alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Jimmy PRATER, Appellant, v. Sean BRITZ and Christina Ann Britz and Britz Wrecking, Inc., Respondents.

WD 81130

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: August 14, 2018

Phillip M. Murphy, II, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.

Kelvin J. Fisher, Overland Park, KS, for respondent.

Before Division Four: Karen King Mitchell, Chief Judge, Presiding, Cynthia L. Martin, Judge and Jeff Harris, Special Judge

**ORDER**

Per curiam:

*889Jimmy Prater appeals from the grant of summary judgment and of a motion to dismiss in favor of Sean Britz, Christina Britz, and Britz Wrecking, Inc. in a wrongful death action involving the death of Prater's father. Prater contends that the trial court erred in granting judgment in favor of the Respondents because there were genuine issues of material fact in dispute, and because the elements of collateral estoppel and judicial estoppel were not established. Prater also contends that the trial court erred in awarding costs to the Respondents.

Finding no error, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John McDermott, Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 76]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.), rendered December 3, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree, resisting arrest, and obstructing governmental administration in the second degree, and sentencing him to three concurrent terms of 90 days and 5 years probation, unanimously affirmed. The matter is remitted to Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings in accordance with CPL 460.50 (5).

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. In order to establish defendant’s guilt of each of the three crimes of which he was convicted, the People were required to prove that the officer had probable cause to arrest defendant for disorderly conduct; however, the People were not required to prove that defendant actually committed disorderly conduct. The evidence established that the officer had probable cause to believe that defendant intended to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm (see, Penal Law § 240.20; *cf., People v Munafo,*50 NY2d 326) based on defendant’s obstreperous behavior on a midtown Manhattan street corner.

Defendant’s request for a sanction for the erasure of a police tape recording was properly denied. Defendant did not establish any prejudice inasmuch as the Sprint report permitted defendant to elicit the essential information contained in the tape recording and defendant has not established that the Sprint report would have been inadequate for that purpose (see, *People v Marengo,*276 AD2d 358).

Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment was properly denied. None of the improprieties in the Grand Jury presentation rose to the level of impairing the integrity of that proceeding (see, CPL 210.35 [5]; *People v Jones,*239 AD2d 234).

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.
M A N D A T E

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 288TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on December 10, 2014, the cause upon appeal to

revise or reverse your judgment between

James W. Carroll, Appellant

V.

Joan Castanon, Appellee

No. 04-13-00231-CV and Tr. Ct. No. 1998-CI-09347

was determined, and therein our said Court of Appeals made its order in these words:

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the portions of the

trial court’s order awarding a monetary judgment and attorney’s fees are

REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED to the trial court for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is ORDERED that appellant James W. Carroll recover his costs of this

appeal from appellee Joan Castanon.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of

Texas, with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on June 1, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DISTRICT, AT SAN ANTONIO

No. 04-13-00231-CV

James W. Carroll

v.

Joan Castanon

(NO. 1998-CI-09347 IN 288TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

CERTIFIED COPY

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

CLERK'S RECORD

MOTION FEE

CERTIFIED COPY

INDIGENCY FILING FEE

SUPREME COURT CHAPTER 51

FEE

FILING

$30.00

$15.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$212.00

$10.00

$20.00

$25.00

$50.00

$100.00

PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

RUSELL HEFFNER

ROBINSON RAMSEY

TERESA RODRIGUEZ

ANTHONY WALLUK

ANTHONY WALLUK

ROBINSON RAMSEY

ANTHONY WALLUK

ANTHONY WALLUK

ANTHONY WARREN WALLUK

ANTHONY W. WALLUK

ANTHONY W. WALLUK

ANTHONY W. WALLUK

LAURA PENA

ANTHONY W. WALLUK

ANTHONY WULLUK

ANTHONY W. WALLUK

ANTHONY W. WALLUK

ANTHONY W. WALLUK

Balance of costs owing to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas: 0.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF

TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and

payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for

the Fourth District of Texas, this June 1, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
[4910-13-PI

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION XJ~nl""F~C!!5

"()LrI'I~GW"OOI.

Federal Aviation Administration

'NmAt_~·11r;

C--C~

RIN 2120-AA64

Ainvorthiness Directives; Fokker Scn'lces B.Y.Model F 28 Mark 0070 and 0100

AillJlanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation

(DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness direclive (AD) for the products list

above. This AD results from 1J1andatorycontinuing airworiiliness infomwtion (MeAl)

- 'e i

lMTf./

RIJtrTIN(i,1""')Ol

alJTl.";W~"IIJL

Originated by an aviation authority of another country to identi fy and correct an unsaCe k,~"",,----

condition on an aviation product. The MeAl describes the unsafe condition as:

Several cases have been reported where a passenger door actuator

dl':tac!led from the passenger door This caused the passenger door to drop

10the platform in ~muncontrolled manner.

This conditioll, if not corrected, could result in Injury to persons on the

ground and damage to the aircraft.

* *

,

We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these

products.

I/AII
LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

GREKA Energy Corporation, a Colorado Corporation                   6/27/88

GREKA Integrated, Inc, a Colorado Corporation                      3/23/99
(wholly owned subsidiary of GREKA)

GREKA SMV, Inc, a Colorado Corporation                             10/9/97
(wholly owned subsidiary of GREKA)

GREKA Services, Inc, a Colorado Corporation                        10/8/99
(wholly owned subsidiary of GREKA)

GREKA AM, Inc, a Colorado Corporation                              9/30/99
(wholly owned subsidiary of GREKA)

Saba International Limited, a Delaware Corporation                 1/2/96
(wholly owned subsidiary of Saba Petroleum Company)

Saba Petroleum of Michigan, Inc, a Michigan Corporation            11/4/92
(wholly owned subsidiary of Saba Petroleum Company)

Saba of Texas, Inc, a Texas Corporation                            6/3/88
(wholly owned subsidiary of Saba Petroleum Company)

Saba Jatiluhur Limited, a Cayman Islands Corporation               6/19/97
(wholly owned subsidiary of Saba Cayman Limited)

Saba Cayman Limited, a Cayman Islands Corporation                  6/19/97
(wholly owned subsidiary of Saba Petroleum Company)

Saba Petroleum (UK) Limited, a U.K. Corporation                    8/11/97
(wholly owned subsidiary of Saba Cayman Limited)

Calox Corporation, an Indian Corporation                           6/10/92
(wholly owned subsidiary of GREKA)

Saba Realty, Inc., a California Corpoation                         8/3/94
(wholly owned subsidiary of GREKA Integrated, Inc.)

Beaver Lake Resources Corporation, a Canada Corporation            7/12/91
(wholly owned subsidiary of GREKA)

Saba Petroleum Company, a Delaware Corporation                     3/16/79
(wholly owned subsidiary of GREKA)

Saba Petroleum Inc, a California Corporation                       2/3/92
(wholly owned subsidiary of Saba Petroleum Company)

Santa  Maria  Refining Company, a California Corporation           8/23/93
(wholly  owned  subsidiary  of  GREKA
Integrated, Inc.)

Saba Exploration Company, a California Corporation                 5/4/95
(wholly owned subsidiary of Saba Petroleum Company)

Sabocol, Inc., a Delaware Corporation                              1/17/95
(wholly owned subsidiary of Saba Petroleum Company)
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19

- 346 V

UNPUBLISHED

CYNTHIA RUBLAITUS

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: February 19, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU) ;

Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine

Administration (SIRVA)

Michael G. McLaren, Black McLaren Jones Ryland & Griffee, P.C., Memphis, TN , for

petitioner.

Darryl R. Wishard , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On March 6, 2019

, Cynthia Rublaitus filed a petition for compensation under the

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq

. , 2 (the

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a left shoulder injury related to

vaccine admin istration ( “ SIRVA ” ) caused by an October 2, 2017 influenza ( “ flu ” )

vaccination . Petit ion at 1 . The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the

Office of Special Masters.

On February 18, 2020

, R espondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he

concedes that P etitioner is entitled to compensa tion in this case. Respondent’s Rule

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am

required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E

Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Managemen t and Promotion of

Electronic Government Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to

the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to

redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of

privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such

material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 19 86, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755

. Hereinafter, for

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. §

300aa (2012 ).2 4(c) Report at 1. Specifically, R espondent has con cluded that Petitioner ’ s alleged injury

meets the table requirements for a SIRVA. Id. at 5 . Respondent further agrees that

Petit ioner h as satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the V a ccine Act

. Id.

In view of R espondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that

P etitioner is entitle d to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-2125

___________ Nico Redding, * * Appellant, * * Anthony B. Hale, * * Appeal from the United States Plaintiff, * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. v. * * [UNPUBLISHED] I.D.D.S. World Communications; * U.S. West Communications; * Ron James; Ruth Ziggin Wallen, * * Appellees.

___________ Submitted: July 7, 1997 Filed: July 11, 1997

___________ Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of 1 Minnesot a, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Jonathan G
. Lebedoff, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. -2- Nico Redding, a Minnesota inmate, appeals the District Court's grant o f 1 summary judgment to defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) action. Havin g revi ewed the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude the judgment of the Distric t Court was correct. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny Redding's motion for appointment of counsel. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.