alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SCPR-19-0000316

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

IN RE LEE S. FRIEDMAN, Petitioner.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO RESIGN AND SURRENDER LICENSE

(By Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson JJ.)

Upon consideration of the petition to resign and

surrender his license to practice law in the State of Hawai#i

filed by attorney Lee S. Friedman, pursuant to Rule 1.10 of the

Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai#i (RSCH), and

the affidavits submitted in support thereof, we conclude

Petitioner Friedman has complied with the requirements of RSCH

Rule 1.10. Therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is granted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to RSCH Rule 1.10(g),

that the Petitioner shall comply with the notice, affidavit, and

record requirements of RSCH Rules 2.16(a), (b), (d), and (g).

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk shall remove the

name of Petitioner Lee S. Friedman, attorney number 2839, from

the roll of attorneys of the State of Hawai#i, effective with the

filing of this order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 24, 2019.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPR-19-0000316

24-APR-2019

01:27 PM
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134411 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134411 

 COA: 275990 

Genesee CC: 04-013582-FC 

CHRISTOPHER PIO MORGAN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 22, 2007 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0917 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 24, 2007 

 Clerk
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

VINCENT BEASLEY,

Petitioner

v.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (PECO ENERGY COMPANY),

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 61 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 10th day of July, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 20 - 0105

_________________ MUFFIE B. MURRAY and W. STEPHEN MURRAY, HELD FAMILY TRUST, and WILLIAM A. SARRAZIN,

Plaintiffs, Counter - Defendants , and Appellees, v. NATHAN G. JUD D,

Defendant, Counter - Plaintiff , and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk i s directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of r ecord and to the Honorable Brenda Gilbert , District Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 23 2020

09/23/2020
Case Number: DA 20-0105
#### Halstead Brooklyn, LLC, Respondent, v 96-98 Baltic, LLC, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[854 NYS2d 437]

Where a contract of sale or lease admits the broker’s performance of services and includes an express promise by the seller to pay the commission, the broker is entitled to summary judg*603ment on its claim for commissions *(see Joseph P. Day Realty Corp. v Chera,*308 AD2d 148 [2003]; *Helmsley-Spear, Inc. v New York Blood Ctr.,*257 AD2d 64 [1999]; *Holiday Mgt. Assoc. v Altanese,*173 AD2d 775 [1991]; *May Co. v Monaco Assoc.,*80 AD2d 798 [1981]).

Here, there is no dispute that the contract of sale identified the plaintiffs predecessor-in-interest as the sole broker and obligated the appellant to pay the commission. As such, the plaintiff clearly earned its commission, and the appellant was obligated to compensate the plaintiff *(see Henri-Lynn Realty v Huang,*159 AD2d 486 [1990]). As the plaintiff tendered evidentiary proof on the issue of liability sufficient to entitle it to judgment as a matter of law, the burden shifted to the appellant to controvert the plaintiffs evidence *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]). In opposition to the plaintiffs motion, the appellant failed to raise a triable issue of fact on the issue of liability, and thus the Supreme Court properly awarded the plaintiff summary judgment on that issue.

However, the purported brokerage agreement was not signed by a managing member of the appellant, a limited liability corporation, in accordance with the operating agreement *(see*Limited Liability Company Law § 412 [b] [1]). Therefore, this agreement could not be relied upon to establish the amount of the brokerage commission due, and the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a hearing to determine the amount of the commission to which the plaintiff is entitled *(see Eileen A. Green Realty Corp. v Polidori,*224 AD2d 384 [1996]; *Henri-Lynn Realty v Huang,*159 AD2d 486 [1990]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Spolzino, J.P., Florio, Miller and Dickerson, JJ., concur.
# Job Flexibilities and Work Schedules

The Job Flexibilities and Work Schedules news release will provide data on wage and salary workers’ ability to work at home and vary their work hours. It also will include data on usual work shifts and how far in advance workers know their work schedules. These findings are from the American Time Use Survey (ATUS) Leave and Job Flexibilities Module. For more information, visit the ATUS home page at www.bls.gov/tus/.

- About 1 in 4 workers occasionally work at home and more than half have flexible schedules
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Brentnol A. Britton, Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 898]

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the evidence convicting him of attempted assault in the first degree and assault in the second degree was not legally insufficient due to a lack of proof of intent. In this case, the element of intent may be inferred from the commission of the act itself, as well as from the defendant’s conduct and the surrounding circumstances *(see People v Bracey,*41 NY2d 296, 301 [1977]; *People v Bryant,*39 AD3d 768 [2007]; *People v Persaud,*25 AD3d 626 [2006]). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the defendant acted with the requisite intent in committing the offenses of which he was convicted. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Covello, Dickerson and Eng, JJ., concur.
Case 2:11-cv-00794-SRC-MAS Document 4 Filed 03/07/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 17
Case 2:11-cv-00794-SRC-MAS Document 4 Filed 03/07/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 18
|            |
|-----------------|
| **EXHIBIT 8.1** |
|            |
|   | **Name**                       |   | **Country        of formation** |   | **Our        Ownership****and Voting Interest** |
|--------|--------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------|
|   | Havas                          |   | France                          |   | 100.00%                                         |
|   | Havas International            |   | France                          |   | 100.00%                                         |
|   | Euro RSCG                      |   | France                          |   | 100.00%                                         |
|   | Euro RSCG C&O              |   | France                          |   |  99.13%                                    |
|   | BETC Euro RSCG                 |   | France                          |   | 100.00%                                         |
|   | Media Planning Publicidade SA  |   | Portugal                        |   | 100.00%                                         |
|   | Media Planning Group SA        |   | Spain                           |   | 100.00%                                         |
|   | Havas UK Ltd                   |   | U.K.                            |   | 100.00%                                         |
|   | Euro RSCG London Ltd           |   | U.K.                            |   | 100.00%                                         |
|   | Herts Tring US Ltd             |   | U.K.                            |   | 100.00%                                         |
|   | Havas Shared Services Ltd      |   | U.K.                            |   | 100.00%                                         |
|   | The Maitland Consultancy Ltd   |   | U.K.                            |   |  93.57%                                    |
|   | Snyder Communications Holdings |   | U.K.                            |   | 100.00%                                         |
|   | Havas North America, Inc       |   | U.S.                            |   | 100.00%                                         |
|   | Euro RSCG Healthview, Inc      |   | U.S.                            |   | 100.00%                                         |
|   | Euro RSCG Worldwide, Inc       |   | U.S.                            |   | 100.00%                                         |
|   | Euro RSCG New York, Inc        |   | U.S.                            |   | 100.00%                                         |
|   | Euro RSCG Direct Response LLC  |   | U.S.                            |   |  71.48%                                    |
|   | Impact Group Euro RSCG LLC     |   | U.S.                            |   | 100.00%                                         |
|   | Havas Holdings, Inc            |   | U.S.                            |   | 100.00%                                         |
|   | Arnold Worldwide LLC           |   | U.S.                            |   | 100.00%                                         |
EX-10.21



 Exhibit 10.21 
 ASSIGNMENT OF AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE 

THIS ASSIGNMENT OF AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE (this “Assignment”) is made and entered into as of the
27th day of December, 2012, by and between O’DONNELL
ACQUISITIONS, LLC, a California limited liability company (“ODA”) and OD WM NORTH CAROLINA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“ODWM”), with respect to the following: 

R E C I T A L S 

A. ODA and 280 Business Park Realty, Ltd Partnership, a North Carolina limited partnership (“Seller”) entered into that certain
Agreement of Purchase and Sale and Joint Escrow Instructions dated October 17, 2012 (the “Purchase Agreement”), pursuant to which, among other things, Seller agreed to convey to Buyer the Property, which real property consists of that
certain land and improvements located at land and improvements located at 280 Business Park Dr., Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Capitalized terms which are not expressly defined in this Assignment shall have the meaning given to them in the Purchase
Agreement. 
 B. ODA intends to convey all of its right, title and interest under the Purchase Agreement to ODWM, and ODWM
desires to accept such assignment and assume all duties and obligations of ODA thereunder. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto
hereby agree as follows: 
 1. Assignment. ODA hereby assigns all of its right, title and interest under the Purchase
Agreement to ODWM. ODWM accepts such assignment and assumes all obligations and liabilities of ODA as the “Buyer” under the Purchase Agreement. 
 2. Indemnity. ODWM hereby agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless ODA from and against any and all liability, cost, or expense which ODA may incur arising out of any default by ODWM in the
performance of its obligations under the Purchase Agreement. 
 [REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 

[SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW] 

  

					
	 2272/022441-0137

4260188.2
	  		  	









 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Assignment as of the date and year
first above written. 
  

											
	 “ODA”
	 		 	O’DONNELL ACQUISITIONS, LLC, a California limited liability company
				
		 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Douglas D. O’Donnell

		 		 		 	Douglas D. O’Donnell, as Trustee of the DOD Trust dated August 29, 2002, its sole member
			
	 “ODFT”
	 		 	OD WM NORTH CAROLINA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
				
		 		 	By:	 	O’Donnell Strategic Industrial REIT Operating Partnership, LP, a Delaware limited partnership, its sole Member and Manager
					
		 		 		 	By:	 	O’Donnell Strategic Industrial REIT, Inc., a Delaware corporation, its sole General Partner
						
		 		 		 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Douglas D. O’Donnell

		 		 		 		 		 	Douglas D. O’Donnell, its CEO and President


  

					
	 2272/022441-0137

4260188.2
	  	-2-
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jerry Barnes, Appellant.

[826 NYS2d 283]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered July 13, 2004, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant did not preserve for appellate review his contentions that he was deprived of a fair trial by the trial court’s preliminary jury instructions or by the People’s comments during summation because he failed to make specific and timely objections *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, these contentions are without merit.

Although preliminary instructions to the jury must not create the possibility of premature deliberations *(see People v Harper,*32 AD3d 16 [2006], *lv granted*7 NY3d 813 [2006]), a trial court is “not required to give verbatim the pattern jury instructions” *(People v Calderon,*182 AD2d 770, 770 [1992]). Here, the trial court did not prematurely instruct the jury on the elements of the crimes or the charges against the defendant *(see People v Townsend,*67 NY2d 815, 817 [1986]; *People v Harper, supra).*The trial court’s preliminary instructions met the requirements of CPL 270.40 and were sufficient for the jury, having heard the *812court’s charge, to understand the correct rules to be applied in arriving at a decision *(cf. People v Lauderdale,*295 AD2d 539 [2002]).

The prosecutor’s comments during summation were a fair response to the defendant’s attack on the credibility of the police witnesses and his suggestion that the police fabricated the case against the defendant *(see People v Farrell,*228 AD2d 693, 694 [1996]; *People v Campbell,*228 AD2d 689, 690 [1996]). The comments did not “demonstrate a persistent, egregious course of conduct that was deliberate and reprehensible” *(People v Rudolph,*161 AD2d 115, 116 [1990]; *see People v Svanberg,*293 AD2d 555 [2002]). Nor did the comments deprive the defendant of a fair trial *(see People v Ortiz,*125 AD2d 502 [1986]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Crane, J.E, Ritter, Rivera and Lunn, JJ., concur.
# Real Earnings

"The Real Earnings (REALER) data presented in this release are derived from the Current Employment Statistics survey, a monthly establishment survey of employment, payroll, and hours. The deflator used for constant-dollar earnings series presented in this release is derived from the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). For more information, visit the Nonfarm Payroll Statistics from the Current Employment Statistics (National) home page at www.bls.gov/ces/. "

- Real average hourly earnings for all employees decrease 0.2% in April
- Real average hourly earnings for all employees are unchanged in March
- Real average hourly earnings for all employees decrease 0.4% in February
- Real average hourly earnings for all employees increase 0.3% in January
- Real average hourly earnings for all employees increase 0.2% in December
- Real average hourly earnings for all employees increase 0.2% in November
- Real average hourly earnings for all employees increase 0.2% in October
- Real average hourly earnings for all employees decrease 0.2% in September
- Real average hourly earnings for all employees decrease 0.5% in August
- Real average hourly earnings for all employees increase 0.3% in July
- Real average hourly earnings for all employees increase 0.2% in June
- Real average hourly earnings for all employees increase 0.3% in May
QQWOFCmmtLAPPEAL

APR 27 2015

m@rtesta;CterkJLLd*(>&&a3UiAL4fr

^ 1381 W&

J^O^'BoX_1^30g_ _J ^4^H_F.M_,J2oiy

^^___^ 2SSSL.

•'ZEJ ffg(p6i£^r For Cr>py of MSDXCftL IteCofA h#n fjLiihUiC-% Of

f ^/Mmik. vb^-

t^.ur^sjf^roi^iJ *&,

rb*k*\vf2s>n&
<PAGE>

                                   Exhibit 11
                                 ADE CORPORATION
             Statement Regarding Computation of Net Income Per Share

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                         Three months ended    Nine months ended
                                                                             January 31,           Jauary 31,
                                                                         -----------------    ------------------
                                                                           1998      1997       1998       1997 
                                                                         -------    ------    --------    ------
                                                                            (unaudited)           (unaudited)
<S>                                                                      <C>        <C>       <C>         <C>   

Net income ..........................................................    $ 3,786    $3,819    $  8,299    $9,484
                                                                         -------    ------    --------    ------
                                                                         -------    ------    --------    ------

Shares used in computation:

   a.  Weighted average common stock outstanding
        used in computation of basic net income per share ...........     11,096     8,516      10,184     8,470

   b.  Dilutive effect of stock options outstanding: ................        351       355         445       366
                                                                         -------    ------    --------    ------

   c.  Shares used in computation of diluted
        net income per share ........................................     11,447     8,871      10,629     8,836
                                                                         -------    ------    --------    ------
                                                                         -------    ------    --------    ------

Basic net income per share ..........................................    $  0.34    $ 0.45    $   0.81    $ 1.12
                                                                         -------    ------    --------    ------
                                                                         -------    ------    --------    ------

Diluted net income per share ........................................    $  0.33    $ 0.43    $   0.78    $ 1.07
                                                                         -------    ------    --------    ------
                                                                         -------    ------    --------    ------

</TABLE>


                                       19
Table 36. Unincorporated self-employed persons in nonagricultural industries by sex, 1976-2007 

annual averages 

(Numbers in thousands)

Total 

employed

Selfemployed

Selfemployed 

as a 

percent of 

total

Total 

employed

Selfemployed

Selfemployed 

as a 

percent of 

total

Total 

employed

Selfemployed

Selfemployed 

as a 

percent of 

total

1976...... 85,421 5,782 6.8 35,027 1,549 4.4 50,394 4,233 8.4 26.8 

1977..... 88,734 6,115 6.9 36,677 1,692 4.6 52,057 4,423 8.5 27.7 

1978..... 92,661 6,428 6.9 38,900 1,814 4.7 53,761 4,614 8.6 28.2 

1979..... 95,477 6,792 7.1 40,556 1,982 4.9 54,921 4,810 8.8 29.2 

1980..... 95,938 7,001 7.3 41,461 2,097 5.1 54,477 4,904 9.0 30.0 

1981..... 97,030 7,097 7.3 42,333 2,192 5.2 54,697 4,905 9.0 30.9 

1982..... 96,125 7,263 7.6 42,591 2,309 5.4 53,534 4,954 9.3 31.8 

1983..... 97,450 7,575 7.8 43,367 2,439 5.6 54,083 5,136 9.5 32.2 

1984...... 101,685 7,785 7.7 45,262 2,566 5.7 56,423 5,219 9.2 33.0 

1985..... 103,971 7,810 7.5 46,615 2,603 5.6 57,356 5,207 9.1 33.3 

1986..... 106,435 7,881 7.4 48,054 2,610 5.4 58,381 5,271 9.0 33.1 

1987..... 109,232 8,201 7.5 49,668 2,778 5.6 59,564 5,423 9.1 33.9 

1988...... 111,800 8,519 7.6 51,020 2,955 5.8 60,780 5,564 9.2 34.7 

1989..... 114,143 8,605 7.5 52,341 3,043 5.8 61,802 5,562 9.0 35.4 

1990...... 115,570 8,719 7.5 53,011 3,122 5.9 62,559 5,597 8.9 35.8 

1991..... 114,449 8,850 7.7 52,815 3,150 6.0 61,634 5,700 9.2 35.6 

1992..... 115,246 8,576 7.4 53,380 2,963 5.6 61,866 5,613 9.1 34.5 

1993..... 117,144 8,959 7.6 54,273 3,065 5.6 62,871 5,894 9.4 34.2 

1994..... 119,651 9,003 7.5 55,755 3,443 6.2 63,896 5,560 8.7 38.2 

1995..... 121,460 8,901 7.3 56,642 3,440 6.1 64,818 5,461 8.4 38.6 

1996..... 123,264 8,971 7.3 57,630 3,506 6.1 65,634 5,465 8.3 39.1 

1997..... 126,159 9,056 7.2 59,026 3,550 6.0 67,133 5,506 8.2 39.2 

1998..... 128,085 8,962 7.0 59,945 3,482 5.8 68,140 5,480 8.0 38.9 

1999..... 130,207 8,790 6.8 61,193 3,424 5.6 69,014 5,366 7.8 39.0 

2000..... 134,427 9,205 6.8 62,983 3,631 5.8 71,444 5,573 7.8 39.4 

2001..... 134,635 9,121 6.8 63,147 3,594 5.7 71,488 5,527 7.7 39.4 

2002...... 134,174 8,923 6.7 62,995 3,499 5.6 71,179 5,425 7.6 39.2 

2003..... 135,461 9,344 6.9 63,824 3,609 5.7 71,636 5,736 8.0 38.6 

2004...... 137,020 9,467 6.9 64,182 3,607 5.6 72,838 5,860 8.0 38.1 

2005..... 139,532 9,509 6.8 65,213 3,565 5.5 74,319 5,944 8.0 37.5 

2006...... 142,221 9,685 6.8 66,382 3,681 5.5 75,838 6,004 7.9 38.0 

2007...... 143,952 9,557 6.6 67,302 3,637 5.4 76,650 5,920 7.7 38.1 

Selfemployed 

women as 

percent of 

total selfemployed

Year

Total Women Men

NOTE: Beginning in 2000, data reflect the introduction of the 2002 Census industry classification system derived from the

2002 North American Industry Classification System into the Current Population Survey (CPS). 

 SOURCE: Current Population Survey, U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

91
# 17SNR07_00

# image1.png