alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### William Leonardo et al., Respondents, v Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., et al., Respondents, and All-Nu General Contracting Corp., Appellant, et al., Defendant. CMA Enterprises, Ltd., Third-Party Plaintiff, v Dynamic Plumbing Consultants Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. (And Another Action.) (Action No. 1.) Jechil Kopf, Respondent, v CMA Enterprise, Ltd., et al., Respondents, and All-Nu General Contractors Corp., Appellant, et al., Defendants. (And Other actions.) (Action No. 3.)

[719 NYS2d 234]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Friedman, J.), entered on or about December 17, 1998, which, *inter alia,*set aside a jury verdict finding all defendants negligent but that the negligence of third-party defendant Dynamic Plumbing Consultants Corp. and its employee plaintiff William Leonardo was not a proximate cause of the accident, and held that Leonardo and Dynamic were negligent as a matter of law and that their negligence proximately caused the incident, and ordered a new trial on apportionment and damages only, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly set aside the verdict since plaintiff William Leonardo, president of third-party defendant Dynamic Plumbing Consultants Corp., conceded that the explosion occurred after he flicked a lighter in a room into which gas had escaped. Although plaintiffs’ expert, the only expert to testify at trial, offered the opinion that Leonardo’s actions were not the proximate cause of the accident, expert testimony, even when uncontroverted, is not necessarily conclusive *(see,*
      *297
      *Galimberti v Carrier Indus.,*222 AD2d 649). Indeed, given the dispositive nature of Leonardo’s concession, the court properly decided the proximate cause issue as a matter of law *(see, Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp.,*51 NY2d 308; *cf., Browne v Pikula,*256 AD2d 1139). The court also properly determined that Leonardo’s act did not constitute a supervening act negating the negligence of defendants Con Edison and All-Nu in permitting gas to escape into the room where the explosion occurred *(see, Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., supra,*at 315-316; *Gonzalez v Lovett Assocs.,*252 AD2d 355, *lv denied*92 NY2d 816).

We have considered the defendants-appellants’ remaining contentions for affirmative relief and find them unavailing. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Williams, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.
Gilmer MARTIN, II, and His Wife Jean Sutton Martin, Plaintiffs, v. The LANDFALL COUNCIL OF ASSOCIATIONS, INC., Mary R. McKenna, Frank J. Madonna, Anthony G. Van Schaick, Carl O. Roark, Mark A. Schwartz, Donald A. Britt, Sr, Katherine F. McKenzie, Gary L. Caison, Janet A Del Chiaro, Betty E. Potter, Wayne Roberts, Wendy Miller McElhinney, Harry L. Deas, III, Lesley C. Woods, Martha P. Blacher, Carol A. Blackburn, Wayne W. Oakes, Barbara A. Russo, Van Vliet Hemphill, Richard H. Butler, Martha N. Pepper, Welton Curtis Sewell, L. Ware Preston, III, John Dewey Dickson and David Joseph Williamson, Defendants.

No. COA18-505

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 18, 2018

DISMISSED.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MA Y 9, 2013

NO. 03

- 11

- 00155

- CR

The State of Texas, Appellant

v.

Joseph William Dotson, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 6 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, ROSE, AND GOODWIN

REVERSED AND REMANDED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE ROSE

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being

considered, it is the opinion of this Court that there was error in the trial court’s order. IT IS

THERE FORE ORDERED that the order of the trial court be reversed and the cause is

remanded for further proceedings; and that this decision be certified below for observance.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Darryl Gillis, Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 28]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Phylis Skloot Bamberger, J.), rendered September 25, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly ruled that defendant opened the door to a previously precluded inquiry into whether he had ever struck *261the complainant prior to the charged incident. The pertinent portion of defendant’s testimony on direct examination, taken in context, tended to convey to the jury that defendant’s relationship with the complainant had been peaceable. In any event, the inquiry in question did not deprive defendant of a fair trial. Concur — Williams, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4685 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4685

  To provide for the permanent existence of the United States Parole 
                              Commission.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 24, 2010

  Ms. Norton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for the permanent existence of the United States Parole 
                              Commission.

    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 ``United States Parole Commission 
Authorization Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. MAKING THE UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION PERMANENT.

    Section 235(b) of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (18 U.S.C. 3551 
note) shall apply with respect to the United States Parole Commission 
as though that section contained no limitation on the time period of 
its effect.
                                 <all>
```
STATE of North Carolina v. James Leon RUCKER, Jr.

No. 201P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 20, 2018

Lisa Miles, Attorney at Law, for Rucker, James Leon (Jr.)

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Marc Bernstein, Special Deputy Attorney General, Sarah Kirkman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 29th of June 2018 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of September 2018."
Exhibit 32.1

STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 1350

I, Ashutosh Roy, the chief executive officer of eGain Communications Corporation (the Company), certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code
that, to my knowledge,

(i) the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ending June 30,
2011 the (Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

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



/s/    ASHUTOSH
ROYAshutosh RoySeptember 27, 2011


A signed original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. § 1350 has been provided to
eGain Communications Corporation and will be retained by eGain Communications Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Dismiss and Opinion Filed June 5, 2014 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01345-CV 

ASHTON GROVE L.C., W. DOW HAMM III CORP., ASHTON GROVE MASTER 

ASSOCIATION, INC., ASHTON GROVE ESTATES SECTION 1 COMMUNITY 

ASSOCIATION, INC., WILLIAM DOW HAMM III, AND WILLIAM DOW HAMM, JR., 

Appellants 

V. 

JACKSON WALKER L.L.P., Appellee 

On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-09-07411 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Bridges, Francis, and Lang-Miers 

Opinion by Justice Francis 

 By joint motion filed May 28, 2014, the parties inform us they have settled all issues and 

move to dismiss the appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. 

 

131345F.P05 

 

/Molly Francis/ 

MOLLY FRANCIS 

JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

ASHTON GROVE L.C., W. DOW HAMM 

III CORP., ASHTON GROVE MASTER 

ASSOCIATION, INC., ASHTON GROVE 

ESTATES SECTION 1 COMMUNITY 

ASSOCIATION, INC., WILLIAM DOW 

HAMM III, AND WILLIAM DOW 

HAMM, JR., Appellants 

No. 05-13-01345-CV V. 

JACKSON WALKER L.L.P., Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-09-07411. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Francis. 

Justices Bridges and Lang-Miers 

participating. 

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

 We ORDER that each party bear its own costs of this appeal. 

Judgment entered June 5, 2014 

/Molly Francis/ 

MOLLY FRANCIS 

JUSTICE
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF BURR, PILGER & MAYER, LLP, INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

eGain Communications
Corporation

Mountain View, California

We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No.s 333-129854, 333-76692, 333-76690, 333-76688, 333-41394, and 333-32854) and Form S-3 (No. 333-48314) of our report dated
September 26, 2008 relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of eGain Communications Corporation as of and for the year ended June 30, 2008, which appears in eGain Communications Corporations
Annual Report on Form 10-K.



|                                
|--------------------------------
|/s/    BURR, PILGER & MAYER, LLP
|San Jose, California            
|                                
|September 26, 2008
STATE of North Carolina v. Bradford Lee BRADSHAW

No. 385P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 5, 2018

Mark Montgomery, Attorney at Law, for Bradshaw, Bradford Lee.

Josephine N. Tetteh, Assistant Attorney General, Ernie Lee, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 15th of November 2017 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of April 2018."
----

Statement by the Commission concerning Article 7(4) of Protocol 3 on ACP sugar of Annex V to the ACP-CE Partnership Agreement

(2004/C 283/02)

As a result of a Decision taken by the Commission under Article 7(3) of Protocol 3 on ACP sugar (C/2004/902), 18 215 tonnes of sugar were available for reallocation. The Commission hereby gives notice that, pursuant to the provisions of Article 7(4) of that Protocol, it has allocated, by Decision C/2004/4375, 18 215 tonnes of sugar (expressed as white sugar), with effect from 1 July 2003, to the countries listed below. This means that, with effect from the 2003/2004 delivery period, the agreed quantities specified in Article 3(1) of the said Protocol will be amended as follows (expressed in tonnes of white sugar):

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                                 579
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      22,179
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              151,496
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           279,769
<OTHER-SE>                                        (409,086)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        22,179
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   174,236
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (174,236)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (174,236)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (174,236)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.01)



</TABLE>
<Page>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.11

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

    We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statement on Form F-3 (No. 333-13160) of DaimlerChrysler North America Holding
Corporation and the registration statements of Form S-8 (Nos. 333-5074,
333-7082, 333-8998, 333-86934 and 333-86936) of DaimlerChrysler AG of our report
dated February 20, 2002, with respect to the balance sheet of Mitsubishi Motor
Sales of Caribbean, Inc. as of December 31, 2001, and the related statements of
operations, of changes in shareholder's deficiency, and of cash flows for the
year then ended, which report appears in the December 31, 2001, annual report on
Form 20-F/A of DaimlerChrysler AG.

                                                      PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

San Juan, Puerto Rico
September 25, 2002
[593 NYS2d 450]

#### Richard D. Longworth, as Escrow Agent, Plaintiff, v Janet Ottaiano, Defendant.

District Court of Nassau County, Fourth District,

December 29, 1992

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Richard D. Longworth,*Oyster Bay, plaintiff *pro se. McCarthy, McCarthy & DeMartin, P. C.,*Huntington, for defendant.

*356OPINION OF THE COURT

Geoffrey O’Connell, J.

Plaintiff has commenced this action upon a check by service of a summons and motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint. (CPLR 3213.) Defendant cross-moves to dismiss.

Plaintiff acted as attorney for the seller of a one-family residence in which defendant was the purchaser. At the title closing defendant issued a check for $612 payable to the seller. Plaintiff avers that the parties agreed that he was to hold the $612 in escrow until possession of the premises was satisfactorily delivered. The agreement was reduced to writing. Defendant does not deny the agreement, but alleges that her inspection of the premises revealed breaches of the seller’s obligations under the contract of sale. It is uncontroverted that defendant then stopped payment of the check.

Defendant contends that plaintiff lacks legal capacity to sue. (CPLR 3211 [a] [3].) An escrow agent or depository may bring such actions as are necessary to fulfill his duties. (55 NY Jur 2d, Escrows, § 38.) Thus, in *Oppenheim v Simon*(57 AD2d 1006), the escrow agent was held to have capacity to sue to recover funds subject to an escrow agreement including the proceeds of a check for $25,000 which was dishonored and never paid. Clearly, plaintiff has the capacity to bring this action.

Defendant justifies stopping payment of the check by citing alleged breaches of the contract of purchase. By its terms the escrow agreement was to secure satisfactory performance of the purchase contract with the $612 check to be held until "delivery of possession * * * in good condition.” Defendant contends that the premises were not delivered in good condition. Nevertheless, defendant could not unilaterally stop payment and void the property or instrument to be held in escrow. *(Tompkins v Thompson,*93 NYS 1070; *see, Farago v Burke,*262 NY 229, 233, citing *Mechanics’ Natl. Bank v Jones,*76 App Div 534, *affd*175 NY 518; 55 NY Jur 2d, Escrows, §10.)

The escrow agreement provided by defendant provides, "I (the seller) also authorize my attorney, Richard D. Longworth, to hold a check payable to me for $612 to further insure delivery of possession in good condition.” This language authorizes plaintiff to hold the instrument, not to negotiate it. Nevertheless, a check may become stale and subject to dishonor because of the passage of time. (UCC 4-404.) Accord*357ingly, plaintiff is awarded summary judgment. Defendant shall either furnish plaintiff with a certified check for $612 which instrument plaintiff is to hold in escrow or defendant may deliver cash or negotiable check for $612 which plaintiff may deposit in his escrow account.

The parties may pursue the remedies they would otherwise have had with respect to the claimed breaches of the purchase contract.
STATE v. Jeffrey Robert PARISI

65A17-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 22, 2018

John W. Congleton, Assistant Attorney General, Tom Horner, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Michele A. Goldman, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Parisi, Jeffrey Robert.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 19th of October 2018 by State of NC:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 22nd of October 2018."

State of NC shall have up to and including the 5th day of November 2018 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 11, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 59050]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20390]



[[Page 59050]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences


Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs; 
Meeting of the Board of Regents of the Uniformed Services University of 
the Health Sciences

ACTION: Quarterly meeting notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The actions that will take place are the approval of the 
minutes from the Board of Regents meetings on July 18, 2005; 
departmental reports; and degrees from the USU School of Medicine. The 
President, USU; Dean, USU School of Medicine; and Dean, USU Graduate 
School of Nursing will also present reports. These actions are 
necessary in order to remain an accredited medical school and to pursue 
our mission, which is to provide trained medical personnel to our 
uniformed services.

DATES: November 7, 2005, 8 a.m. to 3 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Board 
of Regents Conference Room (D3001), 4301 Jones Bridge Road, Bethesda, 
MD 20814-4799.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LTC Mark Gifford, USA, Executive 
Secretary, Board of Regents, (301) 295-3427.

    Dated: October 4, 2005.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 05-20390 Filed 10-6-05; 11:37 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
#### STATE ex rel. Terrence SHANKLIN v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2002-KH-2110.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 29, 2003.

In re Shanklin, Terrence;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial *1013Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. D, No. 385-600; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2002-K-0940.

Denied.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus
constituting part of the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-72291) and
the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos.
333-65977, 333-65979, 333-65981, 333-65983, 333-65985, 333-69253) of our report
dated February 15, 1999 appearing on page 61 of this Form 10-K.



PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Houston, Texas
February 25, 1999
#### Robert WILSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D02-1078.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 10, 2003.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Alan T. Lipson, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Heidi L. Bettendorf, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Robert Wilson appeals his attempted armed robbery and armed robbery convie-*1120tions. We affirm the convictions. With respect to Wilson’s sentence for count I, however, the State has conceded that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the 3.800(b)(2) motion more than sixty days after such motion was filed absent the timely filing of a motion for extension of time. *See Edmond v. State,*832 So.2d 782 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); *Jackson v. State,*793 So.2d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). We, therefore, reverse the sentence imposed for count I and remand for the entry of a new sentencing order.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED.

WARNER, POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.