alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*January 23, 2018*

2018-Ohio-210.]

2015-2111.

#### Dulay v. Testa.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2014-2074. On appellant/cross-appellee’s motion for substitution of party. Motion granted.
#### Steven Manfredonia et al., Respondents, v Gateway School of New York, Appellant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Kaback Enterprises, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant-Respondent.

[51 NYS3d 415]

*435Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered May 23, 2016, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the motions of Gateway School of New York (Gateway) and Kaback Enterprises, Inc. (Kaback) for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ cause of action under Labor Law § 240 (1), and denied the motion of Kaback seeking dismissal of Gateway’s third-party contractual indemnity claim against it, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of dismissing the third-party contractual indemnity claim, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Kaback dismissing the third-party complaint.

Gateway and Kaback failed to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. Although there is evidence showing that plaintiff Steven Manfredonia, a Kaback employee, in violation of Kaback’s safety manual, improperly stood on the top cap of a six-foot A-frame ladder to reach his work (see *e.g. Robinson v East Med. Ctr., LP,*6 NY3d 550 [2006]), there is also evidence supporting plaintiff’s claim that his fall was caused by the ladder’s side hinge breaking and the ladder collapsing, and not the method in which he used the device (see *Lizama v 1801 Univ. Assoc., LLC,*100 AD3d 497 [1st Dept 2012]). Thus it cannot be said as a matter of law that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident (see *Blake v Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City, 1*NY3d 280, 290 [2003]).

The court erred, however, in finding that questions of fact precluded dismissal of Gateway’s contractual indemnity claim against Kaback. The contract does not express the type of clear and unmistakable manifestation of intent to indemnify that is required (see *Hooper Assoc. v AGS Computers,*74 NY2d 487, 491 [1989]; *Cordeiro v TS Midtown Holdings, LLC,*87 AD3d 904, 907 [1st Dept 2011]).

Concur—Richter, J.R, Andrias, Moskowitz, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1694 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1694

 To suspend certain requirements until it is determined or agreed that 
 the requirements do not violate the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
                     Trade, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            November 19 (legislative day, November 2), 1993

   Mr. Brown introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To suspend certain requirements until it is determined or agreed that 
 the requirements do not violate the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
                     Trade, 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. SUSPENSION OF CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS PENDING GATT 
              DETERMINATION.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, section 320C of the Act 
of Feburary 16, 1938, shall not be effective during the period 
beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending on the 
earlier of--
            (1) the date the United States Trade Representative enters 
        into an agreement with parties to the General Agreement on 
        Tariffs and Trade (referred to in this section as ``GATT'') 
        that have challenged the compliance of such section with GATT, 
        stipulating that such section does not violate GATT; or
            (2) the date of a final determination, under the dispute 
        resolution procedure established for GATT, that such section 
        does not violate GATT.

                                 <all>
```
No. 12-7556.

#### Leonard *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
No. 12-8532.

#### Cota-Becerra *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
|                                                                                         
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                         
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                 
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                           
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                           
|View History:                                                                            
|                                                                                         
|Price of Liquefied U.S. Natural Gas Exports to Portugal (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                         
|                                                                                         
|Price of Liquefied U.S. Natural Gas Exports to Portugal (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                         

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        | --     | 11.27  | --     | --     | --     | 3.58   | 5.65   | 5.45   | 5.16  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 5.24   | 8.58   | 10.35  | 5.87   |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
|                                                                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                    
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                            
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                      
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                      
|View History:                                                                                       
|                                                                                                    
|Price of U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Exports by Vessel to Nicaragua (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                    
|                                                                                                    
|Price of U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Exports by Vessel to Nicaragua (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                    

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | 10.39  | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-25-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                            26,721
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                  27,520
<CASH>                                             621
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                             189
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  33,927
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                  2,506
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,095
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    33,927
<PREMIUMS>                                           0
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                                286
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                   1
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       8
<BENEFITS>                                          26
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                         13
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                               159
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     97
<INCOME-TAX>                                        34
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 63
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        63
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0








</TABLE>
#### Com. v. Baker

10/27/2015

429 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 122 A.3d 435
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                 5
<LEGEND>                  THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
                          EXTRACTED FROM ANR PIPELINE COMPANY FORM 10-Q
                          QUARTERLY REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31,
                          1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
                          TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>              1,000,000
       
                          <S>            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                             MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                                3
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       234
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                          28
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    290
<PP&E>                                            3,416
<DEPRECIATION>                                    2,165
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1,685
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               193
<BONDS>                                             498
<COMMON>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<OTHER-SE>                                          716
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1,685
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    191
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        77
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   12
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     102
<INCOME-TAX>                                         38
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  64
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                         64
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1858 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1858

    To amend the Trade Act of 1974 to make ``super 301'' permanent.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 22, 1994

  Mr. Baucus (for himself and Mr. Danforth) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Trade Act of 1974 to make ``super 301'' permanent.

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

SECTION 1. IDENTIFICATION OF TRADE LIBERALIZATION PRIORITIES MADE 
              PERMANENT.

    (a) In General.--Section 310(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2420(a)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``By no later than the date that is 30 days 
        after the date in calendar year 1989, and also the date in 
        calendar year 1990, on which the report required under section 
        181(b) is submitted to the appropriate Congressional 
        committees,'' and inserting ``By no later than the date that is 
        180 days after the date on which the report required under 
        section 181(b) is submitted to the appropriate Congressional 
        committees,'', and
            (2) by striking ``such report'' in subparagraph (B) and 
        inserting ``the most recent report submitted under section 
        181(b)''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to calendar years beginning after 1993.

                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Cepeda, Appellant.

[51 NYS3d 414]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jill Konviser, J.), rendered April 28, 2015, unanimously affirmed.

Application by defendant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1st Dept 1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of this order.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice.

Concur— Richter, J.P, Andrias, Moskowitz, Feinman and Kapnick, JJ.
No. 12-8007.

#### Corby *v.*Martuscello, Superintendent, Coxsackie Correctional Facility, et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                  5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM UNITED 
CAPITAL CORP.'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH  31, 1999 AND IS 
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES, 
THERETO.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                           MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                                      16,771
<SECURITIES>                                                13,083
<RECEIVABLES>                                                7,524
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   390
<INVENTORY>                                                  4,490
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                            42,051
<PP&E>                                                      10,078
<DEPRECIATION>                                               5,240
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             128,070
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                       24,903
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                       502
<OTHER-SE>                                                  52,407
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               128,070
<SALES>                                                      7,653
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                            14,175
<CGS>                                                        5,660
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                               12,167
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           (4,001)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                             163
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              6,156
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 2,570
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                          3,586
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                                 3,586
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                  .70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                  .70
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1789 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1789

To amend title 23, United States Code, to permit the use of funds under 
 the highway bridge replacement and rehabilitation program for seismic 
              retrofit of bridges, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 25, 1994

 Mrs. Boxer (for herself, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. Hatfield) introduced 
the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 
                    on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 23, United States Code, to permit the use of funds under 
 the highway bridge replacement and rehabilitation program for seismic 
              retrofit of bridges, 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. SEISMIC RETROFIT OF BRIDGES.

    Section 144 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in the third sentence of subsection (d), by inserting 
        before the period at the end the following: ``, except that a 
        State may carry out a project for seismic retrofit of a bridge 
        under this section without regard to whether the bridge is 
        eligible for replacement or rehabilitation under this 
        section''; and
            (2) in subsection (e), by adding at the end the following 
        new sentence: ``The use of funds authorized under this section 
        to carry out a project for the seismic retrofit of a bridge 
        shall not affect the apportionment of funds under this 
        section.''.

                                 <all>
```
ANGEL GUST,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-3301

_____________________________/

Opinion filed January 6, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Mallory D. Cooper, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant; Angel Gust, pro se, Appellant. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, RAY, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.