alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(23 Misc. Rep. 141.)

#### SIPP v. SIEGEL-COOPER CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

March 28, 1898.)

Bailments—Evidence—Admissibility.

Evidence of what a hirer of property had offered the owner in settlement of his claim for the use is inadmissible to show the value of the use.

Appeal from Thirteenth district court.

Action by George A. Sipp against the Siegel-Cooper Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued before BEEKMAN, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and GIEGERIGH, JJ.

J. C. Van Loon, for plaintiff.

Rose & Putzel, for defendant..

GILDERSLEEVE, J..

The issue herein presented by the pleadings and the testimony was as to the compensation which plaintiff was entitled to receive for the use of two trucks and three delivery wagons for, at the most, one full day. It was the claim of the plaintiff that the defendant admitted that the use of the trucks and wagons was of the value of $35. It was for this amount that the learned trial justice rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff. A *659careful examination of the record fails to disclose any evidence to support this judgment. The evidence shows that plaintiff made a claim against defendant for $75, and that the correctness of this claim was disputed by defendant; and it further appears that, subsequent to the commencement of the action, defendant instructed its lawyers to pay $35 to the plaintiff, on obtaining from him a release. It is the contention of the defendant that this offer was made in order to compromise the particular claim for which this action was brought, as well as other differences that existed between the parties to the action. However that may.be, no payment was made, and no settlement had. The action was not brought to recover upon the express promise of the defendant to pay the sum of $35, but was brought, as we have seen, to recover payment for the use of the two trucks and three parcel wagons, as appears by the record of the oral pleadings. Plaintiff claims, correctly, that the question of value was one of fact, to be found by the justice, before whom the action was tried. It would seem that the justice considered the defendant’s letter, which was nothing more than a proposition to compromise, and the testimony as to what transpired between the parties, as evidence of the fair value of the use of the trucks and wagons; and, consequently, he fixed, as we have said, the recovery at $35. This conclusion is clearly against the weight of evidence. There is no sufficient evidence to support such an award. The preponderance of evidence shows undisputably that the fair value of the use of the trucks and wagons in question did not exceed the sum of $7.

For the reasons above stated, the judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event. All concur.
Order entered October 31, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00642-CV

BRIDGET PARSON, Appellant

V.

BECKY COLE, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-1501563-B

ORDER

It has come to the Court’s attention that appellant has filed a petition for bankruptcy in 

the United States Bankruptcy Court. This automatically suspends further action in this appeal. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 8.2.

Accordingly, we ABATE this appeal. It may be reinstated on prompt motion by any 

party complying with Rule 8.3 and specifying what further action, if any, is required from this 

Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 8.3.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
[No. 36772-2-I.

Division One.

August 18, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Michael Christopher Williams, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Snohomish County, No. 95-1-00277-8, Kathryn E. Trumbull, J., entered June 1, 1997. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Cox, J., concurred in by Coleman and Agid, JJ.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

David Charles Davidson, Appellant

No. 06-12-00147-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 102nd District Court of 

Red River County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

CR01451). Opinion delivered by Justice 

Carter, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice 

Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We further order that the appellant, David Charles Davidson, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED FEBRUARY 8, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
#### City of New Rochelle et al., Petitioners, v New York State Division of Human Rights, on the Complaint of William Murphy, et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 298 to review an order of the New York State Division of Human Rights (division) dated June 18,1984, which, *inter alia,*(1) held that petitioners illegally discriminated *739against the complainant by disqualifying him for the position of police officer on the basis of a disability; and (2) ordered petitioners to restore the complainant to eligibility for appointment as a police officer to all available positions.

Order confirmed and proceeding dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The division’s determination is supported by substantial evidence *(see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Harold Brady, Appellant, v Thomas A. Coughlin, III, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

Yesawich, Jr., J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Cholakis, J.), entered August 30,1984 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction.

In an effort to challenge respondents’ denial of petitioner’s request for certain documents under the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art 6), petitioner, an inmate at Green Haven Correctional Facility, attempted to commence a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 by mailing a copy of the notice *540of petition and petition to the Attorney-General’s office. As respondents were never served, Special Term granted their motion to dismiss the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction (CPLR 7804, 403 [c]). Although petitioner’s method of service was indeed jurisdictionally defective, given that his claim is not clearly without merit, his solitary confinement at Green Haven, and his *pro se*and apparently indigent status, we chose to exercise our discretion *{see,*CPLR 5704 [a]), and read petitioner’s application as a request for an order permitting alternative service. Accordingly, we remit the matter to Special Term for issuance of an order to show cause authorizing commencement of this proceeding by service of said order and petition on respondents by such means and upon such conditions as Special Term deems suitable *(see, Matter of Rolle v Henderson,*104 AD2d 686; *Matter of Hanson v Coughlin,*103 AD2d 949; *cf. Matter of King v Gregorie,*90 AD2d 922, *lv dismissed*58 NY2d 822).

Judgment affirmed, without costs, and matter remitted to Special Term for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Mahoney, P. J., Main, Casey, Weiss and Yesawich, Jr., JJ., concur.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Daniel K. Inouye U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center: Hilo, HI
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Research Units
                        TCCPRU
                                    TPGRDRU
                                    TPGMBRUSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Hilo, Hawaii Daniel K. Inouye U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center





- ARS News & Events
- AgResearch Magazine
- Image Gallery
- News

Newsheadline bar   ARS News Articles  New Discovery Speeds Scientists’ Push for HLB-Tolerant CitrusFeb 28, 2024USDA-ARS Joins WCR Global Coffee Breeding Network, Adds Access to New GermplasmMar 28, 2023First Genome of Spotted Lanternfly Built from a Single InsectOct 16, 2019Scientists Refine 'Profile' of a Fungal Tree KillerJun 14, 2018Algal Enlisted to Produce Biofuel Using Discarded PapayasApr 13, 2016Research Leads to Fewer Yellowjackets on Christmas TreesDec 14, 2010Pesky White Peach Scale Targeted in Tropical StudiesJul 17, 2009Lychee Studies Yield Keys to Plentiful, Predictable HarvestsMay 18, 2009New Fruit Fly Control Combination More Effective, Longer LastingJun 01, 2007ARS Research Leads to Deep Cuts in Pesticide Use in CaliforniaMay 09, 2007Pineapples Have Fingerprints, TooOct 03, 2005Winning the Fruit Fly Battle in HawaiiFeb 06, 2004


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
# C_2008230EN.01000101.xml

| 9.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5278 — Banque Fédérative du Crédit Mutuel/Citibank Private Banking Germany)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 230/01)

On 28 August 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/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 under document number 32008M5278. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5278. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T ROSA M ARI A G ON ZALE Z, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N os . 07- 74077 11- 72034 A ge nc yN o. A 096- 493- 547 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i ons f

orR e vi e w of

O r de r s of

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r19, 2012** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dF IS H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. I n the s e c ons ol i da t e d pe t i t i ons f orr e vi e w , R os aM ar i aG onz a l e z , ana t i ve an dci t i zen o f M ex i co , p et i t i o n s fo r rev i ew o f th e B o ardo f Im m i g rat i o n A p p eal s’ ( “ B I A ” ) or de r s di s m i s s i ng he rappe a lf r om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on d e n y in g h e rap p lic a tio n f o rc an c e lla tio n o f

r e m o v a l an dd e n y in g h e rm o tio n to



# FI LED DE C 28 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS07- 74077 /11- 72034 2 reo p en al l eg i n g i n effecti v e assi st an ce o f co u n sel . O u r j u ri sd i ct i o n i s g o v ern edb y 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e v ie w f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n th e d e n ia l o f am o tio n to r e o p e n . Mo h a m m e d

v . G o n z a les , 400 F . 3d 785, 791- 92 ( 9th C i r . 2005) . W e di s m i s s the pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w i n N o. 07- 74077, and de nythe pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w i n N o. 11- 72034. W e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew the agency’ s di sc re t i on ary det erm i nat i on that G on za l ez fa i l ed t o sho w exce pt i on aland extre m el y unu sualhardshi p t o h er qu a lif y in g r e la tiv e s . See Mendez- Castro v. Mukasey , 55 2 F . 3d97 5, 97 8 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 9 ) . G o n z a le z ’s c o n te n tio n th a t th e a g e n c ye rr e db yf a ilin g to c o n s id e rh ar d s h ip t o he re l de s tdaught e ri s be l i e d bythe r e c or d. T he B IA di d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng G on za l ez ’ s m ot i on t o reopen f o rf a ilu r e to e s tab lis h p r e

ju d ic e . Mo h a m m e d

, 40 0 F . 3dat79 3-94 (pre j ud i ce r e s u lts w h e n c o u n s e l’s a c tio n s m ayh av e a f f e c te dth e o u tc o m e o f

th e p r o c e e d in g s ) . W e n eedn o treach G o n zal ez’ s rem ai n i n g co n t en t i o n s i n l i g h to f th ese co n cl u si o n s. I n No . 0 7 - 7 4 0 7 7 : P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DI S MI S S E D. I n No . 1 1 - 7 2 0 3 4 : P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 119 (Thursday, June 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 33290]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13203]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Agreements Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following 
agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may 
submit comments, relevant information, or documents regarding the 
agreements to the Secretary by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1a497f79687f6e7b68635a7c7779347d756c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b4e7d1d7c6d1c0d5c6cdf4d2d9d79ad3dbc2">[email protected]</span></a>, or by mail, 
Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573. Comments will be 
most helpful to the Commission if received within 12 days of the date 
this notice appears in the Federal Register. Copies of agreements are 
available through the Commission's website (www.fmc.gov) or by 
contacting the Office of Agreements at (202)-523-5793 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a4d0d6c5c0c1c5cac5c8ddd7cdd7e4c2c9c78ac3cbd2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b7c3c5d6d3d2d6d9d6dbcec4dec4f7d1dad499d0d8c1">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Agreement No.: 012282-002.
    Agreement Name: NYK/Kyowa Shipping Co., Ltd. Space Charter 
Agreement.
    Parties: Nippon Yusen Kaisha and NYK Bulk and Project Carriers, 
Ltd. (acting as a single party) and Kyowa Shipping Co., Ltd.
    Filing Party: Rebecca Fenneman; Jeffrey/Fenneman Law and Strategy 
PLLC.
    Synopsis: The amendment corrects the parties' addresses; adds to 
the geographic scope of the agreement ports in Korea, Solomon Islands, 
Vanuatu, New Caledonia, Fiji, Western Samoa, Tonga, French Polynesia 
and Kiribati; amends the authority of the agreement to reflect 
reciprocal space chartering; and removes all authority to jointly 
negotiate or procure terminal services in the United States.
    Proposed Effective Date: 6/11/2021.
    Location: https://www2.fmc.gov/FMC.Agreements.Web/Public/AgreementHistory/142.

    Agreement No.: 201362.
    Agreement Name: CMA CGM/Marfret Mediterranean--Caribbean/U.S. Gulf 
Service Space Charter Agreement.
    Parties: CMA CGM S.A. and Compagnie Maritime Marfret S.A.S.
    Filing Party: Draughn Arbona; CMA CGM (America) LLC.
    Synopsis: The Agreement authorizes CMA CGM to charter space to 
Marfret on vessels operated by CMA CGM in the Trade between Italy, 
France, Spain, the French Indies, the Dominican Republic, Colombia, 
Jamaica, Mexico, Costa Rica, Panama, Malta and the U.S. Gulf Coast. The 
parties request expedited review.
    Proposed Effective Date: 7/31/2021.
    Location: https://www2.fmc.gov/FMC.Agreements.Web/Public/AgreementHistory/44510.

    Dated: June 17, 2021.
Rachel E. Dickon,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-13203 Filed 6-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-02-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2008219EN.01000301.xml

| 28.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 219/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 219/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5114 — Pernod Ricard/V&S)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 219/05)

On 17 July 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1) in conjunction with Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/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 under document number 32008M5114. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5114. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
[No. 37124-0-I.

Division One.

October 20, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Tuku Aregai, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 95-1-02552-4, Marilyn R. Sellers, J., entered July 31, 1995. *Affirmed in part*and *reversed in part*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
EXHIBIT 32


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of MB Software  Corporation  on Form
10-QSB for the period  ending  March 31, 2005 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof,  I, Scott A. Haire,  Chief  Executive
Officer and principal financial officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that:

     The Report fully complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     The information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

May 22, 2006

 /S/ Scott A. Haire
--------------------
Scott A. Haire,
Chairman of the Board,
(Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2180 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2180

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the proper 
tax treatment of variable contracts issued by life insurance companies 
                  subject to the laws of Puerto Rico.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 5, 2005

 Mr. Fortuno introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the proper 
tax treatment of variable contracts issued by life insurance companies 
                  subject to the laws of Puerto Rico.

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

SECTION 1. TAX TREATMENT OF VARIABLE CONTRACTS ISSUED BY LIFE INSURANCE 
              COMPANIES SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF PUERTO RICO.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 817(d) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to variable contract defined) is amended 
by striking ``pursuant to State law or regulation'' and inserting 
``pursuant to the law or regulation of a State or Puerto Rico''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to contracts issued after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```