alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case: 1:02-cv-08128 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 1 of 32 PageID #:1

Case: 1:02-cv-08128 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 2 of 32 PageID #:2

Case: 1:02-cv-08128 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 3 of 32 PageID #:3

Case: 1:02-cv-08128 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 4 of 32 PageID #:4

Case: 1:02-cv-08128 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 5 of 32 PageID #:5

Case: 1:02-cv-08128 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 6 of 32 PageID #:6

Case: 1:02-cv-08128 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 7 of 32 PageID #:7

Case: 1:02-cv-08128 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 8 of 32 PageID #:8

Case: 1:02-cv-08128 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 9 of 32 PageID #:9

Case: 1:02-cv-08128 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 10 of 32 PageID #:10

Case: 1:02-cv-08128 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 11 of 32 PageID #:11

Case: 1:02-cv-08128 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 12 of 32 PageID #:12

Case: 1:02-cv-08128 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 13 of 32 PageID #:13

Case: 1:02-cv-08128 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 14 of 32 PageID #:14

Case: 1:02-cv-08128 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 15 of 32 PageID #:15

Case: 1:02-cv-08128 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 16 of 32 PageID #:16

Case: 1:02-cv-08128 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 17 of 32 PageID #:17

Case: 1:02-cv-08128 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 18 of 32 PageID #:18

Case: 1:02-cv-08128 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 19 of 32 PageID #:19

Case: 1:02-cv-08128 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 20 of 32 PageID #:20

Case: 1:02-cv-08128 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 21 of 32 PageID #:21

Case: 1:02-cv-08128 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 22 of 32 PageID #:22

Case: 1:02-cv-08128 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 23 of 32 PageID #:23

Case: 1:02-cv-08128 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 24 of 32 PageID #:24

Case: 1:02-cv-08128 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 25 of 32 PageID #:25

Case: 1:02-cv-08128 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 26 of 32 PageID #:26

Case: 1:02-cv-08128 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 27 of 32 PageID #:27

Case: 1:02-cv-08128 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 28 of 32 PageID #:28

Case: 1:02-cv-08128 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 29 of 32 PageID #:29

Case: 1:02-cv-08128 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 30 of 32 PageID #:30

Case: 1:02-cv-08128 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 31 of 32 PageID #:31

Case: 1:02-cv-08128 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/08/02 Page 32 of 32 PageID #:32
(June 20, 2012)

#### A.F. Rockland Plumbing Supply Corp., Respondent, v Hudson Shore Associated Limited Partnership et al., Appellants.

[948 NYS2d 79]

In an action, inter alia, to recover for goods had and received and on an account stated, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Alfieri, Jr., J.), dated August 9, 2011, which denied their motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (4) and (5).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In October 2009, the plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants, inter alia, to recover for goods had and received and on an account stated. The defendants then moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (4) and (5). The defendants contended that in March 2007, in the Civil Court of *886the City of New York, Kings County, the plaintiff had commenced an action (hereinafter the Civil Court action), which was still pending in October 2009, against them alleging the same causes of action with substantially the same parties. The defendants further asserted that the complaint was barred by the six-year statute of limitations *(see*CPLR 213). The Supreme Court denied the defendants’ motion. The defendants appeal, and we affirm.

“Pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (4), a court has broad discretion in determining whether an action should be dismissed based upon another pending action where there is a substantial identity of the parties, the two actions are sufficiently similar, and the relief sought is substantially the same” *(DAIJ, Inc. v Roth,*85 AD3d 959, 959 [2011]; *see Whitney v Whitney,*57 NY2d 731, 732 [1982]). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (4), since, among other reasons, this action and the Civil Court action did not have substantially the same parties *(see*CPLR 3211 [a] [4]; *Jin Sheng He v Sing Huei Chang,*83 AD3d 788, 790 [2011]).

In moving to dismiss a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) as barred by the applicable statute of limitations, a defendant bears the initial burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that the time within which to commence the action has expired *(see Fleetwood Agency, Inc. v Verde Elec. Corp.,*85 AD3d 850, 850 [2011]). Here, the complaint alleges that the causes of action accrued in March 2006, and this action was commenced in November 2009, within the relevant limitations period *(see*CPLR 213 [1]). The defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of demonstrating that the complaint was time-barred. The defendants’ reliance upon certain allegations, asserted in the complaint in the Civil Court action, is without merit. Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5). Skelos, J.P., Leventhal, Belen and Roman, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Cherry Hargrove, Petitioner, v New York City School Construction Authority, Respondent.

[944 NYS2d 315]—

Proceeding pursuant to EDPL 207 to review a determination of the New York City School Construction Authority dated July 27, 2011, made after a public hearing, to condemn a parcel of real property owned by the petitioner for the purpose of building a public school.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs or disbursements, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.

Judicial review of a condemnation determination is limited to whether the proceeding was constitutional, whether the proposed acquisition is within the condemnor’s statutory jurisdiction or authority, whether the determination and findings were made in accordance with the procedures set forth in EDPL article 2 and the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and whether a public use, benefit, or purpose will be served by the proposed acquisition *(see*EDPL 207 [C]; *Matter of Waldo’s, Inc. v Village of Johnson City,*74 NY2d 718, 720 [1989]; *Matter of Anderson v New York State Urban Dev. Corp.,*45 AD3d 583, 584 [2007]; *Matter of Congregation Gates of Prayer of Far Rockaway v New York City School Constr. Auth.,*286 AD2d 439, 439-440 [2001]). Here, the petitioner failed to demonstrate any basis for setting aside the respondent’s determination.

The petitioner’s equal protection claims are without merit, since there is no evidence in the record to support a finding that she had “been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment” *(Village of Willowbrook v Olech,*528 US 562, 564 [2000]; *see Matter of Goldstein v New York State Urban Dev. Corp.,*64 AD3d 168, 186 [2009], *affd*13 NY3d 511 [2009]).

To the extent that the petitioner argues that the proposed acquisition will not serve a public purpose, the record shows that the respondent’s determination to condemn the subject property is rationally related to a public purpose and that such public purpose is dominant *(see Matter of Waldo’s, Inc. v Village of Johnson City,*74 NY2d at 720; *Matter of Arbern Sutphin Props., LLC v City of New York,*85 AD3d 1158, 1159-1160 [2011]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are beyond the scope of our review as limited by EDPL 207. Mastro, A.PJ., Florio, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.
(17 Misc. Rep. 220)

#### SOCORRO MOUNTAIN MIN. CO. v. PRESTON et al.

(Supreme Court, Special Term, Albany County.

May, 1896.)

1. Corporations—Stockholders—Right to Discontinue Actions.

Stockholders of a corporation are not disqualified, because of interest in the result, from voting to discontinue an action in which they are defendants.

2. Same—Adoption oe New Seal.

The directors of a corporation may adopt and procure a new seal and stock book to make transfers of stock, where the former president withholds the original seal and stock book so as to prevent the transfers.

Action by the Socorro Mountain Mining Company against George B. Preston and others. Plaintiff moves to discontinue the action. Granted.

John H. Peck and E. Countryman, for the motion.

Lansing & Holmes, opposed.

CHESTER, J.

I think there is a failure to show by competent evidence in the moving papers that this action was not properly commenced in the name of the company by Mr. Darling, the former president. I think, also, that while the directors might not properly vote to discontinue the action, when they were personally interested as defendants, yet that a majority of the stockholders could do so. The latter are not disqualified to vote on a question before *1041the shareholders’ meeting because of an interest in the result. They have a right to represent their individual interest, and they are in no sense trustees or representatives of others. Gamble v. Water Co., 123 N. Y. 91, 25 N. E. 201; Bjorngaard v. Bank (Minn.) 52 N. W. 48; Transportation Co. v. Beatty, 12 App. Gas. 589. It is claimed that much of the stock which was voted upon by the stockholders at the last annual meeting had not been properly transferred upon the books of the company, which were in the hands of the prior president, Mr. Darling; but, upon his withholding the seal and the stock book, so as to prevent the transfer of the stock thereon, and the issue of new stock in time to permit it to be voted upon at the annual meeting, it was lawful for the directors to adopt and procure a new seal and a new stock book to accomplish that purpose. In re Argus Co., 138 N. Y. 557, 576, 34 N. E. 388. It appears that this course was pursued, and that a majority of the stockholders, at the annual meeting, voted to discontinue this action, and pursuant to this direction the present president and secretary of the company have made a consent to discontinue, upon which this motion is based. I think that effect must be given to this consent. The action having been properly begun, however, and the plaintiff being insolvent, it should not be discontinued against the consent of plaintiff’s attorneys, without securing them for their lawful charges for their services • and costs herein. The motion to discontinue is granted, without costs, upon condition that the plaintiff’s attorneys be first settled with and paid for their services and costs herein; and, if there is a failure to agree upon the amount thereof, a reference will be directed to determine the amount.

Motion granted, without costs.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1355 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.1355

                       One Hundred Fifth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
the twenty-seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-
                                  eight

                                 An Act

 
 To designate the United States courthouse located at 141 Church Street 
    in New Haven, Connecticut, as the ``Richard C. Lee United States 
                              Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse located at 141 Church Street in New 
Haven, Connecticut, shall be known and designated as the ``Richard C. 
Lee United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Richard C. Lee 
United States Courthouse''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          16,430
<SECURITIES>                                    17,713
<RECEIVABLES>                                   81,219
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,018
<INVENTORY>                                      7,207
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               136,726
<PP&E>                                          57,619
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,588
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 223,573
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           93,986
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           231
<OTHER-SE>                                     102,083
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   223,573
<SALES>                                        352,710
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               352,710
<CGS>                                          155,638
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  344,839
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,389)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,565
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,002)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,260
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,991
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,269
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,269
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.22
        

</TABLE>
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1474

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain high tenacity single yarn of

viscose rayon.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 8, 1997

Mr. D’AMATO introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain high tenacity

single yarn of viscose rayon.

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

3 SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following

7 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.54.03 High tenacity single yarn of viscose

rayon (provided for

in subheading

5403.10.30) .......... Free No change No change On or before

12/31/99 ’’.
2

S 1474 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after

4 the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1366

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate the 10 percent

floor for deductible disaster losses.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 4, 1997

Mr. KERREY (for himself and Mr. CONRAD) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate

the 10 percent floor for deductible disaster losses.

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

3 SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF 10 PERCENT FLOOR FOR DE4 DUCTIBLE DISASTER LOSSES.

5 (a) GENERAL RULE.—Section 165(h)(2)(A) of the

6 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to net casualty

7 loss allowed only to the extent it exceeds 10 percent of

8 adjusted gross income) is amended by striking clauses (i)

9 and (ii) and inserting the following new clauses:
2

•S 1366 IS

1 ‘‘(i) the amount of the personal cas2 ualty gains for the taxable year,

3 ‘‘(ii) the amount of the federally de4 clared disaster losses for the taxable year

5 (or, if lesser, the net casualty loss), plus

6 ‘‘(iii) the portion of the net casualty

7 loss which is not deductible under clause

8 (ii) but only to the extent such portion ex9 ceeds 10 percent of the adjusted gross in10 come of the individual.

11 For purposes of the preceding sentence, the

12 term ‘net casualty loss’ means the excess of

13 personal casualty losses for the taxable year

14 over personal casualty gains.’’.

15 (b) FEDERALLY DECLARED DISASTER LOSS DE16 FINED.—Section 165(h)(3) of such Code (defining per17 sonal casualty gain and personal casualty loss) is amend18 ed—

19 (1) by adding at the end the following new sub20 paragraph:

21 ‘‘(C) FEDERALLY DECLARED DISASTER

22 LOSS.—

23 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘feder24 ally declared disaster loss’ means any per25 sonal casualty loss attributable to a disas-
3

•S 1366 IS

1 ter occurring during 1997 in an area sub2 sequently determined by the President of

3 the United States to warrant assistance by

4 the Federal Government under the Robert

5 T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency

6 Assistance Act.

7 ‘‘(ii) DOLLAR LIMITATION.—Such

8 term shall not include personal casualty

9 losses to the extent such losses exceed

10 $10,000 for the taxable year.’’, and

11 (2) by striking ‘‘OF PERSONAL CASUALTY GAIN

12 AND PERSONAL CASUALTY LOSS’’ in the heading.

13 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The heading for

14 section 165(h)(2) of such Code is amended by striking

15 ‘‘NET CASUALTY LOSS’’ and inserting ‘‘NET NONDISASTER

16 CASUALTY LOSS’’.

17 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

18 this section shall apply to losses attributable to disasters

19 occurring after December 31, 1996, including for purposes

20 of determining the portion of such losses allowable in tax21 able years ending before such date pursuant to an election

22 under section 165(i) of the Internal Revenue Code of

23 1986.

Æ
EXHIBIT 31.1

                     Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certifications

I, Steven L. Sample, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Gibbs Construction, Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure control and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d--15(e)) for the
registrant and have:

     a)     Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
            disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my
            supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
            registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known
            to me by others within those entities, particularly during the
            period in which this report is being prepared;

     b)     Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
            and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about
            the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of
            the end of the period covered by this report based upon such
            evaluation; and

     c)     Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
            control over financial reporting that occurred during the
            registrant's fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or
            is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
            control over financial reporting; and

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

     a)     All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
            or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
            reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to
            record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)       Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
         employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
         control over financial reporting.




Date:    December 12, 2006          By: /s/ Steven L. Sample
         ------------------        --------------------------------
                                   Steven L. Sample
                                   Chief Executive Officer and
                                   Chief Financial Officer



<PAGE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Land O'Lakes, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q/A for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 16, 2004 (the "Report"), I, John E. Gherty,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section
1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

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

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                  By /s/ John E. Gherty
                                     ---------------------------------
                                  John E. Gherty
                                  President
                                  and Chief Executive Officer