Datasets:

Equall

/

perplexity_evaluation

like 3

Follow

Equall 47

With its Counter-Memorial, Serbia submitted “land book insertion No. 1689 for parcel no. 47” (exhibit R -011). This “ insertion ” only contains information from 1972/1973 and 1997 and only for land plots at Dunavska 17-19. The requested documents contain relevant historical information about all land plots at Dunavska 17-19, Dunavska 23 and the Surrounding Area.

Legal Decisions

I.A. Does this case present an issue of importance to Texas jurisprudence when Petitioner’s urgency is manufactured by conflating a default with an acceleration? I.B. Does this case present an issue of importance to Texas jurisprudence when stare decisis and every appellate court considering the issues have decided against Petitioner’s arguments? II. Can Texas Property Code § 51.003(a) be interpreted to allow a note secured by real property to be accelerated by a third-party’s foreclosure of a different note? III. Should the doctrine of waiver be applied to a noteholder who does not voluntarily relinquish their rights during the life of the note?

Party Submissions

Agreement, you acknowledge your receipt of the Plan and agree to be bound by all the terms and conditions of the Plan as it shall be amended from time to time.

Contract

In this case, the ARB has exclusive jurisdiction over property tax disputes, and the Texas Property Tax Code provides exclusive remedies for property owners to protest their tax liabilities. See Jim Wells County v. El Paso Prod. Oil & Gas Co ., 189 S.W.3d 861, 871 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. denied) (finding that the Property Tax Code is a “classic” example of a pervasive regulatory scheme, evidencing a legislative intent to vest the appraisal review boards with exclusive jurisdiction); Cameron Appraisal Dist. v. Rourk, 194 S.W.3d 501, 502 (Tex. 2006) (stating “There is no question the Legislature intended to do so here.”); Joaquin Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Shelby Cty. Appraisal Dist ., No. 12-13-00038-CV, 2014 WL 5511479, at *4 (Tex. App.—Tyler, Aug. 29, 2014, pet. denied) (considering a suit under the DJA and finding “[t]he tax code's provisions governing appraisal of properties for ad valorem tax purposes, with its procedures for resolving disputes over valuation, create a pervasive regulatory scheme indicating legislative intention that the regulatory process be the exclusive means of remedying the problem to which the regulation is addressed.”) (emphasis added).

Party Submissions

The determination as to the occurrence of a Change in Control shall be based on objective facts and in accordance with the requirements of Code Section 409A.

Contract

You are instructed that proximate cause means a cause that was a substantial factor in bringing about an injury, and without which cause such injury would not have occurred. In order to be a proximate cause, the act or omission complained of must be such that a lawyer or law firm using ordinary care would have foreseen that the event, or some similar event, might reasonably result therefrom. There may be more than one proximate cause of an event.

Party Submissions

Participant’s Right to Modify. A Participant may modify any or all of the alternative Payment Schedules with respect to an Account, consistent with the permissible Payment Schedules available under the Plan, provided such modification complies with the requirements of this Article VII. For clarity, a modification of the Payment Schedule applicable to a Participant’s Retirement Account shall also apply to all Specified Date Accounts payable under Sections 6.1(a) and 6.2(a).

Contract

From the last part of the article, “... or are unable to move except in constant physical contact with the seabed or the subsoil,” there is little doubt that the snow crab must be considered an immobile species in contrast to migratory species. The direct meaning of the term “ sedentary ” in biology is “ fixed ”, and it is not. In the “catchable” stage, it moves, but is completely dependent on having contact with the seabed to be able to move. Of course, I am not an expert on the Convention on the Law of the Sea, but the text referred to here is as far as I can see unequivocal. The conclusion is therefore that it must be considered sedentary even if the term itself is not particularly good in the description of the snow crab .698 467. While the Claimants describe this reply, which was sent within an hour of Mr Sundet having received the inquiry, as “ somewhat tentative ”,699 the Tribunal does not see it as such. Mr Sundet points out that the biological concept of “ sedentary ” is something which does not move at all, but he then recognizes that the term has a different meaning in law. While acknowledging that he is not an expert on the law, he states unequivocally that the snow crab, in what Article 77(4) refers to as the “ harvestable stage ”, can move only in contact with the seabed and thus falls within the definition of a sedentary species in the Convention.

Legal Decisions

Yellowfin responds that it could have continued to demand installment payments under the Note post-foreclosure. Resp. Br. 16. That’s wrong. When there is an “unpaid amount of a debt after the foreclosure sale,” “there is no mechanism available for the lender to collect the deficiency through nonjudicial means.” Marhaba, 457 S.W.3d at 215. If no “non judicial means” are left to collect the deficiency, a lender cannot recover its debt by continuing to demand contractual payments under the Note. True, as Yellowfin points out, Resp. Br. 17, the lender in Marhaba had foreclosed, but that does not change the general principle relied on in Marhaba that a lender must recover any remaining debt through judicial means after foreclosure.

Party Submissions

To direct the Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to conduct collaborative research to advance weather models in the United States, and for other purposes.

Legislation

Indeed, any appeal over the proper forum for a dispute would arguably raise the same question. After all, “an arbitration agreement is ‘a specialized kind of forum-selection clause.’ ” Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 596 U. S. -- , -- , 142 S.Ct. 1906, 1919, 213 L.Ed.2d 179 (2022) (quoting Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506, 519, 94 S.Ct. 2449, 41 L.Ed.2d 270 (1974)). If arbitration appeals require stays of all pretrial and trial proceedings, why not all appeals about forum-selection agreements? And why not appeals over non-contractual disputes over jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, federal-court jurisdiction, and abstention?

Party Submissions

Claimants agree to conduct a reasonable search for and produce documents responsive to this request, with the exception of any documents created in preparation for and/or in connection with the conduct of the present arbitration. Claimants object to production of such documents on two grounds: First, the vast majority, if not all, of the documents related to the present arbitration would be covered by legal privilege (Articles 9(2)(b) and 9(4) of the IBA Rules).

Legal Decisions

A Joint Agreed Motion For Transfer to Pretrial Court and Immediate Stay (“Agreed Motion”) was filed on December 1, 2021 by plaintiffs and principal defendants in 275 lawsuits.1 On December 21, 2012 the movants filed a Notice of Filing of First Supplement to Appendix A (Related Cases) to Motion to Transfer and Immediate Stay and Motion to Clarify December 8, 2021 Stay Order. The supplemental Appendix A lists an additional 177 lawsuits for a total of 387 lawsuits. A response was filed opposing the Agreed Motion, but that opposition has now been withdrawn.

Party Submissions

Respondents’ effort to defend the court of appeals’ decision follows the same misguided playbook as their effort to avoid this Court’s review. Instead of addressing the merits of Westwood’s complaints about the decision below, they misstate the evidence and the basis for that decision—and throw in a meritless and irrelevant side-issue on Westwood’s name change for good measure.

Party Submissions

Performance-Based Compensation. Performance-Based Compensation means Compensation where the amount of, or entitlement to, the Compensation is contingent on the satisfaction of pre-established organizational or individual performance criteria relating to a performance period of at least twelve (12) consecutive months. Organizational or individual performance criteria are considered pre-established if established in writing by not later than ninety (90) days after the commencement of the period of service to which the criteria relate, provided that the outcome is substantially uncertain at the time the criteria are established. The determination of whether Compensation qualifies as “Performance-Based Compensation” will be made in accordance with Treas. Reg. §1.409A-1(e) and subsequent guidance.

Contract

Second, Rafiei would be able to afford the delegation arbitration. The AAA fee schedule includes a fee schedule for “Nonmonetary Claims” that totals $5,750: $3,250 payable at filing, $2,500 as a final fee. SCR111. Since the arbitration over the delegation provision would not be one over a monetary claim, Rafiei would be able to afford it even if the Court credited his assertion that he can only pay “$6,000 in fees and expenses up front[.]” Id .

Party Submissions

Relator, Tyler Asphalt & Gravel Company, Inc., seeks a writ of mandamus ordering respondent, the Honorable Sharolyn Woods, to abate the underlying suit. We conditionally grant the writ.

Party Submissions

Any and all documents representing “ Analysis of the location for the new trolleybus turnout including part of the new route of the trolleybus network to the new turnout ” as referred to on page 3 (pdf) of Serbia’s exhibit R-100.

Legal Decisions

This standard contrasts with the standard for eligibility determinations, the other category of ballot application challenges under Texas law. Cf. In re Green Party, 630 S.W.3d 36, 39 (Tex. 2020) (per curiam); see TEX. ELEC. CODE §§ 141.034(b), 172.0222 (h), 171.0223(c) (all distinguishing eligibility challenges from form, content and procedure challenges); see also Texas House Republican Caucus PAC, 630 S.W.3d at 32 (noting the distinction). The two are “electoral apples and oranges.” Escobar v. Sutherland, 917 S.W.2d 399, 409 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1996, 9 orig. proceeding) (challenge to requirements of form, content, and procedure for application is "distinctly different and completely separate" from challenge to candidate's eligibility for office).

Party Submissions

Missing from HSMiller’s Brief and from the record is any evidence that, at the 60-days-before trial mark, standing in Terry’s shoes, the decision to wait to seek leave to designate Flaven as an RTP involved an extreme degree of risk to HSMiller. Certainly no evidence supports a finding that waiting to designate Flaven presented a more extreme degree of risk of liability to HSMiller than HSMiller’s and Defterios’ own actions had already created.8 See Waldrip, 137 S.W.3d at 137.

Party Submissions

Bestor's theory has some logic to it, but it nevertheless must yield to the requirement that he have exhausted his claim administratively.

Party Submissions

A spouse’s interest in a retirement or pension plan is regarded as a mode of employee compensation earned over the length of a given period of employment.

Party Submissions

In the recently decided case of Houston AN USA, LLC v. Shattenkirk, this Court addressed and applied the jurisprudence related to prohibitive arbitration costs. See Shattenkirk, 669 S.W.3d 392 (Tex. 2023). In Shattenkirk, the plaintiff argued that the arbitration agreement “w as unconscionable, and thus invalid, because excessive arbitration costs [would] likely preclude him from effectively vindicating his statutory rights.” Id. at 394. Nevertheless, this Court held that Shattenkirk failed to establish that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable. Id. at 399.

Party Submissions

The expert faulted the nurses for not investigating the woman’s clinical presentations more fully, not reporting the patient’s pain more often, and not stopping the transfer. However, the report did not explain how additional measurements or assessment could have affected the doctor’s course of treatment or the ultimate outcome. The expert did not explain how the nurses could have stopped the transfer or even if they had authority to stop it. Id. at 460-61. The Court held that without a factual explanation of what should have been done differently and how that would have changed the outcome, the report was nothing more than the “clearly insufficient” ipse dixit of the expert. Id. at 461.

Party Submissions

Therefore, World Car failed to show that the sales efficiency metric requires it to meet an unreasonable sales standard. Pet. App. B at 20–21 (emphases added). The ALJ never analyzed whether HMA’s standard was reasonable.

Party Submissions

The Committee specifically reserves the right to determine whether a sale or other disposition of substantial assets to an unrelated party constitutes a Separation from Service with respect to a Participant providing services to the seller immediately prior to the transaction and providing services to the buyer after the transaction. Such determination shall be made in accordance with the requirements of Code Section 409A.

Contract

And Respondents do even less to square the court of appeals’ decision with the decisions of this Court and other Texas courts interpreting the statutes that control this case, except to ignore those interpretations and attempt to tease out factual distinctions in those decisions. Respondents try to recruit Marshall v. Housing Authority of City of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782 (Tex. 2006) to their side by holding it up as an example of how a “tenant’s voluntary choices have consequences in litigation with a landlord.” (Resp. 40) But that is feeble support indeed, given Westwood’s proof that its own “choices” were in no way voluntary. And Respondents’ argument should not serve to distract from Marshall’s true importance, which establishes that a judgment in a forcible entry and detainer action is limited to a final determination only “of the right to immediate possession” of the property—reserving all other issues for the district court. Marshall, 198 S.W.3d at 787. That holding is fatal to the court of appeals’ effort to convert the agreed judgment of immediate possession into a determination of the right of ultimate possession to the property.

Party Submissions

PCC : The requested documents are accessible to Obnova/Claimants who can obtain the documents from the Urban Planning Institute of Belgrade (which prepared exhibit R-101) in accordance with the applicable regulations.97 In other words, the requested documents are "in the public domain and equally and effectively available to both parties".98 Respondent, just like Claimants, must address the Institute in order to obtain documents in question.99 Therefore, it is equally burdensome for Respondent as it is for Claimants to obtain these documents and it would not be justified encumbering Respondent with the task that can be performed by Claimants themselves. In fact, Claimants obviously already obtained certain documentation from the Urban Planning Institute of Belgrade (exhibit C-025), so they can also request the documents whose production they now seek.

Legal Decisions

Tyler contends the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to abate the underlying suit until the statutory workers' compensation process for determining the course and scope issue is complete. It contends that process includes judicial review; thus, the Smith County court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the course and scope issue because Reynaldo lived in Smith County at the time of his death. See TEX. LAB.CODE ANN. § 410.252(b)(1) (Vernon 1996) (requiring judicial review in county of employee's residence at time of death). The Gaonas respond that the statutory process was complete when the appeals panel issued its decision; thus, the Harris County court has dominant jurisdiction because the underlying suit was filed before the Smith County suit.

Party Submissions

But as the chief justice wrote in dissent in Prappas: The court’s opinion rests on two assumptions. The major premise is that an absolute privilege attends judicial proceedings; the minor premise is that filing of a notice of lis pendens constitutes a judicial proceeding. Hence, the court concludes, an absolute privilege goes along with the filing of a notice of lis pendens. I do not share this conclusion, because I disagree with the court’s minor premise. In my view the filing of a notice of lis pendens fails to qualify as a judicial proceeding. This view seems entirely sensible, when one recognizes the rationale for the absolute privilege that goes along with judicial proceedings: the hands-on administration of justice in a courtroom by a live judge. Lis pendens is not a judicial proceeding in that sense. This approach allows us to reach a just result on the basis of sound legal principles. In any event, I cannot abide the notion that the deliberate act at bar deserves judicial protection. It walks like a tort, talks like a tort, and quacks like a tort. We should treat it accordingly. I say we should reverse and remand the unjust judgment below. 795 S.W.2d at 800 (Brown, C.J., dissenting). Wrongfully filing an abstract of judgment or refusing to withdraw one when there was no valid judgment at the time is not a judicial proceeding that deserves the protection of absolute privilege. See also Int’l Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally’s, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1269, n.12 (5th Cir. 1991).

Party Submissions

NATURE OF THE CASE: Financial retribution and explicit bias obstruction in the expose of extrajudicial misconduct in the theft of Uniformed Partition of Heirs Property Act (UPHPA) protected land, active mineral leases, and producing mineral estate protected.

Party Submissions

Accounts Taxable Under Code Section 409A. The Plan is intended to constitute a plan of deferred compensation that meets the requirements for deferral of income taxation under Code Section 409A. The Committee, pursuant to its authority to interpret the Plan, may sever from the Plan or any Compensation Deferral Agreement any provision or exercise of a right that otherwise would result in a violation of Code Section 409A.

Contract

Because of these burdens on constitutional rights, this prohibition must be supported by a “sufficiently weighty” and important governmental interest. 4 Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351, 358 (1997); see also Abbott v. Anti-Defamation League Austin, Sw., & Texoma Regions, 610 S.W.3d 911, 922 (Tex. 2020) (requiring an “important” governmental interest). It is not. The prohibition does not serve the public interest in keeping “frivolous candidates” off the ballot. Anderson, 460 U.S. at 788 n.9. After all, these signatures from otherwise-qualified signers demonstrate that the candidate has (or had) the signer’s support to be on the ballot.

Party Submissions

Finally, the Court should reject Respondents’ continued effort to complicate this case, confuse the issues, and obfuscate the problems with the court of appeals’ decision by injecting additional “substantive issues” into the analysis of the single question presented. In their response to Westwood’s petition, Respondents hinted at the existence of several issues that might impede this Court’s review of that question. (Resp. to Pet. 11-13) But they have bothered to brief only one of those supposed complicating issues—relating to the fact that Westwood had to change its name from Westwood Motorcars LLC to Westwood Motors, LLC to remove the taint it experienced from Respondents’ wrongful eviction. (8RR154) Respondents’ failure to brief any other such issues waives them, or at least counsels that they should be left for consideration on remand.

Party Submissions

This is the central lesson of this Court’s decision in Dickson, a case Barina tellingly declines to address. The Dickson Court held that the defendant abortion opponent’s characterization of abortion as “the murder [of] innocent unborn children” was not an allegation of criminal conduct but rather a “moral judgment ... that abortion is an unjust killing that ought to be criminalized and that plaintiffs are complicit in advancing such conduct.” Id. at 359, 368. The context in which the defendant made his claims was critical—because the defendant made them “on public-discourse sites regularly used for such advocacy,” a reasonable reader would have understood them to be invoking a “moral premise” rather than verifiable facts. Id. And the Court emphasized the importance of the target of the defendant’s speech: “Perhaps no speech more deserves and requires protection from governmental censure than that critical of the government and its decisions.” Id. at 362.

Party Submissions

Declaring support and gratitude by the House of Representatives to food banks, food pantries, and other community-based organizations working to end food insecurity and providing other essential services in the United States.

Legislation

In its analysis, this Court underscores two significant aspects of the arbitration agreement. Id. First, the agreement did not “specify any arbitration rules — such as American Arbitration Association (AAA) or JAMS rules — that would apply to a proceeding.. . [or] designate a particular arbitration organization to conduct the arbitration.” Id. And second, the agreement was silent “on the arbitration costs or how they would be allocated between the parties. ” Id. at 339 –339. These two aspects were particularly important to this Court because without clear terms, [the] nature of the costs Shattenkirk might incur were speculative, making it difficult to determine if enforcing the agreement would unjustly prevent him from pursuing his claims. Id. For example, this Court explained that AAA and JAMS have rules for employment arbitration that allocate costs to the employer, not the employee. Id. The ambiguities in the agreement thus contributed to this Court's conclusion that, “the ‘risk’ that [Shattenkirk] will be saddled with prohibitive costs is too speculative to justify the invalidation of [the] arbitration agreement.” Id. at 399 (quoting Poly-Am., 262 S.W.3d at 356).

Party Submissions

I certify that a true and correct copy of this Petition was served electronically on the following counsel of record on December 21, 2023, in compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5.

Party Submissions

The report must establish “a logical, complete chain between a negligent act and the plaintiff’s injury...and...[give] the trial court sufficient medical details to allow the court to decide if the case [is] frivolous.” Golucke v. Lopez, 658 S.W.3d 686, 698 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2022, no pet.). Both physicians’ reports offered by the Walkers failed to meet these standards.

Party Submissions

TDCC does not assume patent responsibility for the use by a UCC Member of product delivered hereunder. The use of product may or may not constitute an infringement of patents. A UCC Member receiving product hereunder assumes full responsibility and liability for patent infringement in connection with any use of such product by such UCC Member.

Contract

House Bill 1887, the bill prohibiting a petition against an appraisal review board, was enacted in 2011. See Act of May 20, 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., ch. 771, § 15, 2011 Tex. Gen Laws (codified at TEX. TAX CODE § 42.21(b)). Section 42.21(b) clearly prohibits a cause of action against an appraisal review board. To the extent there is a conflict between that section and TEX. TAX CODE § 25.25(g), section 42.21(b), the later-enacted statute, controls. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 311.025(a). Since TEX. TAX CODE 25.25(g) was enacted in 1991, section 42.21(b), enacted in 2011, controls. See, Act of May 22, 1991, 72nd Leg., R.S., ch. 393, § 2, 1991 General Laws (codified in TEX. TAX CODE § 25.25(g)). As stated in TEX. TAX CODE § 42.21(b) the ARB should not be a party.

Party Submissions

Q. So can we agree that as of 1995, among other things, the Court listed Windemere Road as traversing your – what was then awarded to your parents as property.

Party Submissions

Secretariat for Urban Planning and Construction No. 350-244/13 dated 20 August 2013; and 24. Letter from the Public Urban Planning Company “Urban Planning Institute of Belgrade” to the Secretariat for Urban Planning and Construction No. 350-244/13 dated 21 October 2013.

Legal Decisions

HN12 [ ] Judges, Discretionary Powers A trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion to abate is within the court's discretion. There are exceptions, however, to this general rule.

Party Submissions

If a settling defendant’s debt is discharged in bankruptcy, prohibiting further collection of the judgment,2 then there would be no risk of a double recovery 2 11 U.S.C. § 524.

Party Submissions

S.W.3d at 79; Briggs, 337 S.W.3d at 283. Accordingly, Bay has failed to carry its burden to conclusively prove all elements of its affirmative defense, as Bay would be required to prove in order to be entitled to summary judgment disposing of the Manns' claims. We therefore need not consider whether Bay has conclusively proved the other elements of its affirmative defense, because the failure to conclusively prove this element prevents Bay from winning a summary judgment of its own. See KCM Fin., 457 S.W.3d at 79. Rather, Bay has simply proved that neither party is entitled to summary judgment on the basis of the employer element.

Party Submissions

The procedures that govern the filing of permissive appeals are provided for by the civil practice and remedies code, Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 168, and Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 28.3. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(d), (e), (f); TEX. R. CIV. P. 168; TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3. Specifically, Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 168 states: On a party's motion or on its own initiative, a trial court may permit an appeal from an interlocutory order that is not otherwise appealable, as provided by statute.

Party Submissions

Tribunal will set out in further detail in its analysis of the merits, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that Cerros Colorados voluntarily participated in the FONINVEMEM scheme and that this matters for the assessment of whether the Respondent has breached its obligations under the BIT.

Legal Decisions

Dr. Castillo and BSA challenged the amended reports and moved to dismiss. CR 649-860. The trial court denied the motions to dismiss. App. 1, CR 1332; App. 2, Supp. CR 4. On appeal, the providers limited their objections to causation and causation-related qualifications. See Dr. Castillo ’ s Appellant’s Br.; BSA Appellant’s Br.

Party Submissions

Because his guardian is spending far in excess of his monthly income, she has decided he can’t afford to keep all of his automobiles or even his house.

Party Submissions

Atrial court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary or. unreasonable manner or when it acts without reference to any guiding principles. Sink, 364 S.W.3d at 343 (citing Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 24l— 42 (Tex. 1985)). We must indulge every reasonable presumption in favor ofthe trial court’s proper eXerc'ise of its discretion in dividing marital property. Id. We will reverse the trial court’s ruling only if the record demonstrates that the trial court clearly abused its discretion, and the error materially affected the just and right division of the community estate. Id.

Party Submissions

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act with respect to the procedure for the development of water quality criteria, and for other purposes.

Legislation

It has long been recognized that “After a principle, rule or proposition of law has been squarely decided by the Supreme Court, as the highest court of the state having jurisdiction of the particular case, the decision is accepted as a binding precedent by the same court or other courts of lower rank when the very point is again presented in a subsequent suit between different parties. Wallace v Burson, 132 Tex. 15, 17-18, 120 S.W. 443, 444 (emphasis added). (Comm’n App. 1938) Willacy does fit this definition: the question decided by Willacy is not before the Court in this one. The specific issue addressed in that case was simply whether a Section 1.111(e) agreement procured by fraud could be avoided. No other common-law grounds for avoidance were implicated. Neither was the question framed broadly in terms of the application of common law defenses in avoidance to §1.111) e) agreements. In fact, outside of the opinion, which is the subject of this appeal, there is no authority for the proposition that mutual mistake will void a S1.111(e) is the only one that actually addresses the question of whether a mutual mistake of fact will void an agreement formed under §1.111(e). There are numerous appellate court cases that deal with this question, and other than the opinion on appeal here, none of them contain such a holding, either on the specific facts of the case or as a general conclusion. Willacy, for all its virtues, will not carry the weight laid on it by the Respondent.

Party Submissions

There is no statutory deadline for exercising rights under Section 272.001. Thus, MVP’s contention that RLB did not act timely to void the forum-selection clause lacks any basis under Section 272.001’s plain terms. MVP’s Brief at 56.

Party Submissions

Co ., 241 S.W.3d 514, 518 (Tex. 2007). Nevertheless, the court held that the Division did not have exclusive jurisdiction for two reasons.

Party Submissions

The Craigo declaration provided evidence that Midland, after a diligent search, found no discharge licenses for either Hy-Bon Engineering Co. or its predecessor EndDevices. (CR 54.) Moreover, Midland had never previously identified either entity as a discharger in its wastewater collection system. Id. Weatherford argues that Midland’s jurisdictional plea was sustained before Weatherford “had a meaningful opportunity to conduct discovery.” Brief at 59. However, even if granted additional discovery, there is no additional evidence that would supply Weatherford any information that would cure its jurisdictional deficiencies, as Weatherford already had its opportunity to connect Midland to its SWDA claim and failed to do so. Weatherford’s plea for additional discovery without first establishing that the underlying statute even applies amounts to a jurisdictional fishing expedition that is improper and contrary to the purposes of governmental immunity that shields municipal defendants like Midland from the costs of litigation when a plaintiff cannot clear baseline jurisdictional hurdles. See Nazari v. State, 561 S.W.3d 495, 508 (Tex. 2018).

Party Submissions

When the Texas Supreme Court reviewed the case, it focused on the statutory preclusion of contributory negligence in the TWCA. Keng II, 23 S.W.3d at 352. And the Court expressly did not determine whether a suit under Section 406.033 is "an action to collect workers' compensation benefits under the workers' compensation laws of this state." Id.

Party Submissions

Recognizing the importance of Tribal colleges and universities to the United States and expressing support for designating the week beginning Feb-ruary 5, 2024, as ‘‘National Tribal Colleges and Universities Week’’.

Legislation

To amend title 46, United States Code, to require a State to enter into a data sharing agreement with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Transportation in order to be eligible for the port security grant program and the port infrastructure development program.

Legislation

Respondents first try to steer the lower court’s opinion clear of the prohibitions in TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 31.004(a) and TEX. PROP. CODE § 24.008 by contending that the “sole issue addressed by these statutes” is “[r]es judicata,” and insisting that “[t]his case was not decided based on res judicata.” (Resp. 18-19, 21) But the first part of that sentence is wrong and the second part does not really matter.

Party Submissions

Any and all minutes and recordings from meetings of the Secretariat for Urban Planning and Construction related to the preparation of the 2015 DRP The Secretariat for Urban Planning and Construction is the authority that was responsible for the preparation of the 2015 DRP. The requested documents are relevant and material for evaluating the factors that 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

For the foregoing reasons, the Mills Central Appraisal District respectfully requests the Court grant this petition, reverse the judgment of the Third Court of Appeals, and affirm the trial court ’ s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Party Submissions

But that is the point of such a default rule: “the default rule requires opting out, not the other way around.” Perthuis v. Baylor Miraca Genetics Labs., LLC, 645 S.W.3d 228, 241 (Tex. 2022). “As with other default rules, parties are free to contract around this one, even if doing so creates odd or inadvisable results. Boozer v. Fischer, 674 S.W.3d 314, 326 (Tex. 2023). “This contractual freedom is especially applicable when the parties involved are sophisticated, well-counseled, and not subject to domination by the other side.” Id.

Party Submissions

Appellant employee challenged a summary judgment entered by the County Court No. 3, Galveston County, Texas, in favor of appellee employer. In its motion for summary judgment, the employer contended that the employee's personal injury suit was barred by Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 408.001(a) (2006), the exclusivity provision of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, because she was injured in the course and scope of her employment.

Party Submissions

For purposes of these vesting conditions, the stock prices above are without the effect of any extraordinary Company transactions such as tender offers or recapitalizations, which, if effected, the Board shall adjust the stock price targets. The terms and conditions of the equity grants shall be further governed by the Long-Term Incentive Plan and a customary award agreement.

Contract

Respondent’s Action: On July 19, 2021, MVP filed a mandamus petition challenging the trial court’s orders declining to abate or dismiss the Texas case. The court of appeals conditionally granted the petition, instructing the trial court to vacate its orders and dismiss the Texas suit. (App. C. to Pet. at 16-17). In re MVP Terminalling, LLC, No. 14-21-00399-CV, 2022 WL 3592303 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 23, 2022, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (Wise, Jewell, and Spain, JJ.) (App. A). The court of appeals also denied RLB’s motions for rehearing and for reconsideration en banc. (App. B to Mandamus Pet.). RLB has now filed a further petition for writ of mandamus in this Court, challenging the Court of Appeals’ rulings.

Party Submissions

Texas Occupations Code, Chapter 2301 In addition to HMA’s recognition that its Agreement is governed and construed according to Texas law, which provides that an OEM’s franchise is subject to Texas law and an inconsistent provision is unenforceable, the Texas Legislature also takes a broad view of what is a franchise or agreement.

Party Submissions

To prohibit the Federal Government from taking any action to regain control of, access, or otherwise interfere in activities carried out by the State of Texas in the vicinity of Shelby Park in Eagle Pass, Texas, without the consent of the State of Texas.

Legislation

The requested documents are relevant and material to the outcome of the dispute in that they demonstrate whether Kalemegdan has seat in Cyprus (seat in Cyprus requires exercise of control as confirmed by Mr Ioannides).

Legal Decisions

This Non-Competition and Non-Solicitation Agreement (the “Agreement”) is made by and between OneSpan North America, Inc, a Delaware corporation (hereinafter referred to collectively with its parent and subsidiaries as the “Company”), and the undersigned employee (“you”).

Contract

Are encephalopathy and stroke identical? Are they causally connected? Did something else unforeseeable happen to H.W. that was unrelated to Dr. Castillo’s actions? Or is it Dr. Tappan’s opinion that H.W. was “at risk” for one injury but sustained another? The reader does not know because Dr. Tappan did not include these answers in his report, and courts are not permitted to guess or infer what he meant. Scoresby, 346 S.W.3d at 556; see also Walker, 2022 WL 17324338 at *4-*5.

Party Submissions

Any and all available geodetic surveys, situational backgrounds ( in Serbian: situacione podloge ) prepared for Dunavska 17-19 and Dunavska 23 between 1945 and 1995.

Legal Decisions

The Court is mindful that issues of jurisdiction and immunity should be determined as soon as practicable. Thus, in order to foster judicial economy, afford [appellees] their right to swift determination of jurisdictional immunity issues, and minimize costs and delays to all of the parties, the Court ORDERS that [Galovelho] shall not file any further amended pleadings without written leave of this Court. The Court will consider the Plaintiff’s Second Amended Petition to be the live pleading for jurisdictional immunity challenges and will address same at a subsequent hearing based on further briefing and argument. Contrary to Ga lovelho’s characterization, this order does not ban its ability to amend its pleadings. Instead, it requires only that it seek leave of court before it amends them. And while Galovelho contends that its complaints about this limitation “fell on deaf ears and the trial court refused to res cind its unconstitutional order,” the record contains no attempt by Galovelho to seek leave to amend, let alone any refusal to grant that leave.

Party Submissions

McCarthy sent notice to MVP on November 4, 2020, that it was voiding the forum-selection clause. On November 17, 2020, McCarthy filed an original crossclaim in the Texas case against MVP for, among other claims, breach of contract based on MVP’s failure to pay the additional costs. McCarthy also filed an original counterclaim against RLB in the Texas case, alleging causes of action related to RLB’s claim for additional costs.

Party Submissions

Because this suit is not based on Mann's entitlement to worker's compensation benefits, and because this appeal concerns the exclusive-remedy defense, it is not subject to the Division's exclusive jurisdiction.

Party Submissions

La Demandada entiende que es razonable que existan documentos que reflejen la toma de decisiones y negociación entre Intercaribe y Sargeant respecto de la revocación de las cesiones de créditos referidas.

Legal Decisions

Dr. Null opined a bit differently – that H.W.’s “course postdelivery is consistent with an antenatal asphyxia event. .. that occurred late in the course of labor.” (CR.805) Dr. Null concluded that had H.W. been delivered 1-1.5 hours sooner “he would not have suffered the degree of brain injury that he has.” (CR.805) Again, Dr. Null did not explain what caused the alleged event, only that it may have happened. See Walgreen Co. v. Hieger, 243 S.W.3d 183, 186 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. denied) (report insufficient that stated symptoms were consistent with known side effects was not the same as saying the symptoms were in fact caused by the medication); Mooring v. Britton, No. 07-20-00253-CV, 2021 WL 537205, at *3 (Tex. App.— Amarillo Feb. 12, 2021, pet. denied) (mem. op) (finding an expert report insufficient on causation when it did not explain why and when the bleeding began). Crucially, neither expert linked anything that happened with H.W. to nursing actions or inactions.

Party Submissions

If any remedy is required, it should allow Justice Devine to cure the alleged technical defects—as he is well-prepared to do. As the Appendix to this Response demonstrates, Justice Devine collected additional signatures in October 2023, and these signatures are more than enough to cure the alleged technical defects. This Court has consistently allowed for cure as a remedy when a candidate’s good-faith and timely petition contains technical defects that are discovered only after the filing deadline. Relator argues that the Legislature abrogated these cases in 2011. Pet.10. That is incorrect. The Legislature instructed candidates as to when they may amend a petition; it did not address courts ordering cure as an equitable remedy.

Party Submissions

In fact, the Lease itself contemplated that third parties might provide materials and services in Mendietta’s performance of the Lessee’s obligations to improve the Ranch as requested/required by the Diocese, and that Mendietta might not pay for the services of the third party: • “Section III. 16. Lessee agrees to protect, defend, indemnify and hold Lessor harmless from any and all claims, loss, demands, damages, actions, suits, liability, costs and expenses including, but not limited to reasonable attorney’s fees for the defense thereof, arising from Lessee’s or Lessee’s agents, employees, servants, licensees or invitees use or occupancy of, or the conduct, operation or management of Lessee’s activities in, on or about the Premises.” (9RRPX15).

Party Submissions

Section 15. Nonalienation of Benefits. Except as otherwise specifically provided herein, neither the rights nor any amounts payable under the Plan shall not be subject to any manner of anticipation, alienation, sale, transfer, assignment, pledge, encumbrance, charge, garnishment, execution or levy of any kind, either voluntary or involuntary, including any liability which is for alimony of other payments for the support of a spouse or former spouse, or for any other relative of a Participant, prior to actually being received by the person entitled to payment under the terms of the Plan. Any attempt to anticipate, alienate, sell, transfer, assign, pledge, encumber, charge, garnish, execute, levy upon or otherwise dispose of any right to amounts payable hereunder, shall be null and void.

Contract

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 7160) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the limitation on the amount certain married individuals can deduct for State and local taxes, and providing for consideration of the resolution (H.Res. 987) denouncing the harmful, anti-American energy policies of the Biden administration, and for other purposes.

Legislation

Serbia’s exhibit R -009 is an undated “ Agreement ” between Obnova and Luka Beograd according to which Obnova supposedly agreed to vacate certain premises in Belgrade —defined only as “the open warehousing area on the cadastre plots no. 47, 49 and 50 CM-1 amounting to surface area of 9,565 m2. ”16 According to Article 1 of the Agreement, Obnova was allegedly ordered to vacate the premises by the decision of the First Municipality Court in Belgrade no. I. n. 6447/64 dated 14 October 1964.17 The requested documents are relevant and material to assess: ( i ) exactly which premises Obnova was apparently supposed to vacate; ( ii ) whether such premises correspond, in full or at least in part, to Obnova’s current premises at Dunavska 17-19 or 23; and ( iii ) the reasons for the First Municipa lity Court’s decision.

Legal Decisions

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

Legal Decisions

Russia signalled during the last meeting of the mixed commission that they considered that the snow crab is a sedentary species, and that in this case it means that it is the continental shelf jurisdiction that applies to the management of the crab. It cannot be ruled out that they will raise this issue at this meeting. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is in the process of investigating the legal aspects and consequences for the management of snow crab as a potential sedentary species. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has asked us to “lie low” in this case until the case is better clarified on the Norwegian side. Completely new information from KV also indicates that there is currently no fishing for snow crab on the Norwegian shelf outside NØS (only on the Russian shelf).

Legal Decisions

Tribunal finds that the Claimant has its actual place of management in Spain. 439. The Tribunal therefore concludes that the Claimant is a protected investor under the BIT and that it has jurisdiction ratione personae.

Legal Decisions

A Participant or Beneficiary receiving installment payments when a Change in Control occurs will receive his or her remaining Account Balance in a single lump sum within ninety (90) days following the Change in Control with the actual payment date determined in the sole discretion of the Committee.

Contract

Procedural Order No. 3 includes directions for the production of responsive documents in line with Article 9(2)(b) of the IBA Rules which, contrary to the Respondent’s submissions, does proceeding.

Legal Decisions

To affirm the State of Texas’s right to implement operational protections along the southern border, to authorize the State to construct a physical border wall in areas where the international border is not adequately protected with physical barriers, and to allow reimbursement from the Federal Government.

Legislation

We direct the clerk of this court to send a notice of this order to the attorneys of record, the trial-court judge, and the trial-court clerk.

Party Submissions

Based on a word count run in Microsoft Word, this brief contains 9, 033 words, excluding the portions of the brief exempt from the word count under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(1).

Party Submissions

Cuando el Tribunal decida acerca de la objeción de un demandado de conformidad con los párrafos 4 ó 5, deberá, si se justifica, conceder a la parte contendiente vencedora, costas y honorarios de abogado razonables en que se haya incurrido al presentar la objeción u oponerse a ésta. Al determinar si dicho laudo se justifica, el Tribunal considerará si la reclamación del demandante o la objeción del demandado eran frívolas, y concederá a las partes contendientes oportunidad razonable para presentar sus comentarios. En caso de una reclamación frívola el Tribunal deberá condenar en costas a la parte demandante.

Legal Decisions

This brief was prepared using Microsoft Word. Relying on the word count function in that software, I certify that this motion contains 2,241 words (exclusive of the caption, statement of issues, signature, proof of service, certificate of compliance, certificate of conference and certificate of service). I also certify that the size font complies with TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4 (e).

Party Submissions

In Engelman Irrigation Dist. v Shields Bros., Inc., 514 S.W.3d 746, 754-55 (Tex. 2017), this Court held that “Requiring a party to comply with its contractual obligations, under the law prevailing at the time” did not “demand an abdication of the ordinary rules of finality’” Similarly, given the history, tortuous path, and intricate dance between the Hooks case and this case for over eighteen years, no exception should apply that would prevent collateral estoppel from precluding Samson from litigating yet again how to compute Late Charges under the Hooks/Bordages Leases.

Party Submissions

Kemp ’s true holding is far narrower and has nothing to do with any categorical rule that a tenant’s compliance with the result in a forcible entry and detainer proceeding categorically bars the tenant from pursuing a claim for damages in district court. As Respondents eventually admit (Resp. 34), Kemp turned on whether a particular tenant had offered sufficient evidence to satisfy the elements of a constructive-eviction claim that simply happened to arise after the tenant dismissed an appeal of a forcible entry and detainer order and left the premises, 2020 WL 205313, at *1. And while some of the facts in Kemp therefore bear some superficial resemblance to the facts of this case, the dispositive facts are nonetheless very different.

Party Submissions

Letter from the Secretariat for Environmental Protection with reference number 501.3 – 45/2013-V-04 dated 10 October 2013, addressed to the Secretariat for Urban Planning and Construction.

Legal Decisions

COVERAGE. If required by Exhibit 6, or when Subcontractor’s operations include the use of a Small Unmanned Aircraft Vehicle (sUAV), Small Unmanned Aircraft System (sUAS) or Drone, Subcontractor shall provide Owned/Non-Owned Aviation Liability Coverage, or equivalent policy covering the use of sUAV’s, sUAS’s or Drones, with minimum limits of $2,000,000 per occurrence. The policy shall name McCarthy and the Owner as additional insureds, provide a waiver of subrogation in favor of McCarthy and the Owner and include coverage for Personal and Advertising Injury. If the sUAV, sUAS or Drone will be operated indoors the policy shall not exclude or restrict coverage for indoor use. Subcontractor shall only operate such sUAV, sUAS or Drone after receiving prior written approval from McCarthy, including approval of Subcontractor’s written safety plan related to the operation of the sUAV, sUAS or Drone. Subcontractor shall comply with all McCarthy requirements regarding the operation of the sUAV, sUAS or Drone, including all FAA regulations pertaining to the commercial operation of sUAV’s, sUAS’s or Drones.

Party Submissions

This is an interlocutory appeal of an order denying a motion to compel arbitration. This Court reviews the denial of a motion to compel arbitration under the abuse of discretion standard. Henry, 551 S.W.3d at 115. In its review, this Court defers to the trial court’s factual findings if they are supported by evidence. Id. Specifically, this Court must defer to the trial court’s factual resolutions, including any credibility determinations that may have affected those resolutions, and this C ourt’s judgment on these factual issues may not be substituted for the of the trial court. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 – 40 (Tex. 1992). But the trial court’s legal conclusions receive no deference and are reviewed de novo. Henry, 551 S.W.3d at 115. Those legal conclusions include whether the arbitration agreement was unconscionable when formed. See In re PolyAm., L.P., 262 S.W.3d 337, 349 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). A trial court has no "discretion" in determining what the law is or applying the law to the facts. Its opinion may only be overturned if the trial court clearly failed to apply the law correctly. In re Walker, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (citing Joachim v. Chambers, 815 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. 1991)).

Party Submissions

Synopsis Background: Injured employee and his wife brought personal injury claim against subcontractor employer following injury while crossing road at general contractor's refinery and workers' compensation policies denial of claim. The County Court at Law, Nueces County, Deeanne Galvan, J., denied subcontractor's motion for summary judgment and granted employee's motion for partial summary judgment. Subcontractor appealed.

Party Submissions

To be sufficient, the expert cannot link various events in an alleged causal chain together with speculation or surmise. Bowie Mem’l Hosp., 79 S.W.3d at 53. A “missing link” renders the report insufficient as a matter of law. Id.; Humble Surgical Hosp., LLC v. Davis, 542 S.W.3d 12, 23 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. denied). Such a report would be “nothing more than the ipse dixit of the expert[], which [is] clearly insufficient.” Zamarripa, 526 S.W.3d at 461; see also Humble Surgical Hosp., 542 S.W.3d at 23, 25-26 (while report stated additional care would have saved patient’s leg, it did not explain why and was therefore insufficient); Tenet Hosps. Ltd. v. Love, 347 S.W.3d 743, 755 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2011, no pet.) (expert opinion that if defendant hospital “had a pulmonologist or critical care specialist on call and available to see and treat this patient or had transferred this patient before her condition worsened, [patient] would more likely than not be alive today” was impermissibly conclusory); Estorque v. Schafer, 302 S.W.3d 19, 28 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, no pet.) (failure to explain how consult with urologist would have changed outcome); Costello v. Christus Santa Rosa Health Care Corp., 141 S.W.3d 245, 249 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, no pet.) (report did not explain causal relationship between patient’s death and alleged omissions by hospital, including whether treatment would have or could have been effective); Christus Health Gulf Coast v. Davidson, No. 14-15-00643-CV, 2016 WL 2935715, at *2-5 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] May 17, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) (no explanation of how additional communications between nurses and physicians would have affected patient care).

Party Submissions

B, V, U : Claimants' request is unduly burdensome. It follows from Article 7 of the agreement, submitted as Exhibit R-060, that the requested documents were created by Luka Beograd, which is a private company, not a state authority. Accordingly, Respondent cannot be bound to obtain the documents in question. Further, Claimants' request is unduly broad and vague as Claimants have failed to specify the State authority which could be in possession of these documents. Respondent cannot reasonably be required to identify the relevant State authority.

Legal Decisions