alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Miner, Appellant, *v.*Stebbins, Respondent.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department.*

May 2, 1890.)

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          68,898
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               19,101,813
<ALLOWANCES>                               (1,570,366)
<INVENTORY>                                    663,184
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            18,263,529
<PP&E>                                         310,801
<DEPRECIATION>                               (134,130)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,757,474
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,381,994
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           39,450
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,602,421
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,757,474
<SALES>                                      1,907,950
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,907,950
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               620,857
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,570,366
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             256,135
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (539,408)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (220,190)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (319,218)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (319,218)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.08)
        

</TABLE>
#### ARGOQUEST HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ISRAEL DISCOUNT BANK, LTD., a foreign bank, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 05-55712.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 9, 2007.

Filed April 19, 2007.

Troy A. Thielemann, Esq., Cappello *&*McCann, Santa Barbara, CA, Dan Marmalefsky, Esq., Morrison & Foerster, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Sean Unger, Kevin C. McCann, Esq., Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Robert S. Span, Esq., Paul Hastings, Janofsky *&*Walker, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Charles B. Cohler, Esq., for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: PREGERSON, FERNANDEZ and SILER,* Circuit Judges.

*

 The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM**

Argoquest Holdings, LLC appeals the district court’s forum non conveniens dismissal of its contract and tort action against Israel Discount Bank Ltd. We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion1 when it determined that the forum non conveniens balance weighed clearly in favor of dismissal. We recognize the generally weighty nature of Argo-quest’s choice of forum. *See Tuazon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,*433 F.3d 1163, 1177-78 (9th Cir.2006); *Dole Food Co., Inc. v. Watts,*303 F.3d 1104, 1118 (9th Cir.2002); *Cheng v. Boeing Co.,*708 F.2d 1406, 1410 (9th Cir.1983). Here, however, the district court considered the relevant factors,2 reasonably performed the necessary balancing, and ruled accordingly. We think it not amiss to particularly note that the negotiated contract, which lies at the center of the parties’ relationship, provides that the sole forum would be the courts of Israel and that the law of Israel would apply. These provisions clearly outweigh Argoquest’s choice of forum.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. That is the proper standard. *See Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno,*454 U.S. 235, 257, 102 S.Ct. 252, 266, 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981); *Lueck v. Sundstrand Corp.,*236 F.3d 1137, 1143 (9th Cir.2001); *Ravelo Monegro v. Rosa,*211 F.3d 509, 511 (9th Cir.2000).

2

. *See Sinochem Int’l Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp.,*549 U.S. -, - - -, 127 S.Ct. 1184, 1188-89, 167 L.Ed.2d 15 (2007); *Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert,*330 U.S. 501, 507-09, 67 S.Ct. 839, 842-43, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947); *Tuazon,*433 F.3d at 1180-82; *Dole Food,*303 F.3d at 1119; *Lockman Found, v. Evangelical Alliance Mission,*930 F.2d 764, 769-71 (9th Cir.1991).
#### Michele Kreamer et al., Appellants, v Town of Oxford et al., Defendants, and Roger Monaco, Respondent.

[946 NYS2d 283]

McCarthy, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Dowd, J.), entered March 18, 2011 in Chenango County, which, among other things, granted defendant Roger Monaco’s motion to dismiss the complaint against him.

Plaintiffs commenced this action against numerous parties, mainly alleging that the municipal defendants violated plaintiffs’ rights by denying them a building permit and area variance for their property in the Town of Oxford, Chenango County. Defendant Roger Monaco (hereinafter defendant) was the attorney who represented plaintiffs at the closing when they purchased that property. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint against him.* Plaintiffs cross-moved to find defendant in default and for summary judgment based on that default. Supreme Court granted defendant’s motion and denied the cross motion. Plaintiffs appeal.

Plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action against defendant. The complaint does not list legal malpractice as a separate cause of action (see CLPR 3014), and all of the allegations concerning defendant are contained in the “statement of facts” portion of the complaint rather than under a specified cause of action. Even accepting the allegations as true and liberally construing the complaint to be alleging legal malpractice against defendant, the allegations are insufficient to make out a prima facie case. An action for legal malpractice requires proof that the attorney failed to exercise the reasonable skill and knowledge ordinarily possessed by a member of the legal profession, that this negligence was the proximate cause of the client’s loss or injury, and that the client sustained actual damages *(see M & R Ginsburg, LLC v Segal, Goldman, Mazzotta & Siegel, P.C.,*90 AD3d 1208, 1208-1209 [2011]). Plaintiffs allege that defendant knew or should have known of the Town’s zoning ordinances that could affect plaintiffs’ rights as landowners, but failed to advise them of those rights. They further allege that defendant’s actions inflicted emotional distress and caused them to expend money to save their house. These allegations do not set out the standard of skill required of an attorney or state that defendant’s actions fell below that skill level *(see heder v Spiegel,**11299 NY3d 836, 837 [2007], *cert denied*552 US 1257 [2008]; *compare Canavan v Steenburg,*170 AD2d 858, 859 [1991]; *see also*Kolev and Collins, *The Importance of Due Diligence: Real Estate Transactions in a Complex Land Use World,*84 NY St BJ 24 [Mar./Apr. 2012]). Thus, defendant was entitled to have the complaint against him dismissed.

Lahtinen, J.P., Spain, Malone Jr. and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

*

 The remaining defendants separately moved to dismiss the complaint against them. Plaintiffs’ appeal from the order deciding that motion is decided herewith *(Kreamer v Town of Oxford,*96 AD3d 1130 [2012] [decided herewith]).
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed October 6, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D21-303 Lower Tribunal Nos. 20-270 AP; 17-18213 SP

________________ 

### Express Damage Restoration, LLC a/a/o Marline McDonald , Appellant,
vs. 

### Citizens Property Insurance Corporation ,

Appellee.
An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Ayana Harris, Judge. The Diener Firm, P.A., and Erik D. Diener (Plantation), for appellant. Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP, and Scot E. Samis and C. Ryan Jones (St. Petersburg), for appellee. Before LOGUE, LINDSEY and HENDON, JJ. PER CURIAM.2

Affirmed. Express Damage Restoration, LLC v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 320 So. 3d 305, 309 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“Reading the policy as a whole and giving the appraisal provision its plain meaning, we conclude that the appraisal provision is unambiguous and that the provision applies to the instant claim for water mitigation services.”).
#### Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany et al., Appellants, v Gregory V. Serio, as Superintendent of Insurance, Respondent.

Submitted December 4, 2006;

decided February 20, 2007

Motion for reargument denied *[see*7 NY3d 510].
<PAGE>   1
                                                                           EX-21

                                 SRS LABS, INC.

                                  SUBSIDIARIES

         On March 2, 1998, SRS Labs, Inc. acquired all of the outstanding
capital stock of Valence Technology, Inc., a British Virgin Islands company with
its principal business operations in Hong Kong and China ("Valence"). Valence,
in turn, beneficially owns all of the capital stock of the following companies:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                    Name                          Jurisdiction of Incorporation
                    ----                          -----------------------------
<S>                                               <C>
      Valence Semiconductor Design Limited                  Hong Kong

      ASP Microelectronics Limited ("ASP")                  Hong Kong

      LEC Electronic Components Limited ("LEC")             Hong Kong

      VSD Electronics Limited                               Hong Kong
</TABLE>


         ASP, in turn, beneficially owns all of the outstanding shares of
capital stock of LEC Microelectronics Limited, a Hong Kong company, and LED, in
turn, beneficially owns (a) all of the outstanding shares of capital stock of
LEC Electronics Limited, a Hong Kong company and (b) all of the capital
interests in VSD Electronics (Hui Yang) Ltd., a wholly-owned foreign enterprise
established under the laws of the Peoples Republic of China.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Enrique Benitez, Appellant.

*590When this appeal was initially considered by this court, the record failed to reflect whether the Trial Judge had given preliminary instructions to the jury pursuant to CPLR 270.40. The case was remitted by this court to Criminal Term to hear and report on whether the Trial Judge gave preliminary instructions to the jury, including, to the extent possible, the contents of such instructions *(see, People v Benitez, supra).*

Upon remittitur, Criminal Term determined that a transcript reflecting that preliminary instructions had been given at the defendant’s trial had been found, and that the transcript fairly and accurately represented the events that transpired when the preliminary instructions were given.

Our review of the transcript clearly indicates that the preliminary instructions given to the jury were in accordance with the standards established in CPL 270.40. Therefore, the defendant’s contention that he was denied a fair trial owing to the court’s failure to give preliminary instructions to the jury is wholly without merit.

The defendant’s contention that he was denied a fair trial by questioning by the prosecutor concerning the punishment received for prior convictions is similarly without merit.

We have considered the contention raised by the defendant in his *pro se*brief and find it to be without merit.

Consequently, the judgment is affirmed. Bracken, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Fiber, JJ., concur.
#### Bozzoni *v.*Woodward.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.*

July 18, 1890.)

1. Sam —Acceptance.

Defendant looked at a book of cuts of carriages sold by plaintiff, and selected one to be sent to her. In an action for the price of the carriage, plaintiff testified that he showed to defendant a carriage which she said was just what she wanted, and that she directed certain alterations to be made, and that the carriage be delivered on board a steamer for shipment to her. The alterations were to be paid for in addition to the price_originally fixed for the carriage. *Meld,*that a finding of the jury that the carriage was accepted by defendant was justified.

. 8. Same—Delivery.

Plaintiff testified that he delivered the carriage on board the steamer designated by defendant, directed to her address, and that he afterwards saw tfie same carriage in possession of defendant’s counsel. Defendant claimed that the carriage which she received was not the one ordered by her. *Meld,*that there was sufficient proof of a delivery.

Appeal from Orange county court.

Action by Lewis J. Bozzoni against Frances M. Woodward to recover the price of a carriage sold to defendant. The latter went to plaintiff’s carriage manufactory, looked at a book of cuts of carriages, and selected one to be sent to her. Plaintiff testified that afterwards defendant went to his shop, and was shown a carriage, and that she said “it was just the article she wanted, and she would take it. Defendant ordered the steps of the carriage to be padded, and told plaintiff to deliver it to a certain line of steamers, directed to her at her residence. Tlie expense of the padding was to be paid for, in addition to the price originally agreed upon for the carriage. Plaintiff testified that he shipped the carriage in question as directed, and that he afterwards saw it in the possession of defendant’s counsel. Defendant claimed that she never received the particular wagon which she approved at the shop. Judgment was given for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Dykman and Pratt, JJ.

*John Miller,*for appellant. *William D. Dickey,*for respondent.

Pratt, J.

The testimony was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that the carriage was accepted when defendant saw it at Newburgh. Directing alterations to be made did not necessarily disprove acceptance. On the contrary, the jury might well consider it to be further evidence in that direction. The delivery in pursuance to defendant’s direction was also proved. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### In the Matter of Cory Michael F.

*993Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.
DAVIES DITCH, COLORADOLatitude: 39.054Longitude: -108.449Elevation: None

DAVIES DITCH, COLORADO

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Middle Fork Camp Site Page...



Middle Fork Camp

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Arapaho Ridge Site Page...



Arapaho Ridge

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Never Summer Site Page...



Never Summer

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Mccoy Park Site Page...



Mccoy Park

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Beaver Ck Village Site Page...



Beaver Ck Village

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Bear River Site Page...



Bear River

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Chapman Tunnel Site Page...



Chapman Tunnel

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Elliot Ridge Site Page...



Elliot Ridge

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Upper Taylor Site Page...



Upper Taylor

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Fool Creek Site Page...



Fool Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to High Lonesome Site Page...



High Lonesome

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Sawtooth Site Page...



Sawtooth

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Arrow Site Page...



Arrow

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Bear Lake Site Page...



Bear Lake

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Berthoud Summit Site Page...



Berthoud Summit

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Bison Lake Site Page...



Bison Lake

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Brumley Site Page...



Brumley

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Burro Mountain Site Page...



Burro Mountain

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Columbine Site Page...



Columbine

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Copper Mountain Site Page...



Copper Mountain

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Fremont Pass Site Page...



Fremont Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Grizzly Peak Site Page...



Grizzly Peak

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Hoosier Pass Site Page...



Hoosier Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Independence Pass Site Page...



Independence Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Ivanhoe Site Page...



Ivanhoe

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Kiln Site Page...



Kiln

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Lake Irene Site Page...



Lake Irene

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Loveland Basin Site Page...



Loveland Basin

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Lynx Pass Site Page...



Lynx Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Mc Clure Pass Site Page...



Mc Clure Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Mesa Lakes Site Page...



Mesa Lakes

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Nast Lake Site Page...



Nast Lake

Courtesy NRCS - Go to North Lost Trail Site Page...



North Lost Trail

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Overland Res. Site Page...



Overland Res.

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Park Reservoir Site Page...



Park Reservoir

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Phantom Valley Site Page...



Phantom Valley

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Schofield Pass Site Page...



Schofield Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Stillwater Creek Site Page...



Stillwater Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Summit Ranch Site Page...



Summit Ranch

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Vail Mountain Site Page...



Vail Mountain

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Willow Creek Pass Site Page...



Willow Creek Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Buffalo Park Site Page...



Buffalo Park

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Jackwhacker Gulch Site Page...



Jackwhacker Gulch

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Michigan Creek Site Page...



Michigan Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Jones Pass Site Page...



Jones Pass
#### August P. Maykut *v.*Martin Plasko et al.

*Helen F. Krause,*in support of the petition.

Submitted May 2

decided May 8, 1975

The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Division of the Court of Common Pleas is granted.
#### David Kent FITCH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C.D. ADAMS, M.D.; A. Villason, M.D.; P. Hashop, R.N.; John Miles, Warden, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-40625

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 17, 2007.

David Kent Fitch, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

David Kent Fitch, federal prisoner # 34775-048, appeals the dismissal of his Bivens** action alleging that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to Fitch’s serious medical needs by providing constitutionally inadequate treatment for a hernia and a serious spinal condition. The district court dismissed his complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). After the district court entered judgment in this case, the United States Supreme Court clarified that exhaustion of remedies is an affirmative defense that need not be pleaded and proven in a prisoner’s initial complaint. *Jones v. Bock,*— U.S. -, -, 127 S.Ct. 910, 918-22, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007). It is unnecessary to remand this case to the district court because we conclude that the dismissal of the complaint may be affirmed on other grounds. *See Sojourner T. v. Edwards,*974 F.2d 27, 30 (5th Cir.1992). It is clear from Fitch’s complaint and his appellate brief that his claims concern malpractice and disagreement with his medical treatment. These allegations do not establish the constitutional violation neces*436sary for a plaintiff to prevail in a *Bivens*action. *See Estelle v. Gamble,*429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976).

Accordingly, we modify the judgment to reflect that the complaint is dismissed with prejudice and we affirm as modified.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

**

*Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,*403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971).
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 205 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 205

  To prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security from granting a work 
authorization to an alien found to have been unlawfully present in the 
                             United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 8, 2015

 Mr. Burgess introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security from granting a work 
authorization to an alien found to have been unlawfully present in the 
                             United States.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Equal Protection for American 
Workers Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN WORK AUTHORIZATIONS.

    Effective beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
Secretary of Homeland Security is prohibited from granting a work 
authorization to an alien who has been finally determined, in a valid 
immigration proceeding during which due process was afforded, to have 
been at any time unlawfully present in the United States.
                                 <all>
```
#### PHILIP H. ASPLUND, *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. MARJOHN CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

See same case below: 66 *N. J. Super.*255.

*Messrs. Feinberg & Feinberg*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Pitney, Hardin & Ward*for the respondents.

May 29, 1961.

Denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21

- 040 8 IN THE MATTER OF: S.M.H., A Youth in Need of Care.
**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time to produce transcripts on appeal, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Court Reporter Nancy Skurvid is granted an extension of time to and including November 1 6, 202 1 , within which to prepare, file, and serve the transcripts requested on appeal. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order upon the district court and the court reporter.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 28 2021

09/28/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0408