Datasets:

Equall

/

perplexity_evaluation

like 3

Follow

Equall 47

That same analysis applies here. By putting up signs reflecting its policy that day camps shall be denied access if a camp has too few staff, the City encouraged visitor’s reliance that its employees were monitoring the number of staff and would either provide adequate warning or deny access to the pool. See id.; SCR79. Crucially, by stating that failure to comply would result in denial of access, the City “attempted to control the conduct of visitors to” Buttercup pool. See id.; SCR79. As this Court has explained, “the party with the power of control or expulsion is in the best position to protect against the harm.” Exxon Corp. v. Tidwell, 867 S.W.2d 19, 21 (Tex. 1993).

Party Submissions

Rabbi Trust. A Participating Employer may, in its sole discretion, establish a grantor trust, commonly known as a rabbi trust, as a vehicle for accumulating assets to pay benefits under the Plan. Payments under the Plan may be paid from the general assets of the Participating Employer or from the assets of any such rabbi trust. Payment from any such source shall reduce the obligation owed to the Participant or Beneficiary under the Plan.

Contract

Scott A. Keller I certify that this brief contains 4,497, words excluding the portions of the brief exempted by Rule 9.4(i)(1).

Party Submissions

Each Participant may, pursuant to such procedures as the Committee may specify, designate one or more Beneficiaries in connection with the Plan. If a Participant is married or has a registered domestic partner and names someone other than his or her spouse or domestic partner, as applicable, as a primary Beneficiary with respect to any portion of his or her Accounts, spousal/partner consent shall be required to be provided in a form designated by the Committee, executed by such Participant’s spouse/partner and returned to the Committee. A Participant may change or revoke a Beneficiary designation by delivering to the Committee a new designation (or revocation). Any designation or revocation shall be effective only if it is received in proper form by the Committee. However, when so received, the designation or revocation shall be effective as of the date the notice is executed, but without prejudice to any Employer on account of any payment made before the change is recorded. The last effective designation received by the Committee shall supersede all prior designations. If a Participant dies without having effectively designated a Beneficiary, or if no Beneficiary survives the Participant, the Death Benefit shall be payable (i) to his or her surviving spouse/domestic partner, or (ii) if the Participant is not survived by his or her spouse/domestic partner, to his or her estate. A former spouse/domestic partner shall have no interest under the Plan, as Beneficiary or otherwise, unless the Participant designates such person as a Beneficiary after dissolution of the marriage/partnership, except to the extent provided under the terms of a domestic relations order as described in Code Section 414(p)(1)(B).

Contract

PCC : The requested documents must be in Obnova’s, i.e., Claimants’ possession, custody or control since these agreements were concluded by Obnova. In any event, Agreement no. 1819 dated 16 March 2006 has already been provided as exhibit R-016. Respondent has already conducted a reasonable search and has not located any other lease agreements concluded between Serbia or Luka Beograd on one side and Obnova on other side.

Legal Decisions

The Lawyers have already been through two malpractice trials; they should not be required to go through another one — and they question whether at this point any trial could occur unaffected by collusion and position shifting. After all, the BNC Sellers and their lawyers weren’t the only ones who shifted positions. So did HSMiller. In the original trial its representatives fully supported its agent Defterios and not once suggested to the Lawyers that it was concerned that he was lying, which would have triggered an inquiry into whether separate counsel should be hired.

Party Submissions

Your attention is drawn to the particular features of those waters, namely a water column that falls under the international regime of the high seas as reflected in Part VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), on the one hand, but, at the same time, waters superjacent to the extended continental shelves of Norway and the Russian Federation, which fall under part VI of UNCLOS, on the other.

Legal Decisions

It follows from this classification of snow crab as “sedentary species” that only the relevant coastal States, i.e. Norway and the Russian Federation, are entitled to exploit (i.e. to harvest) it by virtue of their sovereign rights under the continental shelf regime of UNCLOS and that, as spelled out in Article 77(2) of UNCLOS, no other state is able to do so unless it has obtained the coastal State’s explicit consent. Moreover, the coastal State’s rights are exclusive in a sense that if the coastal State does not explore the continental shelf or exploit its natural resources, no one may undertake any such activities without the express consent of the coastal state.

Legal Decisions

To require the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to establish a pilot program to identify and refer veterans for potential employment with Federal land management agencies, and for other purposes.

Legislation

See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 55.02, § 3(a) (amended 2011) ("...an agency protesting the expunction may appeal....). Thus, the County's standing is not the issue.

Party Submissions

When the Legislature created Chapter 91, it left parties the freedom of contract to opt entirely out of that scheme in favor of whatever terms parties agreed to live by. The parties did so here. As a result, their agreement should be construed in light of the common-law understanding that has prevailed since Crider, Roane, and Lewis.

Party Submissions

This was the background against which Congress enacted § 16. And—importantly— courts understood stays as discretionary with respect to interlocutory appeals concerning arbitrability. Before Congress enacted § 16, parties brought interlocutory arbitrability appeals under other sources of appellate jurisdiction, and courts treated stays as discretionary, not mandatory. 2 Yet, according to the majority, Congress sought to displace that common understanding when it enacted § 16 —without saying anything at all about stays pending appeal.

Party Submissions

McCarthy's tools or equipment, Subcontractor shall do so at its sole risk and as provided in Paragraph 5.1 hereof shall defend, indemnify and hold McCarthy and the others harmless, as required in Paragraph 5.1 hereof, from any claims (including any claims by or against McCarthy relating to any McCarthy personnel who are used to operate the tools and/or equipment and including any claims against McCarthy by others that McCarthy is obligated to indemnify), loss, damage and/or expenses, including but not limited to attorney's fee and court costs, resulting from the use of such tools and equipment by Subcontractor, regardless of whether or not arising from the use or being caused in part by McCarthy’s negligence or whether McCarthy operated such tools and equipment for Subcontractor.

Party Submissions

But of these 20,000+ shares granted, only approximately 6,000 shares were found to be community property and divided in the decree. CR:471,474. This meant that over 16,000 shares were deemed to be Heath ’s separate property, and not divided, when they should have been. Based on the recent share price of $118, this deprived the community of over $1 million. This was wrong, and it should have been presented to a jury to determine the community interest, before division. of a jury trial that is contrary to existing law. But the justification for the denial of a jury trial is even more alarming in the Panel’s opinion regarding waiver: “Appellant did not object, did not indicate that appellee had failed to disclose any separate property interest to be decided at trial, and did not bring up her jury request.” Opinion at 5. Here, even though Kacey had perfected a jury request that had been denied on the representation that there were no separate property claims, the Panel’s Opinio n now stands as authority that a jury right can be denied by evidence at the end of trial. That is dangerous.

Party Submissions

Whereas the US argues that the claims are “inchoate” and therefore not actionable under the BIT, the Claimants maintain that their BIT claims are ripe for resolution.

Legal Decisions

To amend the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to permit leave for bone marrow or blood stem cell donation, and for other purposes.

Legislation

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

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

Legal Decisions

The Benefits Subsidy will be paid to the Participant in one-lump sum payment on the Company payday specified in the Participant’s Agreement, provided that MSC had previously received from such Participant a fully executed Agreement and any revocation period applicable to the Agreement expired without revocation by the Participant.

Contract

Memorial at para. 2. As Claimants have observed, Annex 14 C provides that an investment is a legacy investment only if it (1) existed when NAFTA was in force and (2) remained in existence when USMCA entered into force.

Legal Decisions

Westwood unquestionably was the proper party to bring claims for constructive eviction and breach of contract because it was the party to the lease. (16RR36 (PX7); 10RR273-74) And Westwood was the entity that suffered the brunt of Respondents’ unlawful interference with its right to possess the premises. That made it the proper party to bring claims for breach of contract and constructive eviction. By contrast, Westwood Motors was never a party to this case.

Party Submissions

To include water supply and water conservation as a primary mission of the Corps of Engineers in planning, designing, constructing, modifying, operating, and maintaining water resources development projects, and for other purposes.

Legislation

In further objecting to the Amarillo Court’s opinion, the Walkers claim the Court “reviewed the causation objection de novo like it would an appeal from a summary judgment.” (Pet. Br. at 36-39). They suggest comparing the lower court’s opinion with Wright’s holding, which reversed the court of appeals because the trial court “could have reasonably determined” the expert’s report was deficient. (Pet. Br. at 37). Again, the Amarillo Court specifically said otherwise.

Party Submissions

There is similarly no explanation of causation with respect to the remaining alleged faults regarding the administration of medication. No expert explained how or why administration or lack of administration of any drug at any point in time contributed to the alleged prolonged second stage labor and fetal heart rate abnormalities. There is no explanation of whether H.W. could have or would have been delivered sooner had different medications been given. The reader is simply left to fill in the blanks as to why different medication administration would have made a difference. Even inferring that there is a correlation between Pitocin and contraction strength, missing was any explanation linking contractions to the alleged asphyxia or stroke. As the lower court noted, it remained a mystery “how or why the variable heart rates experienced by [H.W.] before, during, or after the contractions could or would cause asphyxia in general or to a level sufficient to result in an infarction.” Id. at *5.

Party Submissions

In performing these duties, the parenting facilitator shall comply with the standard of care that applies to the parenting facilitator's professional license.

Party Submissions

Decision of the First Municipality Court in Belgrade no. I. n. 6447/64 dated 14 October 1964 referred in Articles 1, 3 and 4 of the agreement submitted by Serbia as its exhibit R-009, together with the complete file for the proceedings in which the decision was issued.

Legal Decisions

To amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to reduce the production and use of certain single-use plastic products and packaging, to improve the responsibility of producers in the design, collection, reuse, recycling, and disposal of consumer products and packaging, to prevent pollution from consumer products and packaging from entering into animal and human food chains and waterways, and for other purposes.

Legislation

McCarthy within ten (10) days after receipt by Subcontractor of this Agreement scheduling information, including durations, planned crew sizes, planned procurement dates, planned submission dates of required shop drawings, product data and samples for Subcontractor's Work, (including the activities of its subcontractors, vendors and suppliers). Based upon this information and similar such data from the other Subcontractors, McCarthy shall prepare the schedule of the Work (“Project Schedule”) establishing the sequence and time requirements of all work activities. McCarthy, as may be necessary, may revise such Project Schedule with the cooperation of Subcontractor as the Work progresses. Subcontractor acknowledges that revisions may be made in such Project Schedule and agrees to make no claim for acceleration or delay by reason of such revisions so long as such revisions are of the type normally experienced in Work of this scope and complexity. In the event Subcontractor is unable to maintain progress in accordance with the Project Schedule by reason of events for which extensions of time are permitted in the Contract Documents, Subcontractor's time for completion shall be extended for a reasonable, mutually agreed upon time, provided that a time extension is given by the Owner to McCarthy, and further, provided that notification of delay is given as provided herein. This time extension shall be the sole remedy for such delays. Subcontractor shall not be entitled to recover damages from McCarthy for any delays not solely caused by McCarthy and subject to the provisions of this Paragraph 3.1 if McCarthy is not fully compensated by the Owner.

Party Submissions

HN10 [ ] Statute of Limitations, Time Limitations The suit for judicial review will result in a judgment that will, indeed, have a practical legal effect on the controversy. Moreover, while the statute of limitations governing a claim for death benefits generally runs on the one-year anniversary of the date of the employee's death. Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 409.007(a). The passing of that anniversary is not an absolute bar to asserting such a claim. Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 409.007(a), (b)(2). Failure to file in the time required bars the claim unless good cause exists for the failure to file a claim.

Party Submissions

Disability Benefit. Disability Benefit means the benefit payable under the Plan upon the Participant’s Disability, as provided under Section 6.1 of the Plan.

Contract

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that paraprofessionals and education support staff should have fair compensation, benefits, and working conditions.

Legislation

To require the Secretary of Agriculture to convey certain National Forest System land in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest to Tony’s Wabeno Redi-Mix, LLC, and for other purposes.

Legislation

WHEREAS: It is imperative that the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources and the Ministry of Public Health intervene in the recovery of the environmental and health situation of the Province of Santo Domingo and the National District as soon as possible by adopting the appropriate environmental and health measures since the degree of the impact caused by the solid waste of this landfill is quite high and can become a cluster for the outbreak of various diseases and pose a serious health problem for the entire population.

Legal Decisions

The issue of the general exemption as regards any action taken to protect a State’s own national security interests 217. Article XVII(2) of Annex III of the Treaty, relied upon by Respondent, sets forth: ARTICLE XVII(2) GENERAL EXEMPTIONS This Agreement shall not preclude the application by either Party of measures necessary for the protection of its own national security interests.

Legal Decisions

These documents were contained in hardcopy or electronic files on computers, phones, hard drives and/or USB keys belonging to the Claimant that were seized by the Respondent either during his arrestation or his detention and not returned to the Claimant since then. The requested information is therefore within the possession of the relevant Qatari governmental entities, agencies or instrumentalities, and therefore the Respondent is in a position to access without undue burden.

Legal Decisions

Rob Condon is a Texas entrepreneur, who has developed valuable ideas and successful companies based on his knowledge of the energy business. CR454. Alpesh Kadakia is a California-based investor (CR462) who, with his brother Ruchir,2 leveraged his interest in Gladieux Energy LLC into a fiduciary relationship with CKC Partners, LLC. Without disclosing his actions to Condon, Alpesh usurped corporate opportunities and diverted corporate assets—unlawful self- dealing—that transferred the value of CKC Partners to companies controlled by the Kadakia brothers. CR463-65.

Party Submissions

When the Court has discussed a violation of an applicable legal standard and an RTP designation, the “applicable legal standard” involved either strictly common law duties arising in tort or statutory duties that codified common law tort precepts. For example, in 26 Nabors Well Services, Ltd. v. Romero, the Court held that the then current version of Chapter 33 required courts to submit the contributory negligence of car passengers who claim damages but fail to wear a seat belt. 456 S.W.3d 553, 561-62 (Tex. 2015). The Court reached that conclusion based on the plain language of Chapter 33, on the role of seat belts in reducing injuries, and the criminal penalties associated with not wearing a seat belt. Id. at 564-65.

Party Submissions

The Opinion below held that the language “any and all obligations of the Guarantor. .. shall terminate upon” a termination-triggering event not only terminated the guaranty as an ongoing matter but also vitiated the guarantor’s prior breach of the agreement and all past-due amounts that were already the subject of pending litigation. (Slip Op. 18.) The holding effectively renders any guaranty a nullity.

Party Submissions

As the tribunal in Commerce Group observed, the waiver provision permits other concurrent or parallel domestic proceedings where claims relating to different measures at issue in such proceedings are “separate and distinct” and the measures can be “teased apart.” 82 106. In this case, the fact that the two proceedings are “separate and distinct” has already been confirmed by the Tribunal, as the measures that are being challenged in each of the two arbitrations are not the same. There is therefore no need for the “teasing apart” of the “enforcement measures” (before this Tribunal) from the “entitlement measures” (for resolution before the VAT Tribunal). However, the position taken by the U.S. Government in Finely Resources, Inc. and Others v. Mexico confirms that a finding of breach of waivers provided requires careful analysis and any determination made should consider other possible outcomes that permit the ongoing arbitration to continue.

Party Submissions

In short, the bankruptcy proceedings do not preempt action by this Court. No specific laws are at issue here as in Federal Mogul. The Bankruptcy Court was not asked to approve a Plan that would require collusion and position shifting in later litigation outside of bankruptcy. A ruling by this Court that HSMiller and its former opponent cannot collude and switch legal positions in no way interferes with the Bankruptcy Court’s order approving a plan that gave no hint of future collusion and position shifting. And such a ruling is consistent with the Court’s decision in Browning v. Prostok, 19 in which the party was attempting to relitigate issues at the core of the bankruptcy. 165 S.W.3dd 336, 336, 339-40 (Tex. 2008).

Party Submissions

The trial court was well within its discretion to order matters in the litigation so that jurisdictional issues could be settled as soon as practicable. The Texas Supreme Court has decl ared its “adher[ence] to the fundamental precept that a court must not proceed on the merits of a case until legitimate challenges to its jurisdiction have been decided. ” Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 228.

Party Submissions

To make improvements to the child tax credit, to provide tax incentives to promote economic growth, to provide special rules for the taxation of certain residents of Tai-wan with income from sources within the United States, to provide tax relief with respect to certain Federal disasters, to make improvements to the low-income housing tax credit, and for other purposes.

Legislation

The stability of the legal and business environment is directly linked to the investor’s justified expectations. The Tribunal acknowledges that such expectations are an important element of fair and equitable treatment. At the same time, it is mindful of their limitations. To be protected, the investor’s expectations must be legitimate and reasonable at the time when 718 NAFTA Free Trade Commission, Notes of Interpretation of Certain Chapter 11 Provisions, 31 July 2001 (AL RA-302).

Legal Decisions

For the avoidance of doubt, Claimant notes that its readiness to limit its request in this matter is not to be construed as an acceptance of all of Respondent’s objections regarding the Request. Further the Claimant herein reserves its right to request the production of any such Documents at a later stage after the Respondent has had the opportunity to respond to the allegations.

Legal Decisions

Jacob Gaslin on behalf of Adam Schiffer Bar No. 17745763 [email protected] Envelope ID: 80549147 Filing Code Description: Brief on the Merits (all briefs) Filing Description: Real Parties in Interest McCarthy Building Companies, Inc.'s & Travelers Casualty and Surety Company's Brief on the Merits Status as of 10/12/2023 5:13 PM CST MVP, a joint venture between Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. and an affiliate of Valero Energy Corporation, is a refined-products terminalling company and the owner and operator of a marine terminal located along the Houston Ship Channel. McCarthy Building Companies, Inc. is a construction company. On April 23, 2018, MVP and McCarthy entered into the Major Construction Contract (“MCC”), under which McCarthy agreed to furnish construction and related services for MVP’s Pasadena Terminal Phase 2 Project (the “Project”) on the Houston Ship Channel. The Project included constructing new docks and dredging the basin of the new marine terminal to allow refinery tankers and other large vessels to dock at the terminal.

Party Submissions

Petitioner UTRGV respectfully requests this Court grant review, reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and render judgment dismissing Respondent’s claims with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. UTRGV prays for all other relief to which it may be entitled.

Party Submissions

Texas Bar No. 24007951 [email protected] Maxor Building 320 S. Polk, Suite 400 Amarillo, Texas 79101 (806) 242-0152 ATTORNEYS FOR I hereby certify that we prepared this Brief using Microsoft Word 2016, which indicated that the total word count (exclusive of those items listed in rule 9.4(i)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, as amended) is 7,285 words.

Party Submissions

Archives originated from USTR or the State Department) that contain information regarding the U.S. position in the NAFTA renegotiation/USMCA negotiation and do not contain “any reference to positions of other parties or agreed text.” • Claimants request that the Tribunal order Respondent to produce responsive documents regarding (i) the positions of Canada or Mexico and (ii) “agreed text” with respect to paragraph 1 of Annex 14-C of USMCA November 27, 2023. Alternatively, Claimants request that the Tribunal order Respondent in good faith, to obtain Canada’s and Mexico’s consent to produce responsive documents regarding (i) the positions of Canada and Mexico and (ii) “agreed text” with respect to paragraph 1 of Annex 14-C of USMCA.

Legal Decisions

The United States objects to Request No. 3.g for the same reasons stated above with respect to Request No. 3.a.

Legal Decisions

Two causes are before us, both stemming from a workers' compensation case in which a former employee of Sonic Systems International, Inc., a Texas corporation, was injured on the job while working in Alabama. Texas Mutual Insurance Co. ("TMI"), Sonic's workers' compensation carrier, denied coverage for the injury, and Sonic filed suit against TMI for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and deceptive trade practices claims (the "contract claims"). Subsequently, Sonic also sought reimbursement under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act ("TWCA") for voluntary payments it made to the injured employee. In October 2003, Sonic's contract claims were abated pending a final resolution of the reimbursement claim.

Party Submissions

Rosenthal was a defamation-by-gist case concerning an article that was solely about the plaintiff herself and found to be not about a matter of public concern.4 The Program at issue here, on the other hand, is not solely, or even primarily, about Barina, but rather about a grave issue of public interest—whether the country’s guardianship system, including the courts, authorizes the financial exploitation of its wards.5 At the heart of Barina’s argument and the appellate court’s decision lies the misguided premise that everything said in the Program, even if it is about a ward in Massachusetts or is an expert opinion unrelated to Thrash, specifically defames Barina. As a matter of law, Texas courts reject such claims where a publication mentions a defamation plaintiff only within a “larger context.” Tatum at 628. A trio of Texas Supreme Court cases has made this clear.

Party Submissions

Claimants allege that they expected to be able to develop Obnova's premises for residential and commercial purposes, based on the 2003 RP. Claimants' case is that the 2013 DRP breached the Cyprus-Serbia BIT because it changed this designation to the bus loop. At the same time, Claimants admit that already in 2008 Obnova heard about the City of Belgrade's idea to designate the Dunavska Plots for the bus loop and wrote a letter to the City asking for relocation of the bus loop.

Legal Decisions

Both parties rely on In re Luby's Cafeterias, Inc., 979 S.W.2d 813 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, orig. proceeding), to support their positions. In Luby's, we recognized the Commission's exclusive jurisdiction over compensability. In that case, a Luby's employee filed a workers' compensation claim after she was assaulted by a fellow employee. Id. at 814. The carrier originally denied the claim on the grounds the employee did not sustain a compensable injury but later reopened the claim at the employer's urging after new information was revealed.

Party Submissions

The Supreme Court, Justice Kavanaugh, held that district court must stay its proceedings while an interlocutory appeal on the issue of arbitrability is ongoing; abrogating Britton v. Co-op Banking Group, 916 F. 2d 1405 and Weingarten Realty Investors v. Miller, 661 F.3d 904.

Party Submissions

At trial, HSMiller presented no evidence on the objective prong of gross negligence. Here, HSMiller asserts little argument about the RTP decision itself. It focusses instead on evidence it argues shows the “magnitude” of risk (potential verdict exposure) HSMiller faced in the underlying litigation, Resp. Br. at 56, and evidence about Terry’s 37 beliefs about Defterios’s likelihood of fraud liability.7 Resp’t’s Br. at 57. This is not evidence of the objective prong of gross negligence, which looks to the specific alleged acts or omissions from the actor’s perspective “at the time” of the alleged act or omission. E.g., Waldrip, 380 S.W.3d at 137.

Party Submissions

Synopsis Representatives of estate of deceased employee electrocuted while washing his car at employer's premises sued employer for negligence. The 127th District Court, Harris County, Sharolyn Wood, J., denied employer's motion to abate until related appeal to another court in workers' compensation action was decided, and employer filed petition for writ of mandamus and a request for temporary relief. The Court of Appeals, Eva M. Guzman, J., held that: (1) court in county in which workers' compensation carrier was seeking judicial relief from appeals panel decision had exclusive jurisdiction over issue of whether employee's death occurred during the course and scope of employment; (2) trial court abused its discretion in refusing to abate negligence action; (3) employer did not have an adequate remedy by appeal from trial court's abuse of discretion; and (4) employer could not waive mandamus relief.

Party Submissions

Lastly, if the evidence on a point is more than a scintilla of evidence to overcome the legal sufficiency standard but less than that required for factual sufficiency, the proper remedy is to remand for a new trial as opposed to render the court of appeals’ own judgment.

Party Submissions

That does not mean experts must use the magic words “proximate cause” or “foreseeability”; but, an expert must explain, factually, how proximate cause will be proven. Columbia Valley Healthcare Sys., L.P. v. Zamarripa, 526 S.W.3d 453, 460 (Tex. 2017). Only when an expert addresses both aspects of proximate cause— foreseeability and cause in fact—will a report be deemed acceptable. Id.

Party Submissions

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to enhance the paid family and medical leave credit, and for other purposes.

Legislation

Dr. Null does not have experience or training in obstetrics or gynecology or labor and delivery. He does not even purport to know the standard of care appliable to the BSA nurses. (CR.804-05) He is not actively practicing health care in these areas. (CR.807) Any opinion on these topics is outside his area of expertise. The Walkers do not argue otherwise.

Party Submissions

B, U : The request is unduly and overly broad and burdensome as it covers a period of no less than 59 years. Respondent cannot reasonably be requested to produce all existing aerial and/or satellite photos from this time period extending almost to half century that relate to the Dunavska Plots. In the same vein, it would be unreasonably burdensome to require Respondent to identify other authorities, not listed in Claimants' 70 Counter-Memorial, ¶ 63.

Legal Decisions

Appellants' brief failed to include several significant facts. On October 8, 2015, at about 6:47 a.m., Gernal Randolph Mann (“Mann”), an employee of Berry *4 Contracting, L.P., d/b/a Bay LTD. (“Bay”), was a pedestrian traveling northbound on Up River Road. 2 Juan Tomas Hernandez Alvarez (“Alvarez”), another employee of Bay, was the operator of a motor vehicle traveling westbound on Up River Road, and drove his motor vehicle into and collided with the person of Mann. 3 Bay owned the motor vehicle operated by Alvarez. 4 At the time of the accident, Bay had assigned Mann to a project taking place at Valero's BERRY CONTRACTING, L.P., d/b/a Bay Ltd. And Juan..., 2017 WL 1806766...

Party Submissions

The other policy was procured by Bay for the general protection of its employees (the “standard policy”). When Bay signed the ROCIP policy, it also executed a document which excluded any work at the refinery from the scope of its standard policy. Thus, according to Bay, any work-related injury to a Bay employee was to be covered under either Valero's ROCIP policy or Bay's standard policy, but not both. Following Mann's injury, Bay submitted notice to the carriers for both policies. Both denied coverage. The agent for the standard-policy carrier asserted that Mann was injured at the refinery, and therefore his injuries were covered by Valero's ROCIP policy and excluded from Bay's standard policy. The agent for the ROCIP carrier took the position that Mann was not in the course and scope of his employment when he was injured, and therefore his injuries were not compensable under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act (“the Act”).

Party Submissions

The trial court determined that § 1.111(e) barred any subsequent challenge to the agreement between Oncor and the Appraisal District, and dismissed the action. Oncor appealed this decision to the Third Court of Appeals, which held, inter alia, that the trial court’s order of dismissal did not include the ARB. It also held that an agreement entered into under §§1.111(e) is voidable on the common law defense of mutual mistake. The Court of Appeals did not discuss any of the Appraisal Review Board’s other jurisdictional pleadings, though they were briefed. This Petition for Review challenges the Court of Appeals’ determination that the ARB was not a proper party to the appeal, and asks this Court to remand the matter to the appellate court for such determination, or in the alternative to decide these jurisdictional issues itself.

Party Submissions

His observations further bolster the argument of unconscionability. Joeckel notes that most arbitration agreements he encounters do not burden the plaintiff with costs beyond the initial filing fee. When they do, they are often challenged as unconscionable. This insight strengthens Rafiei's position, emphasizing the atypical and unconscionable nature of the agreement at hand.

Party Submissions

No doubt this Court has time and again “demonstrated its own willingness and ability to act with the same ‘unusual dispatch’ we ask of parties and counsel in such matters.” In re Self, 652, S.W.3d 829, 830 (Tex. 2022) (per curiam). But the Court first requires the parties to act as quickly as possible—particularly in the election context, where “[m]andamus generally ‘aids the diligent and not those who slumber on their rights.’” Id. (quoting Rivercenter Assocs. v. Rivera, 858 S.W.2d 366, 367 (Tex. 1993)). “Never is adherence to that general rule more important than when candidates seek, at a late hour, to constrain the choices available to voters in an election.” Id. ; see also In re Anthony, 642 S.W.3d at 589.

Party Submissions

Republic of Serbia 12 would be open to considering an application (preferably on agreed terms) for an extension of time for the production of documents and associated consequential revisions to the post-document production schedule.

Legal Decisions

In cases where the eligibility of an applicant was not confirmed, the aid shall be recovered and sanctions applied in accordance with Article 59(1) of Regulation (EU) 2021/2116.

Legislation

See id. § 141.5 (Tex. Dep't of Ins., Div. of Workers' Comp., Description of the Benefit Review Process). By referring to "issues" rather than "claims," these regulations suggest that a pending claim might not be a necessary predicate to invoke the agency's jurisdiction over the dispute. In addition, the agency has now considered this very question, in the context of this dispute, and has made a formal determination, see Texas Citizens, 336 S.W.3d at 625 (citing United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 229-30, 121 S. Ct. 2164, 150 L. Ed. 2d 292 (2001) ), that it is jurisdictionally irrelevant that the Martinez Family chose not to file a claim. Because this interpretation is reasonable and does not conflict with the plain language of the statute, we will defer to the agency's interpretation. Id. at 624. Accordingly, we conclude that DWC had exclusive jurisdiction to resolve any question regarding Bruno's eligibility for benefits, including the dispute over his employment status.

Party Submissions

PCC : The requested documents are accessible to Obnova/Claimants who can obtain the requested documents from the Secretariat for Urban Planning and Construction in accordance with the applicable regulations.256 In other words, the requested documents are "in the public domain and equally and effectively available to both parties".257 Respondent, just like Claimants, must address the Secretariat in order to obtain documents in question.258 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. B, U : The request is overly broad as Claimants seek "any and all" documents related to the preparation of the 2015 DRP in general, without specifying the time frame, and not only those addressing the reasons for rezoning the land plot located across the street from Dunavska 17-19 and 23 or addressing Obnova's alleged property rights. As a result, production of the requested documents would be unreasonably burdensome for.

Legal Decisions

Fleming Defendants have argued extensively that if a litigant makes an agreement with the court relating to collateral estoppel, express or implied, then the litigant is bound by that agreement. Fleming Defendants have battered everyone over the head with this argument since they first asserted it in their Motion for Rehearing to the 14th Court of Appeals in December 2021.

Party Submissions

Council, Texas banks held a total of $85,747,200 in commercial and industrial loans as well as $44,551,410 in construction and development real estate loans at that time.

Party Submissions

Enacted by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 269 (H.B. 752), § 1, effective September 1, 1993; am. Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1456 (H.B. 2600), art. 16, § 16.01, effective June 17, 2001; am. Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 265 (H.B. 7), art. 3, § 3.031, effective September 1, 2005; am. Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., ch. 1108 (S.B. 1714), § 1, effective September 1, 2011.

Party Submissions

Judge Amy Clark Meach um 9/17/2021 2:14 PM This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Party Submissions

Because neither the statute nor any background law states that an interlocutory appeal over arbitrability triggers a mandatory general stay of trial court proceedings, the majority opinion resorts to spinning such a rule from a single sentence in Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 103 S.Ct. 400, 74 L.Ed.2d 225 (1982) (per curiam). But Griggs expresses a far narrower principle, and is thus insufficient to support the majority's mandatory-general-stay rule.

Party Submissions

The majority's concern is even weaker when a stay would harm the opposing party and the public interest much more than it would protect the party seeking arbitration. Take, for example, a case in which crucial evidence would be lost if discovery is delayed. Say a witness is on her deathbed. Under the majority's rule, if an interlocutory arbitrability appeal under § 16(a) is pending, discovery must be stayed *758 and the evidence must be lost. That is apparently so even if the parties agree they wish to proceed with discovery.

Party Submissions

Petitioners request the Court to grant their petition for review, reverse the court of appeals’ opinion and remand for further proceedings. The Petitioners additionally request all other relief to which they may be entitled.

Party Submissions

The mutual covenants only include a $750 per month payment allocated to the $175,000.00 constitutional lien. (2CR916). In exchange, Bay agreed to forebear foreclosure on the constitutional lien and to halt all other collection activities. (Id.). All payments are to be allocated to the constitutional lien first, but there is no requirement to continue paying beyond paying off the constitutional lien. (Id.). The forbearance agreement states: If timely made and received, all payments received shall be first applied to the amounts owed on the constructive trust and constitutional lien on the homestead of Mendietta; if timely made and received and if and when the amounts owed on the constructive trust and constitutional lien portion of the Final Judgment are paid and if no other event of default listed above has occurred, Bay, Ltd. shall release the constructive trust and constitutional lien. Otherwise, all payments received shall be applied to the other amounts owed in the Final Judgment. Nothing in this Agreement shall restrict Mendietta from paying any and all amounts owed under the terms of this Agreement.

Party Submissions

Berry Contracting, L.P. v. Mann, 549 S.W.3d 314 (2018) © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 14 to resolve compensation claims presented to it....”); In re Tyler Asphalt & Gravel Co., Inc., 107 S.W.3d 832, 839 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, orig. proceeding) (requiring abatement of a suit in district court in deference to a second proceeding that stemmed from the Division). 5 A premises owner (here, Valero) may qualify as a general contractor. See Entergy Gulf States, Inc.

Party Submissions

The Walkers also argue that the Amarillo Court took things a step further by requiring “proof that each individual act of each provider was a substantial factor contributing to the outcome.” (Br. at 26) This, again, does not fairly describe what the court did. The court necessarily analyzed the various alleged breaches as to each defendant, ultimately concluding that none were causally linked to the harm. Baptist St. Anthony’s Hosp., 2022 WL 17324338, at *5. The analysis was a logical method to determine if any of the alleged faults were causally linked to the harm. It is hard to understand how the court could have determined whether causation was stated without looking at the breaches and determining if any were connected to the injury. See Certified EMS, Inc. v. Potts, 392 S.W.3d 625, 630-31 (Tex. 2013) (requiring a report to cover at least one alleged liability theory to make the defendant aware of the conduct that is at issue).

Party Submissions

Respondent argues that Claimants' investment does not deserve protection as it was not made in good faith, in particular because the investment dispute was foreseeable at the time of the alleged investment of Mr Broshko in November 2017. Mr Broshko acted as a liaison to Mr Rand from as early as 2012 and must have been aware of Obnova's situation, including the adoption of the 2013 DRP pre-dating both the entry into force of the Canada-Serbia BIT and Mr Broshko's alleged investment, the Land Directorate's announcement of the planned demolition of the Objects on 24 February 2016, and Obnova's court proceedings to establish its ownership rights in respect of Dunavska 17-19, initiated in November 2016, and legalization requests, still pending in 2017. Respondent also disputes the actual rights held by Obnova and the possibility of conversion or Obnova's entitlement to any compensation.

Legal Decisions

On June 12, 2020, Yellowfin filed this lawsuit seeking judgment for $21,023.13 and an award of its fees and costs. CR2:4-18. This amount represents the outstanding principal balance as of June 1, 2019, assuming all prior payments had been timely made. CR2:40-41 (⁋4).

Party Submissions

Furthermore, OSINERGMIN did not respect its obligation to publish the drafts of its resolutions in advance in order to obtain comments from the public. Respondent’s defense that Peruvian law permitted OSINERGMIN to skip that step in an urgent situation like the one it was facing – i.e. the imminent submission of its Declared Costs by Kallpa GSA509 is not convincing. OSINERGMIN had had more than two years to clarify the meaning of PR-22 (which had been published on March 29, 2014). Respondent provides no explanation as to why it waited until June 2016, just before Kallpa GSA was due to file its annual Declared Costs, to do so.

Legal Decisions

The Walkers also criticize the Amarillo Court’s citation to Wright, 79 S.W.3d at 52, for the proposition that Dr. Tappan’s opinion amounted to nothing more than that there was a “mere possibility” that Dr. Castillo’s actions and H.W.’s injuries are related. (Pet. Br. at 31). They note that this Court faulted the Wright experts for saying only that the patient there possibly had a chance at a better outcome, but the expert’s report did not explain the connection between the provider’s conduct and the patient’s injury. ( Id. ). That is precisely the problem with Dr. Null’s opinion.

Party Submissions

The requested documents are relevant and material to the outcome of the dispute as they should demonstrate where Coropi's management and control were exercised. i.e. whether Coropi has seat in Cyprus.

Legal Decisions

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act with respect to the scope of national pollutant discharge elimination system permit discharge authorizations and the expression of effluent limitations, and for other purposes.

Legislation

Based on the foregoing, Petitioner Appraisal Review Board respectfully request that this Court either with or without oral argument reverse the Third Court of Appeals and uphold the dismissal of this case by the Trial Court.

Party Submissions

The Delapenas’ proposed claim — that the City created an unsafe condition by placing two, instead of three, lifeguard stands around the pool — is internally inconsistent with the idea that the City was consciously indifferent to the safety of swimmers. At most, the claim concerns an alleged error in judgment, which cannot support a finding of gross negligence. See Lee Lewis Const., Inc. v. Harrison, 70 S.W.3d 778, 791 (Tex. 2001) (Hecht, J., concurring) (“‘Gross negligence’ means more than momentary thoughtlessness, inadvertence, or error of judgment. It means such an entire want of care as to establish that the act or omission in question was the result of actual conscious indifference to the rights, welfare, or safety of the persons affected by it.”) ; see also Kirwan, 298 S.W.3d at 627 (explaining that “some evidence of simple negligence is not evidence of gross negligence” (quoting Lee Lewis Const., 70 S.W.3d at 785)). Consequently, remanding the case for further pleading would be inappropriate. See Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d at 840. E. Summation We sympathize with the Delapenas and acknowledge that the lines drawn by the Legislature — waiving immunity in some cases, but not in others—often lead to unjust results for those injured by the malfeasance of government employees. See Hillman v.

Party Submissions

African swine fever. In particular, in the case of an outbreak of African swine fever in wild porcine animals in a Member State, Article 3, point (b), of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/594 provides for the establishment of an infected zone by the competent authority of that Member State, in accordance with Article 63 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687.

Legislation

The Texaco building, which was the former headquarters of Texaco, Inc., f/k/a The 5 Texas Company, is located at 1111 Rusk Street in Houston. It is registered as a historical landmark by both the Texas and Federal governments. In 2013, it was vacant, uninhabitable, and in a state of disrepair.

Party Submissions

Once again, as Fleming Defendants have been saying throughout this appeal, if a litigant makes an agreement with the court relating to collateral estoppel, express or implied, then the litigant is bound by that agreement. Fleming Defendants should be bound by their agreement that every Wilson Plaintiffs’ case must be individually tried to a jury, which necessarily precludes collateral estoppel of any kind, and their motion for summary judgment on collateral estoppel on the Harpst judgment should be denied.

Party Submissions

Tribunal dismissed the Claimants’ request to have the entire Report designated as confidential and ordered that, subject to the redactions agreed between the Parties and any other redactions which may prove necessary to preserve confidentiality protected by PO 1, the Report shall be treated as a matter of public record.

Legal Decisions

To prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from using assessments generated by the Integrated Risk Information System as a tier 1 data source in rulemakings and other regulatory actions, and for other purposes.

Legislation

Here, the trial court did not specify in its summary-judgment order on which ground it relied in striking Bay's affirmative defense. 25 If a trial court's order does not state why it found the summary judgment meritorious, this court should affirm the summary judgment if any of the theories presented to the trial court and preserved on appeal are meritorious. Knott at 215-216; Jackson v. Tex. S. Univ.Thurgood Marshall Sch. of Law, 231 S.W.3d 437, 439 (Tex.App. -Houston 14th Dist. 2007, pet. denied). Here, the trial court struck Bays exclusive remedies defense. Therefore, if there is any reason to affirm the trial court's ruling, this court should do so.

Party Submissions

The THC approved the first Part C and certified that the work was completed on December 31, 2016, which allowed the Texas Comptroller of Accounts to approve state tax credits for that phase of the project. Stonehenge received the state tax credits related to the first project in October 2017. The Contributions generated by those tax credits totaled $23,605,580.00.

Party Submissions

Here the jury had sufficient evidence from which to find each of the elements of gross negligence by clear and convincing evidence.

Party Submissions

Such documents are relevant to demonstrate the nature of the treatment and protection accorded by the Respondent to the Claimant and are therefore, notably, material to an assessment of the Respondent’s alleged breach23 of the Claimant’s rights under Art. 324 of the France-Qatar BIT.

Legal Decisions

Decertifying Justice Devine on these facts would be entirely inequitable. Mandamus relief “is largely controlled by equitable principles,” In re Am. Airlines, Inc., 634 S.W.3d 38, 42 (Tex. 2021) (cleaned up), and “this Court will not issue an original writ of mandamus absent a compelling reason.” Chenault, 914 S.W.2d at 142 (cleaned up). Here, every equitable consideration weighs against the requested mandamus, and each is its own “compelling reason” to deny the petition. Id.

Party Submissions

LIABILITY. If required by Exhibit 6, Subcontractor shall procure and maintain Professional Liability/Errors and Omissions Insurance. Such Professional Liability Policy shall cover all services and operations to complete Subcontractor’s Scope of Work and include a waiver of subrogation in favor of McCarthy and the Owner. McCarthy shall determine in its sole discretion acceptability of such policy and carrier. Flow down of these requirements to sub tiers does not relieve Subcontractor of its obligation to provide the insurance outlined herein.

Party Submissions

HN7 [ ] Claims, Filing Requirements By its plain language, Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 406.075(a) (2006) bars an injured employee from recovering benefits under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act if he pursues and recovers benefits under the workers' compensation laws of another jurisdiction.

Party Submissions