alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Norris *v.*Atlas Steam-Ship Co., Limited.

*(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.*

*January*29, 1889.)

Courts—Federal Jurisdiction—Appearance—Effect.

Where the action is one oí which the circuit courts have jurisdiction, under act Cong. March 3, 1887, § 1, the controversy being one between a citizen of the state and a foreign subject, and the amount in dispute exceeding $2,000, the provision of that section in relation to the district where the action shall he brought does not affect the question of jurisdiction, and the privilege it accords to defendant is waived by filing a general appearance and answering to the merits.

At Law. Motion to set aside service of summons.

Action for damages for personal injuries, brought by Abraham Norris against the Atlas Steam-Ship Company, Limited. The present motion is based on the ground that defendant, being a British corporation, is not an inhabitant of the district, and therefore cannot be sued therein. Before making the motion, defendant had appeared generally, answered to the merits, and gone to trial without raising the point.

*280
      *Everett P. Wheeler,*for the motion.

*Herman H. Shook, contra.*

Lacombe, J.

The main point raised upon this motion need not be now decided. Inasmuch as the controversy is one between a citizen of a state and a foreign citizen or subject, and the matter in dispute exceeds the sum of $2,000, it is within the class of cases in which, by the express language of the first clause of section 1 of the act of 1887, the circuit courts are given jurisdiction. *Wilson*v. *Telegraph Co.,*(Field and Sawyer, JJ.,) 34 Fed. Rep. 563, 564; *Denton*v. *International,*36 Fed. Rep. 1. Whatever may be the true construction of the second clause of that section, (beginning “But no person shall be,” etc.,) it affects, not the question of federal cognizance, but solely the question of the place of bringing suit by original process in cases of federal cognizance. *Fales*v. *Railroad Co.,*32 Fed. Rep. 673. The privilege which it accords to á defendant, viz., that he sfiall be sued only in the district of which he is an inhabitant, is one which may be waived. *Halstead*v. *Manning,*34 Fed. Rep. 565. It was waived in this case by filing a general appearance, and answering to the merits. In this conclusion Judge Wheeler, with whom I have consulted, concurs.
#### Timothy Carmine MUCCILLI, Appellant, v. Joel BOS; Norman J. Loren; Mark Mansavage; John K. Carlson, Appellees.

No. 05-3979.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 31, 2006.

Filed: Nov. 2, 2006.

Timothy Carmine Muccilli, Golden Valley, AZ, pro se.

Michael Joseph Ford, Melinda M. Sanders, Quinlivan *&*Hughes, St. Cloud, MN, for Appellees.

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Timothy Muccilli appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit. Having conducted de novo review, we conclude that summary judgment was proper. *See Lee v. Spellings,*447 F.3d 1087, 1088-89 (8th Cir.2006) (grant of summary judgment may be affirmed on any basis supported by record); *Lommen v. City of East Grand Forks,*97 F.3d 272, 274 (8th *751Cir.1996) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Arthur J. Boylan, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         849,608
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  377,050
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,226,658
<PP&E>                                      19,068,652
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,960,158
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,335,152
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          635,926
<BONDS>                                      9,141,620
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     557,606<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,335,152
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,523,698
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,931,239
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             567,081
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,025,378
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          5,025,378
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,025,378
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 2,275.63<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>THIS ENTITY IS A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. THE OTHER STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY LINE
REPRESENTS TOTAL PARTNERSHIP EQUITY.
<F2>THE EPS-PRIMARY LINE REPRESENTS NET INCOME PER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP UNIT.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

March 7, 2017

No. 04

- 16

- 00531

- CV

Yvonne OCANAS

, A ppellant

v.

Jose J. OCANAS

, Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014

- CI

- 18248 Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On March 1, 2017, t his court issued an opinion and judgment granting the parties’ joint motion to set aside the trial court’s judgment without regard to the merits and to remand to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with their settlement agreement. In our March 1, 2017 opinion and judgment

, we vacated the trial court’s judgment of June 8, 2016 , and remanded to matter to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the settlement agreement . The parties have now filed a joint motion asking this court for immediate issuance of the mandate. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the clerk of this court to immediately issue the mandate. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 18.1(c).

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 7th day of March, 2017

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
#### In the Matter of Brian Shaw, Appellant, v Katie May Seals-Owens et al., Respondents.

[974 NYS2d 810]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Onondaga County (Michael L. Hanuszczak, J.), entered June 11, 2012 in a proceed*1285ing pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order dismissed the petition seeking visitation with the subject child.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from an order dismissing with prejudice his Family Court Act article 6 petition seeking visitation with his daughter. While we agree with petitioner that, under the unique circumstances of this case, Family Court erred in taking judicial notice of the alleged fact that his daughter is a severely abused child under Social Services Law § 384-b (8) (a) (iii) (A), we nevertheless conclude that the court properly dismissed the petition with prejudice. Inasmuch as there is an existing order of protection prohibiting petitioner from having any contact with his daughter until June 22, 2018, the court was without authority to award petitioner visitation *(see e.g. Matter of Samantha*WW. *v Gerald XX.,*107 AD3d 1313, 1315-1316 [2013]; *Matter of William O. v John A.,*84 AD3d 1447, 1448 [2011]; *Matter of Balram v Balram,*53 AD3d 808, 809-810 [2008], *lv denied*11 NY3d 708 [2008]). Present — Scudder, EJ., Centra, Garni, Lindley and Sconiers, JJ.
16 December 2009
 st
   1. Position. .
 2. Compensation.
 3. Annual Bonus.
  A-1




---



##### 



4. Vacation, Insurance and Benefits; Expenses.
 (a)
 (b)
 (c)
 5. Severance Pay.
 (a)
 (b) Section 5(b) Section 5(a)
  A-2




---



##### 



(c) nolo contendere
 (d)
 (i)
 (ii)
 (iii)
 (iv)
 (v)
  (e)
  A-3




---



##### 



(i)
 (ii)
 (iii)
 Section 5(e)
 Section 5(e)
 (f) Section 5 Sections 7 8 9 10
  A-4




---



##### 



(g) Section 5(a) (b)
 (h)
 6. At Will Employment.
 (a)
 (b)
 7. Noncompetition.
 (a)
  A-5




---



##### 



(b)
 (i)
 (ii) Section 7(b)(i)
  Section 7(b)
 (c)
 8. Nonsolicitation.
 (a)
 (b)
  A-6




---



##### 



(c) Section 8(a) (b)
 9. Nondisparagement. Section 9
 10. Proprietary Information. Proprietary Information,
Confidentiality, and Inventions Assignment Agreement
 11. Injunctive Relief: Clawback. Sections 7 8 9 10 Section 11 Section 11 Section 7 8 9 10 Section 5 Section 5
 12. Blue Pencil; Severability
  A-7




---



##### 



13. Waivers.
 14. Federal Employment Law.
 15. Prior Employers.
 16. Background Check.
 17. Tax Withholding.
 18. Section 409A Compliance.
 (a)
 (b)
 (c)
 (d)
  A-8




---



##### 



(e)
 (f)
 (g)
 (h)
 19. Successors, Binding Agreement.
 20. Governing Law.
 21. Entire Agreement, Amendments.
  A-9




---



##### 




    
    one copy of this letter, and
    
    one copy of the Companys standard Proprietary Information, Confidentiality, and
Inventions Assignment Agreement, the form of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit
A.
  Sincerely,

HEARTWARE, INC.By:
    /s/ David McIntyreName:
    David McIntyreTitle:
    Chief Operating Officer & Chief Financial
Officer Agreed to and accepted:/s/ Jeffrey A. La RoseJeffrey A. LaRose Dated: December 16, 2009
  A-10




---



##### 



Exhibit A
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          18,383
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  241,361
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               284,555
<PP&E>                                       1,692,491
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,629,537)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 453,226
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          707,615
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       994,655
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,302,020)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   453,226
<SALES>                                        288,297
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               302,589
<CGS>                                          190,327
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  332,551
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,500
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (32,462)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (32,462)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (32,462)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)
        

</TABLE>
# C o urt o f A ppe a ls

o f th e S ta te o f G e o rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 4 A1 20 9 . J OHNSON v . THE STATE.

The ap p ellant in this c ase w as sent a no t ic e stating that t his c ase w as d o c k eted

o n M arc h 22, 2024, a nd that his ap p ellate brief w as d u e 20 days later, i. e. A p ril 1 1

,

2024. On m o tio n by t he ap p ellant, this Co u r t extend ed the time to f ile his b rief u ntil

M ay 27

, 2024. To d ate, n o su c h b r ief has b een f iled

. The ap p ellant has f ailed to

c o mp ly w ith this Co u rt’ s brief ing dead lines. A c c o r dingly, this a p p eal is d eemed

aband o ned and is hereby D I SM I SSED . See Co u r t o f A p p eals Ru le 23 (a).

C o u r t o f A p p e a ls o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O ffic e

, A t la n t a

,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I c e r t ify t ha t t h e a b o v e is a t

r u e e x t r a c t fr o m

t h e m in u t e s o f t h e C o u r t o f A pp e a ls o f G e o r g ia

.

W it n e s s m y s ig n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a ffix e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r la s t a b o v e w r

it t e n

.

, C le r

k

. 

## June 27, 2024

06/27/2024
Exhibit 31.2

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Stephen B. Waters,certify that:

 

1.    I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Real Estate Associates LimitedIII;

 

2.    Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3.    Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4.    Theregistrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)), for the registrant andhave: 

 

(a)   Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared; 

 

(b)   Designedsuch internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal controlover financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance withgenerally accepted accounting principles.

 

(c)   Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and 

 

(d)   Disclosed inthis report any change in the registrant's internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5.    Theregistrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a)   Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and
#### Dianne Dewitt, Respondent, v Kenneth Poovey et al., Appellants.

[976 NYS2d 30]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered July 23, 2013, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of dismissing the claims for negligent hiring/supervision and direct negligence against both defendants, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Applying New York’s choice-of-law rules, Massachusetts law applies to this negligence action for personal injuries allegedly sustained in Massachusetts when plaintiff fell off of a rubber inflatable boat while it was being towed by a motor boat. Massachusetts has the greatest interest in regulating tortious conduct within its borders *(see Padula v Lilarn Props. Corp.,*84 NY2d 519, 521-523 [1994]).

The negligent hiring/supervision claims should have been dismissed. Even assuming, without deciding, that the motorboat operator hired by defendant Kenneth Eoovey was an employee, and not an independent contractor, he was retained for a private party at a private residence that was attended by invited guests. Under Massachusetts law which provides that employers have a duty to exercise reasonable care in the selection, supervision, and retention of “employees [who] are brought in contact with *541members of the public,” defendants cannot be held liable *(see Foster v Loft, Inc.,*26 Mass App Ct 289, 290-291, 526 NE2d 1309, 1310-1311 [1988]).

Defendants also cannot be held liable for direct negligence under Massachusetts law. Although owners and operators of motorboats have a duty to ensure that the motorboat is operated in a reasonably safe manner *(see Magarian v Hawkins,*321 F3d 235, 238 [1st Cir 2003]), it is undisputed that Kenneth, the sole owner of the motorboat, was not present on the date of the accident and that he hired an experienced boat operator who had safely operated his boat in the past. Thus, construing the evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiff *(see Fundamental Portfolio Advisors, Inc. v Tocqueville Asset Mgt., L.P.,*7 NY3d 96, 105 [2006]), there is no support in the record for finding that Kenneth breached the duty he owed to plaintiff. Further, the claim for direct negligence against defendant Anne Poovey must be dismissed because she neither owned nor operated the motorboat.

However, as the motion court properly determined, there is a question of fact as to whether Kenneth is vicariously liable, under the doctrine of respondent superior, for the operator’s alleged negligence. We note that on this record we cannot determine the extent, if any, of Kenneth’s right to control the operator *(see Peters v Haymarket Leasing, Inc.,*64 Mass App Ct 767, 772-774, 835 NE2d 628, 633-634 [2005]).

There is also a question of fact as to whether Anne may be held vicariously liable for the operator’s alleged negligence under the doctrine of agency by estoppel, or ostensible agency *(see Barron v McLellan Stores Co.,*310 Mass 778, 782-783, 39 NE2d 953, 954-955 [1942]). Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Renwick, Freedman and Clark, JJ.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2551 

To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 

to designate a portion of United States Route 74 in North Carolina 

as a future interstate, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 10, 2023 

Mr. EDWARDS (for himself and Mr. MCHENRY) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 

Act of 1991 to designate a portion of United States 

Route 74 in North Carolina as a future interstate, 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. DESIGNATION OF FUTURE INTERSTATE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION AS HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDOR.— 

5 Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 

6 Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102–240) is amended 

7 by adding at the end the following: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2551 IH

1 ‘‘(103) United States Route 74 from Columbus, 

2 North Carolina to Kings Mountain, North Caro3 lina.’’. 

4 (b) DESIGNATION AS FUTURE INTERSTATE.—Sec5 tion 1105(e)(5)(A) of the Intermodal Surface Transpor6 tation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended by striking ‘‘and 

7 subsection (c)(102)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsection (c)(102), 

8 and subsection (c)(103)’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
| Name                               |   | State of Incorporation |   | Doing Business As |
|------------------------------------|--------|------------------------|--------|-------------------|
|                               |   |                   |   |              |
| First Surgical Texas Inc.          |   | Nevada                 |   | Not Applicable    |
|                               |   |                   |   |              |
| First Surgical Partners Texas LLC  |   | Texas                  |   | Not Applicable    |
|                               |   |                   |   |              |
| First Street Hospital, L.P.        |   | Texas                  |   | Not Applicable    |
|                               |   |                   |   |              |
| First Surgical Woodlands, L.P.     |   | Texas                  |   | Not Applicable    |
|                               |   |                   |   |              |
| First Street Surgical Center, L.P. |   | Texas                  |   | Not Applicable    |

----
----

----

|   | (1) | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;  and |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Dated:      June 30, 2009 |  /s/ Stephen M.      Sill                                       |
|---------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                      |  Stephen M.      Sill                                           |
|                      |  Vice President,      Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer     |
|                      | (Principal      Financial Officer and Principal Accounting  Officer) |

----