alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
J

- A32039

- 16

NON

- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
SHANTICE TILLERY, IN HER OWN RIGHT AND PARENT AND NATUR AL GUARDIAN ON BEHALF OF HER MIN OR SON, SHAMIR D. TILLERY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

THE CHILDREN’S HOSPI TAL OF PHILADELPHIA, CHILDR EN’S HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATE S, INC., MONIKA GOYAL, M.D., JOEL FEIN, M.D., KYLE NELSON, M.D.

APPEAL OF: THE CHIL DREN’S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA AND MONIKA GOYAL, M.D.

No. 1823 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment Entered April 15 , 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No.: December Term, 2011 No. 02168

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., RANSOM, J., and PLATT, J. *

JUDGMENT ORDER BY PLATT, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 28, 2017

Appellants, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and Monika

Goyal, M.D., appeal from the judgment entered on April 15, 2016. 1 We

quash.

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.J

- A32039

- 16

- 2

-

Appellants filed a timely appeal from the judgment at docket number

1508 EDA 2016, in which they alleged both trial and judgment errors. ( See

Tillery v. CHOP , No. 1508 EDA 2016, at *4

- 5 (Pa. Super. filed February

____, 2017)). In this appeal, at docket number 1823 EDA 201 6, they again

seek to challenge the judgment. ( See Appellants’ Brief, at 4).

This Court conducted an exhaustive merit review of the claims raised

challenging the judgment at docket number 1508 EDA 2016, and our

conclusions are the law of the case. See Si gnora v. Liberty Travel, Inc. , 886 A.2d 284, 290 (Pa. Super. 2005), appeal denied , 919 A.2d 958 (Pa.

2007) ( “Under [the] law of the case doctrine, a court involved in the later

phases of a litigated matter should not reopen questions decided by another

judge of the same court or by a higher court in the earlier phases of the

matter.”) (citations omitted). 2 Appellants are not entitled to a “second bite

at the apple” to challenge the judgment again. We quash.

(Footnote Continued)

_______________________

1 Appellants purport to appeal from the order entered on May 12, 2016 denying their emergency motion to vacate the judgment. However, an appeal properly lies from the final order, which “ disposes of all claims and of all parties[ .] ” Pa.R.A.P. 341(b)(1); see also Pa.R.A.P. 702(a). We have changed the caption accordingly.

2 Appellants raise three of the same issues that we thoroughly addressed previously, namely the reduction of future medical expenses to present value, whether that claim was properly preserved, and delay damages. ( See Tillery , supra at *21

- 25, *21 n.6; Appellants’ Brief, at 4). Their issue regarding post

- judgment interest, ( see Appellants’ Brief, at 4), was not raise d in either a timely post

- trial motion or in the original appeal to this Court, and is waived.J

- A32039

- 16

- 3

-

Appeal quashed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 2/28/2017
224 La. 938

#### FALCON v. FALCON.

No. 39823.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 15, 1954.

No appearance for appellant. .

Dupont & Düpont, Plaquemine, for defendant-appellee.

McCALEB, Justice.

Subsequent to the lodging of this appeal, counsel for appellant filed a written motion for permission to withdraw'from the case and, on March 18th' 1953, an order was entered erasing their names from the record. A copy of this motion and' order was sent by registered mail to appellant to his last known residence at Mary Esther, Florida and, as shown by the return receipt of the U. S. Post Office Department, was delivered to him in person at that address.

Thereafter, conformable with Section 1 of Fule IX of the Rules of this Court, 8 LSA-R.S., the Clerk of Court mailed to appellant, more than 30 days previous, to the fixing of the hearing of this case, a copy of the list of cases assigned for argument showing the- date- on which this appeal would be heard. However, appellant did not appear when the case was called for argument either in person or through counsel. Having failed to 'appear or to file a brief in support of his case, the appeal will be dismissed. Grand Lodge of State of Louisiana Knights of Pythias v. Natchitoches Lodge No. 89, 215 La. 300, 40 So.2d 472; Birdwell v. Birdwell, 217 La. 671, 47 So.2d 41; Hayes v. Petry, 218 La. 730, 50 So.2d. 821; Antoon v. Mayor and City Com’rs. and Building Inspector of City of Natchitoches, 218 La. 732, 50 So.2d 822; Frey v. Ingram, 219 La. 159, 52 So.2d 531; Core Bros. v. F. J. J. Sloat Dredging Co., 220 La. 169, 55 So.2d 904 and Henderson v. Life & Casualty Insurance Co. of Tennessee, 222 La. 175, 62 So.2d 264.

The appeal is dismissed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Darien Pughe, Appellant.

Appeal In by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), rendered October 25, 1988, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, *335after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress certain statements made by him to law enforcement authorities.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to law enforcement authorities is granted, and a new trial is ordered.

On August 29, 1987, during a block party in Brooklyn, a shooting occurred, which resulted in the death of an innocent bystander. On September 27, 1987, Detective Ellis and two other detectives, acting upon information that the 17-year-old defendant was a participant in the shooting, began searching for the defendant. The defendant was located in his neighborhood and taken to the 77th Precinct. He was brought in through a side door and was not led past the front desk. Detective Ellis testified at the *Huntley*hearing that he did not inform anyone at the front desk that defendant was going to be processed for arrest. The defendant was taken to the second-floor homicide room. After waiving his *Miranda*rights, the defendant admitted to his involvement in the shooting, although he claimed to have fired a gun in self-defense. He repeated this admission to an Assistant District Attorney on videotape.

When the defendant’s mother learned of her son’s arrest she went to the 77th Precinct. The person at the front desk telephoned the homicide room but was told that the defendant was not there, despite the fact that defendant was in the room being questioned. The defendant’s mother went home and unsuccessfully attempted to locate her son at the 71st Precinct. She then telephoned the 77th Precinct and spoke to Detective Weidenbaum who told her that the defendant was there, but that she did not have to come down because when "they finished questioning him he would either come to my house or he would call me”. Nevertheless, the defendant’s mother again went to the 77th Precinct. However, when she arrived at the precinct she was told by Detective Ellis that she could not speak to the defendant until after the questioning had been completed.

"Police conduct which purposely isolates a youthful suspect from his family or other supportive adults in order to secure an inculpatory statement cannot be tolerated” *(People v Kern,*149 AD2d 187, 217). By refusing to allow the defendant’s mother to speak to him, the police sealed off the most likely source from which the defendant might have obtained the assistance of counsel *(see, People v Townsend,*33 NY2d 37; *336
      *People v Rivera,*78 AD2d 556; *People v Evans,*70 AD2d 886). Therefore, the defendant’s videotaped confession and statement to police should have been suppressed. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<SUBSIDIARY>
   <NUMBER>            1
   <NAME>              POTOMAC CAPITAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>           1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    4,458,351
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         367,868
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       664,365
<OTHER-ASSETS>                               1,175,981
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,666,565
<COMMON>                                       118,527
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                    1,010,364
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            690,175
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               1,819,066
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          141,000
<PREFERRED>                                    125,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         1,902,200
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 225,000<F1>
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                          985
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                    159,729      
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                20,772
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               2,272,813
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                6,666,565
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      380,389
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             1,488 
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     343,030
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     344,518
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         35,871
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               7,386
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  43,257
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        35,725
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,532
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      4,140
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    3,392
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        49,158
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      130,400<F2>
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          34,079
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.03<F3>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.03
<FN>
<F1>Included on the Balance Sheet in the caption "Short-term debt."
<F2>Total annualized interest costs for all utility long-term debt
outstanding at March 31, 1998.
<F3>Effective December 31, 1997, the Company adopted Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards No. 128 entitled "Earnings per
Share."  Accordingly, the Company's Earnings per share for the
three months ended March 31, 1998 are as follows:  Basic $0.03;
Diluted $0.03.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

# AGENCY:

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) gives notice as required by 42 CFR 83.12(e) of a decision to evaluate a petition to designate a class of employees for the Tyson Valley Powder Farm, St. Louis, Missouri, to be included in the Special Exposure Cohort under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. The initial proposed definition for the class being evaluated, subject to revision as warranted by the evaluation, is as follows: 

*Facility:*                         Tyson Valley Powder Farm.                     

*Location:*                         St. Louis, Missouri.                     

*Job Titles and/or Job Duties:*                         All employees.                     

*Period of Employment:*                         January 1, 1942 through December 31, 1949.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Larry Elliott, Director, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 513-533-6800 (this is not a toll-free number). Information requests can also be submitted by e-mail to                         *OCAS@CDC.GOV.*

      ( print page 47952)    
Dated: August 11, 2008. 

 Christine M. Branche, 

 Acting Director,  National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

[FR Doc. E8-18909 Filed 8-14-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>            5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,840,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  753,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (619,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    886,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          93,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (92,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,025,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                     12,757,000
<COMMON>                                       532,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,000,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (25,707,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,025,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                94,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             458,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (530,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (530,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.13)
<FN>
<F1> CURRENT ASSETS AND CURRENT LIABILITIES VALUES
     ARE ZERO BECAUSE OF AN UNCLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET.


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


        Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18
                            of the United States Code


     I, E. James Ferland, Chief Executive Officer of Public Service Electric and
Gas Company, to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report
of Public Service Electric and Gas Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) 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 Public Service Electric and Gas Company.



                                         /s/ E. James Ferland
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         E. James Ferland
                                         Public Service Electric and Gas Company
                                         Chief Executive Officer
                                         May 1, 2006
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 87 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.J.Res.87

                      One Hundred Seventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
          the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two

                            Joint Resolution

 
 Approving the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for the development of a 
 repository for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent 
     nuclear fuel, pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That there hereby is approved 
the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for a repository, with respect to 
which a notice of disapproval was submitted by the Governor of the 
State of Nevada on April 8, 2002.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7083 

To transfer seized Russian assets to a Ukrainian Humanitarian Aid Fund 

and to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to use amounts in 

the Fund for humanitarian assistance for Ukraine, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 15, 2022 

Mrs. BICE of Oklahoma (for herself, Mr. TONY GONZALES of Texas, Mr. 

CRENSHAW, Mr. MOORE of Alabama, Mr. ROUZER, Mr. FEENSTRA, Mr. 

CAREY, Mr. ESTES, Mr. TIMMONS, Mr. MOORE of Utah, Mrs. CAMMACK, 

Mr. MCKINLEY, Mr. VAN DREW, Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS, and Mr. 

LAMALFA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To transfer seized Russian assets to a Ukrainian Humanitarian Aid Fund and to authorize the Secretary of the 

Treasury to use amounts in the Fund for humanitarian 

assistance for Ukraine, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Make Russia Pay Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7083 IH

1 SEC. 2. UKRAINIAN HUMANITARIAN AID FUND. 

2 (a) ESTABLISHMENT OF FUND.—There is estab3 lished a fund in the Department of the Treasury to be 

4 called the ‘‘Ukrainian Humanitarian Aid Fund’’. 

5 (b) USE OF SEIZED RUSSIAN ASSETS.—All Russian 

6 assets seized by the United States, including seized Rus7 sian Central Bank foreign reserves, shall be deemed for8 feited, and the Secretary of the Treasury shall liquidate 

9 such assets and deposit the resulting funds into the 

10 Ukrainian Humanitarian Aid Fund. 

11 (c) USE OF FUND AMOUNTS.—The Secretary of the 

12 Treasury may use amounts in the Ukranian Humani13 tarian Aid Fund for the following purposes: 

14 (1) To provide humanitarian relief to Ukrainian 

15 refugees who have fled their homes due to Russian 

16 aggression. Such relief may be made directly to 

17 member nations of the European Union who have 

18 taken in refugees from Ukraine. 

19 (2) Funding to the government of Ukraine to 

20 provide humanitarian assistance to its citizens who 

21 remain in Ukraine and security assistance, includ22 ing— 

23 (A) funding to provide food, clothing, shel24 ter, medical assistance, and other forms of re25 lief the Secretary determines to be appropriate; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7083 IH

1 (B) funding to rebuild damaged or de2 stroyed infrastructure; and 

3 (C) security assistance funding needed to 

4 defend from Russian aggression, where the de5 termination of the amount of such funding is 

6 made jointly by the Secretary of the Treasury 

7 and the Secretary of Defense. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### TROMBLEY v. IOWA NAT. MUT. INS. CO.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division B.

Feb. 5, 1954.

Irving H. Propper, Miami, for appellant.

Dixon, Dejarnette & Bradford, Miami, for appellee.

THOMAS, Justice.

The chancery court was asked to construe a clause of an insurance policy entitled “Coverage A: Bodily injury Liability” and to decide that the appellant was-entitled to a recovery of $3,000 in addition to the amount paid to him by the insurance carrier.

The policy was issued by the.appellee to-one William C; Edge to cover a motorcar owned by his wife. While' the contract was in force a car occupied by the Edges-collided with one occupied by the appellant and his wife and the Trombleys were injured. Each of the Trombleys sued for' personal injuries, and the husband sued also for the loss of the comfort, companionship, services and consortium of his wife. The jury in a simple verdict assessed the husband’s damages at $25,000 and the-wife’s at $2,000.

The insurance company paid $5,000 to the-husband and $2,000 to the wife. The hus*320band now claims that although the wife’s verdict has. been discharged he is entitled to $3,000 mpre under the terms of the policy.. . We quote the ..clause, the title of: which we have already stated:

> “To pay on behalf of the insured all 'sums which" th'e insured shall' become legally obligated [to pay] as damages because of bodily injury, sickness or disease, including death at any time resulting therefrom, sustained by any person caused by accident or arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the automobile.”

According to the complaint from which we have taken the facts just related the “policy covered *bodily injury*liability of $5000.00 for *each person injured,*.and $10,-000.00 for *each accident.”*(Emphasis supplied.)

Even without benefit of the parts of the policy appearing in the briefs, but nowhere' in the record, we have no difficulty adjudicating the liability precisely as the chancellor did. There is no justification for holding that the husband should receive the sum of $3,000 in addition to the amount; already . paid him. The. unit by which liability was to be determined was the, “person”; the limit of liability growing out of. any single accident was the sum of $10,000. Thus where two persons were injured each was to receive not more than $5,000, and where one was injured to an amount less than "that another who was.injured more could not recover the" limit of the amount allotable to him and the difference between that sum and the damage to the other. Such was not the meaning, purpose of intent of the language used. And there is no occasion to resort to rules of construction, the phraseology being to us quite clear.

We discover no error in the decree which, in effect, construed the insurance contract as making the insurer liable for $5,000 to the two injured persons severally but not liable to them for twice that sum jointly.

Affirmed.

ROBERTS, C. J., and DREW and BARNS, JJ., concur;