.kneisley@wnco.com ( AirTran/Southwest )

leslie.abbott@wnco.com ( AirT ran/Southwest ) dkirstein@yklaw.com (Spirit) jyoung@yklaw.com (Spirit) john.fredericksen@suncountry.com

anita.mosner@hklaw.com (UPS) jennifer.nowak@hklaw.com (UPS) howard.kass@usairways.com

jegillick@zsrlaw.com (Virgin America) john.varley@virginamerica.com

mlbenge@zsrlaw.com (World) william.stallings@usdoj.gov

dwight.moore@ustranscom.mil

john.allen@faa.gov

Annalei Avanceña

International Regulatory Advisor

August 20 , 2012
Section 

33-15-17-01 

33-15-17-02 

33-15-17-03 

33-15-17-04 

CHAPTER 33-15-17 

RESTRICTION OF FUGITIVE EMISSIONS 

General Provisions - Applicability and Designation of Affected 

Facilities 

Restriction of Fugitive Particulate Emissions 

Reasonable Precautions for Abating and Preventing Fugitive 

· Particulate Emissions 

Restriction of Fugitive Gaseous Emissions 

33-15-17-02. Restriction of fugitive particulate emissions. No person 

shall emit or cause to be emitted into the ambient air from any source of fugitive 

emissions as specified in section 33-15-17-01 any particulate matter which: 

4. Exceed the restrictions on the emission of visible air contaminants of 

chapter 33-15-03, at or beyond the property line of the source, except 

as provided in section 33-15-03-04. 

1 
5. Would have an adverse impact on visibility, as defined in chapter 

33-15-19, on any class I federal area. · 

History: Amended effective January 1, 1996; January 1, 2007; January 1, 2013. 

General Authority: NDCC 23-25-03, 28-32-02 

Law Implemented: NDCC 23-25-03 - ~-· ··- -
Exhibit 4.3


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We have issued our
report dated January 15, 2021, with respect to the financial statement of SmartTrust 503 contained in Amendment No. 2 to the Registration
Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-250949) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in the Registration
Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting
Firm”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


January 15, 2021
# C_2023127EN.01000801.xml

| 11.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Monz Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co. KG v Büchel GmbH & Co. Fahrzeugtechnik KG

(Case C-472/21, (1) Monz Handelsgesellschaft International)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Design - Directive 98/71/EC - Article 3(3) and (4) - Conditions for obtaining protection for a component part of a complex product - Concepts of ‘visibility’ and ‘normal use’ - Visibility of a component part of a complex product during normal use of that product by the end user)

(2023/C 127/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Monz Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co. KG

Respondent: Büchel GmbH & Co. Fahrzeugtechnik KG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(3) and (4) of Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs

must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement of ‘visibility’, laid down in that provision, that is to be met in order for a design applied to or incorporated in a product which constitutes a component part of a complex product to be eligible to benefit from the legal protection of designs, must be assessed in the light of a situation of normal use of that complex product, so that the component part concerned, once it has been incorporated into that product, remains visible during such use. To that end, the visibility of a component part of a complex product during its ‘normal use’ by the end user must be assessed from the perspective of that user as well as from the perspective of an external observer, and that normal use must cover acts performed during the principal use of a complex product as well as acts which must customarily be carried out by the end user in connection with such use, with the exception of maintenance, servicing and repair work.

---

(1)  OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 277 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 277

    Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives respecting 
                           unfunded mandates.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 15, 1993

Mr. Condit (for himself, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Moran, Mr. Clinger, Mr. Pete 
 Geren of Texas, Mr. Pombo, Mr. Barca of Wisconsin, and Mr. Goodling) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                        on Government Operations

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives respecting 
                           unfunded mandates.

Whereas an estimated 100 unfunded mandates are enacted by Congress every decade;
Whereas State, county, and municipal governments are facing increased financial 
        burdens due to the proliferation of Federal mandates and decreasing 
        Federal funds to pay for these requirements; and
Whereas unfunded Federal mandates are estimated to cost the American public more 
        than $430,000,000,000 annually: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
steps must be taken to alleviate the financial impact of unfunded 
Federal mandates on State, county, and municipal governments.

                                 <all>
```
24-Hour Future Design Value Estimation Bakersfield - Planz 4-km CMAQ simulation for the SJV domain Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 98% DV 2011 

### 43.2 14.9 21.1 38.1 43.2 2012 

### 39.1 27.6 21 40.6 40.6 2013 

### 72.7 30 24.8 83.6 83.6 56
RRF NH3 NO3 SO4 OC EC DUST Q1 0.84 0.83 0.93 0.74 0.85 0.96 Q2 0.74 0.68 0.97 0.81 0.85 0.97 Q3 0.74 0.67 0.97 0.86 0.86 0.97 Q4 0.76 0.73 0.95 0.83 0.85 0.97 Split NH3 NO3 SO4 OC EC DUST Water Blank Total 2011 0.14 0.36 0.08 0.28 0.04 0.02 0.07 2012 0.15 0.42 0.04 0.20 0.04 0.08 0.08 2013 0.13 0.36 0.05 0.33 0.04 0.03 0.07 2011 6.09 15.38 3.52 12.04 1.78 0.84 3.05 0.50 43.20 2012 5.66 16.36 1.38 7.73 1.36 2.99 3.12 0.50 39.10 2013 9.12 25.84 3.25 24.00 2.75 2.27 4.97 0.50 72.70 2018 5.14 12.74 3.26 8.87 1.50 0.81 2.55 0.50 35.38 2019 4.77 13.56 1.28 5.70 1.15 2.87 2.59 0.50 32.41 2020 7.69 21.41 3.02 17.68 2.32 2.18 4.13 0.50 58.94 Split NH3 NO3 SO4 OC EC DUST Water Blank Total 2011 0.05 0.00 0.18 0.53 0.07 0.10 0.07 2012 0.04 0.00 0.16 0.56 0.04 0.15 0.06 2013 0.03 0.00 0.12 0.57 0.03 0.21 0.04 2011 0.74 0.00 2.63 7.61 1.04 1.43 0.94 0.50 14.90 2012 1.04 0.00 4.29 15.14 1.09 4.01 1.54 0.50 27.60 2013 0.79 0.00 3.45 16.88 0.89 6.25 1.24 0.50 30.00 2018 0.54 0.00 2.55 6.20 0.89 1.38 0.91 0.50 12.98 2019 0.77 0.00 4.15 12.33 0.93 3.87 1.49 0.50 24.03 2020 0.58 0.00 3.34 13.75 0.76 6.04 1.20 0.50 26.17 Split NH3 NO3 SO4 OC EC DUST Water Blank Total 2011 0.02 0.00 0.13 0.28 0.06 0.45 0.05 2012 0.03 0.00 0.17 0.30 0.07 0.37 0.06 2013 0.03 0.00 0.16 0.26 0.06 0.43 0.06 Future Mass
Q3 Components: Current Mass Current Design Values

Q1 Components:

Current Mass
Future Mass
Q2 Components:2011 0.46 0.00 2.77 5.79 1.21 9.37 0.99 0.50 21.10 2012 0.67 0.00 3.41 6.20 1.36 7.63 1.22 0.50 21.00 2013 0.69 0.00 3.79 6.37 1.58 10.51 1.36 0.50 24.80 2018 0.34 0.00 2.70 5.00 1.04 9.10 0.97 0.50 19.65 2019 0.50 0.00 3.32 5.36 1.17 7.41 1.19 0.50 19.45 2020 0.51 0.00 3.69 5.50 1.36 10.21 1.32 0.50 23.09 Split NH3 NO3 SO4 OC EC DUST Water Blank Total 2011 0.14 0.41 0.04 0.22 0.04 0.07 0.08 2012 0.08 0.27 0.04 0.46 0.06 0.04 0.05 2013 0.12 0.36 0.04 0.31 0.05 0.06 0.07 2011 5.19 15.43 1.58 8.34 1.58 2.54 2.95 0.50 38.10 2012 3.28 10.95 1.59 18.28 2.35 1.53 2.11 0.50 40.60 2013 9.68 29.84 3.46 25.59 4.12 4.68 5.72 0.50 83.60 2018 3.95 11.29 1.50 6.93 1.34 2.47 2.17 0.50 30.14 2019 2.49 8.02 1.51 15.19 1.99 1.48 1.57 0.50 32.75 2020 7.37 21.84 3.28 21.26 3.49 4.54 4.22 0.50 66.50 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 98% DV 2018 35.38 12.98 19.65 30.14 35.4 2019 32.41 24.03 19.45 32.75 32.7 2020 58.94 26.17 23.09 66.50 66.5 44.88 Future Mass
Future Design Value Current Mass
Future Mass
Q4 Components:

Current Mass
#### WILLIAM N. CANNON, Ex’r. of ISAAC BRADLEY, deft. b. app’lt. *vs.*WILLIAM S. MAULL, plff. b. resp’t.

Money which one is bound to pay for another, but which has not'been paid, cannot be recovered back in assumpsit on the common counts, though the. plaintiff has given a bond to pay it.

A contract with several, either jointly'or as partners, cannot be enforced by one of them alone.

This was an appeal from the judgment of John M. West, Esq., a justice of the peace for Sussex county, in an action of assumpsit for the hire of a hawser and anchor procured by plaintiff for the defendant’s vessel in distress. The declaration was in assumpsit with the common money counts. Plea the general issue.

It appeared in evidence that the defendant below being the owner of the schooner Betsey Richards, which was stranded on Cape Henlopen, entered into a contract with the plaintiff, agreeing to pay him $250 for getting her off and delivering her in Lewes creek, and that he also agreed to furnish .the necessary anchors, cables, &c. The contract was signed by plaintiff as Wm. S. Maull *Sp Co.,*though the agreement was made with him alone. The plaintiff got the vessel off the beach, but a storm coming on he was forced to part his cables and run up the .bay, and again run her ashore. Whilst up the bay captain Maull hired a hawser and kedge anchor from the agent of the insurance offices and returned to Lewes, bringing the hawser and anchor with him. The person of whom these were hired demanded $30 of Maull for the hire, and placed the claim in the hands of another agent of the underwriters to sue Maull. Upon which Maull brought this suit against Bradley and recovered.

*McFee*and *Houston,*for plaintiff.

*Cullen,*for defendant.

*Cullen,*for defendant

below contended, and the *Court*ruled:—

1. That in assumpsit, under the.count for money paid, no recovery can be had upon a legal liability to pay money for defendant, or even upon giving bond for the payment. A payment must actually be made. (3 *East.*169; 2 *B. & A.*51; 1 *East. Rep.*1; *2 Saund. Pl. & Ev.*192; 8 *Johns. Rep.*202 ; *Chit. Cont*591; 3 *Wend. R.*79.)

2. That if the contract was in fact made with the plaintiff below *and other persons ,*either jointly or as partners, the plaintiff could not recover in his own name. (8 *Wend. Rep.*542: *Chit. Plead.*6, 8; *2 Saund. Pl.*& *Ev.*249, 272; 6 *Com. L. Rep.*451.)

Verdict for defendant.
#### WILLIAM EARLY *vs.*WILLIAM B. WILSON, Jr.

The hirer of a horse is only bound to treat him with ordinary care, and use him with ordinary prudence.

If he be injured in the course of such use and treatment, the hirer is not responsible.

Capias Case.

The action was brought by Early against Wilson, for improperly driving a horse hired by plaintiff to him, to go from Bridgeville to Milton and back, whereby the horse was killed. He made out a case of hiring an apparently sound and good horse, which was returned diseased and very soon died; but the defendant clearly proved fair driving and proper treatment during all the time the horse was in his posssesion. It appeared, however, that in returning from Milton to Bridgeville, he had slightly deviated from the route usually travelled, but it was somewhat doubtful on the evidence, which was the better route. On the whole case,

*Layton*for plaintiff

*Frame*for defendant.

*The Court*

charged the jury, that the law of bailment for hire, requires a man to take only such care of the thing hired, and to treat and use it in such manner, as a man of ordinary prudence and discretion would use and take with his own property. That a hiring to go from Bridgville to Milton and back, did not confine the defendant to any particular route ; he had the choice of roads, using due and ordinary prudence in the selection; and any deviation even from the road chosen, if made prudently to rest or refresh the horse, or for any other purpose, so that it was not detrimental to the horse, would not make the hirer liable for'damages. ***

The defendant had a verdict.
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. David DENNIS, Relator, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections for the State of Florida, Respondent.

No. 71-1047.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 13, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Habeas corpus dismissed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 4.2A

                      NETWORK EQUIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

                       AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO RIGHTS AGREEMENT
                       -----------------------------------

          THIS AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO RIGHTS AGREEMENT ("AMENDMENT") is made as of
October 2, 2002 by and between Network Equipment Technologies, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "COMPANY") and EquiServe Trust Company, N.A. as Rights Agent
(the "RIGHTS AGENT").

                                   BACKGROUND
                                   ----------

     A.   The Company and the Rights Agent have entered into a Rights Agreement,
dated as of August 15, 1989, as amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto dated as of
June 12, 1990 and Amendment No. 2 thereto dated as of August 17, 1999 (the
"RIGHTS AGREEMENT"). Capitalized terms used in this Amendment without definition
shall have the meanings given to them in the Rights Agreement.

     B.   The parties now wish to further amend the Rights Agreement as set
forth below.

     C.   This Amendment has been approved by the Board of Directors of the
Company and the individual members of the Board of Directors of the Company in
their capacities as Continuing Directors (as defined in the Rights Agreement).

     THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

     1.   AMENDMENTS TO RIGHTS AGREEMENT. All references in the Rights Agreement
to "Continuing Directors" shall be deemed references to the Board of Directors
of the Company and all power and authority vested in the Continuing Directors is
hereby vested in the Board of Directors of the Company.

     2.   CONTINUITY OF TERMS. All the other terms and provisions of the Rights
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. 3
to Rights Agreement as of the date and year first above written.


/s/ NETWORK EQUIPMENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


/s/ EQUISERVE TRUST COMPANY, N.A.