alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### NORMAN E. BYRUM v. A. B. HOUTZ and RICHARD McNEAL.

(Filed 10 December, 1930.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Nu-nn, J.,*at January Term, 1930, of Pas-quotaNic.

Affirmed.

Tbis was an action for actionable negligence brought by plaintiff against defendants. The plaintiff alleged: “(1) That the defendant, A. B. Houtz, is now, and was at the times hereinafter set forth, the owner and in possession of a sawmill situate in the county of Per-quimans, in said State, and at the time of the injuries hereinafter complained of, was engaged in operating said mill for the manufacture of lumber and staves.”

The defendants’ answer to the complaint says: “Section 1 of the complaint is denied.”

The issues submitted to the jury were as follows:

“1. Was the plaintiff injured by the negligence of the defendant, Richard McNeal, as alleged in the complaint?

2. Was the plaintiff injured by the negligence of the defendant, A. B. Houtz, as alleged in the complaint?

3. Hid the plaintiff assume the risk of his injury as alleged in the answer ?

4. Did the plaintiff, by his own negligence, contribute to his injury, as alleged in the answer?

5. What damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover?”

The court below rendered the following judgment: “This cause coming-on now to be heard and being heard, and issues having been submitted to the jury as appears of record; and the court having announced, at the conclusion of the testimony, that he would charge the jury upon the second issue as follows, to- wit: If you believe the evidence, and find the facts to be as all the evidence tends to show, then it would be your duty to answer the second issue No; and the plaintiff, through his counsel, having thereupon stated, in open court, that he elected to take voluntarily, a judgment as of nonsuit as to the defendant, Richard McNeal, and that, in deference to the court’s announced views and ruling upon the second issue, he further elected to submit involuntarily to a judgment as of nonsuit as to the defendant, A. B. Houtz. Now, therefore, it is ordered, decreed and adjudged that judgment as of nonsuit be, and same is hereby entered, and that the defendants go without day.”

*W. S. Privoti, H. B. Leary, Nhringhaus & Nall for plaintiff.*

*McMullan & LeBoy for defendants.*

*819Pee CueiaM.

Plaintiff contends that “Tbe sole question presented on tbis record is wbetber plaintiff offered and was permitted to introduce «sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie case of liability against defendant, A. B. Houtz, or wbetber tbe judge was justified in intimating an opinion adverse to plaintiff's right to recover as against said defendant.”

We do not tbink there was any error in tbe rulings of tbe court below or tbe judgment signed. We see no merit in plaintiff’s assignments of error. We do not tbink tbe evidence sufficient to be submitted to tbe jury. *Denny v. Snow, ante,*773. Tbe judgment of tbe court below is

Affirmed.
#### Jeremiah E. Bryant, Sr., et al., Appellants, v Superior Computer Outlet, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[772 NYS2d 529]

*344In a consolidated action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), dated October 25, 2002, which granted the separate motions of the defendants Superior Computer Outlet, Inc., and Hempstead Commons, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. In support of their respective motions, the defendants presented evidence establishing that the concrete wheel stop on which the injured plaintiff tripped while leaving a store carrying a box containing a computer monitor was not an inherently dangerous condition and was readily observable by the reasonable use of one’s senses *(see Cupo v Karfunkel,*1 AD3d 48 [2003]; *Gibbons v Lido & Point Lookout Fire Dist.,*293 AD2d 646 [2002]; *Plessias v Scalia Home for Funerals,*271 AD2d 423 [2000]). In response to the motions, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Krausman, J.P., Schmidt, Cozier and Mastro, JJ., concur.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-14-0000510 24-AUG-2015 08:24 AM
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13

- 10810

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 0:11

- cv

- 62467

- KMW

HEATHER CASTELLANOS,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus

TARGET CORPORATION,

Defendant

- Appellant.

___________________ _____

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

( June 17, 2014 )

Before MARCUS and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, and TREADWELL, *
District Judge.

* Honorable Marc T. Treadwell, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Georgia, sitting by designation.

Case: 13-10810 Date Filed: 06/17/2014 Page: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:

Two issues are presented on appeal from a judgment based on a jury verdict

for plaintiff, in this diversity case, springing from a slip

- and

- fall at one of

defendant’s stores. After hearing oral argument and after deliberation, we

conclude that no reversible error is present.

About Defendant’s Renewed Motion for JMOL, we conclude that the record

evidence

-- viewed in plaintiff’s favor

-- was sufficient for the verdict 1 : evidence

including the approximately two

- foot size of the puddle of bleach, the distinctive

odor of bleach, the pre sence of tracks not made by plaintiff or her husband through

the puddle, and the proximity within about ten feet of the puddle of defendant’s

employees.

About the exclusion of a purported expert’s opinion, we conclude that the

trial judge did not abuse he r discretion, especially given the expert’s broad lack of

knowledge of the background and underpinning of the information in the DRG on

which the expert relied considerably. 2

AFFIRMED.

1 Furthermore, no new trial was demanded.

2 We do not read State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Bowling , 81 So.3d 538 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012) to demand admission of the proposed expert testimony in this case. Bowling seems to decide a materially different case. For example, Bowling seems to be about, to a significant degree, an argument that the medical services billed did not reflect medical services actually delivered according to the treatment records and not about mainly a conflict over the reasonableness of charges for medical services, assumed to have been delivered.

Case: 13-10810 Date Filed: 06/17/2014 Page: 2 of 2
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5059 

To amend the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 to allow certain 

States to directly purchase commodities, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 27, 2023 

Ms. TOKUDA (for herself, Mr. MOYLAN, Mrs. PELTOLA, Mr. SABLAN, and Mr. 

CASE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 to 

allow certain States to directly purchase commodities, 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DIRECT PURCHASE OF COMMODITIES. 

4 Section 202 of the Emergency Food Assistance Act 

5 of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 7502) is amended by inserting after 

6 subsection (a) the following: 

7 ‘‘(b) DIRECT PURCHASE OF COMMODITIES.— 

8 ‘‘(1) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5059 IH

1 ‘‘(A) ELIGIBLE STATE.—The term ‘eligible 

2 State’ has the meaning given the term in sec3 tion 4206(b) of the Agriculture Improvement 

4 Act of 2018 (7 U.S.C. 7518(b)). 

5 ‘‘(B) ENTITLEMENT FUNDS.—The term 

6 ‘entitlement funds’, with respect to an eligible 

7 State, means the dollar amount used by the 

8 Secretary to purchase commodities pursuant to 

9 section 27 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 

10 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2036) to distribute to the eligi11 ble State in accordance with section 214. 

12 ‘‘(2) DIRECT PURCHASE.—The Secretary shall 

13 allow an eligible State to elect to receive all of the 

14 entitlement funds of the eligible State as cash to 

15 make direct purchases of commodities through the 

16 private commercial marketplace.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5036 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5036

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the exclusion 
     for employer-provided dependent care assistance including the 
      limitation on dependent care flexible spending arrangements.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 27, 2023

   Ms. Porter (for herself, Mrs. Hinson, Ms. Norton, Mrs. Kiggans of 
   Virginia, and Mr. Cole) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the exclusion 
     for employer-provided dependent care assistance including the 
      limitation on dependent care flexible spending arrangements.

    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 ``Family Savings for Kids and Seniors 
Act''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN EXCLUSION FOR EMPLOYER-PROVIDED DEPENDENT CARE 
              ASSISTANCE INCLUDING DEPENDENT CARE FLEXIBLE SPENDING 
              ARRANGEMENTS.

    (a) Increase To Take Into Account Inflation Since 1986.--Section 
129(a)(2)(D) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as 
follows:
                    ``(D) Inflation adjustment.--In the case of any 
                taxable year beginning in a calendar year after 2023, 
                the $5,000 amount in subparagraph (A) shall be 
                increased by an amount equal to--
                            ``(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
                            ``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment 
                        determined under section 1(f)(3) for the 
                        calendar year in which the taxable year begins, 
                        determined by substituting `calendar year 1986' 
                        for `calendar year 2016' in subparagraph 
                        (A)(ii) thereof.
                If any increase determined under this paragraph is not 
                a multiple of $100, such increase shall be rounded to 
                the next lowest multiple of $100.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 129(a)(2)(A) of such Code is 
amended by striking ``$2,500'' and inserting ``half such dollar 
amount''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2023.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 52 (Friday, March 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 14452]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6657]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-30,505]


Cushman Industries, Inc., Hartford, CT; Notice of Affirmative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    On February 8, 1995, the company requested administrative 
reconsideration of the Department of Labor's Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment 
Assistance for workers at the subject firm. The Department's Negative 
Determination was issued on January 20, 1995 and was published in the 
Federal Register on February 10, 1995 (60 FR 8061).
    New findings show from the company show company imports of chucks 
from China.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim 
is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the Department of 
Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.

    Signed at Washington, D.C., this 7th day of March 1995.
Victor J. Trunzo,
Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 95-6657 Filed 3-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2874-2875]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-788]



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


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Rural Utilities Service

7 CFR Part 1773


Correction of Typographical Error

AGENCY: Rural Utilities Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule correction of typographical error.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects a typographical error in a final rule 
published by the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) on December 27, 1994, at 
59 FR 66438. This regulation revised nomenclature in agency regulations 
to reflect the reorganization of the Department of Agriculture mandated 
by recent legislation.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 27, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue Arnold, Financial Analyst, Program 
support Staff, Rural Utilities Service, room 2234, South Building, U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250-1500, telephone number 
202-720-0736; FAX 202-720-4120.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This correction affects revisions to 
definitions in 7 CFR Part 1773. The published document, in the second 
column of page 66440 cites the incorrect section of part 1773. The 
definitions revised are actually in section 1773.2. To avoid confusion, 
RUS is correcting this error.
    Therefore, 7 CFR Part 1773 is corrected as follows:
    1. The authority citation for part 1773 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.; 7 U.S.C. 1921 et seq.; Pub.L. 
103-354, 108 Stat. 3178 (7 U.S.C. 6941 et seq.).

    2. In the second column of page 66440, in amendatory instruction 
number 25 ``1773.3'' is corrected to read ``1773.2''.

     [[Page 2875]] Dated: January 9, 1995.
Wally Beyer,
Administrator, Rural Utilities Service.
[FR Doc. 95-788 Filed 1-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-15-P
Exhibit 10.1








Promissory Note








$20,000

January 19, 2001








For value received, the undersigned, Richard P.
Barber (Borrower), hereby promises to pay to the order of Interactive Objects, Inc., a company with a place of business in Bellevue, Washington, the principal sum of Twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), plus interest compounded annually at 5%. Such
payment shall be made on Jaunary 17, 2003 (due date). In the event of a decrease in timely annual compensation of $110,000 for reasons outside the control of the Borrower from the date hereof until the due date, such amount shall no longer be
payable.








/s/    RICHARD BARBERSignature and Date
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 62 (Friday, March 31, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 16601]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7907]



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



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Sequoia National Forest; California Spotted Owl DEIS

agency: Forest Service, USDA.

action: Notice of meeting.

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

summary: This notice announces an open house in which the public is 
invited to participate in an information exchange regarding 
alternatives being considered in the California Spotted Owl Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement, as they affect the Sequoia National 
Forest area.

dates and time: April 11, from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.

addresses: Springville Veterans Memorial Building, 35944 Highway 190, 
Springville, CA 93265.

contact person for further information: Judy Schutza, Hot Springs 
Ranger District, Route 4, Box 548, California Hot Springs, CA 93207, 
(805) 548-6503.

supplementary information: The Forest Service has released a Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to amend the Pacific Southwest 
Regional Guide Sierran Province Forest Plans with new management 
direction for the California Spotted Owl. The purpose of this meeting 
is to exchange information with the public regarding the Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement and the preferred alternative.
    The meeting will be informally structured. A member of the team 
that prepared the DEIS will be available to answer questions and 
discuss the DEIS. Visual media depicting the alternatives and selected 
environmental consequences will be displayed.

    March 27, 1995.
Linda C. Brett,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 95-7907 Filed 3-30-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 62 (Friday, March 31, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 16658]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7884]



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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[ID-942-04-1420-00]


Idaho: Filing of Plats of Survey; Idaho

    The plat of the following described land was officially filed in 
the Idaho State Office, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho, 
effective 9:00 a.m., March 23, 1995.
    The plat representing the dependent resurvey of Homestead Entry 
Survey No. 147 and a portion of the subdivisional lines, T. 16 N., R. 
19 E., Boise Meridian, Idaho, Group No. 890, was accepted March 17, 
1995.
    This survey was executed to meet certain administrative needs of 
the Bureau of Land Management.
    All inquiries concerning the survey of the above described land 
must be sent to the Chief, Branch of Cadastral Survey, Idaho State 
Office, Bureau of Land Management, 3380 Americana Terrace, Boise, 
Idaho, 83706.

    Dated: March 23, 1995.
Harry K. Smith,
Acting Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Idaho.
[FR Doc. 95-7884 Filed 3-30-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GG-M
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daniel Suarez, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Haft, J., at trial and sentence; Alfred Kleiman, J., at plea), rendered August 24, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree and, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate terms of 4 to 12 years’ imprisonment on each of the robbery counts, from *2Va to 7*years’ imprisonment on the second and third degree weapon possession counts, and to a definite term of one year’s imprisonment on each of the remaining weapon and drug possession counts, unanimously affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Contrary to defendant’s assertions, the evidence at trial demonstrated that as a lookout, he was properly convicted of robbery in the second degree under the theory of an accomplice "actually present” during the commission of the robbery herein within the meaning of Penal Law § 160.10 (1). Specifically, since the codefendants were each "aided by another person actually present” during the crime, they were both found guilty of robbery in the second degree, with defendant, as their accomplice, bearing criminal liability for the same offense. (Penal Law § 160.10 [1].) Although defendant contends that the People’s witnesses did not provide credible testimony in view of a prior history of drug abuse, it is well settled that it is the function of the jurors to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses *(People v Parks,*41 NY2d 36, 47).

We have examined defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Carro, Milonas and Rosenberger, JJ.
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.27
 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
AND MUTUAL RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS
  RECITALS
   Superconductor Technologies, Inc., a Delaware




---



##### 



corporation; Conductus, Inc., a Delaware corporation, plaintiffs v. Charles Shalvoy, an
individual and Does 1-10, inclusive, et al
    AGREEMENT
 Payment by Shalvoy and Dismissal of Civil Action
 2




---



##### 



Application of Shalvoy Payment
 Disposition of the Alleged December 2000 Transaction
 3




---



##### 



Effective Date
 Documents to be Provided to Shalvoy
     4




---



##### 



No Admission of Liability
 General Mutual Release of All Claims
 5




---



##### 



6




---



##### 



Waiver of Civil Code Section 1542
  The Parties Commitment to Cooperate
 7




---



##### 



Non-Assignment of Claims
 No Existing Claims
 Tax Matters
 Confidentiality of Settlement
  8




---



##### 



Enforcement of this Agreement
 Severability
 9




---



##### 



Ambiguities and Construction
 Mutual Non-Disparagement
 Integration
 Advice of Counsel
 Waiver, Amendment and Modification of Agreement
 10




---



##### 



Counterparts
 Binding Effect
 Governing Law
 Information Requests
 Authority
  11




---



##### 



Dated: March 1, 2007
    By:
    /s/ Charles E ShalvoyCharles ShalvoyDated: February 27, 2007
    Superconductor Technologies, Inc.By:
    /s/ Jeffrey A QuiramIts: President & CEODated: February 27, 2007
    Conductus, Inc.By:
    /s/ Jeffrey A QuiramIts: CEODated: February 24, 2007
    /s/ John LocktonJohn LocktonApproved as to form:Towner Law OfficesDated: March 1, 2007
    By:
    /s/ Bruce M TownerBruce M. Towner, Esq.Attorneys for Charles ShalvoyDated: February 28, 2007
    Eisenberg Raizman Thurston & Wong, LLPBy:
    /s/ Steven J MillerSteven J. Miller, Esq.Attorneys for Conductus, Inc.,
Superconductor Technologies, Inc., and John
Lockton 12