alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Morey, by guardian *ad litem,*Appellant, vs. Lake Superior Terminal & Transfer Railway Company, Respondent.

*February 26*

May *29, 1903.*

*Appeal and, error: Divided court: Affirmance or reversal.*

Where the supreme court is equally divided, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Appeal from an order of the superior court of Douglas county: Charles Smith, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

The appeal is from an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, in an action to recover compensation for personal injuries. The circumstances of the injury upon which liability is claimed are that on the occasion in question defendant was operating its train at a speed of twenty miles per hour, whereas the legal limit of speed was fifteen miles per hour, without giving signals of the approach to the street crossing where the injury occurred as the law requires; that *149
      *Ray Rockwell*Morey, tlie person injured, a boy of about twelve years of age, while traveling south upon such street, where it was crossed by defendant’s tracks, intending to proceed to his home on the opposite side thereof, when about thirty-nine feet from the particular track on which he was injured, such point, on account of obstructions to a view to the west, being the first place where he could see a train approaching from that direction if one was in view and in dangerous proximity to his pathway, he looked in such direction, having a clear view of the track to the west for a distance of about half a block from his place of crossing; that there was no train in sight; that he then looked east, keeping on his course till he reached a point about three and one-half feet from the place of injury, when he again looked west and saw a train about thirty-five feet away, coming at such a furious rate of speed as to cause him to be overcome with a sense of fear and to lose his presence of mind and self-control, and to thereby fall toward the track, whereby his left foot was unavoidably placed over the north rail thereof, where it was immediately struck by the train and severed from his leg. Defendant demurred to the complaint for insufficiency. The demurrer was sustained.

*Victor*Linley, for the appellant.

For the respondent there was a brief by *J. A. Murphy*and *Heber*McHugh, and oral argument by *Mr. McHugh.*

The following opinion was filed March 21, 1903:

Marshall, J.

In this case the members of the court taking part in considering the questions involved being equally divided in respect thereto, .the order appealed from must be affirmed *ex necessitate.*The Chief Justice and the writer concur in views harmonizing with the decision of the lower court, while Justices Winslow and Dodge are of a different opinion. In view of that situation it is deemed *150best not to file an opinion upon the principles of law applicable to the cause.

*By the Court:*— The order appealed from is affirmed.

A motion for a rehearing was denied May 29, 1903,

Siebecker, J., taking no part.
([l 

(") 

(l) 

fSJ 

fSJ 

::::!"! 

([l 

o_ 

(l) 

::J 

o_ 

(l) 

--, 

0 

< 

([l 

o_ 

-

0 

--, 

--, 

([l 

([l 

(l) 

fSJ 

([l 

CT 

z 

(f) 

p 

.-T 

o 

m 

0
REF ID:A72007 

The Honorable 

The Secretaey of Commerce 

Dear Mr. 3ecretaryr 

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

Serial: 14 7 5 

I Wish to thank you for ;!Olli" letter ol 23 tiarch 1953, 

aasuring us of 70ur Depa.rt&ent' s coopera.t.1.on ill the conduct 

o! our summer s;JUll:IOaium to be 'lel.d in connection irith tile 

National Bureau o:t Standards lll I.os Angeles. 

On the basis ot yoor US'.lrance "8 are proceeding with 

nesotJ.at.tons dtb. 70<J.r nominees, rir. lranz 1. • .Ut and )r. 

c. B. Toapld.ns. 

I should like to take this opportunity to t.bank: you 

!or the Jast and present cooperation o! the Deoutment ~ 

Commerce and oJ.' the Nat.:ional dureau. ol Standards in 

particular. 

cc: AG ,Jtd/l 

C/S ... _.. ....... ~ 

S/ASST4 

R/D (Dr. Leibler - 34) 

':iincerel;y, 

RAL?H J • CANDIE 

Lieutenant General, US A.~ 

01.reotor 

M/R: Sel.f-explana tDry - reference Ser. 841, dtd 2 Mar 53 

d. 1. Friedman/S/Asst/60493/27 Mar SJ/eb7 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 02-12-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a
# CE2004084EN.01053101.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/531 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/531

---

(2004/C 84 E/0607)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0079/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   Flight Times and Duty Limitations Proposal — COM(2002)0030.

Subject:

Could the Commission outline the Council's reaction to its current proposal (1) to update Council Regulation 3922/91/EEC (2)? When does it envisage agreement on this proposal within Council? Does it intend revising its proposal and if so, how?

1

2

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

(18 February 2004)

The Council has been unable to adopt the proposal, essentially because it is linked to a proposal for a directive on the recognition of cabin crew qualifications. For that reason, and despite the Commission's efforts to overcome this position, which was expressed in December 2001, the dossier has remained frozen. In a bid to resume work on the dossier, and taking account of the amendment Parliament adopted in September 2002 on the limitation of flight time, which the Council did not wish to take into consideration, the Commission will in the next few days be putting forward a revised proposal incorporating Parliament's amendment.

---

(1)  COM(2002)0030, OJ C 227 E, 24.9.2002, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 373, 31.12.1991, p. 4.

2

---
98-2572.

#### Home Builders Assn. of Dayton & The Miami Valley v. Beavercreek.

Greene App. Nos. 97CA113 and 97CA115. On motion to vacate judgment of Second Appellate District in favor of Barbara Weprin et al. for lack of standing. Motion denied.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 23, 2015

No. 04-15-00041-CV

TEMPLETON MORTGAGE CORP.,

Appellant

v.

Gary POENISCH,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10-422-A

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Because appellant’s notice of appeal was filed-stamped beyond the time allowed by 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 but within the fifteen-day grace period provided by Rule 

26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time, we ordered appellant to file a response presenting 

a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a timely manner. See Verburgt 

v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Appellant has filed a response showing that it 

timely mailed its motion for new trial and its notice of appeal to the trial court clerk. Thus, 

pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 5, appellant’s notice of appeal was timely filed. We 

therefore retain this appeal on the docket of this court. Because the clerk’s and reporter’s records 

have both been filed, appellant brief is due on or before May 25, 2015.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 23rd day of April, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
----

(2004/C 88 E/0588)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1155/04

by Marco Formentini (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 April 2004)

Subject:   Request for the Commission to intervene in the dispute between the company Invesmart bv and the Czech Republic regarding the bankrupt Union Banka

Under the conditions for entry into the European Union the accession countries were supposed to bring their national legal systems and administrative procedures, and the behaviour of public administration into line with the legal principles observed within the Union. The aim of this question is to highlight a series of abuses and instances of wrongful treatment suffered since December 2002 by the Dutch firm Invesmart bv and its majority shareholder Prof. Paolo Catalfamo, an Italian national, as a result of their investing in Union Banka, which at the time was the fourth largest bank in the Czech Republic.

The investment, as well as the broad restructuring plan accompanying it, were agreed by the investors with the Czech Central Bank and the Minister of Finance. After the investors had spent a year and a half fulfilling various difficult obligations the Czech authorities suddenly (and improvidently) declared the bank bankrupt, which seriously damaged investors. These events were widely publicised both in the Czech Republic itself and in the international economic press.

Can the Commission obtain information directly from the Czech authorities — who, when proceedings were brought for damages of around EUR 300 million, stated that the Czech government was willing to settle the dispute amicably — as to what their intentions actually are and ask them to settle the dispute in a correct and fair manner?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The banking sector in the Czech Republic has gone through a difficult restructuring process. In order to protect the common market, the Commission has to make sure that a level playing field is maintained by preventing State aid from being granted contrary to EU competition rules.

Bankruptcy proceedings are a judicial process in the Czech Republic and the Commission cannot comment on proceedings under way. It is for the Czech judicial system to produce a decision in this case.

----
#### Prince vs. McCarty.

*September 2*

*September 23, 1884.*

*Special*proceeding— *Compelling delivery of bóoles and papers of public officer*— Appealable *order.*

The term “special proceedings,” in subd. 2, sec. 3069, R. S., is used as defined in secs. 2593-96. A proceeding under ch. 43, R. S., to compel the delivery of books and papers of a public officer to *4his successor, being before a judge and not in the court, is not such a special proceeding, and the order made therein is not appealable.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Ashland*County.

The case is stated in the opinion.

In support of the motion to dismiss there was a brief by *Miles ós*Gleason, attorneys, and *Geo. F.*Merrill, of counsel, for the respondent, and oral argument by *Mr. Miles.*

*J. 0.*Hayes, *contra.*

Lyon, J.

The respondent was county clerk of Ashland county. The board of supervisors of that county assumed to remove him from such office, and appointed the appellant in his place. The respondent refused to deliver to the appellant the books and papers pertaining to the office, and the latter instituted proceedings before the circuit judge under ch. 43, R. S., to compel him to do so. The judge denied the relief sought. This is an appeal by *Prince*from the order of the judge in that behalf. The respondent now moves to dismiss the appeal.

This is a special statutory proceeding before the circuit judge, upon whom the statute confers powers not conferred by the common law. It is not a proceeding at chambers which the court may review, for the statute confers no authority upon the court in respect to it. It is not, therefore, a special proceeding under R. S., 713, secs. 2593-2596, because it is not a proceeding in the court (sec. 2593), and hence an order made therein is not appealable under sec. 3069, subd. 2. The term “ special proceedings ” is used in that section as defined in the other sections above cited, and does not include proceedings to compel delivery of official books and papers under ch. 43. The appellant has mistaken his remedy.

*By the*Court.— Appeal dismissed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69392-69393]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27647]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Docket ID: DoD-2013-OS-0219]

Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records

AGENCY: Defense Finance and Accounting Service, DoD.

ACTION: Notice to delete a system of records.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Finance and Accounting Service is deleting a 
system of records notices in its existing inventory of record systems 
subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. The system of records 
being deleted is T7108, Base Accounts Receivable System (BARS).

DATES: This proposed action will be effective on December 20, 2013 
unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination. 
Comments will be accepted on or before December 19, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and 
title, by any of the following methods:
    * Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments.
    * Mail: Federal Docket Management System Office, 4800 Mark Center 
Drive, East Tower, 2nd Floor, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and docket number for this Federal Register document. The general 
policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is 
to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet 
at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, 
including any

[[Page 69393]]

personal identifiers or contact information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Gregory Outlaw, (317) 212-4591.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Defense Finance and Accounting Service 
systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 
552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are 
available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. The 
proposed deletion is not within the purview of subsection (r) of the 
Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the 
submission of a new or altered system report.

    Dated: November 14, 2013.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
Deletion:
T7108

System name:
    Base Accounts Receivable System (BARS) (June 16, 2009, 74 FR 
28478).

Reason:
    System was decommissioned June 13, 2011. All data was archived into 
an offline database for two years then destroyed, therefore; T7108, 
Base Accounts Receivable System (BARS) can be deleted.

[FR Doc. 2013-27647 Filed 11-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1996
<CASH>                                         885,552
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  784,856
<ALLOWANCES>                                   40,000
<INVENTORY>                                    2,102,380
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3,986,500
<PP&E>                                         2,949,620
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,113,564
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 8,727,538
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,290,808
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    778,177
<COMMON>                                       6,614
<OTHER-SE>                                     29,622,661
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   8,727,538
<SALES>                                        3,688,186
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3,688,186
<CGS>                                          4,323,463
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  5,053,537
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               49,893
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             319,027
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,287,298)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,287,298)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,287,298)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.99)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.99)
        


</TABLE>
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1796 

To amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to increase the age of eligibility 

for children to receive benefits under the special supplemental nutrition 

program for women, infants, and children and to allow States to certify 

infants for participation in that program for a period of 2 years, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 16, 2015 

Mr. CASEY (for himself, Mr. SANDERS, Ms. MIKULSKI, Ms. WARREN, and 

Mrs. MURRAY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to increase the 

age of eligibility for children to receive benefits under 

the special supplemental nutrition program for women, 

infants, and children and to allow States to certify infants for participation in that program for a period of 

2 years, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Wise Investment in 

5 our Children Act of 2015’’ or the ‘‘WIC Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1796 IS

1 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN AGE OF ELIGIBILITY FOR THE SPE2 CIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM 

3 FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN. 

4 Section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 

5 U.S.C. 1786) is amended— 

6 (1) in subsection (b), by striking paragraph (2) 

7 and inserting the following: 

8 ‘‘(2) ‘Children’ means persons who have had 

9 their first birthday but have not yet attained their 

10 fifth birthday, except in a case in which a State 

11 agency determines that the waiver of that age limit 

12 is necessary to accommodate— 

13 ‘‘(A) the unique circumstances of an indi14 vidual child; or 

15 ‘‘(B) an individual who is at least 1, and 

16 less than 6, years of age.’’; 

17 (2) in subsection (d)(3)(A), by adding at the 

18 end the following: 

19 ‘‘(iv) INFANTS.—A State may elect to 

20 certify participant infants for a period of 

21 up to 2 years.’’; 

22 (3) in subsection (e)(4)(A), by striking ‘‘up to 

23 age 5’’ and inserting ‘‘under the age of 6’’; and 

24 (4) in subsection (f)(7)(D)(i), by striking ‘‘age 

25 of 5’’ and inserting ‘‘age of 6’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1796 IS

1 SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENT TO SOCIAL SECURITY 

2 ACT. 

3 Section 1902(a)(53)(A) of title XIX of the Social Se4 curity Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(53)(A)) is amended by 

5 striking ‘‘age of 5’’ and inserting ‘‘age of 6’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant to, and solely for purposes of, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), each of the undersignedhereby certifies in the capacity and on the date indicated below that:

 

1.                                       The QuarterlyReport of Cache, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 3, 2010as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Cache, Inc.

 

 
| August  12, 2010 | By:    | /s/  Thomas E. Reinckens                              |
|------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|             |   | Thomas  E. Reinckens                                  |
| * *         |   | *Chairman and Chief Executive Officer*                |
|             |   | (Principal  Executive Officer)                        |
|             |   |
|             |   |
| August  12, 2010 | By:    | /s/  Margaret Feeney                                  |
|             |   | Margaret  Feeney                                      |
|             |   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer |
|             |   | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)          |

 

----
Attachment C

Clean Fuel Fleet 

Rule Package
# CE2004084EN.01092801.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/928 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/928

---

(2004/C 84 E/1025)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1001/04

by Ulla Sandbæk (EDD) to the Commission

(25 March 2004)

Subject:   Critical dialogue with Iranian theocracy on minorities

Subject:

Has the issue of minorities been discussed during the critical dialogue with the Iranian theocracy and, if so, when and how, and what plans or strategies are in place for future dialogue concerning the position of minorities in Iran?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2004)

(26 April 2004)

The EU and Iran have held specific discussions on Human Rights through three rounds of the EU — Iran Human Rights Dialogue. These meetings comprise the EU Troika and Iranian officials (including Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Parliament and Judiciary), as well as representatives of Human Rights institutions, civil society and academia from both sides. Since the third and most recent round in October 2003, representatives from the Parliament also participate.

On the occasion of the first round in Tehran on 16/17 December 2002, two main themes were focused upon: Discrimination and Prevention of Torture.

The rights of minorities (ethnic and religious) were discussed under the theme Discrimination. This dialogue also feeds into the semi-annual Comprehensive Dialogue Meetings with Iran, held at deputy ministerial level and covering bilateral, regional and global matters including Human Rights.

As Council conclusions confirm, the EU monitors the Human Rights Dialogue and assesses progress on the issue of minorities, as well as other themes, on the basis of concrete benchmarks.

---
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1804 

To eliminate the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection by repealing 

title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 

Act, commonly known as the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 

2010. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 21, 2015 

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

the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To eliminate the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection 

by repealing title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, commonly known 

as the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Repeal CFPB Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. REPEAL. 

6 The Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 

7 U.S.C. 5481 et seq.) is repealed, and the provisions of law 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1804 IS

1 amended or repealed by that Act are restored or revived 

2 as if the Act had not been enacted. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS