Datasets:

Equall

/

perplexity_evaluation

like 3

Follow

Equall 47

Customers do not own the claims is erroneous. See Pet. at 20, 23-25. In the 2008 assignment, Best Buy assigned its tax refund claims to the individual Customers. Id .

Party Submissions

To provide that an individual who uses marijuana in compliance with State law may not be denied occupancy of federally assisted housing, and for other purposes.

Legislation

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS This petition for review complies with the typeface requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(e) because it has been prepared in a conventional typeface no smaller than 14-point for text and 12-point for footnotes. This petition also complies with the word-court limitations of Rule 9.4(i)(2)(D) because it contains 2,389 words, excluding any parts exempted by Rule 9.4(i)(1).

Party Submissions

And in March 2020, the City of Frisco likewise issued its Declaration of Local Disaster for Public Health Emergency. Frisco passed an ordinance stating, “ In accordance with the Guidelines from the President, the Governor and the CDC, people shall avoid eating or drinking at bars [and] restaurants .” Ordinance No. 2020-03-12. That provision was clarified to add: “Restaurants and beverage bars with or without drive in or drive-through services. .. may only provide take out, delivery or drive-through services as allowed by law. ” Ordinance No. 2020-03-13.

Party Submissions

Quinn, joined by Justices Parker and Doss, unanimously concluded that the Walkers’ experts’ reports were insufficient to comply with section 74.351.

Party Submissions

In its Motion for Rehearing, Petitioners ask the Court to reverse its holding that there was no evidence to legally support a finding of proximate cause needed for the yield sign claim. On this point, the motion should be denied as the Court correctly held that no evidence on proximate cause existed make the claim legally insufficient. The Court correctly found that the only proffered evidence on causation was conjecture from the expert witness that admitted he could not opine on whether the presence of a yield sign made the collision more likely than not to occur.

Party Submissions

First Franklin made a special indorsement on the Note directing payment to First Franklin Financial Corporation. CR2:53. First Franklin Financial Corporation made a special indorsement on the Note directing payment to Dreambuilder Investments, LLC. CR2:53. Dreambuilder Investments, LLC executed an Allonge directing payment to RCS Recovery Services, LLC. CR2:54. RCS executed an Allonge directing payment to Yellowfin. CR2:55. Yellowfin has possession of the original Note and all Allonges. CR2:41 (⁋5).

Party Submissions

Enacted by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 269 (H.B. 752), § 1, effective September 1, 1993; am. Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1426 (H.B. 2510), § 11, effective September 1, 1999; am. Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 265 (H.B. 7), § 3.104, effective September 1, 2005; am. Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., ch. 1153 (H.B. 2089), § 1, effective September 1, 2011.

Party Submissions

Change in Control. A Participant will receive his or her entire unpaid vested Account Balance in a single lump sum payment if Separation from Service occurs within twenty-four (24) months following a Change in Control. Payment will be made at the time set forth in Section 6.1(a).

Contract

Fleming Defendants made their second Absolute Anti-Collateral Estoppel Agreement with the court after they lost the Kinney trial. Wilson Plaintiffs sought offensive collateral estoppel on the Kinney judgment, and Fleming Defendants responded with an aggressive absolute anti-collateral estoppel position as follows: In Karnes, which preceded Kinney and Wilson, the federal court had denied class certification of breach of fiduciary duty claims precisely because Plaintiffs had failed to show that common questions predominated over the individualized issues. See Karnes v. Fleming No. H-07-0620, 2008 WL 4528223 (S.D. Tex. July 31, 2008). Among other things, the court held that “vast numbers of individualized issues are raised by the myriad contractual provisions that bear on the substance of, and the forum for litigating, the breach of fiduciary duty claims in this case.” Id. at *8.

Party Submissions

This document is current through the 2023 Regular Session; the 1st C.S.; the 2nd C.S.; the 3rd C.S. and the 4th C.S. of the 88th Legislature; and the November 7, 2023 election results.

Party Submissions

S EC. 2. Upon adoption of House Resolution 863— (a) House Resolution 995 is hereby adopted; and • HRES 996 EH (b) no other resolution incidental to impeachment relating to House Resolution 863 shall be privileged during the remainder of the One Hundred Eighteenth Congress.

Legislation

The Party invoking confidentiality and/or privilege may respond to these objections no later than 24 November 2023. Both the objections and replies must be set out in the privilege log.

Legal Decisions

Arbitration Rule 30 15.1. The arbitration shall proceed in accordance with the Procedural Calendar attached hereto as Annex B, except if the Tribunal, upon a showing of good cause by either Party, on the Tribunal’s own initiative, or by mutual agreement of the Parties, decides that this Procedural Timetable requires amendment.

Legal Decisions

Injunctive Relief Galovelho sought injunctive relief in the trial court based on its claims that appellees’ actions violated its rights to equal protection and due process under the Texas constitution. See TEX. CONST. art I, §§ 3, 19. In its third appellate issue, – 18– Galovelho argues that these equitable claims are ripe and are not barred by any jurisdictional issues.

Party Submissions

Having considered the above documents and the Parties’ views, the Tribunal now issues the present Order: Pursuant to ICSID Arbitration Rules 27 and 29, this Procedural Order sets out the Procedural Rules that govern this arbitration. The timetable is attached as Annex B .

Legal Decisions

As to the RTP issue, HSMiller has not and cannot point to any legally sufficient evidence that in the underlying trial Flaven would have been submitted in the apportionment question, that Flaven would have been apportioned 100% of the responsibility, or that any failure to timely designate Flaven was the cause-in-fact of HSMiller’s injury.

Party Submissions

See Tex. Lab. Code § 410.021 (emphasis added). The Section refers to the "claim" three times, including to "the respective parties to a workers' compensation claim," apparently contemplating the existence of a pending claim as a predicate to the conference. The section is silent as to the question before us—whether DWC, through a benefit review conference, has jurisdiction to resolve issues anticipated to arise from a potential claim. Silence creates statutory ambiguity. See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842, 104 S. Ct. 2778, 81 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1984) ; In re American Homestar of Lancaster, Inc., 50 S.W.3d 480, 490 (Tex. 2001). We therefore turn to agency interpretation for guidance. See Texas Citizens, 336 S.W.3d at 623 .

Party Submissions

Any and all documents included in the files maintained by the Planning Commission of the Assembly of the City of Belgrade’s with respect to its work on the 2015 DRP. RELEVANCE Claimants hereby incorporate the explanation provided at Request No. 52 above.

Legal Decisions

In this case, had the court not exercised or retained its jurisdiction, the court would have dismissed R.L.S.'s petition for expunction. It did not. Rather, the trial court ruled on the merits of the petition and denied it.

Party Submissions

Convention Article 48(1); Arbitration Rules 10, 11(4), 12, 27 and 35 5.1. Decisions of the Tribunal shall be taken by a majority of the Members of the Tribunal.

Legal Decisions

Just a few years later, the Austin Court of Appeals considered the characterization of an employment bonus paid to husband shortly after divorce.

Party Submissions

To require the review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States of greenfield investments by the People’s Republic of China.

Legislation

The Amarillo Court correctly concluded the reports failed to state any causal link between the nurses’ alleged failures and the harm. Baptist St. Anthony’s Hosp. v. Walker, No. 07-22-00032-CV, 2022 WL 17324338 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Nov. 29, 2022). Because the reports omitted the causation element, they were deficient and not a good faith effort.

Party Submissions

Here, as set forth above, there was at least some evidence by Husband as to the lack of donative intent regarding the real property refinance and deed. Likewise, as set forth above, there was at least some evidence a to the mixed character value of husband’s retirement funds. Even if the evidence presented in either instance was circumstantial in nature, it still constitutes more than a scintilla for a sufficiency analysis. If the evidence presented in either issue rises above the scintilla standard for legal sufficiency but, in the opinion of the court of appeals, fails to meet the standard for factual sufficiency, the remedy for such error is remand not render.

Party Submissions

None of these documents were provided by the Respondent to the Claimant or are in the possession of the Claimant. The requested information is internal governmental documentation, which Qatar is in a position to access without undue burden.

Legal Decisions

The determination of whether any type of claim is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission depends on whether the claim is based on a claimant's entitlement to benefits. The issue is not whether a particular type of claim, such as a tort or statutory claim, is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commission. Rather, the determination of whether any type of claim is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commission depends on whether the claim is based on an alleged delay or denial of a workers' compensation benefit.

Party Submissions

Also in 2017, Stonehenge had investors that needed state tax credits to be issued in 2017. To do so, TX 1111 obtained an advisory determination from NPS that allowed it to prepare a state Part C for QREs incurred in the rehabilitation of the Texaco building through December 31, 2016. This had the effect of dividing the Texaco building rehabilitation into two projects under the Texas program: the first for work done through December 31, 2016, and the second for work on and after January 1, 2017. Without the approval from NPS and THC, TX 1111 would have been allowed only a single submission of the state Part C upon the completion of the Texaco building rehabilitation in its entirety.

Party Submissions

In addition, Claimants have not established that the requested documents are relevant to the U.S. preliminary objection or material to its outcome.

Legal Decisions

This court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211, 215 (Tex. 2003). When both sides move for summary judgment and the trial court grants one motion and denies the other, the court reviews the summary judgment evidence presented by both sides, determines all questions presented, and renders the judgment the trial court should *9 have rendered. Comm'rs Court of Titus Cnty. v. Agan, 940 S.W.2d 77, 81 (Tex. 1997).

Party Submissions

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Patricia A. Grant, acting pro se, appeals from a final judgment partitioning real property in Fayette County and from an order requiring payment of court costs. 1 We affirm both decisions.

Party Submissions

First, the cases are not distinguishable because there is not, fundamentally, a dispute about which contract is at issue in this matter.

Party Submissions

Any and all minutes and recordings from all meetings of the Urban Planning Institute of Belgrade related to the preparation of the 2015 DRP. RELEVANCE The Urban Planning Institute of Belgrade was the holder of the plan development ( in Serbian: nosilac izrade plana ) for the 2015 DRP with responsibilities described at Request 39 above.

Legal Decisions

The Motion claims the appellate court failed to address whether direct-benefits estoppel applied to Respondents’ claims under the de novo standard.

Party Submissions

Investment Disputes (“ ICSID ” or the “Centre”) on the basis of the Agreement Between the Government of the Kingdom of Norway and the Government of the Republic of Latvia on the Mutual Promotion and Protection of Investments, which entered into force on 1 December 1992 (the “BIT” or “Treaty”), and the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, which entered into force for the Kingdom of Norway on 15 September 1967 and for the Republic of Latvia on 7 September 1997 (the “ ICSID Convention ”).

Legal Decisions

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective duly authorized representatives as of the Effective Date.

Contract

The Court of Appeals’ decision in this case cannot be reconciled with the holdings in Tyler and Hellas, as the factual and procedural differences the court highlighted as “distinguishing” factors simply have no bearing on the jurisdictional analysis. This Court should grant review to clarify the scope of the DWC’s exclusive jurisdiction and to prevent lower courts from overstepping their own authority to determine the issues within the DWC’s exclusive jurisdiction.

Party Submissions

On appeal, Grant asserts that the order should be reversed because the trial court ignored her, failed to consider evidence, allowed judicial misconduct, and violated her due process and equal protection rights. We review the trial court’s order requiring payment of costs for an abuse of discretion. In re R.J., No. 02-16-00445-CV, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 4567, at *3– 4 (Tex. App.— Fort Worth May 18, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Party Submissions

By focusing on Thompson, the Seventh Court also erred by failing to read the expert reports together and credit all of the experts’ opinions. Miller, 536 S.W.3d at 517; Van Ness, 461 S.W.3d at 144.

Party Submissions

Rusk at San Jacinto Building Investors, LP, entity formed by PRA (which was founded by Leon J. Backes) and owner of the Texaco building. Stonehenge Stonehenge Capital Co., the tax credit investor to which TX 1111 sold the state tax credits through Rusk Investor, LLC.

Party Submissions

On the calculation of damages 518. The Tribunal has found that Respondent has engaged in several violations of the Treaty. Specifically, Respondent has executed an indirect creeping expropriation of Claimant’s investment and has violated the both the FET and the umbrella clauses. The Tribunal has concluded that there has been certain arbitrariness on the part of Respondent in the treatment afforded to Claimant, but that there has been no discrimination. The finding of such Treaty violations by Respondent entails – in principle – that it has to redress any harm caused. The Tribunal should consider the way in which each breach has occurred and their scope in order to quantify such damages. This is what the Tribunal will do in the following paragraphs.

Legal Decisions

Arbitral Tribunal considers that the documents sought under this request are included in Request 3.a and no decision is therefore made.

Legal Decisions

Texas Bar No. 10476000 [email protected] Ware, Jackson, Lee, O’Neill, Smith & Barrow, LLP 2929 Allen Parkway, 39th Floor Houston, Texas 77019 (713) 659-6400 (713) 659-6262 (fax) I certify that Rule 9.4(i)(1) portion of this petition contains 2868 words.

Party Submissions

To facilitate Serbia’s search for responsive documents, Claimants agree to limit their request to: “ Any and all minutes and recordings from Beoland’s meetings related to the preparation of the 2015 DRP discussing the rezoning of the land plot located across the street from Dunavska 17-19 and 23 for residential purposes, prepared and/or recorded between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2015. ” Claimants respectfully request the Tribunal to order the production of the responsive documents.

Legal Decisions

This Court has already recognized that removing an individual from the ballot based on technical defects poses serious and difficult “constitutional problems.” In re Francis, 186 S.W.3d at 542. That is reason enough not to construe Section 172.0222(i) as abrogating this Court’s equitable authority to permit candidates to cure technical violations. “Courts decide constitutional questions only when the issue cannot be resolved on non-constitutional grounds.” In re Ginsberg, 630 S.W.3d 1, 10 (Tex. 2018). Multiple non-constitutional grounds for denial are available here, as explained above. But the mandamus petition also must be denied because the Election Code’s prohibition on individuals signing multiple candidates’ petitions is unconstitutional as applied to these circumstances.

Party Submissions

Texas action in favor of the first-filed Oklahoma case is therefore consistent with principles of comity and conservation of judicial resources. See generally Wyatt v.

Party Submissions

Further, the trial court's action would deprive Tyler of its right to claim the exclusive remedy provision of the Act. See TEX. LAB.CODE ANN. § 408.001. There is currently a binding appeals panel decision that Reynaldo's death occurred in the course and scope of his employment, and the Gaonas are entitled to death benefits. See TEX. LAB.CODE ANN. § 410.205 (providing that appeals panel decision is binding during judicial review); Lopez v. Tex. Workers' Comp. Ins. Fund, 11 S.W.3d 490, 495 (Tex.App.-Austin 2000, pet. denied) (stating that administrative ruling-whether granting or denying benefits-remains in effect until overturned by final, enforceable judicial decision, and benefits are payable, or not, in accordance with appeals panel decision until final judicial decision rules otherwise). 20 The trial court would controvert that binding decision and, consequently, the exclusive remedy provision by trying the negligence claims while judicial review is pending.

Party Submissions

Lennar respectfully requests that the Court grant its petition for review, reverse the court of appeals’ judgment, and render judgment ordering the case into arbitration.

Party Submissions

Alternatively, Petitioners ask the Court to rewrite the Opinion so as to not follow Casteel or rather provide "guidance" on Casteel so that the Court may presume that the jury's negligence finding was based on the humped crossing theory and not the yield sign theory. This result, of course, directly conflicts with Casteel and the cases that have since followed it. If the reviewing court cannot determine if a jury's liability finding was based on a legally supported theory or an unsupported one, it must presume error and remand for a new trial. The Opinion adhered to this principle and adhered to each of the precedents that have followed Casteel.

Party Submissions

First NBC was closed by the Louisiana Office of Financial Institutions, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was appointed receiver and took possession of First NBC’s assets on April 28, 2017. The bridge loan matured on August 28, 2017, and the principal balance of $30,000,000.00 became due and owing. Both TX 1111 and Backes failed and refused to pay the amounts owing on the note. On October 18, 2017, Osprin purchased the bridge loan as part of a loan pool being auctioned by the FDIC.

Party Submissions

Ross, and reports by the court-appointed attorney/investigators concluding that the accusations by Laura and Ross against Tonya were untrue.

Party Submissions

The Opinion does not open door for "granulating a simple negligence question into multiple special issues" as Amici speculate.31 Rule 277 merely directs the use of broad-form submissions "whenever feasible." As the Opinion notes, "Rule 277 30 As discussed in KCSR's Motion for Rehearing, the charge as to the humped crossing claim was error in part because it never told the jury what facts it must find to determine if ICCTA preemption exists. Of course, if that question should have been answered by the trial court instead of the jury, it never happened in this case, as the only ruling the trial court made was to deny KCSR's motion for summary judgment on the issue. The issue was yet to be decided, but the trial court did not rule on it, nor was it submitted to the jury for determination of the facts as necessary to decide the issue. In light of this failure by the trial court, this Court did not have before it the factual predicate necessary to decide the issue. Nevertheless, the Court has held KCSR to a requirement that it somehow establish federal preemption as a matter of law. Op., p. 29. KCSR's Motion for Rehearing points out that KCSR has thus been denied the opportunity to present its defense of federal preemption because it has not had an opportunity to have the finder-of-fact, applying a preponderance of the evidence standard, make a determination of the facts necessary to decide the issue.

Party Submissions

The only reason that the finality of a § 1.111(e) agreement will likely ever be before a court is that one party to it latently believes that the agreement was ill advised and probably entered into without requisite or accurate knowledge. If every contract theory of avoidance is available to the party wishing to void the agreement, the specific finality of the agreement dictated in the statute will be seriously weakened and the legislative intent of finality avoided. Courts will defer to the expressed legislative intent of a statute. Texas Lottery Com’n v. First Bank of DeQueen, 325 S.W.3d 628, 635 (Tex. 2010).

Party Submissions

According to Respondents, Oncor just seeks to change an erroneous “value,” and the Tax Code excludes “a mistake in judgment or reasoning” from the definition of a “clerical error.” See Respondents’ Brief at 19. But Oncor does not seek a substantive reevaluation of market value.3 Oncor seeks to correct an objective error in the allocation of the agreed-upon market value to specific jurisdictions. Specifically, P&A unknowingly used transposed numbers for the total mileage of Sharyland’s 138kV and 345kV transmission lines. The allocation error “results from a mistake ... in writing ... or calculating,” so it falls squarely within the statutory definition of a clerical error. See Tex. Tax Code § 1.04(18)(A).

Party Submissions

The Program disclosed the following undisputed facts about Barina, all of which establish as true that she exploited Thrash’s estate, but the court of appeals notably—and erroneously—never engaged with them.

Party Submissions

To the contrary, there are at least two courts of appeals that have held that mutual mistake will not work to set aside an agreement filed under TEX. TAX CODE § 1.111(e). In a case in which Valerus, the owner, tried to set aside an agreement under § 1.111(e) on the basis of mutual mistake, the Thirteenth Court of Appeals held for the appraisal district, stating that Valerus’s argument that mistake, like fraud, should render the agreement void or voidable is misplaced pursuant to § 25.25(d), which allows for a correction to an error, or mistake, in valuation under certain circumstances and which states that an error may not be corrected when “the appraised value of the property was established as a result of a written agreement between the property owner or the owner’s agent and the appraisal district.” Valerus Field Sols., LP v. Matagorda Cty. Appraisal Dist., No. 13-17- 00520-CV, 2018 WL 4924752, at *4 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg, Oct. 11, 2018, no pet. ).

Party Submissions

On December 27, 2023—more than six weeks after Justice Devine filed his application—Relator sent a letter to Chairman Rinaldi challenging Justice Devine’s application. Ex.A. This letter argued that signatures on Justice Devine’s petition were invalid. Ex.A. Chairman Rinaldi did not respond to the challenge. Ex.D. Relator waited another week and then followed up on January 5, 2023, asking Chairman Rinaldi to respond within an “hour.” Ex.D. That same day, Relator filed this original emergency mandamus proceeding, skipping over the trial and appellate courts below. Relator asks this Court to compel Chairman Rinaldi to reject Justice Devine’s application and to remove Justice Devine from the list of certified candidates. Pet.14.

Party Submissions

However, contrary to the Claimant’s submissions, the first page of the report does not say that it was issued “in response to [the Respondent’s] request”. Rather, the report provides that it was issued further to “records of [payments], processed through [the MOPC], supposedly ready and awaiting [the Comptroller General’s] approval signature, but [that in the Comptroller General’s] review, irregularities and observations were identified that caught [the Comptroller General’s] attention”. Indeed, the quote invoked by the Claimant is not of the report, but of a communication of 2 August 2022 (i.e., two years after the issuance of the report), whereby the MOPC’s Finance Director forwards the Comptroller General’s report to the MOPC’s General Counsel seemingly pursuant to the latter’s request.

Legal Decisions

The evidence supports Justice Jewell’s conclusion that “Rafiei has several options to seek a reduced or deferred filing fee, and he has not shown that he has explored any of them.” Dissent, p. 7. Additionally, “Rafiei does not explain why the $7,000 initial filing fee for his $1 million claim will apply to an arbitral determination that is limited only to the unconscionability of the delegation clause.” Id.

Party Submissions

What this Court actually held in the context of a settlement agreement was: In the first instance, it is up to a local appraisal board to decide whether there has been more than one protest relating to the same property. While a board has no authority to change a settlement reached by a taxpayer and the chief appraiser, it certainly has the authority to take note of what property was included. (emphasis added). Matagorda at 131. Of course an appraisal review board, or a court for that matter, may examine a settlement agreement to discern its contents. How else would the examiner know what the agreement covered and whether it was precluded from doing what? What this Court actually did was affirm that the ARB could not change a settlement agreement.

Party Submissions

R, M : Claimants failed to demonstrate how requested documents are relevant to its case and material for the outcome of the proceedings. In particular, Claimants failed to explain how the documentation relating to the Environmental Impact Assessment Report is relevant to the question of Obnova's alleged rights or material to the Tribunal's determination of this question. This is a classic "fishing expedition", with Claimants simply casting about for any documents which might contain information they consider helpful in substantiating their (unsubstantiated) case. PCC : In any event, the requested documents are accessible to Obnova/Claimants.236 In other words, the requested documents are "in the public domain and equally and effectively available to both parties".237 Respondent, just like Claimants, must address mentioned authority in order to obtain documents in question.238 Therefore, it is equally burdensome for Respondent as it is for Claimants to obtain these documents and it is not justified encumbering Respondent with the task that can be performed by Claimants themselves.

Legal Decisions

A Participant shall specify an investment allocation for each of his Accounts in accordance with procedures established by the Committee. Allocation among the investment options must be designated in increments of one percent (1%). The Participant’s investment allocation will become effective on the same Business Day or, in the case of investment allocations received after a time specified by the Committee, the next Business Day.

Contract

Convention Article 48(1); Arbitration Rules 10, 11(4), 12, 27 and 35 5.1. Decisions of the Tribunal shall be taken by a majority of the Members of the Tribunal.

Legal Decisions

The heart of the prohibitive arbitration costs analysis resides in the penultimate paragraph and its accompanying footnote. There, the Court elucidates that “ If AutoNation insists on some payment from Shattenkirk, and Shattenkirk resists arbitration on that ground, only then will the court have to address the legal basis for Shattenkirk's obligation to pay and, if so, what amount. And only once that question is answered would an assessment of unconscionability be ripe for judicial consideration.” Id. In the accompanying footnote this Court further elaborates that if AutoNation did insist on some payment the case would would no longer be based on speculation “ but would be grounded on a factual record regarding Shattenkirk's actual obligations.” Id. at n.4.

Party Submissions

Jaguar ? And if the next case goes to the forthcoming Fifteenth Court of Appeals, how should it treat these authorities? This resulting confusion, too, merits review.

Party Submissions

A governmental defendant may challenge the existence of jurisdictional facts and support its argument with evidence. Alamo Heights Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Clark, 544 S.W.3d 755, 770 (Tex. 2018). In such instances, the analysis “mirrors that of a traditional summary judgment.” Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Lara, 625 S.W.3d 46, 52 (Tex. 2021) (quoting Mission Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, 372 S.W.3d 629, 634 (Tex. 2012)). When a governmental entity establishes the absence of a jurisdictional fact, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to raise a genuine issue of material fact for the jury to resolve; otherwise, the trial court should rule on the jurisdictional question as a matter of law. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 228. “[I]n evaluating the parties’ evidence, we take as true all evidence favorable to the nonmovant and indulge every reasonable inference and resolve any doubts in the nonmovant ’ s favor. ” City of San Antonio v. Maspero, 640 S.W.3d 523, 528 – 29 (Tex. 2022) (citing Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 228).

Party Submissions

ATE .—The amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to overpayments of special financial assistance under section 4262 of the Em-ployment Retirement Income Security Act (29 U.S.C. 1104) occurring before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.

Legislation

Compensation Deferral Agreements. A Participant may elect to defer Compensation by submitting a Compensation Deferral Agreement during the enrollment periods established by the Committee and in the manner specified by the Committee, but in any event, in accordance with Section 4.2. A Compensation Deferral Agreement that is not timely submitted with respect to a service period or component of Compensation shall be considered void and shall have no effect with respect to such service period or Compensation. The Committee may modify any Compensation Deferral Agreement prior to the date the election becomes irrevocable under the rules of Section 4.2 and may limit in its sole discretion the format, timing, components and other elements of any election to defer Compensation under this Article IV, subject to the limitations contained in the Plan.

Contract

It is unclear what Serbia is actually arguing on this issue. To begin with, Serbia argues that searching for responsive documents would put Serbia “ in the difficult position of searching both physical archives and 160 Article 5(2) of the Law on Free Access to the Information of Public Importance states that everyone has the right to have the information of public importance made available to them, by providing them with an access to a document containing information of public importance, the right to a copy of that document, and the right to have a copy of the document sent to him by mail, fax, by email or otherwise, upon their request. Article 2(1) defines information of public importance as information at the disposal of a State authority, created in the work or in connection with the work of the State authority, contained in a certain document, and refers to everything that the public has a legitimate interest in knowing. See Annex 9. 161 See above para 14. 162 State Attorney Office, representing Serbia in arbitration proceedings, is not in physical possession of the requested documents and thus has to address the relevant state authorities to obtain the documentation, just like Claimants are entitled to do. 163 E.g. Counter-Memorial, ¶ 23.

Legal Decisions

Christus Spohn Health System Corp. v. High and Rector , 658 S.W.3d 375 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi-Edinburg 2022, pet. denied).

Party Submissions

While Dr. Castillo and BSA raised many objections in the trial court, on appeal they challenged only the trial court ’s ruling on their causation and causation-related qualifications objections. Yet rather than limiting its review to the specific objections raised, the Seventh Court reviewed the causation objection de novo like it would an appeal from a summary judgment.

Party Submissions

The obligation to provide full protection and security requires each Party to provide the level of police protection required under customary international law.

Legal Decisions

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE This motion complies with the length limitations of TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i)(2)(D) because it has 4,498 words, excluding the parts exempted by TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i)(1).

Party Submissions

MVP’s filings alone were enough to obtain dismissal of the Texas action. No joinder by McCarthy and Travelers to “request dismissal” was required.

Party Submissions

T he tenant’s claim in Kemp did not fail because of anything that occurred in the forcible entry and retainer action itself. Thus, there is no conflict between the result in Kemp and Texas law on the division of authority between the district courts and the justice of the peace courts, or the proper dividing line between the matters that can be heard in a forcible entry and detainer action and those that must be heard in a constructive-eviction action. Thus, Kemp cannot be used to rationalize the conflicts created in this case between the basic statutory principles and the court of appeals’ untenable rule.

Party Submissions

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

Legal Decisions

In its mandamus petition, Sonic seeks relief from the trial court's October 23, 2003 orders of abatement. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. Sonic argues that the trial court's continued abatement of its contract claims is an abuse of discretion because there is no authority under the law to support continued abatement, and the orders violate the Open Courts provision of the Texas Constitution. See TEX. CONST. Art. I, § [**24] 13. In response, TMI asserts that the contract claims are dependent on a final decision in the judicial review case and judicial economy requires they remain abated pending a final ruling on the reimbursement issue.

Party Submissions

Aside from Oncor’s imaginative recasting of the facts in this matter making the error in question seem like entirely the mistake of Wilbarger CAD’s appraisal firm, Oncor suggests again the that agreement in question was really an agreement on total mileage across the state and that “a simple scrivener’s error in a single email resulted in over $7 million in additional tax liability across multiple Texas counties. Some $2.5 million is still at issue.” Petitioner’s Brief at 21. First, note that Oncor makes no cite to the record. The record does not support the argument. There is no “single email” that is the agreement before this Court. The “agreement” in question is found at Appendix A, I C.R. 18. It specifically agrees to values in Wilbarger County and Wilbarger County alone. It is signed by a representative of Sharyland and a representative of Wilbarger CAD. There is no apparent “mistake or failure in writing, copying, transcribing, entering or retrieving computer data, computing, or calculating” as is described in TEX. TAX CODE § 1.04(18)(A) as being the definition of a clerical error. If Oncor now believes the values to which it agreed were erroneous, that represent a “mistake in judgment” on its part which TEX. TAX CODE § 1.04(18)(B) excludes from the definition of clerical error.

Party Submissions

Neither side has conclusively proved its case with regard to the exclusive-remedy defense. The defense remains a question of fact to be decided by the jury.

Party Submissions

Respondent disputes that Obnova had property rights over the Dunavska Plots and argues that Obnova merely had a right to use the Dunavska Plots pursuant to several lease agreements. Respondent located a number of lease agreements concluded by Obnova and the City of Belgrade and Luka Beograd. However, Respondent was not able to locate the lease agreement from 15 March 1994, referred to in the Agreement on Provision and Use of Transhipment and Warehousing Services between Luka Beograd and Obnova of 25 January 2000 ( R-013 ). This also indicates that there might be other lease agreements that Obnova concluded but that Respondent was not able to locate.

Legal Decisions

Claimants note that Serbia’s objections relate to the lack of a specific time period and the fact that the request was not limited to documents related to the rezoning for residential purposes of the land plot located directly across the street from Obnova’s premises at Dunavska 17-19 and Dunavska 23. Claimants have limited the scope of the request accordingly. Requested documents are relevant and material As explained above, the requested documents will show what factors the Secretariat took into account when developing the 2015 DRP, especially the reasons for the decision to rezone for residential purposes a significantly larger land plot, owned by the City of Belgrade, which was already designated and used for traffic infrastructure, located directly across the street from Obnova’s premises at Dunavska 17 -19 and Dunavska 23.

Legal Decisions

To determine characterization of marital property, it is necessary to follow the flow of the presumptions at play: First, property possessed by either spouse during or upon dissolution of marriage is presumed to be community property. TEX. FAM. CODE §3.003(a). This is a rebuttable presumption and the party asserting separate property character maintains the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence through tracing separate property to the asset. TEX. FAM. CODE §3.003(b); Moroch v. Collins, 174 S.W.3d 849, 857 (Tex. App.— Dallas 2005, pet. denied).

Party Submissions

A unanimous court of appeals reversed, holding the reports lacked the fundamental explanation of how and why any actions or inactions of the BSA nurses caused H.W.’s injury. Baptist St. Anthony’s Hosp., 2022 WL 17324338, at *5. The court also held the reports were insufficient as to Dr. Castillo. Id. The court did not reach BSA’s qualifications, standard of care, or breach arguments.

Party Submissions

To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to improve the calculation and reduce the taxpayer cost of payment errors under the supplemental nutrition assistance program, and for other purposes.

Legislation

In Texas family law, the characterization of an asset as either community or separate property is determined by the character at the moment the party first has the right of claim to property. Welder v. Lambert, 91 Tex. 510, 44 S.W. 281 (1898). In determining whether the property is separate or community, the important question is when the property right was acquired rather than the date possession was acquired.

Party Submissions

The same analysis applies with equal force to the Program, a quintessential example of the issue-driven, advocacy-oriented journalism that is a standard part of the contemporary media diet in Texas and beyond. See Pet. Br. at 35 n.9 (noting that such reporting has been awarded for over 30 years). Even if the Program’s statements about the “crime of the 21st century” and “textbook guardianship abuse” could be understood to refer to Barina’s conduct rather than to the ingrained inequities of the institution of guardianship (as is actually the case), they are highly subjective, and thus unverifiable, characterizations uttered by individuals on one side of a heated national debate. See Dickson, 662 S.W.3d at 368. Dickinson compels dismissal here.

Party Submissions

In January, Texas Mutual answered the petition with a one-page general denial and prayed that "upon final hearing hereof, the Court enter judgment denying all relief requested by [the Martinez Family] and affirming the Decision & Order. .. rendered on October 13, 2020, finding that Pedro Jovany 'Bruno' Martinez sustained a compensable injury in the course and scope of his employment with Hellas Construction, Inc. on July 19, 2019." On March 10, 2021, the Martinez Family filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asking to dismiss its own suit for judicial review. The plea was predicated on two theories: 1) that DWC's final decision was void ab initio because "[w]ithout an actual claim for benefits, there can be no 'benefit dispute' for [DWC] to resolve, but only a hypothetical or contingent one," and 2) to the extent DWC ever had jurisdiction over the contested issue, the question was rendered moot when "the possibility of a claim [for benefits] and a dispute over such a claim was forever foreclosed" when the statute of limitations expired on the Martinez Family's right to file a claim for benefits.

Party Submissions

Affected Territory is. Bellpas’s lack of care in defining the Affected Territory was obvious to anyone that cared to look. LISD cared to look and CCISD did not.

Party Submissions

To prevent anticompetitive conduct through the use of pricing algorithms by prohibiting the use of pricing algorithms that can facilitate collusion through the use of nonpublic competitor data, creating an antitrust law enforcement audit tool, increasing transparency, and enforcing violations through the Sherman Act and Federal Trade Commission Act, and for other purposes.

Legislation

As of this date, Respondent has not fulfilled his duty to reject Devine’s application as required by law, forcing Relator to file this Petition. Exhibit D.

Party Submissions

Dunavska 17-19 and 23 were not part the land over which Luka Beograd was granted the right of use under the agreement submitted as R-060. These determinations are, in turn, dire ctly relevant and material to show that Serbia’s assertion that Obnova did not have any permanent rights to its premises at Dunavska 17-19 and Dunavska 23 because Luka Beograd had the right of use to these premises and Obnova only leased them, is false. DECISION Any and all documents included in the files for the proceedings that led to the issuance of the administrative decisions submitted by Serbia as exhibits R-037, R-038 and R-039 including, but not limited to ( i ) the requests, including all annexes, based on which the decisions were issued; and ( ii ) minutes from meetings referred to in these decisions.

Legal Decisions

Further, the Plan did not really give HSMiller much incentive to prosecute after the initial $6 million settlement with Diamond State: (i) HSMiller had to fund up front the fees, costs, and expenses related 24 to the litigation; and (ii) HSMiller would not receive any funds from the first $5 million recovered, it would receive only 30% of net proceeds between $5 million and $13 million, and 70% of net proceeds above $13 million. See Plan at 10 (Pet’rs’ Br. PDF at 142). Yet, HSMiller has pursued the case to a second malpractice trial even though the first trial ended in a take nothing judgment because of the Diamond State settlement and because the jury put 40% fault on Defterios and 10% fault on HSMiller.4 Newsom, Terry & Newsom v. Henry S. Miller Comm. Co ., No. 05-20-00379-CV, 2022 WL 3908542, *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 31, 2022, pet. filed). There is still a stick hanging over HSMiller’s head since the $6 million settlement did not fully cover the original $8.9 million judgment entered in 2009. Under the terms of the Plan and the litigation agreement, would HSMiller’s decision not to pursue a second malpractice trial have been considered “best efforts”? One also wonders who benefitted more from the second suit and maybe a third suit — HSMiller or its former adversary who gets 70% of the next $7 million?

Party Submissions

In ¶ 150 of Procedural Order No. 7, the majority of the Tribunal considered the ancillary claim to be “within the scope of consent of the Parties and within the jurisdiction of ICSID”. In ¶ 157 of the same Order, the majority also confirmed that the “consideration of the ancillary claim [would] be carried out respecting due process for both sides, including at a minimum further written submissions and evidence, and not based on the observations made to date”. Can any of these findings be revised in light of the arguments regarding the USMCA raised by Respondent and by Claimant subsequent to the issuance of Procedural Order No. 7?

Party Submissions

During the meeting on 3 March 2006, the Assembly adopted Decision No. 350-5/06-c, which constitutes the basis for the later adoption of the 2013 DRP.107 The requested documents are relevant and material to assess the factors that the City of Belgrade took into consideration when it decided to prepare a detailed regulation plan for the area including Obnova’s premises at Dunavska 17-19 and Dunavska 23 —including whether Serbia considered Obnova’s rights to its premises at Dunavska 17-19 and 23 and, if so, what was its contemporaneous understanding of the extent of these rights.

Legal Decisions

Id., at 535; Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 74.001(a)(10). This Court held that the claims related to professional or administrative services directly related to the healthcare of some patient and thus fell under the TMLA.

Party Submissions

In addition to the illegal assignment, another reason requires the Court to reverse and render: legally insufficient evidence supports the jury’s verdict on malpractice liability. HSMiller attempts to rebut two of the Lawyers’ no-evidence arguments — the timing of moving to designate Flaven as a responsible third party (RTP), and the strategy of stipulating to Defterios’s authority as an agent of HSMiller — but fails to point to any legally sufficient evidence to support 28 liability on either theory. Compare Resp’t’s Br. at 38-52, with Pet’rs’ Br. at 49-65. And still, the true parties in interest, the BNC Sellers, conveniently forget their stance below that Flaven was not a proper RTP.

Party Submissions

Respondent notes that in principle Claimants do not object to this request, “ with the exception of any documents created in preparation for and/or in connection with the conduct of the present arbitration”. However, Claimants' willingness to produce the documents is made uncertain and is overshadowed by the fact that they have raised the two grounds based on which they in fact object to produce.

Legal Decisions

Dr. Tappan also described how the BSA nurses caring for Ms. Walker — Sarah Beukelman, R.N., Kristen Yoder, R.N., and Kendra Smith, R.N. — breached the standard of care when they failed to apply a fetal scalp electrode early in the delivery (as required by BSA’s protocols and authorized by Dr. Castillo), failed to record “Montevideo units” at any time (which precluded an objective assessment of contraction strength), and failed to follow BSA’s oxytocin infusion protocol throughout H.W.’s delivery. App. 7, CR 669.

Party Submissions

Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840. The relator must also show that it has no other adequate remedy. Id. A remedy by appeal is not inadequate merely because the party may incur more expense and delay than in obtaining the writ. Id. at 842.

Party Submissions

R. App. P. 9.4(e) because it was prepared with Microsoft Word 365 software, using a proportionally spaced 12-point Times New Roman typeface.

Party Submissions