alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Efdey Electrical Contractors, Inc., Respondent, v Anthony Melita, Jr., et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants, et al., Third-Party Plaintiff, et al., Third-Party Defendants.

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hentel, J.), entered June 6, 1989, as granted the plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the defendants’ counterclaim, and denied that branch of the motion of the defendant, Anthony Melita, Jr., which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant Anthony Melita, Jr., made a prior motion for summary judgment in 1986, which was denied as premature since there had yet to be any discovery. In his second motion, *inter alia,*for summary judgment, Mr. Melita merely resubmitted the same evidence as was submitted on the prior motion, and there has yet to be any further discovery. As a general rule, "[mjultiple summary judgment motions in the same action should be discouraged in the absence of a showing of newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause” *(La Freniere v Capital Dist. Transp. Auth.,*105 AD2d 517, 518; *see also, Lewis Constr. v Gush,*110 AD2d 1017). Moreover, “summary judgment is not justified where there are likely to be defenses that depend upon knowledge in the possession of the party moving for judgment, which might well be disclosed by cross-examination or examination before trial” *(Terranova v Emil,*20 NY2d 493, 497; *see also, Procter & Gamble Distrib. Co. v Lawrence Am. Field Warehousing Corp.,*16 NY2d 344, 362; CPLR 3212 [f]). Thus, summary judgment was properly denied.

We also find that the defendants’ counterclaim was properly *502dismissed. As the counterclaim sought judgment over against the plaintiff in the event the defendants were liable to a different plaintiff in a currently pending New Jersey action, it was contingent, and therefore, did not allege a viable cause of action *(see, Felhaber Corp. & Horn Constr. Co. v State of New York,*69 AD2d 362, 374). Further, even if the counterclaim were to be construed as a request for a declaratory judgment, it would still not state a valid cause of action *(see, Cuomo v Long Is. Light. Co.,*71 NY2d 349; *American Ins. Assn. v Chu,*64 NY2d 379, 386, *cert denied*474 US 803; *New York Pub. Interest Research Group v Carey,*42 NY2d 527; *Tri-State Sol-Aire Corp. v County of Nassau,*156 AD2d 555). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Kunzeman and Fiber, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC D/B/A

BRAZOS LICENSING AND 

DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00454-ADA

PATENT CASE

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF READINESS

Pursuant to the Standing Order Regarding Notice of Readiness in Patent Cases issued by 

this Court, Plaintiff hereby notifies the Court that this case is ready for an initial Case Management 

Conference.

The following cases in this District are related in that they involve the same Plaintiff and 

the same Defendant. However, the patents asserted are unique to each case and unrelated to each 

other.

6:20-CV-00454-ADA

6:20-CV-00455-ADA

6:20-CV-00456-ADA

6:20-CV-00457-ADA

6:20-CV-00458-ADA

6:20-CV-00459-ADA

6:20-CV-00460-ADA

6:20-CV-00461-ADA

6:20-CV-00462-ADA

6:20-CV-00463-ADA

6:20-CV-00464-ADA

6:20-CV-00465-ADA

On September 3, 2020, Defendant Microsoft Corporation filed its Motion to Dismiss for 

Case 6:20-cv-00454-ADA Document 22 Filed 09/04/20 Page 1 of 2
Failure to State a Claim (Doc. 20). The motion is pending.

Dated: September 4, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Ryan S. Loveless

James L. Etheridge

Texas State Bar No. 24059147

Ryan S. Loveless

Texas State Bar No. 24036997

Travis L. Richins

Texas State Bar No. 24061296

Brett A. Mangrum

Texas State Bar No. 24065671

Jeffrey Huang

ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP, PLLC

2600 E. Southlake Blvd., Suite 120 / 324

Southlake, Texas 76092

Telephone: (817) 470-7249

Facsimile: (817) 887-5950

Jim@EtheridgeLaw.com

Ryan@EtheridgeLaw.com

Travis@EtheridgeLaw.com

Brett@EtheridgeLaw.com

JeffH@EtheridgeLaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that the foregoing document was served upon all counsel of record via email in 

accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on September 4, 2020.

/s/ Ryan S. Loveless

Ryan S. Loveless

Case 6:20-cv-00454-ADA Document 22 Filed 09/04/20 Page 2 of 2
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5343 

To suspend temporarily the duty on dimethyl hydrogen phosphite. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2012 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on dimethyl hydrogen 

phosphite. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DIMETHYL HYDROGEN PHOSPHITE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Dimethyl hydrogen 

phosphite (CAS No. 868– 

85–9) (provided for in subheading 2920.90.50) ......... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5343 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 21

- 00394

- CV

ATIYA DHALA, M.D.

v. ELIAZAR COSTILLA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF KRISTY RENEE COSTILLA, DECEASED, AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF A.J.C. AND C.K.C., MINORS; MELINDA RODRIGUEZ LEAL AND CAMILO TREVINO

On Appeal from the 197th District Court of Cameron County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2020

- DCL

- 04542

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on
appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court o rders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against
appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
January 6, 2022
#### FORWOOD et al. v. CITY OF TAYLOR et al.

No. 9690; Motion No. 10497.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.

March 10, 1948.

For former opinion, see 208 S.W.2d 670.

Amos Peters, Jr., of Taylor, and Dan Moody, of Austin, for appellants.

Grimes & Owens, of Taylor, and Wood & Wilcox, of Georgetown, for appellees.

GRAY, Justice.

Appellants have filed their motion for rehearing in this cause and assert we were in error in affirming the judgment of the trial court.

We have considered the brief accompanying this motion and have examined the authorities cited therein. Our examination of authorities leads us to the conclusion that, as- to de facto officers, judicial pronouncements may be generally divided into the following classes: those dealing with the statute or ordinance creating the office; those dealing with the acts of the officer resulting to his own benefit; and those dealing with acts done for the benefit of strangers or the public. The facts of the case here presented bring the acts of the Board of Equalization within the latter class.

Our conclusions announced in the original opinion are supported by Martin v. Grandview Ind. School District, Tex.Civ.App., 266 S.W. 607, 609, error referred, quoting with approval 22 RCL, p. 589, § 307, as follows:

> “The de facto doctrine was introduced into the law as a matter of policy and necessity, to protect the interests of the public and individuals, where those interests were involved in the official acts of persons exercising the duties of an office without being lawful officers. It was seen that it would be unreasonable on all occasions to require the public to inquire into the title of an officer, or compel him to show title, especially since the public *435has neither the time nor the opportunity to investigate the title of the incumbent. But it should be noted that the legal doctrine as to de facto officers rests upon the principle of protection to the interests of the public and third parties, and not on the rights of rival claimants. The law validates the acts of de facto officers as to the public and third persons, on the ground that though not officers de jure, they are in fact officers whose acts public policy requires should be considered valid.”

Conceding the city ordinance creating the Board of Equalization with nine members is in conflict with the constitution and the general law, the facts as here presented constitute it a de facto board and make it9 action in raising the valuation of appellants’ properties legal. In support of this conclusion we cite Wendt v. Berry, 154 Ky. 586, 157 S.W. 1115, by the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, reviewing numerous authorities; Anderson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 195 S.W.2d 368.

We adhere to our former opinion and now overrule appellants’ motion for rehearing.

Overruled.
Author: ICF Consulting, Inc

Date Created: 7/15/2010

Date Modified: 3/30/2011

Purpose: Provides a map between IPM regions and NERC regions.

File Contents:

Worksheet Contents

IPM_NERC

Input Files:

External data used in calculations/analysis:

None

FileInfo 1 of 2
Mapping of IPM and NERC Regions

NERC Region IPM Model Region Model Region Description

TRE ERCT Texas Regional Entity

FRCC FRCC Florida Reliability Coordinating Council

MRO Midwest Regional Planning Organization

WUMS Wisconsin-Upper Michigan

NENG New England Power Pool

DSNY Downstate New York

LILC Long Island Company

NYC New York City

UPNY Upstate New York

RFCO Reliability First Corporation - MISO

MECS Michigan Electric Coordination System

RFCP Reliability First Corporation - PJM

MACE Legacy Mid-Atlantic Area Council - East

MACS Legacy Mid-Atlantic Area Council - South

MACW Legacy Mid-Atlantic Area Council - West

COMD Commonwealth Edison

GWAY Gateway

TVAK Tennessee Valley Authority - MISO-KY

SOU Southern Company

TVA Tennessee Valley Authority

ENTG Entergy

VACA Virginia-Carolinas

VAPW Dominion Virginia Power

SPPN Southwest Power Pool - North

SPPS Southwest Power Pool - South

AZNM Western Electricity Coordinating Council - Arizona, New Mexico

SNV Western Electricity Coordinating Council - Southern Nevada

CA-N Western Electricity Coordinating Council - California North

CA-S Western Electricity Coordinating Council - California South

PNW Western Electricity Coordinating Council - Pacific Northwest

NWPE Western Electricity Coordinating Council - Northwest Power Pool East

WECC-RMPA RMPA Western Electricity Coordinating Council - Rocky Mountain Power Area

RFC

SERC

MRO

NPCC

WECC-California ISO

WECC-NWPP

SPP

WECC-AZ-NM-SNV

IPM_NERC 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.2**

###### **Certification of Chief Financial OfficerPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002(18 U.S.C. § 1350)**

In connection with the quarterly report of SouthwestWater Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,2006 (the “Report”), I, Cheryl L. Clary, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18U.S.C. §1350), that:

1)              to my knowledge, theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2)              the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: November 9, 2006 |   | /s/ CHERYL L. CLARY     |
|------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                   |   | Cheryl L. Clary         |
|                   |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 15



Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, Northwest
Washington, D.C.  20549
Attention:  Document Control

Re:	The Southland Corporation Form 10-Q

We are aware that our report dated April 21, 1998 on our review of the 
condensed consolidated balance sheet of The Southland Corporation and 
Subsidiaries as of March 31, 1998, and the condensed consolidated 
statements of earnings and cash flows for the three-month period then 
ended, included in this Form 10-Q, is incorporated by reference in the 
following registration statements:

                                                        REGISTRATION NO.

On Form S-8 for:

    Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to The Southland
        Corporation Grant Stock Plan                         33-25327

    The Southland Corporation 1995 Stock Incentive Plan      33-63617

    The Southland Corporation Supplemental Executive 
        Retirement Plan for Eligible Employees              333-42731

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, this report 
should not be considered a part of the registration statement prepared or 
certified by us within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.




COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
Dallas, Texas
May 12, 1998

                                     Tab 1
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.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - 47 CFR Part 101 
          - [ET Docket No. 95-18; FCC 00-233] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission. 

# ACTION:

Final rule; correction. 

# SUMMARY:

On August 7, 2000 (65 FR 48174), the Commission published final rules in the Second Report and Order and Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, which revised the rules governing the 2 GHz Mobile-Satellite Service. In that document a new CFR section added in the Fixed Microwave Service inadvertently carried the same CFR section number used subsequently in a final rule published September 7, 2000. This correction renumbers the section published on August 7, 2000. 

# DATES:

Effective September 6, 2000. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean White, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-2453. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On August 7, 2000 (65 FR 48174), a new § 101.83 entitled “Reimbursement of relocation expenses in the 2115-2150 MHz and 2165-2200 MHz bands” was added. However, § 101.83 entitled “Modification of station license” was added on September 7, 2000 (65 FR 54155). This correction renumbers the section added on August 7, 2000 as § 101.99. 

Accordingly, in FR Doc. 00-19478 published on August 7, 2000 (65 FR 48174), make the following corrections: 

# PART 101—[CORRECTED] 

1. On page 48183, in the first column, in amendatory instruction 16, correct “§ 101.83” to read “§ 101.99”. 

2. On page 48183, in the first column, correctly designate “§ 101.83” as “§ 101.99”. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

William F. Caton,

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 00-26012 Filed 10-10-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712-01-U
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

MARLON CRAWFORD , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 1658

[ August 23, 2018 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Barbara R. Duffy

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 04

- 17461CF10A

.
Marlon Crawford, Milton, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

T

AYLOR , M AY and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
s110010.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

SNUN:11-0010

Focus Ready Draft 7/7/2011

ENGINEER: El-Zoobi \ BCS

PV (kg/yr): 

SUBMITTER: 

USE: 

 

OTHER USES: 

 

 

 

Consumer Use: No

SAT (concerns) (06/24/2011):

Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info:

Ecotox: 

Page 1

EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 4
s110010.eng

Migration to groundwater: Negligible

PBT rating: P3B1T1 .

Health: 2 Inhalation

Eco: 1 No releases to Water

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 2-3C

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER. 

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS:

P2 Claim:

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: 

 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

SNUN:11-0010

Page 2

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 4
s110010.eng

Page 3

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 4
s110010.eng

100% solid SNUN.

 

 

 



MEMORANDUM of TELEPHONE CONVERSATION

CALL BY: Brandon Smith

Organization: ERG for CEB

CALL TO: 

Organization: J

Date: 06/27/2011

Time: 4:00pm

Phone: 

Concerning what ?

SNUN: 11-0010

Page 4

EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 4
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6261

MARLON ANDRE WILSON,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

THE UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION,

 Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (1:12-cv-00084-JCC-IDD)

Submitted: June 26, 2012 Decided: July 3, 2012

Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marlon Andre Wilson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Marlon Andre Wilson appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Wilson v. United States Parole Comm’n, 

No. 1:12-cv-00084-JCC-IDD (E.D. Va. Jan. 31, 2012). We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit15**

**(KPMG LLPLetterhead)**

May 14, 2007

Southwest WaterCompanyLos Angeles, California

Re: RegistrationStatements (Nos. 333-77881, 333-35252, 333-63196, 333-69662, 333-70194, 333-106506,333-111586, 333-121426 and 333-133399) on Form S-3 and Registration Statements(Nos. 333-18513, 333-38935, 333-39506, 333-39508, 333-109444, 333-117713 and333-134575) on Form S-8

With respect tothe subject registration statements, we acknowledge our awareness of the usetherein of our report dated May 14, 2007, related to our review of interimfinancial information.

Pursuant to Rule436 under the Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), such report is not consideredpart of a registration statement prepared or certified by an independentregistered public accounting firm, or a report prepared or certified by anindependent registered public accounting firm within the meaning of Sections 7and 11 of the Act.
| /s/ KPMG LLP            |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
|                    |
| Los Angeles, California |

 

----
## IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-30739 Summary Calendar
CYNTHIA L. BUTTS, Plaintiff - Appellant

v. DRESS BARN, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC 5:10-CV-15
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * 

### The plaintiff has been given extensive attention and opportunity to proceed with her claim despite her refusal to respond to orders a n d c onsent to discovery. Judgment was rendered dismissing the case for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff presents this court no legal error by the district court. Consequently this court can only affirm. AFFIRMED. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

## F I L E D May17 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. 

### Case: 11-30739 Document: 00511859569 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/17/2012
#### THOMAS v. STATE.

No. 25981.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 22, 1952.

Reid & Reid, J. W. Reid, Abilene, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is possession of beer and whiskey in a dry area for the purpose of sale; the punishment, six months in jail and a fine of $500.

Appellant contends that the information is fatally defective in that it was filed on the 12th day of May, 1952; therein, it is alleged that the offense complained of took place on the 12th day of May, 1952, and such information fails to allege that such offense took place “anterior to the filing of the information”.

Martini v. State, 151 Tex.Cr. 215, 205 S. W.2d 988, is direct authority supporting appellant’s contention.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.