Datasets:

Equall

/

perplexity_evaluation

like 3

Follow

Equall 47

The Delapenas originally filed a friendly suit against High Hopes Summer Camp. They subsequently amended their petition to bring survival and wrongful death claims against the City, as well as a bystander claim on behalf of Catiana ’s sister, who witnessed Catiana ’s drowning. They alleged the City was negligent in: (1) operating the pool without an adequate number of qualified lifeguards; (2) failing to provide Catiana with an available life jacket; and (3) negligently implementing the City’s pool safety policy .

Party Submissions

The SAT’s unwillingness to allow Claimant and PEM access to VAT refunds based on its entitlement as an exporter of silver and gold.

Party Submissions

July 11, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.). A trial court has no discretion to divest a spouse of his separate property. Barnard, 133 S.W.3d at 789.

Party Submissions

NATURE OF THE CASE: This suit involves the parent-child relationship and termination of parental rights. TRIAL COURT: The Honorable Judge Amy Smith, 402nd Judicial District Court, Wood County, Texas, signed an Order of Termination on May 10, 2023. COURT OF APPEALS: Sixth Court of Appeals, Texarkana, Texas. PARTIES IN THE COURT OF APPEALS: Appellant: A.S., Mother of R.W. Appellee: Department of Family and Protective Services DISPOSITION: Justice Rambin authored the court’s opinion, joined by Justice Stevens, Justice C.J., and Justice van Cleef. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgement. No motions for rehearing were filed. STATUS OF OPINION: The Court’s opinion is a memorandum opinion and is therefore not published.

Party Submissions

S.W.2d 245, 248 (Tex.1988); see also Howell v. Mauzy, 899 S.W.2d 690, 698 (Tex.App.—Austin 1994, writ denied). Courts may examine the equities of the situation in deciding whether the plea is timely filed. See Howell, 899 S.W.2d at 698. At oral argument, Gaetjen's counsel suggested that Luby's should have sought abatement when it answered the lawsuit and asserted the exclusive remedy defense. At that time, it made no sense to seek an abatement because TIG had closed its file and Gaetjen's claim was not pending before the Commission. Moreover, we note that it was Gaetjen who did not seek review of TIG's denial and then waited almost two years to file suit. The fact that Luby's participated in discovery *818 was of necessity to defend itself, not a waiver.

Party Submissions

As such, Liberty met its burden in its pleadings, and Ames did not present any fact that would require a further showing of an established fact. Finally, the payments Ames owes Liberty under the Contract are not penalties but are standard volume-based charges that are routinely used in similar contracts in which wastewater sewage is transferred to another entity for treatment. Ames argues that the contractually provided high-volume Additional Service Charge effectively amounts to liquidated damages that is therefore an unenforceable penalty. City of Ames’s Petition for Review at 17 (the “Pet’r’s Pet.”). The Contract details the reasons for the TAV and plainly contemplates Liberty providing wastewater treatment for flows above that threshold. (CR 37, 39, 41.) Ames agreed to such provisions by signing the Contract, and the Additional Service Charge exists to offset these costs and applies to wastewater received by Liberty. (CR 39, 44.) To require Liberty to treat its customer’s excess flows for free would frustrate the very purpose of Chapter 271, as Liberty would have no recourse for its customer’s nonpayment for service received. Consequently, the Additional Service Charge is not a penalty at all, but instead is tied to services Ames received.

Party Submissions

In a non-unanimous decision, the jury terminated A.S.’s parental rights to R.W. in a trial that took place in May 8 through May 10, 2023. Nevertheless, the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to terminate A.S.’s parental rights to R.W. based upon the following grounds: (D), (E), (F), (N), and (O). Likewise, it was not within the best interest of R.W. to terminate A.S.’s parental rights.

Party Submissions

For column 23: Indicate the sensitivity of the survey, as defined in International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) 31. This value of the achieved confidence level of pest freedom is calculated based on the examinations (and/or samples) performed given the method sensitivity and the design prevalence.

Legislation

APPLICATION OF OTHER RULES If the provisions of law of either Party, or obligations under international law existing at present or established hereafter between the Parties in addition to the present Agreement, contain rules, whether general or specific, entitling investments by investors of the other Party to treatment more favourable than is provided for by the present Agreement, such rules shall, to the extent that they are more favourable prevail over the present Agreement.

Legal Decisions

Kimberly Walker was about ten weeks pregnant when she first saw Dr. Castillo. (CR.664). Aside from peritonitis surgery when she was twenty-two weeks pregnant, Mrs. Walker’s pregnancy was uneventful. (CR.665).

Party Submissions

ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER, MILLS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT As required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(3), I certify that, according to the word count of the computer program used to prepare this brief on the merits, the brief contains 6,135 words.

Party Submissions

Nationalization, expropriation or any other measure having similar characteristics or effects that might be adopted by the authorities of one Party against investments made in its territory by investors of the other Party shall be effected only in the public interest, in accordance with the law, and shall in no case be discriminatory. The Party adopting such measures shall pay the investor or his assignee appropriate compensation, without undue delay and in freely convertible currency. 930. Article V of the BIT sets forth a three-prong test for an unlawful expropriation: − First, the object of an expropriation must be an investment. − Second, there must be an interference with such an investment in the form of an expropriation or any other measure having similar characteristics or effects to an expropriation or nationalization.

Legal Decisions

In Sampson this Court held that a “claim for a condition or use of real property is a premises defect claim under the Tort Claims Act.” See Sampson, 500 S.W.3d at 385 (citing Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 230). The Court however, “decline[d] to eliminate all distinction between premises conditions and negligent activities.” Id. at 388.

Party Submissions

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a corporate tax rate increase on companies whose ratio of compensation of the CEO or other highest paid employee to median worker compensation is more than 50 to 1, and for other purposes.

Legislation

To amend title 49, United States Code, to establish a program to provide grants to eligible recipients for eligible operating support costs of public transportation, and for other purposes.

Legislation

To amend the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act to allow the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into self-determination contracts with Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations to carry out supplemental nutrition assistance programs.

Legislation

Petitioner’s Issue Two again fabricates a split between the Appellate Opinion and this Court’s opinions in Skufca, Ha, Whiteley, and Kohlmeyer. Respondents do not wish to belabor the point that these prior opinions are factually and legally distinguishable, but due to Petitioner’s repeated efforts to tie these matters together, it bears additional clarification. The Motion states that “Respondents have pled damages caused by Petitioners’ alleged breach of the Subcontract” and as such, arbitration is necessary. Again, this statement is incorrect. Respondents, the trial 8 court, and the appellate court all concurred that Respondents’ plead damages caused by a separate contract, aside from the Subcontract.

Party Submissions

Therefore, the Tribunal grants the Request in relation to the Manifests and Declarations that cleared the importation of AC-30 in the execution of the Refidomsa contracts.

Legal Decisions

REASONS FOR GRANTING REHEARING World Car respectfully asks the Court to reconsider the denial of World Car’s petition for review. This case squarely and cleanly presents a statutory-interpretation issue that is the subject of conflicting appellate decisions. As reflected in the petition-stage amicus brief urging this Court’s review, this issue is exceptionally important to the auto industry it directly affects, while also indirectly impacting consumers. And the legal errors committed below are so glaring and easily resolved that they at least warrant correction by per curiam opinion. With or without oral argument, the Court should reverse.

Party Submissions

For column 18: Indicate the number of trapping sites in case this number differs from the number of traps (column 17) (e.g. the same trap is used in different places).

Legislation

Further, since Osprin had pursued its remedies under the Guaranty prior to the completion of the project, its rights clearly predated any possible termination.

Party Submissions

First Majestic Silver Corp. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB/21/14, Claimant’s Response to Preliminary Objection to Jurisdiction, dated September 1, 2023. Decision on Provisional Measures See First Majestic Silver Corp. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. 21/14, Decision on the Claimant’s Request for Provisional Measures, dated May 26, 2023.

Party Submissions

However, two reasons compel us to conclude that the Division does not have exclusive jurisdiction. First, “[t]he determination of whether any type of claim is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the [Division] depends on whether the claim is based on a claimant's entitlement to benefits.” Bestor v. Serv. Lloyds Ins. Co., 276 S.W.3d 549, 553 (Tex.

Party Submissions

LIABILITY. Subcontractor shall procure and maintain in force Workers Compensation/Employers Liability insurance. All Subcontractor employees shall be covered under such policies, including employees who are sole proprietors, shareholders, corporate officers, members or partners, and whether or not required by applicable law.

Party Submissions

Preparation of, as well as any changes, revisions and/or edits to sketches and Cadastral Plans must be preceded by geometric surveys. Geometers conducting these surveys prepare notes that reflect their findings. As explained above, Serbia argues in the Counter-Memorial that Claimants did not prove that Obnova built the buildings presently existing at its premises and argue that all of Obnova’s buildings at Dunavska 17 -19 had been built before the creation of Obnova’s predecessor Otpad. 66 The requested documents are relevant and material to confirm when the buildings at Dunavska 17-19, as well as Dunavska 23, were built.

Legal Decisions

City of Dallas to R. R.8t S. Properties, Inc. recorded in Volume 88158, Page 2342, OfficialPublic Records, Dallas County, Texas.

Party Submissions

Claimant limits its request in this manner for purposes of cost and time efficiency and to further limit the burden placed upon the Respondent.

Legal Decisions

When construing Section 51.003(a), the Court’s objective is to determine and give effect to legislative intent. Nat’l Liab. & Fire Ins. Co. v. Allen, 15 S.W.3d 525, 527 (Tex. 2000). The Court should not look to extraneous matters for an intent not stated in the statute. Id. The Court should yield to the plain sense of the words the Legislature chose, and must not engage in forced or strained construction. St. Luke’s Episcopal Hosp. v. Agbor, 952 S.W.2d 503, 505 (Tex. 1997). If a general provision conflicts with a special or local provision, the provisions shall be construed, if possible, so that effect is given to both. Tex. Gov’t Code § 311.026 (West 2013). It is not the court’s function to question the wisdom of conflicting statutes, or seek to rewrite them based on the Court’s view of public policy. Nat’l Liabl. & Fire Ins. Co., 15 S.W.3d at 527; Lee v. City of Houston, 807 S.W.2d 290, 2903 (Tex. 1991).

Party Submissions

But even looking at both the agreement and judgment, the incorporation of the Mendietta judgment does not change the fact that Mendietta never promised to pay Bay, Ltd. $1.9 million. There is no promise to pay $1.9 million in either document. (2CR915–29). Reading them together to create a $1.9 million payment obligation would be adding terms to the parties’ agreement, which this Court has repeatedly held is improper. See, e.g., Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Schaefer, 124 S.W.3d 154, 162 (Tex. 2003) (holding the Court “may neither rewrite the parties’ contract nor add to its language.”). Moreover, focusing on an agreed judgment, rather than the amount and allocation in the settlement agreement, is unworkable and can create absurd results. For example, “[m]any litigants use a nonsuit as a procedural device to effectuate a settlement agreement, intentionally dismissing claims with prejudice.” Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joachim, 315 S.W.3d 860, 863 (Tex. 2010). In a typical settlement, the plaintiff agrees to accept a lump sum, releases their claims against the defendant, and agrees to nonsuit the claims with prejudice when that sum is paid. See id. If the plaintiff has sued joint tortfeasors for the same injuries, and a settlement agreement with one tortfeasor incorporates a nonsuit order,1 then what is the settlement credit for the co-tortfeasor? If the Court focuses on the settlement agreement’s amount and allocation, then in this simple hypothetical, the settlement amount would be the lump sum the defendant paid for the same injury. But what if the Court focuses on the incorporated judgment? If the judgment is the focus, the credit in this hypothetical would be zero, given that the nonsuit with prejudice did not award the plaintiff anything. But that holding would result in the precise harm the one-satisfaction rule is designed to prevent—a double recovery.

Party Submissions

The name-change issue that Respondents did brief is entirely meritless. That issue relates solely to the damages that Westwood would be entitled to recover under the jury’s verdict if the court of appeals’ judgment is reversed. And while Respondents insist that Westwood’s name change creates “intractable problems” for the entire damages award (Resp. 31), it actually leaves most of it untouched.

Party Submissions

Just as in Briggs, Bay now seeks to use the ROCIP manuals as proof of compliance with the requirements of the Act. But as observed in Briggs, an OCIP manual falls short of constituting an express written agreement for purposes of the Act. Id. at 284, (citing In re 24R, Inc., 324 S.W.3d 564 (Tex. 2010) (noting policy manual did not constitute a contract)). Similarly, the Valero ROCIP manuals relied upon by Bay specifically defer to an actual contract: “In the event of a conflict between this ROCIP Manual and the contractual agreement, the requirements of the Agreement shall control.” 28 But, as noted above, they are not themselves “written agreement(s)” that satisfy the statute.

Party Submissions

Where a meeting of the minds is contested, as it is here, determination of the existence of a contract is a question of fact. See Runnells v.

Party Submissions

A. The actions of Norway definitely led to the drop, a sharp drop of revenues of that company, due to the fact that vessels which were serviced by that company were not able to continue fishery. Q. Does that include Russian vessels as well as the North Star vessels ?

Legal Decisions

An objection to a timely RTP motion may be sustained only if the motion fails to plead sufficient facts concerning the RTP’s responsibility.

Party Submissions

Sharyland protested only P&A’s market valuation of the total, statewide transmission line and the comparative equality of that valuation. Market value and comparative equality of taxation are the only two grounds checked on Sharyland’s protests, which are in the record. CR.263-65; CR.390-400 (Sharyland’s June 2019 Protests, Appendix A to Oncor’s Brief). Those are the only issues Sharyland settled when it agreed to an appraised value of its transmission line in Wilbarger County. The one-page settlement agreement specifically says, “the subject matter of the protest. .. has been settled.” CR.266; CR.401 (Settlement of June 2019 Protests, Appendix B to Oncor’s Brief) (emphasis added). Respondents’ intimation that Sharyland actually protested and settled the issue of whether there was an objective clerical error on the appraisal roll is factually incorrect. The face of the settlement document does not support that suggestion. See id. Nor does any evidence.

Party Submissions

McCarthy Subcontract -11-01-12-2017 Rev. Pollution Liability Policies shall contain endorsements waiving all rights of subrogation against all additional insureds.

Party Submissions

Dr. Null’s report is likewise conclusory, speculative, and insufficient under the TMLA. Dr. Null did not explain what happened or what actually caused the injury. At best, he noted that clinical findings were “consistent with an antenatal asphyxia event,” but how and why the alleged event may have occurred is left unknown. (CR.805) Perhaps more to the point, he did not link any of the harm to nursing actions/inactions. Even reading the reports together, the reader is left guessing and filling in blanks to make the causal connection between the conduct of the nurses and any injury. This is impermissible under the TMLA. Bowie Mem’l Hosp., 79 S.W.3d at 53.

Party Submissions

On that front, Dr. Tappan has been a board certified obstetrician and gynecologist since 1976. App. 7, CR 668. He currently serves as an ob-gyn hospitalist at Barstow Community Hospital in Barstow, California, where he maintains an active obstetrics and gynecology clinical practice. Id. Dr. Tappan is an expert in managing labor and delivery, and his report detailed his experience treating the same complications that Mrs. Walker experienced during H.W. ’ s delivery here: I have an active clinical practice that includes both obstetrics and gynecology. I have clinical experience in the diagnosis, evaluation, and management of pregnant patients near term, including those with preterm of membranes and whose labor requires augmentation with Pitocin (oxytocin). I also have knowledge and expertise diagnosing and managing patients with non-reassuring fetal heart rate patterns and those with a prolonged 2nd stage of labor. I am aware of the indications and techniques for operative vaginal delivery and cesarean section, as well as the prevention and management of fetal head impaction in the maternal pelvis at the time of cesarean delivery. App. 7, CR 663.

Party Submissions

A cause of action under the TMLA has three basic elements: (1) the defendant must be a physician or health care provider: (2) the claim must concern treatment, lack of treatment or a departure from the accepted standards of medical care, health care or safety or professional or administrative services directly related to health care; and (3) the defendant’s act or omission complained of must have proximately caused the injury.

Party Submissions

Is the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over Respondent’s counterclaim contingent on the Tribunal having jurisdiction over Claimant’s ancillary claim? Assuming, without deciding, that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over Claimant’s ancillary claim, does this have as a consequence that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over Respondent’s counterclaim?

Party Submissions

To require the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to des- ignate a point of contact for for-profit child care providers, submit a report to Congress, and for other purposes.

Legislation

ARB/20/48 y ARB/21/59 bajo un solo procedimiento arbitral, presentada el 14 de diciembre de 2021 por las Demandantes de conformidad con el Artículo 12.28(2) del Tratado.

Legal Decisions

Objeciones son inadmisibles; e. Ordene a las Demandantes reembolsar íntegramente a Guatemala los costos en los que ha incurrido el Estado en la defensa de sus intereses en el presente arbitraje, junto con intereses a una tasa comercial razonable a juicio del Tribunal, desde el momento en que el Estado incurrió en dichas costas y hasta la fecha de su pago efectivo; y f. Ordene cualquier otra medida que el Tribunal estime oportuna y adecuada.

Legal Decisions

Respondent with the task that can be performed by Claimants themselves. In fact, Claimants already obtained certain documentation from the Cadastre (see for example, exhibits C-162 to C-166 and C-329), so they can also request the documents whose production they now seek.

Legal Decisions

Convention Article 44; Arbitration Rule 1, Article 1120(2) NAFTA 1.1. These proceedings are conducted in accordance with the ICSID Arbitration Rules in force as of July 1, 2022, except to the extent that they are modified by Section B, Chapter 11 of the NAFTA.

Legal Decisions

Miller resulted from gross negligence by the Terry Defendants in not timely seeking to designate James Flaven a responsible third party?

Party Submissions

Arbitration Rule 29(4)(i) 22.1. Sound recordings shall be made of all hearings and sessions. The sound recordings shall be provided to the Parties, the Tribunal Members, and the Assistant.

Legal Decisions

Moreover, the cost of the improvements is not the only evidence of damages the jury heard. The jury also received evidence of the increase in property value during the duration of the lease with Mendietta. (9RRPX44). Plaintiff’s exhibits, admitted into evidence, included an appraisal report by Gardner Appraisal Group, Inc. of the value of the Ranch on November 11, 2010 and June 17, 2013. ( Id. ; 4RR22). That report concluded that the value of the property on November 11, 2010 was $1,321,000.00, while the value of the property on June 17, 2013 was $1,431,000.00. ( Id. ). But the jury also heard that the Diocese later sold the property for $2,100,000.00—an increase in value of almost $800,000.00. (6RR97, 106; 4RR22; 9RRPX38). The jury was not instructed, nor was any limitation requested, on the jury’s ability to consider this evidence. Under the Restatement, the jury would have been right to award Bay, Ltd.’s costs for the improvements in the amount of $458,426.14. (2CR836-844).

Party Submissions

Weatherford had an opportunity in its response to Midland’s Plea to the Jurisdiction to submit admissible evidence to connect the dots between an alleged disposal of solid waste and the actions of defendant Midland. It did not do so, and cannot now correct its jurisdictional shortcomings on appeal by asking the Court to look past them, assume the application of the SWDA statute against Midland, and then go a step further to analyze whether an exclusion to that statute should implicate Midland.

Party Submissions

The Seventh Court apparently misunderstood Thompson to require proof not only that each provider ’ s individual negligence was a substantial factor in a claimant ’ s injury, but also proof that each individual act of each provider was a substantial factor contributing to the outcome. See Walker, 2022 WL 17324338, at *5. The Court concluded the experts here fell short because “[w]hile [they]proffered a litany of allegedly deficient conduct, they failed to explain how and why each caused, within reasonably medical probability, [H .W.’ s] eventual subacute infarction before birth. ” Id. Nothing about Thompson supports the Seventh Court ’ s “individual acts ” requirement at any point, much less at the threshold stage.

Party Submissions

In its sixth issue, Galovel ho complains of the trial court’s “preemptive and prophylactic ban” on its ability to amend its pleading. It argues that the trial court’s August 14, 2020 order violates the open courts provision of the Texas constitution and that it prevented Galovelho’s ability to update its responses to changes in the Emergency Orders.

Party Submissions

The Diocese argues that the charge did not inquire whether the Diocese had “obtained a benefit from Bay ‘by fraud, duress, or the taking of an undue advantage’. .. .” Diocese BOM at 45. But the language of the charge included all that was necessary to sustain a claim for unjust enrichment.

Party Submissions

To ensure that women seeking an abortion receive an ultrasound and the opportunity to review the ultrasound before giving informed consent to receive an abortion.

Legislation

PCC: The requested documents must be in Obnova’s, i.e., Claimants’, possession, custody or control since “ AGREEMENT ON PROVISION AND USE OF PORT AND WAREHOUSE SERVICES” (exhibit R-015) was concluded by Obnova.

Legal Decisions

Similarly, Devine’s argument that the Texas does not have a compelling governmental interest in only allowing single individual voters to sign the petition of only one candidate in one election is without merit. There is absolutely no First Amendment implication to TEX. ELEC. CODE § 141.066(i) for either citizens or candidates. Ironically, the U.S. Supreme Court settled a very similar issue in American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (1974). In White, the Supreme Court upheld Texas’ prohibition against signing an independent nominating petition while voting in a primary since a voter may choose to vote or to sign a nominating petition, but not to do both. White, 415 U.S. at 768. (holding it is not “invidious to disqualify those who have voted in a primary from signing petitions for another party seeking ballot position for its candidates for the same offices.”) State restrictions on an individual’s ability to support more than one candidate in the same election are 9 constitutional and do not infringe on that individual’s (or the candidate’s) freedom of speech (or association). Id .

Party Submissions

You represent that, except as you have disclosed in writing to the Company on Exhibit A attached hereto, you are not bound by the terms of any agreement with any other party (aside from standard employee non-disclosure agreements with previous employers) to refrain from using or disclosing any trade secret or confidential or proprietary information in the course of your employment with the Company, to refrain from competing, directly or indirectly, with the business of any previous employer or any other party or to refrain from soliciting employees, customers or suppliers of such previous employer or other party. You further represent that your performance of all the terms of this Agreement and the performance of your duties as an employee of the Company do not and will not conflict with or breach any agreement with any prior employer or other party (including any nondisclosure or non-competition agreement), and that you will not disclose to the Company or induce the Company to use any confidential or proprietary information or material belonging to any previous employer or others.

Contract

The Change in Control Payment will be made in a lump sum cash payment as soon as practicable, but in no event more than ten (10) days after Release Effective Date. Except as otherwise provided under law or the terms of any other employee benefit plan in which Executive participates, Executive shall not be entitled to receive any additional compensation or benefits from the Company after the termination date.

Contract

In contrast to a tenant like the one in Kemp, a tenant who abandons a leased premise because the landlord’s harassment forces it to leave—as Westwood did here—has established the central element of a constructive-eviction claim. And it does not matter whether that decision is forced upon the tenant before, during, or after the eviction proceeding on appeal from the judgment.

Party Submissions

If a medical expert in one specialty area is offered as an expert in another specialty, the expert’s qualifications to offer that opinion must be contained within the four corners of the expert report; they may not be inferred. Carreon v. Kelly, No. 04-21-00538, 2023 WL 3733918 at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio, May 31, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“Qualifications of an expert must appear in the expert report and curriculum vitae and cannot be inferred.”); Tenet Hosps., Ltd. v. De La Riva, 351 S.W.3d 398, 407 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2011, no pet.) (“the proffered medical expert’s expertise must be evident from the four corners of his report and curriculum vitae”).

Party Submissions

RLB later alleged it encountered “differing site conditions” and claimed it incurred over $4,830,236 in additional costs (Additional Costs). R.195; R.468 ¶45.

Party Submissions

Outstanding Balance at San Jacinto Building Investors, LP and a shell company and special purpose entity created for tax purposes. Borrower is indirectly owned by Leon J. Backes. Bridge Loan Agreement executed by FNBC and TX1111, effective August 28, 2015. First NBC Bank in New Orleans, Louisiana, which provided the loan of $ 20 million, later increased to $30 million dollars, to TX 1111 to finance the historic rehabilitation Project. The Bank was closed and went into receivership in April 2017. Bridge Loan Repayment Guaranty, executed by Backes and FNBC and effective August 28, 2015. (App. A.) FNBC or OSPrin. August 28, 2017, the maturity date of the Bridge Loan. Opinion in this appeal issued by the Texarkana Court of Appeals, NO. 06-21-00085-CV. OSPrin II, LLC, successor in interest to FNBC. The deficiency amount due under the Bridge Loan and guaranteed by Backes, including unpaid principal, interest, default interest, collection costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees.

Party Submissions

This extra non-statutory language weighed in on an important issue in the case: whether Terry should have designated Flaven from the beginning of the lawsuit and whether he was negligent because he did not do so. (8RR16:9-23, 172:15-175:21; 9RR113:5-14; 11RR257:18-258:18, 268:14-24, 336) Per HSMiller’s experts, had Terry designated Flaven from the beginning, the designation would not have been struck because Terry only needed to show that Flaven did not go through with the proposed transaction. (8RR16:9-23, 16 172:15-175:21; 9RR113:5-14; 11RR257:18-258:18, 268:14-24, 336) To prove the failed transaction, they argued, Terry did not need to find Flaven.

Party Submissions

Claimant’s original request referred to “General Asphalt,” the colloquial industry name of the AC-30 supplier formally known as “General Supply Corporation S.R.L.” Claimant requests that Respondent confirm whether it has conducted a reasonable search for the AC-30 contracts it entered into with General Supply Corporation S.R.L. If Respondent has not conducted such a search, Claimant asks that it be ordered to do so.

Legal Decisions

HN12 [ ] A trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion to abate is within the court's discretion. See Project Eng'g USA Corp. v. Gator Hawk, Inc., 833 S.W.2d 716, 724 (Tex. App.-- Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ) ; see also Abor v. Black, 695 S.W.2d 564, 567, 28 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 581 (Tex. 1985) (concluding that abatement is an incidental ruling by the trial court not subject to mandamus review). There are exceptions, however, to this general rule. See, e.g., In re Luby's Cafeterias, Inc., 979 S.W.2d 813, 815 (Tex. App.-- Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, orig. proceeding) (noting exceptions); See also In re Sims, 88 S.W.3d 297, 306 (Tex. App.-- San Antonio 2002, orig. proceeding) (concluding that an indefinite abatement was an abuse of the trial court's discretion).

Party Submissions

But more than that, this “evidence” was a deceit: the product of position-shifting of the most insidious kind. Its primary purveyors — 9 the plaintiff’s lawyer in the underlying trial and a hired expert — took different legal positions than the plaintiff’s lawyer took in the underlying trial.

Party Submissions

Tratándose de actos administrativos, para someter una reclamación al foro interno o al arbitraje previsto en este Artículo, será indispensable agotar previamente la vía gubernativa o administrativa, por parte del inversionista o de su inversión, cuando la legislación de la Parte así lo exija. Dicho agotamiento en ningún caso podrá exceder un plazo de seis (6) meses desde la fecha de su iniciación por el inversionista y no deberá impedir que el inversionista solicite las consultas referidas en el párrafo 3 del presente Artículo.

Legal Decisions

HN5 [ ] Once a responsible third party has been designated, and after an adequate time for discovery has passed, a party may move to strike the designation "on the ground that there is no evidence that the designated person is responsible for any portion of the claimant's alleged injury or damage." Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 33.004( l ). "The court shall grant the motion to strike unless a defendant produces sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of fact regarding the designated person's responsibility for the claimant's injury or damage." Id. Thus, the question for the trial court is sufficient evidence, more than a scintilla, [*6] for a reasonable jury to find the responsible third party responsible for a portion of the claimant's injury or damages. In re Transit Mix Concrete & Materials Co., No. 12-13-00364-CV, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 5136, 2014 WL 1922724, at *3 (Tex. App.—Tyler May 14, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Party Submissions

Effect on Accounts. An election to modify a Payment Schedule is specific to the Account or payment event to which it applies and shall not be construed to affect the Payment Schedules of any other Accounts.

Contract

Notwithstanding the foregoing, if at any time you become an officer required to file reports pursuant to Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, then with respect to any part of this Award that is then unvested, vesting shall in addition be contingent on and subject to satisfaction of such performance criteria for such performance period as the Plan Administrator shall establish with specific reference to this Award, and this Award shall be cancelled without the issuance of Common Stock if and to the extent any such performance criteria are not satisfied.

Contract

We are a company called Ishavsbruket AS and located in Båtsfjord and currently we are working on investigating a topic regarding snow crab and in this regard there are some questions that we would like to ask you.

Legal Decisions

In similar fashion, on March 16, 2020, Collin County Judge Chris Hill issued a proclamation after the Commissioner’s Court declared a state of disaster in Collin County. The county issued its own executive order, inter alia, incorporating Abbott’s GA -08 and stating that “ persons shall avoid eating or drinking at bars, restaurants, and food courts. .. However, the use of drive-thru, pickup, or delivery – 3– options for bars, restaurants, and food courts is allowed and highly encouraged throughout the limited duration of [Abbott’s] Executive Order.” Second Executive Order.

Party Submissions

The Lawyers did raise the issue below, and, regardless, the “law of the case” doctrine shuts the door on HSMiller’s arguments. In the malpractice litigation alone, the parties have been through two jury trials and two separate appeals, and this Court denied review of the first appeal. See Orders at No. 16-0875 (Dec. 15, 2017 Tex.) 12 ( Newsom, Terry & Newsom, L.L.P. v. Henry S. Miller Comm. Co .) (denying review from Henry S. Miller Comm. Co. v. Newsom, Terry & Newsom, L.L.P. (“Henry S. Miller”), No. 05-14-0188-CV, 2016 WL 4821684 (Tex. App.—Dallas Sept. 14, 2016, pet. denied) (mem. op.)).

Party Submissions

Here, it is undisputed that MVP is not a signatory to the Subcontract. And the MCC prohibits McCarthy from assigning any portion of the MCC without MVP’s written consent—and no assignment occurred. Supp.R.0771. MVP does not identify any privity of contract between MVP and RLB or another valid theory that would potentially entitle MVP to enforce the Subcontract against RLB. See Cappadonna Elec. Mgmt. v. Cameron Cnty., 180 S.W.3d 364, 371-73 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2005, no pet.) (nonsignatory subcontractor generally cannot enforce an arbitration provision of a prime contract it did not sign or incorporate by reference into the subcontract). Further, the “flow-down” provisions (and the Subcontract as a whole) do not contain any language suggesting MVP is somehow a party to the Subcontract that can enforce it. Pinto Tech., 526 S.W.3d at 445. Nor does the Subcontract state that MVP has any third-party beneficiary rights to enforce any Subcontract provision.

Party Submissions

Energy Secretariat the authority to issue the “ economic dispatch rules to be applied. ”776 Article 35 of the Electricity Law specifically provides: The technical dispatch of the Argentine Interconnection System (SADI), shall be a responsibility of the National Load Dispatch Agency (Despacho Nacional de Cargas, or DNDC), an agency to be established as a stock company with capital represented by registered, non-endorsable shares, the majority of which shall be initially held by the Energy Secretariat. Subsequently, the different participants in the Wholesale Electricity Market (WEM) shall be entitled to have an interest therein. State participation, which shall at first represent a majority stake, may be reduced by the National Executive Branch up to ten per cent (10 %) of the corporate capital; however, this percentage shall ensure participation and veto rights in the Board of Directors.

Legal Decisions

The Lawyers will stand primarily on the briefing in their merits brief on this issue but do want to remind the Court that HSMiller cites only two cases to support its preemption and collateral-attack arguments. Neither is remotely like this case. For example, one of the cases involved “enormous” asbestos-related claims against Federal-Mogul Global, which involved trusts Congress created to “resolve 17 massive asbestos liability.” In re Federal-Mogul Global, Inc., 684 F.3d 355, 357, 363 (3d Cir. 2012). Undoing what the bankruptcy court did there would contravene laws Congress passed for that specific problem. Id. Here no special laws are at issue. And the Lawyers are not trying to undo anything. The bankruptcy court approved the arrangement for its own purposes — to protect the bankrupt and its secured creditors. It did not, and could not, decide whether the assignment of a legal malpractice claim was valid under Texas law. That is this Court’s role.

Party Submissions

The TMLA requires health care liability claimants to serve an expert report upon each defendant shortly after the defendant files its answer. Abshire, 563 S.W.3d at 223 (citing Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 74.351(a)). The Legislature’s primary objective in requiring this early report is to reduce the expense of health care liability claims by weeding out frivolous malpractice claims in the early stages of litigation. Scoresby, 346 S.W.3d at 556. The Act is intended to deter baseless claims, not block earnest ones. Certified EMS, Inc. v. Potts, 392 S.W.3d 625, 631 (Tex. 2013).

Party Submissions

February 6, 2024. Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 863) impeaching Alejandro Nicholas Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Secu-rity, for high crimes and misdemeanors. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Homeland Security now printed in the resolution shall be considered as adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution, as amended, to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except two hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security or their respective des-ignees.

Legislation

Id. at 416-17. (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted). Claims for declaratory relief such as those made by Oncor in this case have been repeatedly rejected by the courts. See, e.g., Cameron Appraisal Dist. v. Rourk, 194 S.W.3d 501 (Tex. 2006). In Cameron, owners of travel trailers brought suit against the appraisal district for a declaratory judgment that the trailers were not subject to ad valorem taxation. This Court dealt with that argument in less than two pages, stating the Tax Code’s administrative procedures were “exclusive” and pointing out that “we have repeatedly held that ‘a taxpayer's failure to pursue an appraisal review board proceeding deprives the courts of jurisdiction to decide most matters relating to ad valorem taxes.’” Id. at 502 (internal citations omitted). Similarly, in Joaquin Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Shelby Cty. Appraisal Dist., a taxing unit requested a declaratory judgment that the appraisal district violated the law by assessing property on the basis of a percentage of its appraised value and preventing the correct assessment of value. Joaquin, No. 12-13-00038-CV, 2014 WL 5511479 (Tex. App.—Tyler, Aug. 29, 2014, pet. denied). The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing the taxing unit’s DJA action, and the appellate court upheld it, finding the DJA inapplicable because Chapter 42 of the Tax Code specified the taxing unit’s exclusive remedies. Id. at *5.

Party Submissions

In Welder, a contract right giving the husband the right to acquire lands was obtained before marriage, but the conditions of the contract were not met until during marriage, at which time title vested. Id. The court held that the property was the husband's separate property because his claim to the property was acquired before marriage. Id .

Party Submissions

WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company has determined, that it is advisable and in the best interests of the Company to enter into this Amendment.

Contract

Mandamus relief from this Court is a matter of last resort. As this Court has repeatedly cautioned, mandamus relief under any circumstances is an “extraordinary remedy that is available only in limited circumstances.” In re Hotze, 627 S.W.3d 642, 646 (Tex. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). In particular, mandamus relief is available only where the ordinary judicial process—a petition brought in a trial court, and litigated, as necessary, through appeal—cannot provide a relator with adequate relief to which he is entitled. See, e.g., In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d 458, 464-65 (Tex. 2008). And where this Court shares mandamus jurisdiction with the courts of appeals or district courts, it strongly disfavors original mandamus petitions brought in this Court initially, entertaining such an application only on the showing of a “compelling reason” for bypassing the court of appeals. Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(e).

Party Submissions

Perhaps more importantly, however, Respondents ’ effort to explain away the court of appeals’ opinion as merely enforcing some “voluntary agreement” between Westwood and Virtuolotry is irreconcilable with the opinion itself. In that opinion, the court of appeals never even looked for such an agreement because it would have been irrelevant under the court’s analysis, which focused solely and impermissibly on the “preclusive” legal effect of Westwood’s decision to withdraw its appeal in the county court and enter into the agreed judgment. Indeed, the court of appeals concluded that it would take an agreement to vary the judgment’s otherwise applicable legal effect. It contended that to preserve its claims in the district court, Westwood would have had to force Respondents into including a concession in the agreed judgment that an “act of Virtuolotry or Boyd” was “the cause for its decision to abandon its appeal” (Op. 5) or “qualifying” the abandonment to clarify its intention to assert a continuing “right to possession” (Op. on Rehr’g 2). Westwood, however, did not have to do either. Respondents’ effort to rewrite the opinion shows how scant its arguments really are. II. The actual reasons behind the court of appeals’ decision are indefensible.

Party Submissions

The City points to nothing in the SWDA’s definition of “solid waste facility” materially different from CERCLA’s standard for purposes of the issue presented by its jurisdictional plea. Under CERCLA, to the extent relevant to a sewer system, “facility” is broadly defined to include “any building, structure, installation, equipment, pipe or pipeline (including any pipe into a sewer or publicly owned treatment works), well, pit, pond, lagoon, impoundment, ditch, landfill, [or] storage container.” 42 U.S.C. § 9601(9)(A); see also New York v. Shore Realty Corp., 759 F.2d 1032, 1043 n. 15 (2d Cir. 1985) (“facility” is defined broadly).

Party Submissions

Respondents and the court of appeals confuse a procedurally secured lien with a fraudulent lien claim based on the lien. And, the argument they repeatedly rely on is that the lien is not fraudulent because it says it is not. However, Petitioners’ ipse dixit cannot curtail Petitioners’ substantive rights.

Party Submissions

If contemporaneous with or within eighteen (18) months after a Change in Control that occurred during the Employment Period (a) the Company terminates Executive’s employment without Cause or (b) Executive terminates his employment for Good Reason, then, provided Executive complies with the requirements set forth in Section 3.7, Section 3.8, and Section 3.9, Executive will be eligible to receive, in lieu of the benefits described in Section 3.3: (i) a cash payment (the “Change in Control Payment”) equal to the sum of (a) twelve (12) months of Executive’s then current Base Salary plus (b) Executive’s then-current target annual bonus, less applicable withholdings; and (ii) the COBRA Continuation Benefit. Any outstanding awards under the Long-Term Incentive Plan shall be paid in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Long-Term Incentive Plan and the applicable awards.

Contract

In dividing nonvested pension rights as community property, the court must take into account of the possibility that death or termination of employment may destroy those rights before they mature. In some cases the trial court may be able to evaluate this risk in determining the present value of those rights. .. But if the court concludes that because of uncertainties affecting the vesting or maturation of the pension that it should not attempt to divide the present value of the rights, it can instead award each spouse an appropriate portion of each pension payment as it is paid. This method of dividing the community interest in the pension renders it unnecessary for the court to compute the present value of the pension rights, and divides equally the risk that the pension will fail to vest.

Party Submissions

Even if Tatum, Hall, and Huckabee did not foreclose Barina’s arguments (and they do), Barina’s heavy reliance on Rosenthal would still be misplaced. In Rosenthal, this Court held that the gist of the defendant magazine’s article was that Rosenthal had engaged in criminal conduct by fraudulently obtaining welfare benefits, relying on statements and juxtapositions in the challenged article that unambiguously implied specific, verifiably fraudulent misconduct, in a column labelled “CRIME”. Rosenthal, 529 S.W.3d at 431-432. The challenged article also stated expressly that Rosenthal “must have been less than forthcoming” when she applied for benefits, emphasizing ultimately immaterial inconsistencies in her application and noting that “[f]alsifying such a document is a felony.” Id. at 437.6 The article also detailed Rosenthal’s “criminal history of theft,” and included an unrelated mug shot thereby implying that her welfare fraud was of a piece with her past criminal conduct. Id. at 436, 431. The Program, however, makes no such direct allegations of criminality about Barina. Rather, Barina’s actions, as well as those of the other guardians profiled, are consistently and repeatedly characterized as court-sanctioned and legal—the opposite of criminal.

Party Submissions

The United States objects to Request No. 2.h for the same reasons stated above with respect to Request No. 2.

Legal Decisions

Declaratory Relief Galovelho’s Second Amended P etition also sought a judgment declaring that “the challenged Executive Orders and local orders violate the Texas Disaster Relief Act and are unconstitutional.” In its fourth appellate issue, Galovelho argues that – 21– this claim is also ripe and that the trial court had jurisdiction over it. Again, we disagree.

Party Submissions

For example, in In re Francis, this Court “h[e]ld that when a challenge is made based on facial defects a party chair overlooked and approved when they could have been cured,” courts must “allow the candidate that opportunity.” 186 S.W.3d at 541. There, a judicial candidate filed a signature petition that was defective because it did not state which place the candidate was running for. Id. at 537. The party chairman overlooked the error and notified Francis that his filings were in order. Id. at 537-38. But a rival candidate spotted the error and convinced a trial court to exclude Francis from the ballot. Id. at 538. On mandamus review, this Court directed the trial court to vacate its order and “allow Francis to cure the defect”—despite the already-expired statutory deadline. Id. at 543.

Party Submissions

This is the fourth of nine requests for documents which the Claimant contends was seized during the criminal proceedings in Qatar.

Legal Decisions

To prohibit a drawdown and sale of petroleum products from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve if the President has withdrawn certain land from oil and gas leasing, and for other purposes.

Legislation

PRA Provident Realty Advisors which formed Rusk at As a condition to advancing a multi-million-dollar debt, Lender obtained from Backes an “irrevocable”, “continuing”, and “unconditional” guaranty of the debt. Borrower defaulted but Backes never paid. The critical issue to the lending industry is whether a guaranty’s eventual sunset termination absolves the guarantor of liability to the lender1 for his breach of the guaranty agreement prior to the sunset termination. Backes refused to pay through litigation until after sunset termination of the guaranty, then argued that he was released from his obligation by the termination.

Party Submissions

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to establish a credit for the domestic production of rare earth magnets, and for other purposes.

Legislation

Whether or not the trial court could quote statutory language and paraphrase it, this Court has never hesitated to reverse trial judgments where the scales of justice were improperly weighted in favor of one party, especially where the instructions were “surplus.” See In re Estate of Poe, 648 S.W.3d at 286-92 (holding that surplus instructions confused and misled the jury and allowed them to consider an informal-fiduciary-duty theory); Timberwalk Apts., Partners, Inc. v. Cain, 972 S.W.2d 749, 755-56 (Tex. 1998) (holding 48 that surplus instruction used by lawyer to exhort jury to side with his client was harmful and required reversal); see also Acord v. Gen. Motors Corp ., 669 S.W.2d 111, 115-16 (Tex. 1984) (Where Texas Supreme Court had approved language to be used in special issues in a defective-design case, it was harmful error for the trial court to include additional language.).

Party Submissions

Henry v. Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc., 70 S.W.3d 808 (2002) 45 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 381 the damages claim without determining whether the claimant was entitled to the benefits, a matter within the Commission's exclusive jurisdiction.

Party Submissions

Commercial Automobile Liability -$1,000,000 Limit of Liability McCarthy and the Owner shall be added as additional insureds, together with any other entities required by the Contract Documents. The automobile liability shall contain endorsements waiving all rights of subrogation in favor of the additional insureds where allowable by law.

Party Submissions

Any and all documents based on which the Real Estate Cadaster issued decision No. 952-02-9-31/03 dated 7 December 2003189 permitting inscription of the City of Belgrade as the owner of Obnova’s buildings on land plots Nos. 47 and 39/1 in CM Stari Grad.

Legal Decisions

HN4 [ ] We review the summary judgment de novo. Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656, 661 (Tex. 2005). We take all evidence favorable to Douglas as true and indulge every reasonable inference and resolve any doubts in her favor. See id.

Party Submissions

B) The Respondent’s position 526. The denial of the existence of any violation of the Treaty leads Respondent to also deny, in general, that Claimant should receive any sum at all on account of damages.

Legal Decisions