alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Boyd McCoy, Jr., Appellant, v Travelers Insurance Companies et al., Defendants, and City of Rochester et al., Respondents.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The court properly dismissed plaintiff’s complaint against the City of Rochester alleging causes of action for false arrest, constitutional violations, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, libel, and slander. Only the basis for the dismissal of the cause of action for malicious prosecution *956requires comment. This cause of action did not accrue until April 28, 1983, when defendant was acquitted of criminal charges. Thus, the notice of claim alleging malicious prosecution filed on July 20, 1982 was premature *(see, Vitale v Hagan,*71 NY2d 955, *rearg denied*72 NY2d 910; *Hines v City of Buffalo,*79 AD2d 218, 225). Although defendant attached a copy of the notice of claim to the complaint, he did not purport to serve a new notice of claim. In any event, even if the service of the copy with the complaint is considered to be the service of a new notice of claim, the service of the notice with the complaint would not comply with the requirement that an action may not be commenced until at least 30 days have elapsed since service of the notice of claim *(see,*General Municipal Law § 50-i [1]). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Patlow, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6452 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6452

  To repeal provisions of the recently enacted health care reform law 
  that prohibit the establishment of annual limits on health benefits.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 29, 2010

 Mr. Ackerman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To repeal provisions of the recently enacted health care reform law 
  that prohibit the establishment of annual limits on health benefits.

    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 ``Second Health Insurance Protects 
America--Can't Repeal IT (HIPA-CRIT) Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF HEALTH CARE REFORM PROHIBITION ON ESTABLISHMENT OF 
              ANNUAL LIMITS ON HEALTH BENEFITS.

    The provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
(Public Law 111-148), insofar as such Act under section 2711(a)(1)(B) 
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-11(a)(1)(B)) 
prohibits a group health plan or a health insurance issuer offering 
group or individual health insurance coverage from establishing annual 
limits on the dollar value of benefits for any participant or 
beneficiary, are hereby repealed, effective as of the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Case 1:07-cv-05304-AKH Document 26 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05304-AKH Document 26 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM AMB PROPERTY
CORPORATION'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30,
2000 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          37,840
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  149,590
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               248,648
<PP&E>                                       3,787,451
<DEPRECIATION>                                 160,880
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,103,042
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          144,104
<BONDS>                                      1,513,477
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,949,375
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,103,042
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               345,173
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  222,818
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              62,906
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                122,355
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            100,216
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    95,855
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.06


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of our report dated March 9, 1998,(except with respect to matters
discussed in Note 16, as to which the date is March 16, 1998), with respect to
the consolidated financial statements and schedules of The Seibels Bruce Group,
Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December
31, 1997 into the Company's previously filed Registration Statements (File S-8
Nos. 333-14135, 333-15457, 2-70057, 2-83595, 33-34973, 33-43618, 33-43601, and
2-48782).





ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



Columbia, South Carolina
March 16, 1998





                                       65
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 12-3 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 1 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 12-3 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 2 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 12-3 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 3 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 12-3 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 4 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 12-3 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 5 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 12-3 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 6 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 12-3 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 7 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 12-3 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 8 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 12-3 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 9 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 12-3 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 10 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 12-3 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 11 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 12-3 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 12 of 12
Case 1:07-cv-05289-AKH     Document 7      Filed 09/06/2007     Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-05289-AKH     Document 7      Filed 09/06/2007     Page 2 of 2
#### BAKER ICE MACH. CO. v. BAILEY. In re GRANT BROS

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

December 11, 1913.)

No. 3,991.

Bankruptcy (§ 468*)—Appellate Proceedings—Controversies Arising nr Bankruptcy Proceedings.

General Order in Bankruptcy No. 36 (89 Fed. xiv, 32 C, C. A. xxxvi), requiring findings of fact and conclusions of law to be stated by the Circuit Court of Appeals on appeals to the Supreme Court in bankruptcy cases, does not apply to appeals from the decision on a petition of intervention by an adverse claimant to property, which is a controversy arising in a bankruptcy proceeding, within Bankr. Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, § 24a, 30 Stat. 553 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3431), as to which appeals are governed by the general statutes.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Bankruptcy, Cent. Dig. § 930; Dec, Dig § 468.*

Appeal and review in bankruptcy cases, see note to In re Eggert, 43 C. C. A. 9.]

Appeal from the District Court of the .United States for the District of Kansas; John C. Pollock, Judge.

In the matter of Grant Bros., bankrupts. The Baker Ice Machine Company appealed from an order denying its petition to recover property. On reversal of the” order, J. F. Bailey, trustee, requests findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Denied.

See, also, 209 Fed. 603.

H. C. Brome and Clinton Brome, both of Omaha, Neb., for appellant.

W. S. McClintock and A. D. Quant, both of Topeka, Kan., for appellee.

Before HOOK and GARLAND, Circuit Judges, and VAN VALKENBURGH, District Judge.

*

For other case» see same topic & 5 number In Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, *&*Rep'r Indexes

HOOK, Circuit Judge.

This was an intervention by the machine company in a bankruptcy proceeding, asserting title and asking possession of machinery sold' the bankrupt under a contract of conditional sale. It was a controversy arising in a bankruptcy proceeding, within section 24a of the Bankruptcy Act. Hewit v. Berlin Machine Works, 194 U. S. 296, 24 Sup. Ct. 690, 48 L. Ed. 986. The trustee having prevailed below, the machine company came here by appeal. We recently decided the cause for the appellant, and the appellee, desiring to appeal to the Supreme Court, now requests findings of fact and conclusions of law according to General Order in Bankruptcy 36 (89 Fed. xiv, 32 C. C. A. xxxvi). The request is denied. The general order does not apply to appeals under section *24a.*Knapp v. Milwaukee Trust Co., 216 U. S. 545, 30 Sup. Ct. 412, 54 L. Ed. 610; Houghton v. Burden, 228 U. S. 161, 33 Sup. Ct. 491, 57 L. Ed. 780.
[EXHIBIT 31.2]

          CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Jack Chien, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Med
Gen, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls
and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-
14) for the registrant and have:

  a.  designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure
      that material information relating to the registrant, including
      its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
      within those entities, particularly during the period in which
      this quarterly report is being prepared;

  b.  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
      controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the
      filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

  c.  presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
      effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on
      our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

  a.  all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
      internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants
      ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data
      and have identified for the registrants auditors any material
      weaknesses in internal controls; and

  b.  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
      or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
      internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have
indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that
could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the
date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses.

Date:  Aug 12, 2003

By: /s/Jack Chien
   ---------------------------
  Jack Chien
  Chief Financial Officer, and
  Principal Accounting
  Officer
Richard S. Mills, Esq. (RM-0206)

John P. Cookson, Esq. (JPC-9391)

McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP

Wall Street Plaza

88 Pine Street, 24th Floor

New York, New York 10005

(212) 483-9490

Attorneys for Defendant

Ambient Group, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE: WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER 

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE 

LITIGATION

21 MC 102 (AKH)

TERESA ROBLES, 

 Plaintiff, -against- ALAN KASMAN DBA KASCO, ET. AL., 

 Defendants.

INDEX NO.: 07-CV-05312 (AKH)

NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF AMBIENT 

GROUP, INC. S ANSWER

TO MASTER COMPLAINT

ELECTRONICALLY FILED

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant, AMBIENT GROUP, INC., by its attorneys, McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP, as and for its Response to the allegations set forth 

in the Amended Complaint by Adoption (Amended Check-Off Complaint) Related to the Master

Complaint filed in the above-referenced action, hereby adopts its Answer to Master Complaint

dated August 2, 2007, which was filed in the matter of In Re World Trade Center Lower

Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH).

WHEREFORE, the defendant, AMBIENT GROUP, INC., demands judgment dismissing

the above-captioned action as against it, together with its costs and disbursements and for such

other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Dated: New York, New York

Case 1:07-cv-05312-AKH Document 35 Filed 05/23/2008 Page 1 of 3
2

May 12, 2008 

Yours etc., 

McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP

Attorneys for Defendant

Ambient Group, Inc. 

By:__ s/ John P. Cookson ___________ Richard S. Mills (RM-0206)

John P. Cookson (JPC-9391)

Wall Street Plaza

88 Pine Street, 24th Floor

New York, New York 10005

(212) 483.9490

TO: Worby Groner Edelman & Napoli Bern, LLP

115 Broadway, 12th Floor

New York, New York 10006

(212) 267.3700

Gregory J. Cannata, Esq.

Robert A. Grochow, Esq.

233 Broadway, 5th Floor

New York, New York 10279

(212) 553.9206

James E. Tyrrell, Jr., Esq.

Patton Boggs LLP

One Riverfront Plaza

Newark, New Jersey 07102

(973) 848.5600

Thomas A. Egan, Esq.

Fleming Zulack Williamson Zauderer, LLP

One Liberty Plaza

New York, New York 10006-1404

(212) 412.9500

Case 1:07-cv-05312-AKH Document 35 Filed 05/23/2008 Page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on the 12th day of May 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing 

NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF ANSWER BY DEFENDANT AMBIENT GROUP, INC., 

with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF System which sends notification to 

appearing parties.

McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter LLP

By: _s/ John P. Cookson ____ Richard S. Mills (RM-0206)

John P. Cookson (JPC-9391)

Attorneys for Defendant

Ambient Group, Inc.

Wall Street Plaza

88 Pine Street, 24th Floor

New York, New York 10005

(212) 483-9490

Case 1:07-cv-05312-AKH Document 35 Filed 05/23/2008 Page 3 of 3
Case 7:07-cv-05783-CLB Document 5 Filed 10/04/2007 Page 1 of 1
[Exhibit 32.2]

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 on Form 10-QSB/A of Med
Gen, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Jack Chien, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:

    (1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
         or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Date: March 22, 2005

                                       /s/ JACK CHIEN
                                       -----------------------
                                       Jack Chien
                                       Chief Financial Officer



<PAGE>
#### Anderson *vs.*Freeman.

[Jackson, C. J., not presiding, on account of providential cause.]

Where a merchant employed a clerk, and pending his term of service the merchant formed a partnership in the same character of business, and the clerk entered the service of the firm, his contract with the original employer as an individual was at an end; and if he had been paid by the latter his wages up to the formation of the firm, and after entering the service of the firm, he refused to continue his employment with them at the same rate, hut retained as payment to himself funds of the firm at a higher rate, and was discharged, he could not recover from the original employer.

January 12, 1886.

Partnership. Debtor and Creditor. Contracts. Master and Servant. Before Judge Eve. City Court of Richmond County. June Term, 1885.

Reported in the decision.

*94Harper & Bro., for plaintiff in error.

S. F. Webb, for defendant.

Blandford, Justice.

Freeman sued Anderson upon a contract for wages as clerk, and the main question was whether he had been discharged without sufficient cause. The -evidence shows that Anderson formed a partnership with Fuller before the term of service of Freeman expired; that Freeman entered into the service of Anderson & Fuller, and after remaining awhile, he charged up to Anderson & Fuller one hundred and fifty dollars for one month’s wages, and paid himself out of their funds, whereas he was only (o have seventy-five dollars per month under his contract with Anderson, no new contract having been made after the formation of the new firm of Anderson & Fuller

Anderson offered him the same wages which he had been paying him; Freeman declined, contending that, as he had to keep the books of Anderson and Anderson & Fuller, it was double labor, and he should have more wages. He had paid himself one hundred and fifty dollars out of the funds of Anderson & Fuller for one month’s wages; this was done without their knowledge or consent. He having refused to continue his employment with Anderson *&*Fuller at the same wages which Anderson had agreed to pay him, he was discharged. A.verdict was rendered for Freeman, a motion made for new trial, which was refused, and error is assigned thereon.

We are of opinion that a new trial should have been granted in this case. When Anderson formed a partnership with Fuller, of the same nature and characte r of business which he had formerly carried on, and Freeman entered into the seiwice of the new firm, his contract with Anderson individually was at an end; and if he had been paid by Anderson his wages up to the formation of the *95firm of Anderson & Fuller, which it appears he had been, then he cannot recover from Anderson.

Judgment reversed.
EXHIBIT 10.22





EXTENSION
AGREEMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


between Stephen R. Brunner (Executive) and


Pogo Producing Company, a Delaware corporation (Company),


dated effective February 1, 2002





WHEREAS, Executive and Company are parties to an  Executive Employment Agreement bearing an original Effective Date of
February 1, 1999; and





WHEREAS, February 1, 2002, (even date herewith) is hereby deemed to be the Renewal
Date in that Employment Agreement; and





WHEREAS, Executive and Company each wish to extend said Executive
Employment Agreement for an additional one-year period so as to terminate (unless further extended) two years thereafter, (to-wit January 31, 2004); and





WHEREAS, Company desires to retain the services of Executive for the benefit of Company and its shareholders, and desires to induce Executive to remain in its employ for that extended time period; and





WHEREAS, Executive has agreed to continue to serve as an employee of Company for the period specified herein from and
after the date of this Extension Agreement; and





WHEREAS, Company and Executive desire to enter into this Extension
Agreement in order to formally secure for Company the benefit of the experience and abilities of Executive, and to set forth the agreements and understandings of Company and Executive; and





WHEREAS, Company has advised Executive that execution and performance of this Extension Agreement by Company has been duly authorized and approved by all requisite corporate
action on the part of the Company.




---




NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual promises and agreements
herein contained, and in consideration of the sum of $10 paid by Company to Executive, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged by Executive, Executive and Company do hereby agree as follows:





1.    The Executive Employment Agreement between Executive and Company bearing an Effective Date of February 1, 1999 and a Renewal Date which
is deemed herein to be February 1, 2002, is hereby extended for an additional one-year period commencing February 1, 2003 and ending January 31, 2004, unless such employment period is hereafter further extended for an additional period by both
Executive and Company.





2.    All provisions of the Executive Employment Agreement between Executive and
Company dated as of February 1, 1999, and as it is herein amended, are continued in full force and effect without change as if the Employment Agreement had been initially effective as of February 1, 2002.








POGO PRODUCING COMPANYBy:

/s/    JOHN O. MCCOY,
JR.John O. McCoy, Jr. Senior Vice President and
Chief Administrative Officer





ATTEST:/s/    JOEANN KINGDONAssistant Corporate Secretary





EMPLOYEE:/s/    STEPHEN R. BRUNNERStephen R. Brunner Vice
PresidentOperations