alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Chemical Bank, Respondent-Appellant, v William Iselin & Co., Inc., Appellant-Respondent, et al., Defendant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam J. Altman, J.), entered July 18, 1989, which granted plaintiffs motion to the extent of dismissing defendant’s third affirmative defense pursuant to CPLR 3211 (b) and vacating defendant’s deposition notice of plaintiffs attorney, and denied said motion to the extent it sought to vacate defendant’s deposition notices of two nonparty bookkeepers, to suppress defendant’s use of certain records, and to terminate all further discovery by defendant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action commenced in 1986, plaintiff alleges, *inter alia,*that defendant’s 1981-1982 fraudulent misrepresentations induced it to enter into a factoring relationship with TJK Sportswear Inc., a corporation controlled by Irwin Feiner, in order to create a source of funds by which Feiner and other of his corporations could repay amounts owed to defendant. Defendant’s third affirmative defense alleged that by entering into a January 1983 restructuring agreement with Feiner and TJK Sportswear Inc., to which defendant was not a party, plaintiff reaffirmed the factoring relationship with knowledge of the falsity of any representations defendant had made earlier and thus waived any right to damages from defendant. As the restructuring agreement merely provided for repayment of a preexisting debt, the defense bears no relationship to the reality of plaintiffs position as tax creditor of parties other than defendant and is insufficient as a matter of law *(Clearview Concrete Prods. Corp. v S. Charles Gherardi, Inc.,*88 AD2d 461, 466-467). We see no abuse of discretion in Supreme Court’s discovery rulings *(Boutique Fabrice v Bergdorf Goodman,*129 AD2d 529). Concur—Ross, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3966

Academy, Ltd:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
the Company's 10-Q for the nine months and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                   35
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                        12,084
<ALLOWANCES>                            248
<INVENTORY>                          12,205
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     25,229
<PP&E>                               69,851
<DEPRECIATION>                       42,559
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       55,536
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                10,620
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                                 56
<OTHER-SE>                           41,025
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         55,536
<SALES>                              61,319
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     61,319
<CGS>                                55,477
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        55,477
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      6,709
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       35
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       (902)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   (902)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                          (487)
<EPS-BASIC>                           (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (.09)


</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellate case name: Amigos Meat Distributors, L.P. v. Julian Guzman and Catherine 

Michele Montejano

Appellate case number: 01-16-00149-CV

Trial court case number: 2013-25098

Trial court: 295th District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: May 26, 2017

Party filing motion: Appellant

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is DENIED GRANTED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Sherry Radack

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Brown and Lloyd

Date: August 8, 2017
#### DAVID BULLOCK v. M. K. (BUD) WILLIAMS.

(Filed 23 March, 1938.)

1. Trial § 47—

Affidavits supporting a motion for a new trial for newly discovered evidence are insufficient to invoke the discretionary power of the court to hear the motion when they disclose that the evidence relied upon is merely cumulative and contradictory.

2. Appeal and Error § 37b—

While a motion for a new trial for newly discovered evidence is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, when the affidavits supporting the motion are insufficient to invoke the discretionary power of the court, its ruling thereon is reviewable, and the granting of the motion will be held for error.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Grady, J.,*at November Term, 1937, of HARNETT.

Motion for new trial for newly discovered evidence.

Tbe action for recovery of damages for personal injury resulting allegedly from actionable negligence was tried at tbe February Term, 1937, of tbe Superior Court of Harnett County. From judgment on tbe verdict in favor of tbe plaintiff, defendant appealed to Supreme Court. Judgment was affirmed at tbe Fall Term, 1937. 212 N. C., 113, 193 S. E., 170. Opinion was duly certified to tbe clerk of tbe Superior *321Court of Harnett County. At tbe next succeeding term of said Superior Court, tbe November Term, 1931, defendant filed motion for new trial upon ground of newly discovered evidence.

Tbe judge below in bis discretion allowed tbe motion, and in accordance therewith rendered judgment granting new trial, from wbicb plaintiff appealed to Supreme Court, and assigned error.

*Neill McK. Salmon for plaintiff, appellant.*

*J. R. Young and J. A. Jones for defendant, appellee.*

Per Curiam.

Tbe prerequisites to tbe granting of motion for new trial for newly discovered evidence are fully set forth in *Johnson v. R. R.,*163 N. C., 431, 79 S. E., 690; also in *Brown v. Hillsboro,*185 N. C., 368, 117 S. E., 41; *Brown v. Sheets,*197 N. C., 268, 148 S. E., 233; *S. v. Casey,*201 N. C., 620, 161 S. E., 81; *Love v. Queen City Lines,*206 N. C., 575, 174 S. E., 514; *Furniture Co. v. Cole,*207 N. C., 847, 178 S. E., 579.

An examination of tbe affidavits offered by defendant in support of tbe motion fails to show compliance with tbe tests required. When compared with tbe evidence introduced at tbe trial of tbe case in Superior Court, it is observed that tbe so-called newly discovered evidence is merely cumulative and tends only to contradict former witnesses.

“Although tbe discretionary ruling of tbe trial judge upon an application for new trial for newly discovered evidence is not reviewable on appeal, where tbe applicant fails to make out a showing of newly discovered evidence sufficient in law to invoke tbe discretionary ruling tbe granting of tbe application will be held for error,” beadnote in *Crane v. Carswell,*204 N. C., 571, 169 S. E., 160, wbicb is applicable here.

Tbe granting of a new trial below is

Error.
exv10w1






EXHIBIT 10.1




FIRST AMENDMENT




to



ERIE INDEMNITY COMPANY

ANNUAL INCENTIVE PLAN



(As Amended and Restated Effective as of January 1, 2009)




WHEREAS, Erie Indemnity Company (the “Company”) adopted the Erie Indemnity Company
Annual Incentive Plan (As Amended and Restated Effective as of January 1, 2009) (the “Plan”)
by action of its Board of Directors on February 26, 2009, and the Company’s shareholders
approved the Plan at the Annual Meeting of Shareholders in 2009, and




WHEREAS, pursuant to Plan Section 8.03 the Board of Directors reserved authority to amend
the Plan, and




WHEREAS, the Board of Directors has determined to amend the Plan to give to the Executive
Compensation and Development Committee (the “Committee”) the same discretion to decrease
amounts payable under awards granted to the Chief Executive Officer and Executive Vice
Presidents as it has with respect to awards granted to other participants,




NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is amended as follows:



          1. Section 5.04 is amended in its entirety to read as follows:




     Section 5.04. Discretion. The Committee shall have no discretion to
increase any Company Incentive Target or Company Incentive Award that would otherwise be due upon
attainment of the Company Performance Goals, or otherwise modify any Company Performance
Goals associated with a Performance Period; provided, however, that the Committee may in its
discretion reduce or eliminate Company Incentive Targets or Company Incentive Awards for a
Performance Period.



          2. This amendment is effective January 1, 2010, with respect to awards granted on or after that date.




     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Directors of the Company has caused this document to be executed as of the 26th day of February 2010.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	ERIE INDEMNITY COMPANY

 	 
	 	by 	/s/ James J. Tanous
 	 
	 	 	James J. Tanous 	 
	 	 	Executive Vice President,

Secretary and General Counsel
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed

August 25, 2015

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 15

- 00675

- CR

IN RE WILLIE EUGENE PEARSO N , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 54th District Court McLennan County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2011

- 2089

- C2



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
On Friday, August 7, 2015, relator Willie Eugene Pearson filed a petition for
writ of m andamus in this c ourt. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 ( West 2004);
see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In th e petition, relator asks this c ourt to compel the
Honorable Matt Johnson , presiding judge of the 54th District Court of McLennan County , to address relator’s application for writ of habeas corpus

.2

Section 22.221 of the Texas Government Code expressly limit s the mandamus jurisdiction of the court of appeals to: (1) writs against a “judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals district”; and (2) all writs necessary to enforce the court of appeals’ jurisdiction. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221.
Mc Lennan County is not within our appellate district. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.201(o) (West. Supp. 2014). Instead, McLennan County is within the T enth Court of Appeals district. Id . § 22.201(k ). Because McL ennan County is not in our appellate district a nd no writ is necessary to enforce this court’s jurisdiction, we have no authority to issue a writ of mandamus directed at the presiding judge of the
54 th District Court of McLennan County Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Donovan. Do No t Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-01-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-03-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-01-1998
<CASH>                                          14,337
<SECURITIES>                                     1,175
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,562
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     47,748
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               108,944
<PP&E>                                         108,515
<DEPRECIATION>                                  38,628
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 182,390
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,754
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           503
<OTHER-SE>                                     161,072
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   182,390
<SALES>                                        281,961
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               281,961
<CGS>                                          120,883
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  120,883
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               107,026
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 55,422
<INCOME-TAX>                                    22,001
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             33,421
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    33,421
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.94
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.3  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report of General
Growth Properties, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period
ending December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Adam Metz, in my capacity as
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)The Report
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.   /s/
  ADAM METZAdam
  Metz Chief Executive Officer  
  April 30, 2010
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 17, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-3871

Whirlpool Corporation: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/%2434_Billion_Exclusions_Gr

anted_September.pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

April 12, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5570

TSB Wisconsin Corporation: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_04.15.19.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
#### In re Marriage of Fred M. HAEHNEL, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Carol A. DRURY f/k/a Carol A. Haehnel, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 61828.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

June 8, 1993.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 14, 1993.

Application to Transfer Denied Aug. 17, 1993.

Harold G. Johnson, Mitchell D. Johnson, St. Ann, for respondent, appellant.

Alisse C. Camazine, Leigh Joy Carson, St. Louis, for petitioner, respondent.

Before CRANDALL, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and GRIMM, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mother filed a motion to modify custody asking for permission to move the parties’ children to the State of California. Father filed a counter-motion seeking custody. The trial court denied mother’s motion and granted custody to father. Mother appeals.

An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                            5
<MULTIPLIER>                     1,000
       
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>          JUN-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>             JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>               JUN-28-1997
<CASH>                             110
<SECURITIES>                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                    8,967
<ALLOWANCES>                       127
<INVENTORY>                      9,006
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                18,805
<PP&E>                          49,283
<DEPRECIATION>                  14,739
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  75,058
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           12,727
<BONDS>                              0
<COMMON>                            50
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                0
<PREFERRED>                          0
<OTHER-SE>                      31,050
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    75,058
<SALES>                         74,710
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                74,710
<CGS>                           59,396
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   59,396
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                11,390
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               3,033
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    891
<INCOME-TAX>                       559
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                332
<DISCONTINUED>                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                   (107)
<CHANGES>                            0
<NET-INCOME>                       225
<EPS-PRIMARY>                    (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                    (0.05)
        

</TABLE>
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 01-3268

___________ Frontier Leasing Corporation, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. Griffin Petroleum, Inc.; Steven H. * Griffin, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellants. *

___________ Submitted: May 14, 2002 Filed: June 5, 2002

___________ Before BOWMAN, LOKEN, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. This diversity case arises from a lease of equipment for convenience stores. Griffin Petroleum, Inc. (GPI), the lessee, eventually closed its stores and stopped making lease payments to Frontier Leasing Corporation (Frontier), the lessor. Frontier thereupon brought suit against both GPI and Steven H. Griffin, the personal1 The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.
2 We note with approval that after being made aware of Wells Fargo's interest in the case and denying the motion to vacate the judgment the District Court referred the case to the chief judge of the district for purposes of all further post-judgment motions. -2- guarantor of GPI's lease obligations. The District Court 1 granted summary judgment to Frontier. GPI and Mr. Griffin appeal. For reversal, appellants argue that genuine issues of material fact concerning the amount of damages Frontier is entitled to recover preclude summary judgment and require remand for further proceedings. Having reviewed both the applicable state law and the summary-judgment record de novo, we conclude that appellants' arguments are meritless. No error of law appears and an extended opinion would lack significant precedential value. We therefore affirm on the basis of the District Court's thorough and well-reasoned opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Appellants' motion to supplement the record is granted. Their various requests for relief from judgment on the grounds raised in their motion are denied. All of these requests arise from appellants' post-judgment discovery that Wells Fargo & Co., which is on the District Court's recusal list, has an undetermined direct or indirect pecuniary interest in the case. This interest was in no way obvious or discoverable by the District Court, and was not disclosed to the court, and the court therefore had no knowledge of it, until months after the court's judgment had been entered and while the case already was on appeal in this Court. In these circumstances, we agree with the District Court that post-judgment relief on account of Wells Fargo's interest in the case is not required. 2 The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.-3- A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.