alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### SLAYTER & CO. v. UNITED STATES INSULATION CORPORATION (BALDWIN-HILL CO. et al., Interveners).

Motion No.-.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Jan. 28, 1938.

Norton & Simmons, of New York City, for interveners-appellants.

Gifford, Scull & Burgess, of New York City, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before MANTON, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant agreed with one Steéle, acting for a group of manufacturers of rock wool which could be used to practice the patented process of Reissue Patent No. 19,929, to pay the expenses of defending this suit to its final determination. This was unknown to appellee until after this appeal was taken. It was found below that the appellant infringed the process claim in suit and an interlocutory decree w’as granted. On the' last day to do so, an appeal was filed, without the knowledge or consent of the appellant, by the attorney who had represented it in the court below. He appealed on instructions from Steele. After the appeal was taken, two of the group of manufacturers moved for leave to intervene, which was granted.

Appellant and appellee have negotiated and concluded a settlement of this suit. The interveners, Baldwin-Hill Company and Campbell Rock Wool Company, after intervention, seek to prosecute this appeal. Knowledge that the interveners were defending this suit was not made known to the appellee or the court. It is clear that a decree entered would not be res adjudicata *42against the interveners. Elliott Co. v. Roto Co., 2 Cir., 242 F. 941; Lathrop v. Rice & Adams Corp., D.C., 21 F.2d 124, affirmed 2 Cir., 24 F.2d 1021; Foote v. Parsons Non-Skid Co., 6 Cir., 196 F. 951. The interveners are in the'position of one who has sold an old article qf commerce to one who has thereafter treated it in such a way that it can be used in carrying out a patented process. They are in no closer relation to the litigation. Such interest is too remote to entitle them to carry on this litigation against the wishes of the appellant and appellee, who have settled. Consolidated Gas Co. of New York v. Newton, D.C., 256 F. 238; Equity Rule 37, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723.

Because they did not apply to intervene and control the suit promptly and give notice to appellee or the court as to their interest, they may not continue this appeal against appellant’s objection. Foote v. Parsons Non-Skid Co., supra; Elliott Co. v. Roto, supra.

The order of intervention is vacated and the appeal dismissed as moot

Appeal dismissed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

DONEGAL INSURANCE GROUP,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

INNOVATIONS WINDOWS & SIDING, 

LLC, MARY YELKEN, and PHILLIP 

KOTTMEYER,

Defendants.

4:23CV3092

 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This matter is before the Court on its own motion after review of the docket. Plaintiff filed 

the Complaint on May 18, 2023. (Filing No. 1). On August 14, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s

Motion for Alternative and Substitute Service of Defendant, Innovations Windows & Siding, LLC

(“Innovations Windows”), approving Plaintiff’s request to serve Innovations Windows by 

publication. (Filing No. 15). The Court provided Plaintiff an extension of time to September 22, 

2023, to accomplish such service. 

To date, Plaintiff has filed nothing further regarding the service of process upon Innovations 

Windows; Innovations Windows has not entered a voluntary appearances or otherwise appeared in 

this action; and Plaintiff has not requested further extension of time to complete service. Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides, “If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the 

complaint is filed, the court -- on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff -- must dismiss 

the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified 

time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service 

for an appropriate period.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have until December 4, 2023, to show cause why 

Defendant, Innovations Windows & Siding, LLC, should not be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 4(m) or for want of prosecution. The failure to timely comply with this order 

may result in dismissal of Innovations Windows & Siding, LLC from this action without further 

notice.

Dated this 16

th day of November, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Michael D. Nelson

United States Magistrate Judge

4:23-cv-03092-JMG-MDN Doc # 24 Filed: 11/16/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 122
#### Clifton G. YORK, Petitioner, v. Emma Sue YORK, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division B.

March 2, 1955.

J. B. Hodges, Lake City, for petitioner.

Dewey M. Johnson, Johnson & Bergman, Quincy, and Brannon & Brown, Lake City, for respondent.

MATHEWS, Chief Justice.

In this case, the petitioner here filed a bill of complaint against the respondent praying for a divorce and other matters connected with the divorce, including the support of a minor child. This suit is between the same parties as those in a similar suit from Gadsden County. In this cause, the respondent filed an answer containing a counter-claim, whereby she sought a divorce, custody of the minor child and other relief in connection therewith. At the same time, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss the bill of complaint in Columbia County, insofar as it affected the rights of the minor, the legal custody thereof or the amount of support therefor. Thereupon, the Circuit Judge of ■Columbia County made the following order:

> “The above Motion heard and argued by Counsel for the parties and upon consideration it seems to the Court that as regards the child and the rather peculiar procedural status of the case that the Circuit Court of the 2nd Judicial Circuit of Florida has jurisdiction over the child and the Motion above made is hereby granted.”

*409It is quite evident that the Circuit Judge of Columbia County, as well as the Circuit Judge of Gadsden County, were under the impression that denial of the first petition for certiorari from Gadsden County was on a motion to dismiss the bill of complaint in Gadsden County and was in effect a holding that the Circuit Court of Gadsden County had jurisdiction.

The only thing determined by the denial of the original petition for certiorari from the order of the Circuit Judge of Gadsden County was with reference to venue, because at that time no motion to dismiss had been filed. The opinion in this case must be read in connection with the opinion filed this day granting the petition for certiorari in the Gadsden County case. York v. York, Fla., 78 So.2d 406.

It appears that the Circuit Court of Gadsden County had no jurisdiction, and that the petition for certiorari to review the order of the Circuit Court of Columbia County complained about should be granted.

It is therefore ordered that the petition for certiorari to review that order of the Circuit Court of Columbia County dated the 15th day of October, 1954, be and the same is hereby granted, and that the said order be and the same is hereby quashed, and that an order be entered therein denying the motion to dismiss the complaint as it affects the rights of the minor, the legal custody thereof or the amount of support therefor to be paid by the petitioner herein.

THOMAS, SEBRING and DREW, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 17, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 53899]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21664]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Committee for the Preservation of the White House; Notice of 
Public Meeting

AGENCY: Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act that a meeting of the Committee for the Preservation of 
the White House will be held at the White House at 2 p.m. on Thursday, 
October 16, 2008.

DATES: October 16, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Executive Secretary, Committee for the 
Preservation of the White House, 1100 Ohio Drive, SW., Washington, DC 
20242. (202) 619-6344.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: It is expected that the meeting agenda will 
include policies, goals, and long-range plans. The meeting will be 
open, but subject to appointment and security clearance requirements. 
Clearance information, which includes full name, date of birth and 
Social Security number, must be received by October 9, 2008. Due to the 
present mail delays being experienced, clearance information should be 
faxed to (202) 619-6353 in order to assure receipt by deadline. 
Inquiries may be made by calling the Committee for the Preservation of 
the White House between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays at (202) 619-6344. 
Written comments may be sent to the Executive Secretary, Committee for 
the Preservation of the White House, 1100 Ohio Drive, SW., Washington, 
DC 20242.

    Dated: September 5, 2008.
Ann Bowman Smith,
Executive Secretary, Committee for the Preservation of the White House.
[FR Doc. E8-21664 Filed 9-16-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-51-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 06-cr-035-01-SM

Brandon Legere

O R D E R

Defendant’s motion for bail is denied. His mother’s

deteriorating economic position is not a basis for bail. He was

selling and using large quantities of crack before his arrest -

not supporting his mother. The unpaid bills were each in part

unpaid when defendant lived with his mother. He is facing a long

prison term, has an extensive criminal record and is an addict. 

He remains a danger to the community. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: May 8, 2006

cc: Paul W. Pappas, Esq.

 William E. Morse, Esq.

 Jeffrey S. Levin, Esq.

Case 1:06-cr-00035-SM Document 28 Filed 05/08/06 Page 1 of 1
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1265

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the transportation

fringe benefit to bicycle commuters.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 28, 2001

Mr. BLUMENAUER (for himself, and Mr. FOLEY) 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 extend

the transportation fringe benefit to bicycle commuters.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TRANSPORTATION FRINGE

4 BENEFIT TO BICYCLE COMMUTERS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 132(f)

6 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to general

7 rule for qualified transportation fringe) is amended by

8 adding at the end the following:

9 ‘‘(D) Bicycle commuting allowance.’’.
2

•HR 1265 IH

1 (b) BICYCLE COMMUTING ALLOWANCE DEFINED.—

2 Paragraph (5) of section 132(f) of such Code (relating to

3 definitions) is amended by adding at the end the following:

4 ‘‘(F) BICYCLE COMMUTING ALLOWANCE.—

5 The term ‘bicycle commuting allowance’ means

6 an amount provided to an employee for trans7 portation on a bicycle if such transportation is

8 in connection with travel between the employ9 ee’s residence and place of employment.’’.

10 (c) LIMITATION ON EXCLUSION.—Paragraph (2) of

11 section 132(f) of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘sub12 paragraphs (A) and (B)’’ and inserting ‘‘subparagraphs

13 (A), (B), and (D)’’.

14 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

15 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after

16 December 31, 2001.

Æ
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-1136

_____________________________

JONATHAN HARDT,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Washington County.

Timothy Register, Judge.

November 6, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, WINOKUR, and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jonathan Hardt, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 132

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 620 Jacaranda Street in Lanai City, Hawaii,

as the ‘‘Goro Hokama Post Office Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 132 EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 620 Jacaranda Street in Lanai City, Hawaii,

4 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Goro Hokama Post

5 Office Building’’.

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference

10 to the ‘‘Goro Hokama Post Office Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives February 7,

2001.

Attest:

Clerk.
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 132

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 620 Jacaranda Street in

Lanai City, Hawaii, as the ‘‘Goro Hokama PostOffice Building’’.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Lisa Babel

v. Civil No. 05-cv-206-SM

Curran Management Services, Inc.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

In reviewing the record to determine whether these cases

should be consolidated, it appeared to the court that removal may

have been improper as untimely. The removal statute, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1441(a) is generally construed against removal, with doubt

being resolved in favor of remand. See City of Chicago v.

International College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (1997); Chicago,

R.I. & P.R. Co. v. Stude, 346 U.S. 574, 578-579 (1954).

It appears that these cases were first removed by defendant

from the New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights, before which

an administrative proceeding was ongoing, to the New Hampshire

Superior Court. See N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. ch. 354-A:21-a. 

Defendant then removed the pending state civil action to this

court. Removal of the administrative action to the state

Case 1:05-cv-00206-SM Document 10 Filed 08/05/05 Page 1 of 3
1 The notice of removal to this court invokes diversity

jurisdiction and does not mention federal question jurisdiction -

even though the removed case purportedly raises Title VII

discrimination claims as well. In that regard, the record does

not disclose whether a right-to-sue letter has been issued to the

plaintiffs. An issue may arise with regard to a diverse

defendant’s ability to remove an unexhausted Title VII claim from

a state agency to federal district court, via a state court,

pursuant to a state administrative removal statute.

2

superior court occurred, it would seem, on either May 2, 2005

(when notice of removal was filed with the administrative agency)

or May 5, 2005, when an initial pleading was filed in the New

Hampshire Superior Court confirming the administrative removal

and disclosing a basis for federal removability.1 The notice of

removal to this court was filed on June 9, 2005, more than thirty

days after filing of the initial pleading removing the case to

state court, which pleading set forth the nature of the claims

and disclosed the suit’s removable character. This is a somewhat

odd situation in that defendant filed the initial pleading that

disclosed removability, but there does not seem to be any reason

why the thirty day removal period should not begin to run from

that event. (Whether the Title VII claim has been successfully

removed raises different complex issues.)

Case 1:05-cv-00206-SM Document 10 Filed 08/05/05 Page 2 of 3
3

Within thirty (30) days of the date hereof, the parties

shall show cause why this case should not be remanded to state

court based upon improper removal.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

August 5, 2005

cc: H. Jonathan Meyer, Esq.

Douglas A. Troyer, Esq.

Thomas O. Moriarty, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00206-SM Document 10 Filed 08/05/05 Page 3 of 3
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1222

To require the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to conduct

a study of developing residential mortgage programs that provide lowcost health insurance in connection with low-cost mortgages.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 27, 2001

Mr. BACA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Financial Services

A BILL

To require the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development

to conduct a study of developing residential mortgage

programs that provide low-cost health insurance in connection with low-cost mortgages.

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

3 SECTION 1. STUDY OF MORTGAGES THAT PROVIDE LOW4 COST HEALTH INSURANCE.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Housing and

6 Urban Development shall conduct a study to determine

7 feasibility, practicality, effectiveness, and costs of devel8 oping new programs, or making changes to existing pro-
2

•HR 1222 IH

1 grams administered by the Secretary (including the mort2 gage insurance programs under the National Housing

3 Act), to provide low-cost health insurance in connection

4 with low-cost residential mortgages.

5 (b) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date

6 of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall complete

7 the study and submit to the Congress a report describing

8 the results of the study. The report shall include rec9 ommendations for any new programs or changes to exist10 ing programs that the Secretary considers effective and

11 efficient to make low-cost health insurance available in

12 connection with low-cost-residential mortgages.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         307,299
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  112,379
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,000
<INVENTORY>                                     61,194
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               591,748
<PP&E>                                      15,496,510
<DEPRECIATION>                              13,323,093
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,765,165
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          230,260
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,071,610
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,765,165
<SALES>                                        743,139
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               787,547
<CGS>                                          901,738
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,206,149
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,651
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,229
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (436,482)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,133
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (437,615)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (437,615)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.18)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
Statement  of Financial Condition  for  Princeton  Mining  Company  at March 31,
2000  (unaudited)  and the Statement of Income  for the nine month period  ended
March 31,  2000 (unaudited)  and is  qualified  in  its  entirety  by  reference
to  such financial  statements.

</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                              87
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    87
<PP&E>                                          10,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,087
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,063
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       956,914
<OTHER-SE>                                    (988,890)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,087
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,926
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 690
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (6,616)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (6,616)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (6,616)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.00)








</TABLE>