alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Heckman v. Glass

On November 13, 1978, defendant Union Artificial Limb and Brace Company, hereinafter Union, filed preliminary objections and a brief in support thereof. On December 4, 1978, plaintiff filed a brief in opposition to preliminary objections.

*670Defendant Union argues that the Arbitration Panels for Health Care have no jurisdiction over the claim against it since that claim is based solely upon the theory of strict liability and/or breach of warranty for the manufacture and sale of a defective product, i.e., a neck brace. In Gillette v. Redinger, 34 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 469, 383 A. 2d 1295, 1298 (1978), the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania discussed the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Panels for Health Care over nonhealth care providers:

> “[T]he term ‘nonhealth care provider’ does not refer to all persons not included in the definition of ‘health care provider’ in Section 103, butrather was intended to encompass those persons who, like manufacturers of drugs or medical instruments, although not health care providers as defined by Section 103, are kindred to health care providers.”

We feel that the neck brace manufacturer in this case, unlike the snowball thrower in Redinger, supra, is kindred to a health care provider in the same sense that a drug or medical instrument manufacturer is, and therefore falls within the category of nonhealth care providers over which we have jurisdiction.

ORDER

And now, January 10, 1979, upon consideration of defendant Union Artificial Limb and Brace Company’s preliminary objections and brief in support thereof, and the brief in opposition filed by plaintiff, it is hereby ordered and decreed that said defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is denied.
#### Hartman Construction Company v. Zehnder.

*Mechanic’s Ken*— Demurrer—Averments *in lien*— Construction.

A mechanic’s lien filed under the provisions of the Act of June 4, 1901, § 10, P. D. 431, 434, Silent as to the kind of construction for which a lien is claimed, whether new or fitting up or equipping an old structure, is void for uncertainty, and will be stricken from the record.

Motion to strike off mechanic’s lien. C. P. Lackawanna Co., Mechanic’s Lien, No. 4711.

*J. E. Watkins,*for plaintiff; *R. W. Rymer*and *C. B. Comegys,*for defendant.

April 16, 1921.

Newcomb, J.,

The claim—filed Dec. 20, 1920 — is for installing an electric wiring system in a house in this city at defendant’s instance and request, not in writing. The period during which the work was done extended from Feb. 17th to June 22, 1920. Whether the lien was filed in time, therefore, depends upon the character of the structure. If it was part and parcel of new construction, the claim was entered within the time prescribed by law. On the other hand, the right of lien had theretofore expired if it was a case either of alteration or of “fitting up or equipping old structures with . . . useful appliances:” Act of June 4, 1901, § 10, P. L. 434.

As to which of the two kinds of construction is intended in this instance the claim is silent. Hence, the demurrer.

It is objected that it is bad for the omission of a distinct averment in that particular; and it is believed the objection is well taken.

As the law stood prior to the Act of 1901, it had been so decided: Wharton et al. *v.*Investment Co., 180 Pa. 168. True, at that time the two classes of liens depended for their existence upon different acts of assembly, while at present both are included in the one statute. But that circumstance cannot vary the question involved nor affect the ground upon which the decision was based, which was simply this: The claim must show on its face to which class it belongs, because (1) that is demanded by the general rule governing the pleading of a cause of action of purely statutory origin; and (2) it is the owner’s right to know under which of the two his property is sought to be burdened.

No rational ground for supposing that right has been abridged can arise from the mere fact that both classes have in the meantime been provided for by appropriate sections of a single statute which amounts to a codification of its various predecessors.

This claim, therefore, must be deemed void for uncertainty. The rule to show cause is accordingly made absolute and the lien stricken from the record.

From M. E. McDonald, Scranton, Pa.
# C_2015029EN.01000101.xml

| 29.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 29/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 29/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7375 — UTC / CIAT)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 29/01)

On 5 December 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7375. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7375. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

SAJAAD HALL,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 223 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of October, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### Associates Consumer Discount Company v. Alley

*489
      *Donald S. Marzotta,*of *Davis & Marzotta,*for plaintiff.

*Sidney W. Paul,*for defendants.

January 16, 1978

HENDERSON, *P.J.,*

Plaintiff received a default judgment in this action. Two weeks later it filed a petition entitled “Petition For Supplemental Relief in Aid of Execution Under R.C.P. 3118(a)(1).” This petition averred that defendants were owners of two motor vehicles upon whichiencumbrances were held by Pennsylvania Engineering Federal Credit Union, and Shenango China Federal Credit Union. Plaintiff requested that the court enjoin the encumbrance-holders and defendants from transferring, assigning or otherwise disposing of the motor vehicles or their certificates of title. A rule was issued upon defendants and encumbrance-holders to show cause why they should not be enjoined and restrained from transferring, assigning, selling, pledging, encumbering, delivering or otherwise disposing of said motor vehicles or their certificates of title. At the time set for *490hearing, only counsel for plaintiff appeared, the rule was made absolute, and an order of court signed.

It has now been brought to our attention that this order may be improper since it is serving as an alternative rather than a supplement to the writ of execution. The encumbrance-holders have a prior lien on the motor vehicles. The order does not destroy this priority, but it does prevent the credit unions from making full use of their priority.

The present facts are almost identical with those in the case of Federated Foods v. Ryan, 3 Butler 167 (1964). There Judge (now President Judge) Kiester refused a judgment creditor’s petition to enjoin the encumbrance-holder of the judgment debtor’s automobile from transferring, assigning or disposing of the certificate of title. His reasoning was that to issue an order of the type requested would result in Rule 3118 being used in lieu of execution rather than in aid of execution and such an order would have the effect of harassing a party not involved in the controversy. In that case, as in the present one, no explanation was given by the judgment creditor for its failure to follow the conventional execution procedures, nor did the petition state any reasons why the requested relief was needed: See also 9 Goodrich-Amram 2d§3118 a:1.

We agree with Judge Kiester that relief under Rule 3118 is intended as an aid, not a substitute for the writ of execution. Although the rule may be invoked prior to the issuance of the writ in order to preserve the status quo as to the judgment debtor’s property, the judgment creditor must attempt to secure the writ. Here, although more than two months have passed since the order of court, plaintiff has made no effort to secure the writ. Since the *491relief sought by plaintiff was not sought to aid in execution, but rather as a substitute therefor, we will strike our order of court of October 31, 1977, upon our own motion.

ORDER

Now, January 16, 1978, based on on the foregoing opinion, the final order of court of October 31, 1977, is hereby stricken on the court’s own motion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          22,684
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,078
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (579)
<INVENTORY>                                        132
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,427
<PP&E>                                           7,707
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,974)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  36,635<F1>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,087
<BONDS>                                            142
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            98<F1>
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,308<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    36,635
<SALES>                                          7,109
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,763
<CGS>                                            1,718
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,522
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,609
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   149
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  21
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,924
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,124
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>The Company completed an initial public offering of its common stock in October
1996 at a price of $12.00 per share. Net proceeds to the Company from the
offering were $23,849,000.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Visitor Request to Attend 

Agricultural Statistics Board

 Lockup Briefing

United States Department of Agriculture

National Agricultural Statistics Service

Agricultural Statistics Board

Reservations are required to attend the Agricultural Statistics Board (ASB) Lockup Briefings. To

make a reservation, please fill in the required information and submit this form

or call (202) 690-3099.

Click on the following 'ASB Calendar' link to open the ASB Calendar. 

Room 5336C-South Building · 1400 Independence Avenue, SW · Washington, D.C. 20250

Phone: (202) 690-3099 · www.nass.usda.gov

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2952 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to allow manufacturers 

and sponsors of a drug to use alternative testing methods to animal 

testing to investigate the safety and effectiveness of a drug, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 7, 2021 

Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. BOOKER, Mr. BRAUN, Mr. KENNEDY, and Mr. 

LUJA ́N) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 

allow manufacturers and sponsors of a drug to use alternative testing methods to animal testing to investigate 

the safety and effectiveness of a drug, 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 ‘‘FDA Modernization 

5 Act of 2021’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2952 IS

1 SEC. 2. NEW APPROACH METHODOLOGIES. 

2 Section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

3 Act (21 U.S.C. 355) is amended— 

4 (1) in subsection (b)(5)(B)(i)(II), by striking 

5 ‘‘animal’’ and inserting ‘‘nonclinical tests or stud6 ies’’; 

7 (2) in subsection (i)— 

8 (A) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ‘‘pre9 clinical tests (including tests on animals)’’ and 

10 inserting ‘‘nonclinical tests’’; and 

11 (B) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ‘‘ani12 mal’’ and inserting ‘‘nonclinical tests or stud13 ies’’; and 

14 (3) after subsection (y), by inserting the fol15 lowing: 

16 ‘‘(z) NONCLINICAL TEST OR STUDY DEFINED.—For 

17 purposes of this section, the term ‘nonclinical test or 

18 study’ means a test or study conducted in vitro, in silico, 

19 in chemico, or in vivo that occurs before or during the 

20 clinical trial phase of the investigation of the safety and 

21 effectiveness of a drug, and may include the following: 

22 ‘‘(1) Cell-based assays. 

23 ‘‘(2) Organ chips and microphysiological sys24 tems. 

25 ‘‘(3) Computer models. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2952 IS

1 ‘‘(4) Other non-animal or human biology-based 

2 test methods. 

3 ‘‘(5) Animal tests.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JAMES E. WHITE, IV, Individually and 

as Beneficiary of the JANE WHITE 

Trust; MARTI WHITE WRIGHT, 

Individually and as a Named Beneficiary 

of the JANE WHITE Trust; and

CLINTON WESLEY WHITE, 

Individually and as a Beneficiary of the 

JANE WHITE Trust, by and through his 

Next Friend, JAMES E. WHITE, IV,

Appellants,

v.

EDWARD MCMINN WHITE, 

Individually and as Trustee of the 

EDWARD MCMINN WHITE Trust, and

BEAUREGARD BRITE WHITE, 

Individually and as Trustee of the 

BEAURAGARD BRITE WHITE Trust,

Appellees.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-23-00272-CV

Appeal from the

394th Judicial District Court

of Presidio County, Texas

(TC# 7856)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be 

dismissed for want of jurisdiction. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We 

further order Appellant to pay all costs of this appeal and this decision shall be certified below for 

observance.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice 

Before Palafox, J., Soto, J., and Marion, C.J. (Ret.)

Marion, C.J. (Ret.) (Sitting by Assignment)
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3138 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 3138

   To amend the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act to 
 exempt covered farm vehicles from certain requirements, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 2, 2021

  Mr. Marshall (for himself and Mr. Ossoff) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act to 
 exempt covered farm vehicles from certain requirements, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Covered Farm Vehicle Modernization 
Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTIONS FOR COVERED FARM VEHICLES.

    Section 32934 of MAP-21 (49 U.S.C. 31136 note; Public Law 112-141) 
is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
            ``(6) Any requirement relating to registration under 
        section 31134 of title 49, United States Code, including any 
        requirement relating to a USDOT number under that section.
            ``(7) Any requirement relating to registration under the 
        unified carrier registration agreement (as defined in section 
        14504a(a) of title 49, United States Code).'';
            (2) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) in paragraph (1), by redesignating 
                subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses (i) and (ii), 
                respectively, and indenting appropriately;
                    (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``Paragraph (1)'' 
                and inserting ``Subparagraph (A)'';
                    (C) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as 
                subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively, and indenting 
                appropriately;
                    (D) by inserting before subparagraph (A) (as so 
                designated) the following:
            ``(1) Federal transportation funding.--''; and
                    (E) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(2) IFTA requirements.--A covered farm vehicle and the 
        individual operating that covered farm vehicle shall be exempt 
        from any requirement relating to a license under the 
        International Fuel Tax Agreement (as defined in section 31701 
        of title 49, United States Code).''; and
            (3) in subsection (c)(1)(B), by striking ``26,001'' each 
        place it appears and inserting ``36,001''.
                                 <all>
```
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. ALFRE DO SANDOVAL-SANC HEZ, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-50552

D.C . No. 2:12-c r-00423-M W F M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia M ic h a e l W . Fitz ge ra ld, Distric t Judge , Pre siding

Subm itte d

M ay 13, 2014 ** B e fore : C LIFTON, B EA, a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. Alfre do Sa

ndova l-San c he z a

ppe a l s from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd c ha lle nge s his guilty -ple a c onvic tion a

nd 57-m onth se nte nc e for posse ssion with inte nt to distribute

at le a st 100 kilogra

m s of m arijua

na , in viola

tion of 21 U.S.C . § 841(a )(1), (b)(1)(B )(vii), a nd 18 U.S.C . § 2. Pursua nt to Ande rs v . C

alifornia , 

# FIL ED MAY23 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).386 U.S. 738 (1967), Sa n d ova l -Sanc he z ’ s c ounse l ha s file d a brie f sta ting tha t the re are no grounds for re lie f, a long with a m otion to withdra w a s c ounse l of re c o rd. W e have p rovide d Sandova l-Sanc h e zthe opportunity to file a pro se supple m e nta l brie f. No pro se supple m e nta l brie f or answe ring brie f ha s be e n file d . Sandova l-Sanc he z wa ive d his right to a p pe a l his c onvic t ion, with the e xc e ption of a

n a ppe a l ba se d on a

c la im tha t his ple a wa s involunta

ry . He a lso wa ive d the right to a

ppe a l five spe c ifie d issue s re l ate d to his sente n c e . Our inde pe nde nt re vie w of the re c ord pursua nt to P e n son v . Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), disc lose s no a

rgua ble grounds for re lie f a s to thevolunta rine ss of Sandova l-Sanc he z ’ s ple a

or a ny se nte nc ing issueoutsidethe sc ope of the se nte nc ing a

ppe a l wa ive r. W e the re fore a ffirm a s to thoseissue s. W e dism iss the re m a inde r of the a

ppe a l in light of the

va lid a ppe a l wa i ve rs. Se e Unite d State s v . W atson , 582 F.3d 974, 988 (9th C ir. 2009). C ounse l’ s m otion to withdra w is G RANT E D. AFFIRM E D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 2 - 5 0 5 5 2 2
# C_2016338EN.01000102.xml

| 15.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8126 — HNA Group/Carlson Hotels)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 338/02)

On 9 September 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8126. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8126. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---