alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Diane P. Shakun, an Infant, by Abraham M. Perkus, Her Guardian ad Litem, Plaintiff, *v.*Richard Shakun, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

June 2, 1959.

*Milton I. Stockton*for defendant.

*Parnell J. T. Callahan*for plaintiff.

Benjamin Brenner, J.

Defendant husband moves to punish the plaintiff wife for her alleged contempt in removing the infant issue of the parties from the State. A judgment of separation granted to the defendant by this court awarded custody of the child to the plaintiff with visitation rights to the defendant. The defendant served a copy of the judgment upon the attorney for the plaintiff but no copy was served upon the plaintiff herself or her guardian ad litem.

The instant motion could not be brought under section 1172 of the Civil Practice Act which refers only to punishment of a husband for failure to make payment of money. Under that section, personal service upon the husband of an uncertified copy of an order or judgment directing the payment of moneys is sufficient for the commencement of contempt proceedings when a default in such payments has occurred. And it has been held that the failure to serve a copy of such an order or judgment personally upon the husband does not bar contempt proceedings under this section when a copy is served on his attorney and he has knowledge of or has partially complied with the order or judgment *(Bishock*v, Bishock, 280 App. Div, *936830; *Gould*v. *Gould,*133 N. Y. S. 2d 318; *Silber*v. *Silber,*128 N. Y. S. 2d 181; *Costalos*v. *Costalos,*N. Y. L. J., Jan. 4, 1956, p. 7, col. 1).

However, a party who fails to comply with visitation provisions of a judgment may be punished only under section 505 of the Civil Practice Act which specifically provides that a judgment may be enforced by contempt ‘ ‘ by serving a certified copy thereof upon the party against whom it is rendered.” This requirement must be strictly adhered to and the fact that she may have knowledge of the judgment is immaterial *(Matter of Eckert,*1 A D 2d 968; *Pittsfield Nat. Bank*v. *Bayne,*21 N. Y. S. 561). The motion is therefore denied.

Submit order.
<PAGE>
 
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS'
                       --------------------------------
                                        


The Board of Directors
MAF Bancorp, Inc.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.'s
33-40932, 33-45790, 33-45794 and 333-06593) on Form S-8 and the registration
statement (No. 33-96754) on Form S-3 of MAF Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated
February 5, 1997, relating to the consolidated statements of financial condition
of MAF Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and June 30, 1996,
and the related statements of income, changes in stockholders' equity and cash
flows for the six months ended December 31, 1996 and each of the years in the
two year period ended June 30, 1996, which report appears in the December 31,
1996 annual report on Form 10-K of MAF Bancorp, Inc.



Chicago, Illinois
March 25, 1997
January 12, 1999

21084

#### State v. Danielson

Affirmed
F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

MAY 27 1997

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

CLINTON K. THOMPSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

TED LIMKE; EDWIN KIMMEL,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 96-6231

(D.C. No. 95-CV-1718)

(Western District of Oklahoma)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

Before PORFILIO, ANDERSON, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered

submitted without oral argument.

After consideration of the briefs and the record, we conclude the district court did

not err in its judgment. We therefore AFFIRM substantially for the reasons given by the

district court.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

John C. Porfilio
- 2 -

Circuit Judge
### Williams , Rene e (OST) ^gj f \ ' T^TT-d^Sf ^ 7^h4 ' ^5^ 3 From : Terr yRussel l [terryrussell55@gmail.com ] Sent : Thursday , Jun e 17 , 201 0 12:3 1 A M To : Williams , Rene e (OST ) Subject : subsid y A s Presiden t

of Manle y Ho t

Spring s Communit y Associatio nan dAssistan t Fir e Chief/ET T thi s servic e i s essentia l t o u s for

safet y an dconnection s t o othe r town s an dvillages

. Terry Russel l
March 18, 2004

23585

#### Survivors of Ching v. State, Dept. of Health

Affirmed
AAM

- 13

- 117

- E January 8, 2013

Exemption No. 10256 A

Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2011

- 0422

Mr. Dale Schneider

Director of Operations, Chief Pilot and DER

Schneider Flight Serv ice dba ARC Avia tion

5836 Fayette Road, Suite 204

Durham, NC 27713

Dear Mr. Schneider :

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption

No. 10256. It expl ains the basis for our decision, describes its effect , and lists the conditio ns

and limitations

.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated November 28 , 2012 , you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) on behalf of Schneider Flight Service dba ARC Aviation ( Schneider ) for an extension

of Exemption No. 10256. That ex emption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal

Regulations (14 CFR) allows Schneider, which is operating under separate parts of the

regulations, to cover its safety

- sensitive employees under one testing program.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federa l Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Schneider

.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10256

remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has

delegat ed to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following condi tions and limitations.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Schneider are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times

while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under t he auspices of

the Schneider part 135 operation, not under part 91.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 10256 to May 31, 201 5

, unless

sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

James R. Fraser , MD

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon
H. Res. 503 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

October 29, 2015. 

Resolved, That the Clerk be instructed to inform the 

President of the United States that the House of Representatives has elected Paul D. Ryan, a Representative from the 

State of Wisconsin as Speaker of the House of Representatives of the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2000, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                           MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                    $386,000
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                           45,681,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                              5,165,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        70,049,000
<PP&E>                                  37,614,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         214,228,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   85,177,000
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                96,374,000
<OTHER-SE>                              10,534,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           214,228,000
<SALES>                                 55,044,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        55,044,000
<CGS>                                   42,948,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           42,948,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         9,139,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       1,227,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          1,932,000
<INCOME-TAX>                             1,285,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        647,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               647,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                    .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .05



</TABLE>
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ CLEARVALUE, INC., Plaintiff,

AND
RICHARD ALAN HAASE, Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

PEARL RIVER POLYMERS , INC., POLYCHEMIE, INC., SNF, INC., POL YDYNE, INC. , AND SNF HOLDING COMPANY,

Defendants

- Appellees.

______________________
2012

- 1595

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No. 06

- CV

- 0197, Judge Leonard Davis.

______________________
Decided: December 9, 2013

______________________
R ICHARD A. H AASE , of Missouri City, Texas, pro se.CLEARVALUE , INC

. v. PEARL RIVER POLYMERS , INC

. 2

H OWARD L. C LOSE , Wright & Close, L.L.P., of Ho uston, Texas, for defendants

- appellees. With him on the brief were R. R USSELL H OLLENBECK ; and A NDY T INDEL , M ann , Tindel & Thompson, of Tyler, Texas.

______________________
Before M OORE , S CHALL , and R EYNA , Circuit Judges.

P ER C URIAM

. Mr. Haase appeals from the district court’s order that Appellees are entitled to recover (1) costs as the prevai ling par ty in this case
, and (2) monetary sanctions related to discovery violations by Mr. Haase and others. In previous appeals related to this case , we affirmed the district court’s imposition of monetary sanctions
, affirmed the grant of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) that Appellees did not misappropriate a trade secret, and reversed the denial of JMOL of patent invalidity

. See ClearValue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc.
, 668 F.3d 1340, 1345

– 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012); ClearValue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc.
, 560 F.3d 1291, 1304

– 05 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Mr. Haase argues that the district court abused its discretion by awarding costs to Appellees ; c hallenges the award of monetary sanctions ; and challenges the final judgment related to trade secret misappropriation and patent invalidity . We have considered these and all other arguments Mr. Haase raises
, and find them to be without merit. Accordingly , we affirm

. AFFIRMED
C OSTS Costs are awarded to Appellees.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT AUGUST 31, 1999 AND THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED AUGUST 31, 1999 OF
RSI HOLDINGS, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1999
<CASH>                                          23,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,705,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,819,000
<PP&E>                                         300,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  97,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,526,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,330,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        79,000
<OTHER-SE>                                    (133,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,526,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,370,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,986,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              63,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (679,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (679,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (679,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.09)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                             5
<MULTIPLIER>                                      1,000
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           May-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                Aug-31-1998
<CASH>                                           29,385
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    41,787
<ALLOWANCES>                                      2,713
<INVENTORY>                                      10,481
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 83,924
<PP&E>                                          265,130
<DEPRECIATION>                                   89,726
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  850,756
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            88,046
<BONDS>                                         500,000
<COMMON>                                            272
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           193,539
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<OTHER-SE>                                       41,884
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    850,756
<SALES>                                          77,446
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 77,446
<CGS>                                            14,915
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    70,615
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               11,131
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   8,905
<INCOME-TAX>                                      3,008
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               5,897
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                      5,655
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       .06
        

<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998             SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                      10,407,000                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                               34,472,000                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                 10,156,000                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            56,797,000                       0
<PP&E>                                      40,956,000                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                            (19,446,000)                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             210,776,000                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       25,387,000                       0
<BONDS>                                     20,161,000                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        11,000                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                 132,091,000                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               210,776,000                       0
<SALES>                                     70,047,000             214,005,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            70,047,000             214,005,000
<CGS>                                       53,265,000             161,731,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               53,265,000             161,731,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            13,585,000              42,176,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             496,000               1,560,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,894,000               9,127,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,331,000               4,198,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,563,000               4,929,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,563,000               4,929,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.14                    0.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14                    0.43
        

</TABLE>
SERVE D FEBRUAR Y24 , 201 1 i rR^RjyEN T O F 

### -\^;SP0RW10^ I U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATION';E i OPERATION S OFFIC EO FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C /Oi l Fc 8 ? U P2

^ 2 8 I N TH EMATTE RO F WESTMAR K

INDUSTRIES , INC , FA A DOCKE T NO . CP06NM000 8 (Civi l Penalty Action ) DM S No . FAA-2006-2633 8

NOTIC EO FASSIGNMEN T O FPROCEEDIN G Thi s proceedin g (heretofore designate da s Cas e No . 2006NM700095 ) ha s bee n assigne dt o Administrativ e La w Judg e Richar dC . Goodwin . Al l futur e pleading s an d othe r communication s regardin g thi s proceedin g shal l b e serve do n th e Judge , th e FA A Hearin g Docket , an dth e othe r person s o n th e attache dServic e List .

/ Ronnie A . Yodp f Chie f Administrative/La w i«9g e Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis t'"" ^ v-'cp"-*"'^^***' * j - i •// / 

### FAA Docket No . #00^000 8 HJ^f.1if^ r

<Civil Penalt

y Actlbh ) 

## G^eaiAfi^fiasi s COP

Y Federa l Aviation Administratio n 800 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . i - -.. ^ , : g / ^'- ' Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docket Ci ^ ^^W*^^l|fe/

^ C A' 

### Wilbu r Wrigh t B]4Sm*^^^^Oo6 ^ Michael Offer, Owne

r Westmar k Industries , Responden

t 670 1 S.W . McEwa

n Roa d Lak e Oswego , O

R97035-781 5 ' TEL : 503-620-094 5 FAX : 503-639-674 9 Care y W . Terasaki , Complainant' ^ O0 » Northwes t Mountain Region , AJSnil-

7 Federa l Aviation Administratio n ^ ' »160 1 Lin dAvenue , S.W. Renton , W

A 98055-409 9 TEL : 425-227-259 1 FAX : 425-227-100 7 • i-^fs- o ^n<''<-i'/ v 

### Th e Honorabl e Richar

dC . Good\^n, . Office o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen

t o f Transportatio n 120 0 New Jersey Avenue , S.E . | Eas t Building Groun

dFloor , Rooii ^ Washington , D C 2059 0 ] TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Advisor 202-366-512 1 Lega

l Assislin t FAX : 202-366-753 6 &Ltm > Judg e

'm

n

' Servic e wa s by U.S . Mail . FoTsem<x^pemnm,^mfif)^^itoi<!(miQt,\mlbctoik>y ^ Federa l Aviatio n Administration , 60 0 IndQieAdenqsMlf^pMts, $ , W- , Wilbu r Wri ^ BuiMi(i?^uit e 2W1000 , Washington , D C 20591 ; Attentiln : Jie»^]D#c« t Oe* . AGC-430 .
#### Hutch v. State

24185

07/15/2004

Dismissed

- Hawai'i -, - P.3d -
27761, 27922

#### Hoshino v. Hoshino

Affirmed
### -78.5 -78.0 -77.5 -77.0 -76.5 -76.0 -75.5 38.5 39.0 39.5 

## ★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 07/09 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 09 Jul 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.41 N 76.30 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ● ● 

## ★ ● ● ● ●
#### The STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Teddy Lee LYBERT and Ruben Gonzales, Defendants and Appellants.

No. 13352.

Supreme Court of Utah.

March 18, 1974.

Bruce C. Lubeck, F. John Hill, of Salt Lake Legal Defender Ass’n, Salt Lake City, for defendants and appellants.

Vernon B. Romney, Atty. Gen., David L. Wilkinson, M. Reid Russell, Earl F. Dor-ius, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.

CALLISTER, Chief Justice:

Defendant and one Ruben Gonzales were convicted of the crime of burglary in the second degree.1 Gonzales’ conviction was affirmed by this court.2

On this appeal, Lybert maintains that the trial court erred in (1) holding that the arrest of defendant was lawful as well as the search of the vehicle in which he was riding and (2) that the court erred in not disqualifying State employees from sitting on the jury.3

As to (1) we hold that the arrest and search were proper. Apartment neighbors of the victim observed two men entering and leaving her apartment, whom they later identified as Lybert and Gonzales. Upon leaving the apartment house the two men got into an automobile and proceeded up an alley. About this time a police officer, in response to a dispatch call, arrived at the scene and was told by the witnesses where the automobile had gone. One of the witnesses informed the officer that the car was a “Thunderbird.” The officer drove up the alley and saw a “Thunderbird” with two men in it. He stopped the car, ordered the men out, placed them under arrest (after witnesses had identified them) and then proceeded to search the automobile, discovering items connected with the burglary.

The arrest by the officer was reasonable and proper 4 and so was the search.5

*215As for (2), this issue is patently without merit.6

Affirmed.

HENRIOD, ELLETT, CROCKETT and TUCKETT, JJ., concur.

1

. 76-9-3, U.C.A.1953.

2

. State v. Lybert and Gonzales, 30 Utah 2d 180, 515 P.2d 441 (1973). The opinion in this case sets forth the circumstances of the crime.

3

. 77-30-19, U.C.A.1953.

4

. 77-13-3(4), U.C.A.1953; State v. Eastmond, 28 Utah 2d 129, 499 P.2d 276 (1972).

5

. State v. Louden, 15 Utah 2d 64, 387 P.2d 240 (1963).

6

. See United States v. Wood, 299 U.S. 123, 57 S.Ct. 177, 81 L.Ed. 78 (1936).