alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COREY DONOVAN; LINDA DONOVAN

v.

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE 

INSURANCE COMPANY

PETITION OF: UNITED STATES COURT 

OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 42 EM 2020

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 24th day of July, 2020, the Petition for Certification of Question of 

Law is GRANTED. The Court shall consider the following issues:

1. Is a named insured's signing of the waiver form set out at 75 Pa.C.S. 

§1738(d) sufficient to waive inter-policy stacking of underinsured motorist 

benefits under Pennsylvania's Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 

where the policy insures more than one vehicle at the time the form is

signed?

2. If the answer to Question 1 is no, is a household vehicle exclusion 

contained in a policy in which the named insured did not validly waive interpolicy stacking enforceable to bar a claim made by a resident relative who 

is injured while occupying a vehicle owned by him and not insured under 

the policy under which the claim is made?

3. If the answers to Questions 1 and 2 are no, is the coordination-of-benefits

provision in the Automobile Policy nonetheless applicable, such that it limits

. . . recovery of underinsured motorist benefits under the policy . . ., or does 
[42 EM 2020] - 2

the lack of a valid waiver of inter-policy stacking render that provision 

inapplicable?

The Prothonotary is DIRECTED to establish a briefing schedule and list this case 

for oral argument.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

January 30, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 129919 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 129919 COA: 261758 Marquette CC: 82-014434 EARL PAUL PLEAU, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 14, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

d0123 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.

January 30, 2006

Clerk
Case 1:07-cr-00257-SAS     Document 14      Filed 02/01/2008     Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000059479
<NAME>                        Lilly Industries, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              NOV-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 DEC-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   FEB-28-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                         10,054
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  88,871
<ALLOWANCES>                                   2,143
<INVENTORY>                                    54,021
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               157,156
<PP&E>                                         106,603
<DEPRECIATION>                                 61,835
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 529,547
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          92,752
<BONDS>                                        0
<COMMON>                                       98,800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                     71,057
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   529,547
<SALES>                                        146,139
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               146,139
<CGS>                                          90,083
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  132,335
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               239
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             4,101
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                9,464
<INCOME-TAX>                                   3,880
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   5,584
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .24
        


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONS OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERUNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the filing by ARTISTdirect, Inc. (the “Registrant”) of itsAnnual Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 (the“Annual Report”) with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Robert N.Weingarten, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Annual Report fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

(2)           The information contained in theAnnual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Registrant.

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 
| Date:       April 28, 2006 | By:    | /s/ ROBERT N. WEINGARTEN       |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------|--------|
|                                                     |   | Robert N. Weingarten           |
|                                                     |   | Chief Financial Officer        |
|                                                     |   | (Principal Financial  Officer) |

 

----
#### STATE v. ROBERTS

No. 115 PC.

Case below: 34 N.C. App. 502.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 24 January 1978.
#### BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION v. PIERCE

No. 55 PC

Case below: 48 NC App 618

Petition by defendants Pierce for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 2 December 1980.
Case 1:07-cv-03476-GEL Document 17-2 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03476-GEL Document 17-2 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03476-GEL Document 17-2 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03476-GEL Document 17-2 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03476-GEL Document 17-2 Filed 02/08/2008 Page 5 of 5
Falls Can Kill!

In 10 years, 55 mine workers died as a 

result of falling from heights*

* Data based on an analysis by NIOSH researchers of fatal incidents investigated by MSHA between 2006 and 2015

involving slips and falls. To read the full publication, visit: http://me.smenet.org/reader.cfm?webArticleID=2116

16

Laborers

12

Equipment 9 operators

Mechanics

8

Truck 

drivers

10

Others

Install barriers and identify hazardous areas 

Prevent access to hazardous areas by installing barriers and clearly 

identifying areas that represent potentially hazardous fall risks.

Use caution and follow best 

practices while completing tasks

Follow approved fall safety prevention 

practices during maintenance, installation, 

construction, or dismantling activities.

Inspect and maintain equipment

Look for defects, fix damaged and improperly 

modified equipment as needed, and remove 

significantly damaged equipment from service.

Use a personal fall arrest system

Use only a certified full body harness sized to fit the 

user’s height and weight. Ensure that the anchorage point 

and connector are rated for 5,000 pounds and that all 

necessary safety fall prevention training is up to date.

Illustrations by NIOSH

Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention

National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health

October 2020

Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by the 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
#### HILLIARD v. CABINET CO.

No. 112 PC.

Now No. 8 PA 82.

Case below: 54 N.C. App. 173.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 12 January 1982.
#### EMPLOYERS INSURANCE v. HALL

No. 139 PC

Case below: 49 NC App 179

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 27 January 1981.
#### UTILITIES COMM. v. BOREN CLAY PRODUCTS CO.

No. 38 PC

Case below: 48 NC App 263

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 2 December 1980.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2020 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to expand the use of 

telehealth services for remote imaging for chronic eye disease. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 27, 2019 

Mr. CASEY (for himself and Mr. GRASSLEY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to expand 

the use of telehealth services for remote imaging for 

chronic eye disease. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Screenings for Eye 

5 Evaluation, Monitoring, Observation, Review, and Exam6 ination Act’’ or the ‘‘SEE MORE Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 2020 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXPANDING THE USE OF TELEHEALTH SERVICES 

2 FOR REMOTE IMAGING FOR CHRONIC EYE 

3 DISEASE. 

4 Section 1834(m) of the Social Security Act (42 

5 U.S.C. 1395m(m)) is amended— 

6 (1) in paragraph (4)(C)(i), by striking ‘‘and 

7 (7)’’ and inserting ‘‘(7), and (8)’’; and 

8 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

9 paragraph: 

10 ‘‘(8) TREATMENT OF REMOTE IMAGING FOR

11 CHRONIC EYE DISEASE.— 

12 ‘‘(A) NON-APPLICATION OF ORIGINATING

13 SITE REQUIREMENTS.—The requirements de14 scribed in paragraph (4)(C) shall not apply with 

15 respect to telehealth services furnished on or 

16 after January 1, 2020, for purposes of pro17 viding remote imaging for chronic eye disease, 

18 as determined by the Secretary, including dia19 betic eye disease and glaucoma. Such screenings 

20 and services shall include the use of FDA-ap21 proved ocular imaging techniques and tech22 nologies, including artificial intelligence tech23 nologies, shown to support the accurate diag24 nosis or monitoring or treatment of diabetic ret25 inopathy, glaucoma, or other chronic eye dis26 ease, as determined by the Secretary. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•S 2020 IS

1 ‘‘(B) NO ORIGINATING SITE FACILITY FEE

2 FOR NEW SITES.—No facility fee shall be paid 

3 under paragraph (2)(B) to an originating site 

4 with respect to a telehealth service described in 

5 subparagraph (A) if the originating site does 

6 not otherwise meet the requirements for an 

7 originating site under paragraph (4)(C). 

8 ‘‘(C) REPORT.—Not later than 5 years 

9 after the date of the enactment of this para10 graph, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a 

11 report on the impact of this paragraph with re12 spect to telehealth services on— 

13 ‘‘(i) the utilization of health care 

14 items and services related to diabetes and 

15 glaucoma; 

16 ‘‘(ii) health outcomes related to diabe17 tes and glaucoma; and 

18 ‘‘(iii) the rates of specialty referrals 

19 and the rate for completion of a specialty 

20 visit within 90 days of referral for individ21 uals with diabetic retinopathy or glaucoma 

22 after receiving telehealth services.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
#### IN RE LEWIS

No. 113 PC.

Case below: 11 N.C. App. 541.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 6 September 1971.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1893 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1893

 To require the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a 
study on ways to increase reporting of missing Indians and the effects 
 of substance abuse, including the use of methamphetamine, on violent 
          crime in Tribal communities, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 19, 2019

  Mr. Daines introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
              referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a 
study on ways to increase reporting of missing Indians and the effects 
 of substance abuse, including the use of methamphetamine, on violent 
          crime in Tribal communities, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Finding and Investigating Native 
Disappearance Act'' or the ``FIND Act''.

SEC. 2. STUDY AND REPORT ON REPORTING OF MISSING INDIANS AND EFFECTS OF 
              SUBSTANCE ABUSE, INCLUDING THE USE OF METHAMPHETAMINE.

    (a) Definition of Indian.--In this section, the term ``Indian'' has 
the meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian Child Welfare Act 
of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 1903).
    (b) Study and Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States 
shall conduct, and submit to Congress a report describing the results 
of, a study on--
            (1) ways to increase reporting of missing Indians, 
        including ways to decrease the period of time between the time 
        an Indian goes missing and the time the Indian is reported 
        missing; and
            (2) the effects of substance abuse, including the use of 
        methamphetamine, on violent crime in Tribal communities, 
        including crime relating to missing Indians.
                                 <all>
```
Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program Prioritization Guidelines - 2022

Did the incident meet USFA 

criteria for line of duty death 

(LODD)?

YES

TRAUMA

TEAM

YES

YES

Structure fire death?*

YES

Investigate

Notes:

• Personnel and financial resources limit the number of investigations.

• All cases that fall under investigate may not be investigated.

• Prioritizations may change depending upon fatality data.

• Trauma investigations are contingent on receiving a formal request and cooperation from the involved department and union.

• Medical investigators reach out to the department once a case is selected and request their participation. Family participation is optional.

MEDICAL

TEAM

NO

NO

YES

YES

NO

YES

YES

NO

Was the incident trauma 

related?

Did the death occur during 

training?*

Unique or emerging? (fatalities/

non-fatal injures/near misses)*

Heat or cold related death?

Unique or unusual death?

 Death during training 

involving physical exertion?

Investigate

Investigate

Investigate

NO

* Multiple traumatic

fatalities and/or multiple 

injury events will always be 

considered for priority. 

NO

Cardiac death age <45 years?

YES

Investigate

Investigate

Investigate

NO

Cardiac death involving 

physical exertion during 

response operations?

Investigate

YES
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1904 

To prohibit the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development from implementing, administering, or enforcing a proposed rule relating to 

verification of eligible status. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 19, 2019 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development from implementing, administering, or enforcing a 

proposed rule relating to verification of eligible status. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Keeping Families To5 gether Act of 2019’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Sec8 retary of Housing and Urban Development may not imple9 ment, administer, enforce, or in any manner make effecVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:20 Jun 21, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1904.IS S1904

pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1904 IS

1 tive the proposed rule of the Department of Housing and 

2 Urban Development entitled ‘‘Housing and Community 

3 Development Act of 1980: Verification of Eligible Status’’ 

4 (84 Fed. Reg. 20589 (May 10, 2019)), or any final rule 

5 based substantially on such proposed rule. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
00000000http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/wordml013f

[sloanauditorscomments2005001.jpg]



COMMENTS BY AUDITORS FOR U.S READERS ON CANADA - U.S. REPORTING DIFFERENCES

In the United States, reporting standards for auditors require the addition of an explanatory paragraph (following the opinion paragraph) when the consolidated financial statements are affected by conditions and events that cast substantial doubt on the Company's ability to continue as a going concern, such as those described in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements.

The opinion on page 1 is expressed in accordance with Canadian reporting standards, which do not permit a reference to such events and conditions in the auditors' report when these are adequately disclosed in the consolidated financial statements.

[sloanauditorscomments2005002.jpg]



July 27, 2005 Chartered Accountants Thornhill, Ontario
#### N. C. GRANGE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and AMERICAN HAIL MANAGEMENT, INC. v. THOMAS E. JOHNSON

No. 79

(Filed 12 January 1982)

BEFORE *Judge Preston*presiding at the 9 June 1980 Session of WAKE Superior Court plaintiff moved for summary judgment. *Judge Preston*allowed the motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed in an opinion by *Judge Webb*in which *Judges Hedrick*and *Hill*concurred. 51 N.C. App. 447, 276 S.E. 2d 469 (1981). We allowed defendant’s petition for further review on 9 July 1981.

*Young, Moore, Henderson & Alvis, by Walter Brock, Jr., Attorney for plaintiff-appellees.*

*Franklin Smith, Attorney for defendant appellant.*

PER CURIAM.

This is an action to recover $10,340 paid by plaintiff to defendant on a crop hail insurance policy on the ground that coverage under the policy had been suspended at the time of the loss because defendant breached the “other insurance” clause1 in the policy.

The facts are not in dispute. Plaintiff issued its policy to become effective on 21 May 1978. Thereafter defendant applied for and was issued a second crop hail insurance policy by another insurer to become effective on 8 June 1978 on a portion of the same crop insured by plaintiff. Defendant did not give notice to plaintiff of this second policy. The hail loss occurred on 9 July 1978. Defendant filed proofs of loss with both insurers. In answer to a question on plaintiffs’ proof of loss form defendant asserted *722that he had no other crop hail insurance on the crop in question except that provided by the “Federal Government.” Plaintiff paid defendant $10,340 for his loss. Thereafter plaintiff discovered the second crop hail insurance policy2 and brought this action to recover what it had paid under its policy.

After reviewing the record and briefs, and hearing oral arguments on the questions presented, we conclude that the petition for further review was improvidently granted. Our order granting further review is, therefore, vacated. The decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of Wake Superior Court remains undisturbed and in full force and effect.

Discretionary review improvidently granted.

1

. The clause provides:

> “Other Insurance

> It is hereby agreed that if other insurance is written on the insured interest in the above described crops this Company will be notified in writing of the amounts of such other insurance, including Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Coverage.

> It is further agreed that unless or until so notified of such other insurance the coverage under this policy shall be suspended.”

2

. Apparently the second insurer has also repudiated its policy, but the reason does not clearly appear in the record.
## NO. 12

- 0 9

- 00 3 1 0

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

LUCIANO LOPEZ, § APPEAL FROM THE 7TH APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

RON

- SLO, INC., APPELLEE § SMITH COU NTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(b).
Appellant, Luciano Lopez, perfected his appeal on September 23, 2009. The clerk = s record was
filed on October 28, 2009, makin g Lopez = s brief due on or before November 30, 2009. When
Lopez failed to file his brief by November 30, 2009, this court notified Lopez on December 2,
2009 that the brief was past due. The notice warned that if no motion for extension of time to file

the brief was received by December 14, 2009, the appeal would be dismissed for want of
prosecution under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(b). Further, the notice informed
Lopez that the motion for extension of time must contain a reasonable explanation for his failure
to file the brief and a showing that Appellee, Ron

B Slo, Inc. had not suffered material injury
thereby.
To date, Lopez has neither complied with or otherwise responded to this court = s
December 2, 2009 notice. Accordingly, we dismiss the app eal for want of prosecution

. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3.(b).
Opinion delivered December 16, 2009. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)
United States District Court

Southern District of New York

Office of the Clerk

U.S. Courthouse

500 Pearl Street, New York, N.Y. 10007-1213

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

 

 NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT

Lawrence Goodman

V.

07-cv-3453

Merck & Co.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 

 

Pursuant to the memorandum of the Case Processing Assistant, the above-entitled action is

reassigned to the calendar of

Judge Daniels

 

All future documents submitted in this action are to be presented in the Clerk’s Office of the

Southern District Court for filing and shall bear the assigned judge’s initials after the case number.

The attorney(s) for the plaintiff(s) are requested to serve a copy of the Notice of

Reassignment on all defendants.

J. Michael McMahon, CLERK

Dated: 5/4/7

By: Lourdes Aquino

 Deputy Clerk 

 

 

cc: Attorneys of Record 

PS REASSIGNMENT FORM 

Data Quality Control Revised: March 9, 2001

Case 1:07-cv-03453-GBD Document 5 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 1 of 1