alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Claire Simmonds et al., Appellants, v Long Island Railroad Company, Respondent.

[745 NYS2d 555]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated April 20, 2001, which granted the defendant’s motion for leave to make a late motion for summary judgment and, upon granting such leave, granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff Claire Simmonds allegedly sustained injuries when she slipped and fell on an accumulation of ice that had developed on the platform of Long Island Railroad station in Brentwood. The accident occurred at approximately 1:25 a.m. on January 20, 1996, while she was walking on the train platform shortly after exiting a commuter train. At her examination before trial, the injured plaintiff testified that she fell on an area of the platform that she thought was only covered with water, but which was actually an ice patch. The plaintiffs commenced the instant action alleging, inter alia, that the defendant was negligent in failing to detect the dangerous condition and timely remedy it. Following joinder of issue, the defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court granted the motion. We affirm.

Initially, contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in entertaining the defendant’s untimely motion since the delay beyond the 120-day statutory period *(see*CPLR 3212 [a]) was minimal, the plaintiffs were not prejudiced thereby, and the motion was clearly meritorious *(see Goodman v Gudi,*264 AD2d 758).

Turning to the merits, it is well settled that where a plaintiff is injured in a fall on accumulated snow or ice, “a property owner may not be held liable unless he or she has notice of the defect, or, in the exercise of due care, should have had notice, and the owner has had a reasonably sufficient time from the end of the storm to remedy the condition caused by the elements” *(Arcuri v Vitolo,*196 AD2d 519, 520). Here, the defendant sustained its initial burden on its motion for summary judgment by relying on the injured plaintiffs own observations and certain meteorological reports indicating that the precipitation ended and the temperature fell below freezing just before the time of the injured plaintiffs accident *(see McKeown v*
      *488
      *Stanan Mgt. Corp.,*274 AD2d 460; *DeMasi v Radbro Realty,*261 AD2d 354). Since the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion.

In view of the foregoing, we need not reach the defendant’s remaining contention. O’Brien, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.
#### Catterlin *v.*The State of Ohio.

(No. 24649

— Decided March 28, 1934.)

*Mr. F. L. Johnson*and *Mr. C. J. Matterñ,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Marcus E. McCallister,*prosecuting attorney, and *Mr. George H. Smith,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Stephenson, Jones, Matthias, Bevis and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.

Allen, J., not participating.
Exhibit 21

SHUFFLE MASTER, INC.
SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

|Name of Subsidiary                                        |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|--------------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|                                                          |  |                              
|Shuffle Master International, Inc.                        |  | Nevada                       
|Shuffle Master Australia Pty Ltd.                         |  | Australia                    
|Gaming Products Pty., Ltd.                                |  | Australia                    
|VIP Gaming Solutions Pty Limited                          |  | Australia                    
|Shuffle Master Australasia Holdings Pty Ltd               |  | Australia                    
|Shuffle Master Australasia Pty Ltd                        |  | Australia                    
|Shuffle Master Holding GmbH                               |  | Austria                      
|Shuffle Master Management-Services GmbH                   |  | Austria                      
|Shuffle Master GmbH                                       |  | Austria                      
|Shuffle Master Holding GmbH & Co Financing Consulting-KEG |  | Austria                      
|Shuffle Master GmbH & Co KG (dba CARD)                    |  | Austria                      
|Shuffle Up Productions, Inc.                              |  | Delaware                     
|CARD Casinos Austria Research and Development Limited     |  | New Zealand                  
|Shuffle Master Asia Limited                               |  | Macau                        
|Stargames Pty Ltd (subsidiaries listed below)             |  | Australia                    
|CARD Shuffle Master Investments (Proprietary) Limited     |  | South Africa                 

Stargames Pty Ltd Subsidiaries

|Name of Subsidiary                         |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|------------------------------------------ |  | -----------------------------
|                                           |  |                              
|Stargames Group Management Pty Limited     |  | Australia                    
|Stargames Holdings Pty Limited             |  | Australia                    
|Professional Vending Services Pty Limited  |  | Australia                    
|Stargames Australia Pty Limited            |  | Australia                    
|Stargames Investments Pty Limited          |  | Australia                    
|Stargames Corporation Pty Limited          |  | Australia                    
|Precise Craft Pty Limited                  |  | Australia                    
|Stargames Property Pty Limited             |  | Australia                    
|Australasian Gaming Industries Pty Limited |  | Australia                    
|Advem Pty Limited                          |  | Australia                    
|Stargames Assets Pty Limited               |  | Australia                    
|Stargames Corporation (NZ) Pty Limited     |  | New Zealand                  

---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 23.2 

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

 

To Foothill Independent Bancorp: 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated January 21, 2005 on the consolidated financial statements of Foothill Independent Bancorpas of December 31, 2004 and 2003 and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2004, included at Page 41 of its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, and our reports dated March 31, 2005 onmanagement’s assessment of, and our opinion on, the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included on page 2 of its Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A to its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, intoRegistration Statement No. 33-57586 on Form S-8 filed January 29, 1993, Registration Statement No. 33-64584 on Form S-8 filed on June 17, 1993, and Registration Statement No. 33-83854 on Form S-3 filed September 12, 1994 (each of which was amendedby post effective amendments filed on July 27, 2000) and Registration Statement No. 333-113206 filed on Form S-8 on March 2, 2004. 

 

/s/ Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP 

Rancho Cucamonga, California

April 26, 2005
EXHIBIT 23.1




                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


             We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Form S-8
   registration statement for TBC Corporation's 1989 Stock Incentive Plan of
   our reports dated January 30, 1998, on our audits of the consolidated
   financial statements and financial statement schedule of TBC Corporation
   and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and 1996 and for the years ended
   December 31, 1997, 1996 and 1995, which reports are included in this
   Annual Report on Form 10-K. 


                                           COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.




   Memphis, Tennessee
   February 10, 1998


























                                      -107-
Case 1:11-cv-02366-REB-CBS Document 9 Filed 10/14/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02366-REB-CBS Document 9 Filed 10/14/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02366-REB-CBS Document 9 Filed 10/14/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
#### Coyne, Appellant, *v.*Lakeside Electric Railway Company.

*Negligence*— Lessor *and lessee*— Railroads—Electric *railways*— New *parties*— Amendment—Statute *of limitations.*

In an action against an electric railway company to recover damages for personal injuries, a motion to amend the record by striking out the name of the defendant and substituting the name of another corporation, its lessee, will be denied where the statute of limitations has become a bar.

*497Argued Feb. 15, 1910.

Appeals, Nos. 300 and 301,

Jan. T., 1909, by plaintiffs, from judgments of C. P. Schuylkill Co., March T., 1907, Nos. 145 and 149, on verdicts for defendant in cases of Patrick J. Coyne, Sr., and Sara A., his wife, v. Lakeside Electric Railway Company and Margaret L. Coyne v. Lakeside Electric Railway Company.

Before Fell, C. J., Mestrezat, Elkin, Stewart and Moschzisker, JJ.

Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Shay, P. J.

The facts appear in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

*Error assigned*was in directing verdict for defendant.

*M. A. Kilker,*with him *A. C. Sherman,*for appellants.

*R. H. Koch,*with him *F. J. Laubenstein,*for appellee.

Per Curiam,

March 21, 1910:

These actions grew out of the same accident and were tried together. The only question raised by the appeals is whether the court erred in overruling the plaintiff's motion to amend the record by striking out the name of the defendant and substituting the name of another corporation, its lessee. The accident happened February 11, 1906. The motion to amend was made March 26, 1908, after the testimony at the trial was all in and it had been shown that the defendant named in the writ was the lessor of the railroad and had nothing to do with its operation. The statute of limitations had become a bar to a new action. The mistake was not, as in Wright v. Eureka Tempered Copper Co., 206 Pa. 274, in bringing the right de- ^ fendant into court under a wrong name, but in suing the wrong party. The well-defined limitation of the right of amendment is that a new cause of action shall not be introduced or new parties brought in after the statute of limitations has become a bar: LaBar v. Railroad Co., 218 Pa. 261; Holmes v. Railroad Co., 220 Pa. 189.

The judgment is affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

            In connection with the Quarterly Report of Amscan Holdings, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we,
Gerald C. Rittenberg, Chief Executive Officer and Michael A. Correale, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, 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; and

            (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



                                            /s/ Gerald C. Rittenberg
                                           ----------------------------------
                                           Gerald C. Rittenberg
                                           Chief Executive Officer

                                           /s/ Michael A. Correale
                                           ----------------------------------
                                           Michael A. Correale
                                           Chief Financial Officer

August 13, 2004
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority        Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

# Board Actions

## Actions taken during the week ending November 27, 2021

----

Advisory Councils            Insurance Policy Advisory Committee -- announcement of members for 2022.            -Announced, November 24, 2021            Forms            Forms -- (1) initial Board review to extend without revision the Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey on Dealer Financing Terms (FR 2034), Recordkeeping and Disclosure Requirements Associated with Regulation Y for Minimum Requirements for Appraisal Management Companies (FR HY-5), Recordkeeping and Disclosure Requirements Associated with Regulation II (FR II), Uniform Application for Municipal Securities Principal or Municipal Securities Representative Associated with a Bank Municipal Securities Dealer (Form MSD-4), and Uniform Termination Notice for Municipal Securities Principal or Municipal Securities Representative Associated with a Bank Municipal Securities Dealer  (Form MSD-5) and (2) final Board review to extend with revision the Complex Institution Liquidity Monitoring Report (FR 2052a).            -Approved, November 23, 2021            Supervision and Regulation            Crypto-Assets -- Joint Statement on Crypto-Asset Policy Sprint Initiative and Next Steps.            -Announced, November 23, 2021                        Supervision and Regulation Report -- semiannual report.            -Published, November 24, 2021            Enforcement            The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (formerly known as Goldman, Sachs, & Co.), both of New York, New York -- cease-and-desist order dated August 2, 2016, terminated November 18, 2021.            -Announced, November 23, 2021            
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority    Applications and reports received:
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

**INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS’ REPORT**

 

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of 

Factory Card & PartyOutlet Corp. 

Naperville, Illinois 

 

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of Factory Card & Party Outlet Corp. and subsidiary as of August 2, 2003 (Successor Company),and the related condensed consolidated statements of operations for the three-month and six-month periods ended August 2, 2003, the three-month and four-month periods ended August 3, 2002 (Successor Company) and the two-month period ended April 6,2002 (Predecessor Company) and of cash flows for the six-month period ended August 2, 2003, the four-month period ended August 3, 2002 (Successor Company) and the two-month period ended April 6, 2002 (Predecessor Company). These financial statementsare the responsibility of the Company’s management. 

 

We conducted ourreview in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial data and of making inquiries ofpersons responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, the objective of which is the expression ofan opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. 

 

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to such condensed consolidated financial statements for them to be in conformitywith accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. 

 

We have previously audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, the consolidated balance sheet of Factory Card & Party Outlet Corp. and subsidiary as of February 1, 2003, and therelated consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for the ten months ended February 1, 2003 and the two-month period ended April 6, 2002 (not presented herein); and in our report dated March 5, 2003, weexpressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements. In our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet as of February 1, 2003 is fairly stated, in all material respects, inrelation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived. 

 

/s/    DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

Chicago, Illinois 

September 3, 2003
#### RACHALL v. LIFE & CASUALTY INS. CO. OF TENNESSEE.

No. 4358.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Feb. 6, 1933.

Joel L. Fletcher, of Colfax, for appellant.-

John A. *&*James H. Williams, of Colfax^, for appellee. -

DREW, J.

Plaintiff brought suit on an insurance policy, alleging that he had lost one foot and was entitled to be paid therefor under the terms of the policy issued to him by the defendant company. He attached to and made part of his petition the policy of insurance.

Defendant filed an exception of no right and no cause of action, which was sustained by the lower court, and plaintiff has perfected an appeal to this court.

The policy in question provides that a certain amount shall be paid the main beneficiary in case of the death of the insured. It further provides for a weekly sick benefit in case of illness, and further as follows: “If the insured shall lose both hands at or above the wrist; or both feet at or above the ankle; or one hand and one foot at or above the wrist and ankle; or if the insured shall permanently lose the sight of both eyes, as a result either of accident or illness, due to a condition not caused or contributed to by venereal disease; or if the insured shall die within ninety, days from date of injury as a result of accident sustained while riding as a regular passenger within any public conveyance operated for *780the transportation of passengers; the Company will be liable for double the sum payable in event of death from natural causes, without deduction for any sickness or accident benefits previously paid, and the policy will mature and shall thereupon become cancelled and be surrendered and all liability for death, sickness, accident, insanity, dismemberment or other benefits thereunder shall cease.”

It is under this last section of the policy that plaintiff contends he has a cause of *action.*

There is nothing uncertain about the contract. There is no ambiguity. The language is plain and simple, and needs no interpretation. The contract of insurance is that, if the insured lost both feet at or above the ankle, he was to be paid a certain amount. If he lost only one foot, it is not covered by the contract. The defendant had the right to narrow its liability and to definitely fix the character of injury it insured against. It had the right to make its own contract, provided no principle of public policy was thereby contravened, and it is not within the province of the coui't to change its terms to meet what might be the equities of a particular case. The insurance policy is the contract between the insurer and the insured, and does not contravene any principle of public policy, and under no circumstance that wo can imagine could the insurance company be made to pay for the loss of a member or an injury which is not covered by the policy.

The exception was correctly sustained by the lower court, and the judgment is affirmed, with all costs.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 13, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40440 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GABRIEL LOREDO-PECINA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:03-CR-976-ALL

-------------------- ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before KING, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * This court affirmed the sentence of Gabriel Loredo-Pecina (Loredo). United States v. Loredo-Pecina , 149 F. App’x 312 (5th Cir. 2005). The Supreme Court vacated and remanded for further consideration in light of Lopez v. Gonzales , 127 S. Ct. 625 (2006). Mendoza-Torres v. United States , 127 S. Ct. 826 (2006). Loredo argues that his prior Texas felony conviction for possession of a controlled substance does not qualify as an aggravated felony under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, in light of Lopez . HeNo. 04-40440 -2- also contends that his appeal is not moot despite his release from imprisonment and subsequent deportation.
In United States v. Rosenbaum-Alanis , ___ F.3d ___, No. 05- 41400, 2007 WL 926832, *1-2 (5th Cir. 2007), we held that an appellant’s challenge to the characterization of a state offense as an aggravated felony under § 2L1.2 was moot when the appellant had completed his term of imprisonment and had been deported. The court could not grant relief because the defendant was barred from entering the United States, and therefore could not be resentenced. Rosenbaum-Alanis , 2007 WL 926832 at *2. Because Loredo is barred from entering the United States and cannot be present for a resentencing proceeding as required by F ED . R. CRIM . P. 43, we cannot grant his request to be resentenced. See id

. Accordingly, Loredo’s appeal is DISMISSED as moot.