alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### William Longobardi et al., Respondents, v Falco Construction Corp., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, and Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc., et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents. Dart Mechanical Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent; City of New York, ThirdParty Defendant and Fourth-Party Plaintiff-Respondent.

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Falco Construction Corp. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Duberstein, J.), dated June 30, 1986, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ action insofar as it is asserted *370against it and any cross claims, third-party claims and counterclaims against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

In October 1984 the plaintiff William Longobardi was severely injured when, during the course of his work for a plumbing contractor, he fell through an uncovered ventilation opening on the roof of a building under construction for the New York City Department of Sanitation. This action alleges negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 240 and 241. Falco Construction Corp. (hereinafter Falco), the company which held a contract with the city for "general construction”, including construction of the roof, moved unsuccessfully for summary judgment. We affirm.

The record reflects that issues of fact exist with respect to Falco’s possible liability in negligence for the removal of the covering for the roof opening through which Longobardi fell. Other issues of fact also exist with respect to Falco’s possible status as an "agent” or "contractor” under the Labor Law *(see, Russin v Picciano & Son,*54 NY2d 311; *Kenny v Fuller Co.,*87 AD2d 183, *lv denied*58 NY2d 603; *cf. Nowak v Smith & Mahoney,*110 AD2d 288), which preclude the granting of summary judgment. Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Brown and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT23.1**

** **

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

** **

We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements Nos. 333-18981,333-18983, 333-18985, 333-18987, 333-18989, 333-29153, 333-63493, 333-36646,333-46126 and 333-67710 all on Form S-8 of SRS Labs, Inc., of ourreport dated February 18, 2005, except as to Note 1, paragraphs 16and 17, which are as of March 17, 2005, appearing in SRS Labs, Inc.’sAnnual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2004.

 

BDO SEIDMAN, LLP

 

Costa Mesa, California

May 17, 2005

 

----
#### CHACE, Respondent, v. WARSAW WATER WORKS CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department.

January 18, 1894.)

Action by Martin D. Chace against the Warsaw Water Works Company.

No opinion. Motion to strike case from calendar and for affirmance denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Willie Jackson, Appellant.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defen*824dant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.
#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Bank Storage                    
csv

      Storage                    
csv

      Evaporation                    
csv

      Inflow                    
csv

      Inflow Volume                    
csv

      Unregulated Inflow                    
csv

      Unregulated Inflow Volume                    
csv

      Power Release                    
csv

      Total Release                    
csv

      Release Volume                    
csv

      Pool Elevation                    
csv

      Power Release Volume                    
csv

      Spillway Release                    
csv

      Bypass Release                    
csv

      Bypass Release Volume                    
csv

      Delta Storage                    
csv

      Area                    
csv

#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Bank Storage                    
json

      Storage                    
json

      Evaporation                    
json

      Inflow                    
json

      Inflow Volume                    
json

      Unregulated Inflow                    
json

      Unregulated Inflow Volume                    
json

      Power Release                    
json

      Total Release                    
json

      Release Volume                    
json

      Pool Elevation                    
json

      Power Release Volume                    
json

      Spillway Release                    
json

      Bypass Release                    
json

      Bypass Release Volume                    
json

      Delta Storage                    
json

      Area                    
json
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       7,814,696
<SECURITIES>                                70,657,590
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,186,113
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            95,175,489
<PP&E>                                      11,970,610
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,257,691
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             113,475,147
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,291,103
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       168,652
<OTHER-SE>                                 102,809,212
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               113,475,147
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,713,266
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            19,986,673
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             259,720
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (17,152,934)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (17,152,934)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (17,152,934)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (1.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.02)


</TABLE>
Order entered October 10 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 14
- 01163
- CV
IN RE SUSAN GRIFFIN WARREN , Relator Original Proceeding from the 302nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF
- 14
- 06580 

### O RDER Before Justice s O’ Neill, Lang and Brown Before the Court are relator’ s motion for rehearing of the Court’s denial of her petition for writ of mandamus and relator’s motion for extension of time. We DENY both the motion for rehearing and t he motion for extension of time without prejudice to relator filing an appeal of any final order of the trial court. To the extent relator seeks an extension of time to file a notice of appeal, the Court will consider any such motion at the time the notic e of appeal, accompanied by a motion for extension of time, if necessary, is filed. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.3.

/s/ DOUGLAS S. LANG JUSTICE
Exhibit 21



SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



|1. | Capital Title Agency Inc., an Arizona corporation
|-- | -------------------------------------------------



|2. | New Century Holding Company, a California corporation
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------



|3. | New Century Title Company, a California corporation
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------



|4. | NAC1031 Exchange Services, a California corporation
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------



|5. | CTG Building Co., an Arizona corporation
|-- | ----------------------------------------



|6. | Capital Information Services, Inc., an Arizona corporation
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------



|7. | Nations Holding Group, a California corporation
|-- | -----------------------------------------------



|8. | United Title Company, a California corporation
|-- | ----------------------------------------------



|9. | First California Title Company, a California corporation
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------



|10. | United Title Insurance Company, a California corporation
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------



|11. | Shatto Exchange Services, a California corporation
|--- | --------------------------------------------------



|12. | Shatto Exchange Systems, Inc., a California corporation
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------



|13. | AdvantageWare, Inc., a California corporation
|--- | ---------------------------------------------

An 80% owned subsidiary



|14. | Land Title of Nevada, Inc., a Nevada corporation
|--- | ------------------------------------------------



|15. | CTG Real Estate Information Service, Inc., a Colorado corporation
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------



|16. | CTG Acquisition Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------
#### In the Matter of Melvin A. Wesson, Petitioner, v Donald Selsky, as Director of the Inmate Disciplinary Program, Department of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

Kane, J. P., Main, Casey, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.
Dismiss and Opinion Filed February 26, 2014 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01103-CV 

NEIL NOBLE, Appellant 

V. 

CITY OF DALLAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-02526-D 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Lang-Miers and Brown 

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright 

 This suit began as a declaratory action by Neil Noble to obtain public information from 

the City of Dallas pursuant to chapter 552 of the Texas Government Code. Noble obtained the 

requested information and moved to dismiss the suit. Before the trial court signed the dismissal 

order, however, Noble filed an “amended” petition seeking to evict tenants from his property. 

The City responded by filing a plea to the jurisdiction. The trial court subsequently granted the 

plea and dismissed the case. Approximately two months after filing this appeal, Noble informed 

the Court by letter that the tenants had vacated the property. Because it appeared a live 

controversy no longer existed, we questioned whether the appeal was moot and we could decide 

the case. See Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Assoc. v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex. 1999) (“Appellate 

courts are prohibited from deciding moot controversies. . . . A case becomes moot if at any 
 –2– 

stage there ceases to be an actual controversy between the parties.”) At our request, the parties 

filed letter briefs addressing our concern. In its brief, the City agrees the case is moot. Noble 

disputes the case is moot but provides nothing in his brief demonstrating a live controversy 

exists. Because no live controversy exists between the parties, we are prohibited from deciding 

this case. See id. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 

 

131103F.P05 

 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

NEIL NOBLE, Appellant 

No. 05-13-01103-CV V. 

CITY OF DALLAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

No. 4, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-02526-D. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. 

Justices Lang-Miers and Brown 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. 

 We ORDER that appellee City of Dallas recover its costs, if any, of this appeal from 

appellant Neil Noble. 

Judgment entered February 26, 2014 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 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 accompanying Annual Report of The viaLink Company
(the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Brian M. Carter,Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, 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 result of
operations of the Company. /s/ Brian M. Carter
Brian M. Carter
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
March 26, 2004
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-1741

___________________________

Dr. Girish Sahu, MD

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Minneapolis Community and Technical College; Dr. Hafed Bouassida, PhD; Dr.

Jess Lee Niebuhr, PhD; Dianna Cusick

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis

____________

 Submitted: February 2, 2017

Filed: February 7, 2017

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.
Dr. Girish Sahu appeals the district court’s order dismissing his claims under

1

42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VI, and state law. He also has moved for sanctions in this

court. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. 

A de novo review of the record reveals dismissal was proper. See Adams v.

American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 813 F.3d 1151, 1154 (8th Cir. 2016) (de novo review

of grant of motion to dismiss). As to Sahu’s motion for sanctions, there is no

indication that defendants acted in bad faith. 

The judgment is affirmed and Sahu’s motion is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District 1

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Franklin

L. Noel, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

-2-
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-18-00159-CR

DEMETRIUS TROYILL SMITH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 6th District Court

Lamar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 27572

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Stevens
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Demetrius Troyill Smith was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery, and after his 

punishment range was enhanced as a habitual offender, Smith was sentenced to sixty years’ 

imprisonment. In his sole point of error on appeal, Smith contends that the trial court erred in 

including a deadly weapon finding in the judgment. Smith requests that this Court modify the trial 

court’s judgment by deleting the deadly weapon finding.1 After Smith filed his brief, the State 

submitted a nunc pro tunc judgment to the trial court to correct the error. We have received a 

supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s nunc pro tunc judgment deleting the deadly 

weapon finding from the judgment. 

Appellate courts may not decide moot controversies. See Ex parte Flores, 130 S.W.3d 

100, 104–05 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2003, pet. ref’d). “This prohibition is rooted in the separation 

of powers doctrine in the Texas and United States Constitutions that prohibits courts from 

rendering advisory opinions.” Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex. 

1999). “A case becomes moot on appeal when the judgment of the appellate court can no longer 

have an effect on an existing controversy or cannot affect the rights of the parties.” Jack v. State, 

149 S.W.3d 119, 123 n.10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (per curiam) (citing VE Corp. v. Ernst & Young, 

860 S.W.2d 83, 84 (Tex. 1993) (per curiam)); State v. Garza, 774 S.W.2d 724, 727 (Tex. App.—

Corpus Christi 1989, pet. ref’d).

 1

Smith contends that, because (1) use of a deadly weapon was not specifically pleaded in the indictment, (2) the 

weapon pleaded in the indictment (hand/fist) was not a deadly weapon per se, and (3) the jury did not affirmatively 

answer a special issue on deadly weapon use, a deadly weapon finding should not have been included in the judgment. 
3

Because the trial court has entered a nun pro tunc judgment which provides Smith with all 

relief that he has requested in this appeal, any judgment of this Court can have no effect on the 

rights of the parties. Smith’s sole issue on appeal is therefore moot. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot.

Scott E. Stevens

Justice

Date Submitted: March 13, 2019

Date Decided: March 29, 2019

Do Not Publish
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22 - 0048 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. SKY M. LITTLECOYOTE,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including August 22, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

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

July 13 2022

07/13/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0048
# C_2021065EN.01000101.xml

| 25.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10067 — ElringKlinger/Plastic Omnium New Energies/EKPO Fuel)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 65/01)

On 18 February 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). 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:

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

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/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 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10067. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10067. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
(September 15, 1987)

#### The People of the State of New York v Benjamin Cunningham.

—Application for writ of error coram nobis, pursuant to *People v Bachert*(69 NY2d 593), denied. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Main, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.
# C_2021258EN.01000201.xml

| 2.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 258/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 258/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10202 — EQT/Investindustrial/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 258/02)

On 16 Juni 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). 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:

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

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/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 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10202. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10202. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---