alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BERNSTEIN v. SINGER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

January 24, 1896.)

1. Slander— Cross-Examination of Plaintiff as to Character.

Cross-examination of plaintiff, in an action for slander, as to his reputation and character before the time of the alleged slander, is proper, as hearing on his credibility and the amount of compensatory damages.

2. Same—Evidence of Character.

Where, in an action for slander, the answer denied that defendant had always maintained a good reputation and character, but set up no justi*1094fieation, evidence of the general good character and standing of plaintiff before the alleged slander is part of plaintiff’s case, and cannot be introduced in rebuttal, defendant having given no evidence of the general bad character and standing of plaintiff, though plaintiff was cross-examined as to his reputation and character before the time of the slander.

3. Same—Harmless Error.

Exclusion of evidence offered by plaintiff, in an action for slander, as to his general good character and reputation before the alleged slander, if error, is harmless, where it was found that no slanderous words were spoken.

Appeal from court of common pleas, trial term.

Action by Hyman Bernstein against Joseph Singer to recover damages for the speaking of slanderous words. The answer denied the speaking of the words, and that the plaintiff had always maintained a good reputation and character, and had suffered damages as alleged, but set up no justification, nor anything by way of mitigation. From a judgment for defendant, and from an order denying a new trial, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and BARRETT, WILLIAMS, PATTERSON, and O’BRIEN, JJ.

Joel M. Marx, for appellant.

David Leventritt, for respondent.

WILLIAMS, J.

The evidence as to whether the slanderous words were spoken as alleged was conflicting, and the verdict of the jury upon this question of fact should not be disturbed. We find nothing in the exceptions taken on the trial calling for a reversal of the judgment. The appellant complains that the defendant’s counsel was permitted to cross-examine the plaintiff as to his reputation and character before the time of the speaking of the slanderous words. Such examination was proper, as bearing upon the credibility of the plaintiff as a witness, and the amount of actual or compensatory damages, if any. The plaintiff further complains that he was not allowed, in rebuttal, to give evidence of the general good character and standing of the plaintiff before the time the slanderous words were spoken. This evidence, under the pleadings, should have been given as a part of the plaintiff’s case, if desired to be given at all. The defendant had given no evidence of the general bad character and standing of the plaintiff. In any event, this evidence could only effect the question of damages, and, the jury having found that no slanderous words were spoken, the exclusion of this evidence could not have affected the result.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.
#### Thomas Pavlou et al., Appellants, v Associates Food Stores, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[946 NYS2d 494]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), dated June 29, 2011, which, upon an order dated June 2, 2011, denying their motion, in effect, to vacate an order entered April 21, 2010, sua sponte, dismissing the action pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27, and to restore the action to the trial calendar, is in favor of the defendants and against them dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the plaintiffs’ motion, in effect, to vacate the order entered April 21, 2010, and to restore the action to the trial calendar is granted, the order entered April 21, 2010, is vacated, and the order dated June 2, 2011, is modified accordingly.

In an order entered April 21, 2010, the Supreme Court, sua sponte, dismissed this action pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 on the ground that the plaintiffs failed “to proceed as directed by the court” when they did not appear on a scheduled court date. The plaintiffs demonstrated that they did not have notice of the trial calendar call of the action through the uncontroverted affidavit of their attorney, which stated that counsel did not receive any notice for a court appearance *(see M.S. Hi-Tech, Inc. v Thompson,*23 AD3d 442, 443 [2005]). Without notice of the *920court appearance, the plaintiffs’ default was a nullity, as was the remedy imposed by the Supreme Court as a consequence *(see*CPLR 5015 [a] [4]; *Bonik v Tarrabocchia,*78 AD3d 630, 632 [2010]; *Tragni v Tragni,*21 AD3d 1084, 1085 [2005]; *Pelaez v Westchester Med. Ctr.,*15 AD3d 375, 376 [2005]). In this situation, vacatur of the default was required as a matter of law and due process, and no showing of a potentially meritorious cause of action was required *(see Bonik v Tarrabocchia,*78 AD3d at 632; *Pelaez v Westchester Med. Ctr.,*15 AD3d at 376; *Kumer v Passafiume,*258 AD2d 625, 626 [1999]). Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ motion, in effect, to vacate the order entered April 21, 2010, sua sponte, dismissing the action, and to restore the action to the trial calendar should have been granted. Angiolillo, J.P., Florio, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.
1 

DAVID A. HUBBERT 

Acting Assistant Attorney General 

DYLAN C. CERLING 

Trial Attorney, Tax Division 

U.S. Department of Justice 

P.O. Box 683 

Washington, D.C. 20044 

202-616-3395 

202-307-0054 (Fax) 

Dylan.c.cerling@usdoj.gov 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

 DISTRICT OF OREGON 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

PATRICK MENDOLA, 

 Respondent. 

Case No. 3:15-cv-01902-SI 

 ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

 This matter comes before the Court on the United States’ motion to dismiss 

this proceeding pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), for mootness. Having 

thoroughly considered all relevant documents, the Court hereby ORDERS: 

 1. The United States’ motion is GRANTED; 

 2. This case is hereby DISMISSED; 

 3. The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to close this case. 

// 

// 
2 

SO ORDERED. 

DATED THIS 17th DAY OF June, 2021. 

 /s/ Michael H. Simon________________ 

 THE HONORABLE JUDGE MICHAEL H. SIMON 

 U.S. District Judge 

 District of Oregon 

Submitted by: 

DAVID A. HUBBERT 

Acting Assistant Attorney General 

/s/ Dylan Cerling 

DYLAN C. CERLING 

Trial Attorney, Tax Division 

U.S. Department of Justice 

P.O. Box 683 

Washington, D.C. 20044 

202-616-3395 

202-307-0054 (Fax) 

dylan.c.cerling@usdoj.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  Dec-31-1997
<CASH>                        2,131,335
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 79,053
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              2,210,388
<PP&E>                        25,987,000
<DEPRECIATION>                16,689,816
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                11,507,572
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         1,881,721
<BONDS>                       0
<COMMON>                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<OTHER-SE>                    9,625,851
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  11,507,572
<SALES>                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              5,266,792
<CGS>                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              4,117,718
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>               1,149,074
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           1,149,074
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  1,149,074
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 .23
<EPS-DILUTED>                 .23


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-2518

MICHAEL B. DAVIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MARVIN RUNYON, Postmaster General, U.S. Postal

Service,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CA-96-40-L)

Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: February 24, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael B. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Alice Lucille Covington,

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Washington, D.C.; Alonzo Harrison

Long, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order granting Appellee's motion for summary judgment. We have reviewed the record and

the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court and deny

Appellant's motion to authorize a transcript at the government's

expense. Davis v. Runyon, No. CA-96-40-L (W.D. Va. Oct. 6, 1997).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk November 23, 2011

t1116 

# Order

November 23, 2011

143265

JOANN FINKBEINER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 143265 COA: 297113 Macomb CC: 2 008-005383-NO TOWNSHIP OF CLINTON, Defendant, and

BAKER COLLEGE OF CLINTON TOWNSHIP, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the May 10, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

H ATHAWAY , J., would grant leave to appeal.
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
 Ames, Iowa
 close




            Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home People & Locations







Lara  Hicok
                        Location Support Staff

                        




                        
                        MANAGEMENT ANALYST
                        Phone: (515) 337-7159
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


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
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 33-35941, 33-43868, 33-43866,
33-45994, 33-45142, 33-54382, 33-65125, 33-69946, 33-75088, 333-28593 and 333-80729 on
Form S-3 and Registration Statement Nos. 33-85154, 333-72916, 333-72918, 333-72920, 333-113387 and 333-113388
on Form S-8 of our report dated April 19, 2005, relating to management's report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting appearing in this Amendment
No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Bentley Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2004.

/s/
Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston,
Massachusetts
April 27, 2005

---



QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1939 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1939

   To suspend temporarily the duty on certain chemicals used in the 
                   formulation of anti-cancer drugs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 3, 1998

 Mrs. Feinstein (for herself and Mrs. Boxer) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To suspend temporarily the duty on certain chemicals used in the 
                   formulation of anti-cancer drugs.

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

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.32.19      (3S)-2,2-Dimethyl-                                                                       
                        3-thiomorpholine                                                                        
                        carboxylic acid                                                                         
                        (CAS No. 84915-43-                                                                      
                        5) (provided for                                                                        
                        in subheading                                                                           
                        2934.90.90)......  Free         No Change         No Change         On or before 12/    
                                                                                             31/1999            
                                                                                                                

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Case 6:15-cv-00310-MC Document 19-2 Filed 09/23/16 Page 1 of 2 

Sherwood J. Reese 

Sherwood.reese@comcast.net 

Drew L. Johnson, P.C. 

sherwoodreese@comcast.net 

1700 Valley River Drive 

Eugene, OR 97401 

( 541) 4 34-6466 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES COURT DISTRICT COURT 

JENNIFER L. KENNY, f.k.a. 

JENNIFER L. GRAVES, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Commissioner of Social Security 

Administration, 

Defendant. 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

Civil No. 6:15-cv-00310-MC 

ORDER FOR ATTORNEY FEES 

PURSUANT TO EAJA 

After considering the Stipulated Motion of the parties submitted herein, Order hereby 

grants that Commissioner shall pay Plaintiff's attorney the sum of $7600.00 upon verification 

that Plaintiff has no debt to the government which qualifies for offset against the awarded fees, 

pursuant to the reasoning in Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 130 S. Ct. 2521, 2527 (2010) (EAJA 

1 - ORDER FOR ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO EAJA 

Case 6:15-cv-00310-MC Document 20 Filed 10/06/16 Page 1 of 2
Case 6:15-cv-00310-MC Document 19-2 Filed 09/23/16 Page 2 of 2 

awards fees subject "to a federal administrative offset if the Litigant has outstanding federal 

debts") for full settlement of all claims for fees under EAJA. 

If Plaintiff has no such federal debt, payment of $7600.00 shall be made to Plaintiff's 

attorneys, Drew L. Johnson, PC, and mailed to their office at 1700 Valley River Drive, Eugene, 

OR 97401. If Plaintiff has such debt, the check for any remaining funds after offset shall be 

made out to Plaintiff and mailed to counsel's office at the address provided above. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this day of __ l_o ...... /_1._p_____ , 2016 I 

PRESENTED BY: 

By: /s/ DREW L. JOHNSON 

Drew L. Johnson, OSB #75200 

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff 

L '----

U.S. District Judge/Magistrate Judge 

2 - ORDER FOR ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO EAJA 

Case 6:15-cv-00310-MC Document 20 Filed 10/06/16 Page 2 of 2
# C_2006260EN.01001801.xml

| 28.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/18

---

Corrigendum to the Explanatory notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Communities

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 50 of 28 February 2006
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 50 of 28 February 2006

(2006/C 260/08)

On page 238, Figure 1 is replaced by the following Figure 1:

Image

On page 253, the illustration at the bottom of the page is replaced by the following illustration:

Image

---
II

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2086

To revise the boundaries of the George Washington Birthplace National

Monument.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 15, 1998

Mr. WARNER (for himself and Mr. ROBB) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources

A BILL

To revise the boundaries of the George Washington

Birthplace National Monument.

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

3 SECTION 1. ADDITION TO NATIONAL MONUMENT.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The boundaries of the George

5 Washington Birthplace National Monument are modified

6 to include the area comprising approximately 85 acres,

7 generally known as ‘‘George Washington’s Ferry Farm’’,

8 in Stafford County, Virginia, and located across the Rap9 pahannock River from Fredericksburg, Virginia, as gen10 erally depicted on the map entitled ‘‘George Washington
2

•S 2086 IS

1 Birthplace National Monument Boundary Map’’, num2 bered 322/80020 and dated May 1998.

3 (b) MAP.—The map described in subsection (a) shall

4 be on file and available for public inspection in the appro5 priate offices of the National Park Service.

6 (c) ADMINISTRATION.—The area described in sub7 section (a) shall be managed—

8 (1) in accordance with the provisions of law

9 generally applicable to the units of the National

10 Park System, including the Act of August 25, 1916

11 (39 Stat. 565, chapter 408; 16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.),

12 and the Act of August 21, 1935 (49 Stat. 666,

13 chapter 593; 16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.);

14 (2) to preserve the cultural and natural re15 sources of the area that are associated with the boy16 hood home of George Washington; and

17 (3) to interpret those resources to enhance pub18 lic understanding.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
<CIK>                              0000851724     
<NAME>                             GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LTD PARTNERSHIP II-G
                                    
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                       DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                   333,168
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                            398,538
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         731,706
<PP&E>                                24,013,074
<DEPRECIATION>                        19,520,933
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         5,325,802
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     60,414
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                             5,207,558
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           5,325,802
<SALES>                                3,072,455
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       4,485,945
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          2,069,444
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        2,416,501
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    2,416,501
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                           2,416,501
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               6.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        
 

</TABLE>