Datasets:

Equall

/

perplexity_evaluation

like 2

In its Original and First Amended Petitions, Galovelho pleaded that the Emergency Orders effected an unlawful taking of its property under the Texas constitution. The fundamental rule of article I, section 17 prevents the government’s taking, damaging, or destroying a person’s property for public use without either the consent of the person or adequate compensation’s being made. TEX. CONST. art. I, § 17(a).5 This clause is self-executing and waives any claim of immunity by governmental actors, whether sovereign or governmental, when a takings claim is properly pled. See City of Dallas v. Stewart, 361 S.W.3d 562, 568 (Tex. 2012) – 7– (clause is self-executing); see also Hearts Bluff Game Ranch, Inc. v. State, 381 S.W.3d 468, 476 (Tex. 2012) ( “In the absence of a properly pled takings claim, the state retains immunity .”). We review the trial court’s grant of a plea to the jurisdiction to determine “whether the plaintiff’s pleadings, construed in favor of the plaintiff, allege sufficient facts affirmatively demonstrating the court ’ s jurisdiction to hear the case. ” Hearts Bluff Game Ranch, Inc., 381 S.W.3d at 476.

Party Submissions

Citing Roland v McCullough (supra) the court stated that “A party cannot obtain relief from an agreement as a result of a unilateral mistake if the party’s ignorance of the facts was the result of carelessness, indifference or inattention.” Finally, avoidance of unilateral mistake requires proof that the mistake was known to or induced by the other party. Johnson v. Snell, supra. No such evidence appears in the record of this case.

Party Submissions

Two years later, Henry and her husband filed this suit in district court against Dillard and its adjuster, Pulaski Adjusting Co., alleging a bad faith denial of reasonable and timely workers compensation benefits. Dillard moved for summary judgment, arguing that the bad faith suit was barred because Henry had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. The trial court granted Dillard's motion for summary judgment, and the court of appeals affirmed.

Party Submissions

Duration. A Participant shall be eligible to defer Compensation and receive allocations of Company Contributions, subject to the terms of the Plan, for as long as such Participant remains an Eligible Employee. A Participant who is no longer an Eligible Employee but has not experienced a Separation from Service may not defer Compensation under the Plan but may otherwise exercise all of the rights of a Participant under the Plan with respect to his or her Account(s). On and after a Separation from Service, a Participant shall remain a Participant as long as his or her Account Balance is greater than zero, and during such time may continue to make allocation elections as provided in Section 8.4. An individual shall cease being a Participant in the Plan when all benefits under the Plan to which he or she is entitled have been paid.

Contract

HN4 [ ] Multiple Parties, Absent Defendants Texas law allows a tort defendant to designate a person as a responsible third party. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 33.004(a) (West 2020). The designation's purpose is to have the responsible third party submitted to the trier of fact as a possible cause of the claimant's harm. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 33.003 (West 2020). This may reduce the percentage of responsibility attributed to the defendant, thus ultimately reducing its liability to the claimant. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 33.013 (West Supp. 2022). The defendant typically would be the party seeking to retain the RTP in the jury charge to diminish his potential liability and perhaps eliminate any joint and several liability.

Party Submissions

The majority offers no good reason for that result. The majority says that an automatic stay protects the party seeking arbitration and conserves resources in case the dispute “ultimately head[s] to arbitration” after appeal. Ante, at 1921. But the concern fades if that scenario is unrealistic— i.e., if the party seeking arbitration is unlikely to succeed on appeal.

Party Submissions

Deductions from Pay. The Committee has the authority to determine the payroll practices under which any component of Compensation subject to a Compensation Deferral Agreement will be deducted from a Participant’s Compensation.

Contract

Because the trial court had insufcient evidence upon which to exercise its_ discretion, it erred in-its application ofthat discretion. Id; see also Sink, 364 S.W.3d at 344 (considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment could the factnder reasonably form arm believe or conviction its nding was true). Thus, the trial court abused its discretion by awarding Husband one hundred percent of the marital residence as his separate property. We sustain Wife’s rst issue.

Party Submissions

Because we conclude Sonic failed to establish as a matter of law that its claim for reimbursement under the TWCA, as a subclaimant, survived the employee's election to pursue and recover remedies under Alabama's workers' compensation laws, we reverse the trial court's judgment in Sonic's favor and render judgment affirming the decision [**3] of the appeals panel in Cause [*472] No. 14-05-00111-CV. Further, because we hold that the trial court's decision to continue abatement of Sonic's contract claims was improper, and Sonic lacks an adequate remedy by appeal should abatement continue, we conditionally grant Sonic's petition for writ of mandamus in Cause No. 14-05-00770-CV.

Party Submissions

Finally, to adopt MVP’s “untimeliness” argument would require a party to prematurely file suit seeking to void a forum-selection clause—even if there is no current legal controversy between the parties. MVP’s Brief at 57-58. This Court should avoid a legal principle that will spawn needless and premature litigation. See, e.g., Ventling v. Johnson, 466 S.W.3d 143, 155 (Tex. 2015) (construing statute to discourage “vexatious, time-consuming, and unnecessary litigation”). Put another way, the need for RLB to enforce its rights under Section 272.001 to void any applicable out-of-state forum-selection/choice-of-law provision was not ripe until RLB elected to file suit on its claims or MVP tried to evoke any such provision against RLB.

Party Submissions

All TCB Infrastructure Improvements constructed or provided for under this Agreement will be the sole property of TCB upon completion and are intended for the primary use of TCB in the conduct of its railroad operations.

Party Submissions

The Court today ventures down an uncharted path—and that way lies madness. Never before had this Court mandated a general stay simply because an interlocutory appeal poses the question “whether the litigation may go forward in the district court.” Ante, at 1920 (internal quotation marks omitted). And a wide array of appeals seemingly fits that bill.

Party Submissions

WHEREAS the Company desires to employ you, and you desire to be employed by the Company, as Interim Chief Executive Officer, on the terms outlined in this Agreement.

Contract

Here, the Delapenas allege that City employees violated the City’s pool safety policy by admitting the camp into the pool without the requisite number of counselors to adequately supervise the campers. Under the policy, a camp without the requisite ratio of counselors to campers should be denied entrance to the pool.

Party Submissions

A.S. was questioned about an arrest while being pregnant with R.W. in November of 2021. 3 RR 41. A.S. had fake urine in her purse and was put on a one-year deferred probation later in January of 2023. 3 RR 43. Intervenor offered and admitted I-4, a copy of A.S. ’s criminal file out of Smith County, without objection. 3 RR 45-46. A.S. testified she pled to possession of the prescription drug on her, was revoked on probation and put in jail for failing a drug test. 3 RR 47. 2 Then, without neither objection nor a sponsoring witness, Intervenor played the video of A.S.’s arrest while pregnant with R.W. before the jury. 3 RR 50 -51. A.S. agreed that she had smoked cigarettes her entire pregnancy with R.W. and went into labor prematurely. 3 RR 51. The video of A .S.’s arrest was offered and admitted as I-5. 3 RR 53. Intervenor then offered I-6, a copy of Permanency Hearing Order Before Final Order, where A.S. was court ordered to pay Intervenor’s $125 per month. 3 RR 54 -55. Intervenor next offered and admitted I-7, another psychological assessment from August 27, 2021, which described A.S.’s previous relationship and recommendation for A.S. to follow through on. 3 RR 60-63. The psychological stated that A.S. was not forthcoming with drug history. 3 RR 63. A.S. told the jury that she had been in counseling in the instant case with Stenet Frost and Katrina Hines-Ligon. 3 RR 64. I-8, counseling notes, that recommended A.S. continue therapy. 3 RR 67.

Party Submissions

Possible future harvesting of snow crab by vessels from EU member [S] tates on the Norwegian continental shelf, must be based on bilateral agreement. During the EU-Norway bilateral fisheries negotiations for 2017, Norway opened for snow crab being part of the quota exchange between Norway and the EU. However, the EU declined.

Legal Decisions

As the Fourteenth Court of Appeals held, “ There are fact patterns in which the limitations provision in section 51.003(a) and the limitations provision in section 16.004 do not conflict. ” Sowell v. International Interests, LP, 416 S.W.3d 593, 598 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, pet. denied). That court goes on to list several circumstances in which the provisions don’t conflict – including the situation where the creditor does not elect foreclosure prior to suing for a money judgment. Id. A similarly ideal reading is to apply Section 51.003(a) only to those parties who participated in the foreclosure.

Party Submissions

By: _________________________ Eric C. Opiela State Bar No. 24039095 eopiela@ericopiela.com I hereby certify that I have reviewed the above Petition for Writ of Mandamus and have concluded that every factual statement in the said petition is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record. I further certify that the documents contained in the appendix are true and correct copies of those documents in the possession of Relator.

Party Submissions

Under the “law of the case” doctrine, the Lawyers did not have to repeat the same arguments ruled on and rejected in the first trial and appeal. “[Q]uestions of law decided on appeal to a court of last resort will govern the case throughout its subsequent stages.” Loram Maint. of Way, Inc. v. Ianni, 210 S.W.3d 593, 596 (Tex. 2006). Thus, the Lawyers were not required to raise the assignment issue again in either the trial court or the court of appeals, as the trial court had no choice but to follow the previous ruling of the court of appeals. See Paradigm Oil, Inc. v. Retamco Operating, Inc., 372 S.W.3d 177, 182-83 (Tex. 2012) (explaining doctrine and noting that party was not 14 “required to reargue the issue in a court that already decided the matter”). Since this Court denied the petition the first time the case was before it and did not rule on the issue, the Lawyers properly raise it here. Accord id.

Party Submissions

A subsequent act, one of February 5th, 1867, to amend the Judiciary Act of 1789, enacts: † Page 319 14 Id. 385.

Party Submissions

Arreglo de Diferencias Relativas a Inversiones (“ CIADI ” o el “ Centro ”) sobre la base del Tratado de Libre Comercio entre Colombia y El Salvador, Guatemala y Honduras, el cual entró en vigor entre Colombia y Guatemala el 12 de noviembre de 2009 (el “ Tratado ”), y las Reglas de Arbitraje del CIADI en vigor desde el 10 de abril de 2006.

Legal Decisions

HN3 [ ] Burdens of Proof, Movant Persuasion & Proof If a movant establishes its right to summary judgment, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to raise a genuine material fact issue sufficient to defeat summary judgment.

Party Submissions

Accordingly, to the extent Claimants seek to exclude such documents from production, Respondent should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to consider the basis for their exclusion. Since the party that asserts a privilege bears the burden of proving why the privilege applies, Respondent requests Claimants to provi de a privilege log as explained in Respondent’s general comments above.

Legal Decisions

Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union .

Legislation

First, we agree that the economic impact of the Emergency Orders weighs against finding a taking. See id. at *7. This factor “ merely compares the value that has been taken from the property with the value that remains in the property. ” Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale, 964 S.W.2d 922, 936 (Tex. 1998). We do not ordinarily consider the loss of anticipated gains or potential profits in this consideration. See id. Gal ovelho’s brief is replete with charges that the Emergency Orders “damaged” its property, but it nowhere addresses a comparison of the value of the restaurant before and after the pendency of the Emergency Orders. Galovelho – 10– did not plead facts indicating that the economic impact of the Emergency Orders so interfered with its property rights that the appellees had appropriated the property from him. See City of Baytown v. Schrock, 645 S.W.3d 174, 181 (Tex. 2022). We cannot conclude that the value of Galo velho’s property was greatly diminished by the temporary restrictions placed by those orders. See Stand for Something Grp. Live, 2022 WL 11485464 at *7.

Party Submissions

KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, GORSUCH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. JACKSON, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR and KAGAN, JJ., joined in full, and in which THOMAS, J., joined as to Parts II, III and IV.

Party Submissions

It is important to note that city staff, while involved in the zoning process, do not have decision-making authority. 16 Their role includes assisting landowners through the city’s processes, ensuring the statutory requirements of Chapter 211 are followed, analyzing landowner applications for compliance, and often making recommendations to a city’s zoning commission or city council based on previously established criteria. Importantly, under Chapter 211’s statutory requirements, staff cannot commit a city to a specific zoning outcome. Any agreement between a city and a property owner promising a certain zoning designation or outcome is void, ensuring the public’s significant involvement in property use debates and decisions within a city. 17 The idea that an agreement or letter between city staff and a landowner could obligate city officials to a predetermined outcome would undermine the procedural safeguards of Chapter 211.

Party Submissions

Weatherford mischaracterizes Midland’s representation of its sewage system as domestic in an attempt to yet again bypass jurisdictional deficiencies and brief the underlying merits of a case in which there is no subject matter jurisdiction. The characterization of the sewer system as domestic or not domestic is entirely irrelevant because the landfill-driven statute—the SWDA—has no applicability to a sewer system whatsoever. Weatherford also assumes Midland is strictly liable under the SWDA for any and all leaks that occur from its sewer system, even if the Contaminants originated off-Site. Such a strict liability scheme does not exist under the statute, and Weatherford’s fixation on Midland’s “unilateral[] labelling [of] its entire wastewater operations as ‘domestic’” does not correct Weatherford’s ultimate failure to plead a valid claim under the SWDA. Brief at 9 (emphasis omitted).

Party Submissions

ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONERS I certify that this document complies with the typeface requirements of TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(e) because it has been prepared in a conventional typeface no smaller than 14-point font for text and 12-point font for footnotes. It complies with the word-count limitations of TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i)(1) because it contains 2,399 words.

Party Submissions

Dr. Castillo and Baptist timely appealed to the Amarillo Court of Appeals under section 51.014(a)(9) of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code. (CR.1338-40, 1352-53, 1357-58). As explained above, a panel consisting of Chief Justice 2 Baptist made an identical motion.

Party Submissions

Additionally, in Douglas's live petition filed after the Commission's final determination, she also sued Transcontinental Insurance Company, Moody's workers' compensation carrier. Douglas named Transcontinental in order to challenge in this suit the decision rendered by the Commission appeals panel, to which Transcontinental was an interested party. The trial court also granted summary judgment in favor of Transcontinental.

Party Submissions

Because the evidence clearly established that wife did not intend a gift by taking title to the property in both names, the property was properly characterized as her separate property. Id. at 714. 5. Cases preceding Raymond that follow Cockerham In addition to the above authority rejecting the Raymonds cases that distinguish the Cockerham parol evidence rule, there are several cases predating Raymond that follow Cockerham.

Party Submissions

After bottoming, the snow crab, like most other crab species, depends on the bottom to be able to move. There are a few species of so-called “swimming crabs” that use transformed walking legs to swim, but it is not known that such species have been found in our waters. The beach crab has something similar to “swimming legs” but it only lives in the littoral zone and is not of commercial importance in our areas either .700 469. On 19 January 2015, Ms Finbak provided a written opinion to Ms Gabrielsen in which she said that her section of the Legal Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had made a “ preliminary assessment of the issue with a view to communicating a preliminary Norwegian position at the meeting of NEAFC’s PECCOE (the Permanent Committee on Control and Enforcement) ”.701 PECCOE had before it a proposal for a recommendation under Article 5 of the NEAFC Convention related to snow crab. The opinion noted that NEAFC had the power to adopt recommendations regarding crustaceans but under Article 6 could do so in relation to resources within the national jurisdiction of a State only if that State requested it to do so. If snow crab were sedentary, then any snow crab in the Loop Hole fell within Article 6.

Legal Decisions

But courts should not have to “fill in missing gaps in a report by drawing inferences or resorting to guess work.” THN Physicians Ass’n v. Tiscareno, 495 S.W.3d 599, 607 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2016, no pet.); see also Scoresby v. Santillan, 346 S.W.3d 546, 556 (Tex. 2011) (“omissions may not be supplied by inference”); Bowie Mem’l Hosp. v. Wright, 79 S.W.3d 48, 52 (Tex. 2002) (all necessary information should be contained within report’s four corners). The Court of Appeals properly deemed the Walkers’ experts’ reports insufficient on this basis alone.

Party Submissions

RLB further maintains there was no contractual waiver of its section 272.001 right to void the forum-selection clause. RLB contends that the express language and public policy underlying section 272.001 make it “apparent on its face” that a waiver of the section 272.001 right is not enforceable. According to RLB, under MVP’s position, “countless owners would include such waivers in their construction contracts and would require subcontractors, like RLB, to sign them as a condition precedent to being awarded any work on Texas projects,” which would undermine the Legislature’s purpose behind section 272.001.

Party Submissions

Request No. 11 above, the hot asphalt contracts are relevant because they form part of the basis of Respondent’s claims related to its refusal to pay Claimant. See Respondent’s Memorial ¶ 102. Claimant is, therefore, entitled to production of the hot asphalt contracts and the corresponding payments from Respondent issued under those contracts to evaluate whether those contracts suffer from the same supposed “irregularities” that Respondent claims are in the 2013 Contract and prove that Respondent continued to pay those companies despite knowing of those purported “irregularities.” The reasons set out in relation to Request 11 supra apply here mutatis mutandis .

Legal Decisions

Further, the court of appeals has decided an important question of state law that should be, but has not been, resolved by this Court. See id. Respondents devote nearly eight pages of their responsive brief to attempt to explain the construction of Chapters 12 and 55. Respondents’ Br. at 9-17. Yet, none of the arguments are grounded in authority from this Court. That is because this issue remains unresolved in Texas.

Party Submissions

None of these opinions stands for the proposition that the mere existence of an agreement under section 1.111(e) deprives the district court of jurisdiction to review the scope, validity, and effect of such an agreement. Nor does any of them stand for the proposition that an agreement to “value” as a matter of law bars subsequent claims to correct errors not expressly addressed in the agreement. The authorities Oncor discussed in its initial brief, including this Court’s decisions in Matagorda Cnty. Appraisal Dist. v. Coastal Liquids Partners, L.P., 165 S.W.3d 329 (Tex. 2005) and Willacy Cnty. Appraisal Dist. v. Sebastian Cotton & Grain, Ltd., 555 S.W.3d 29 (Tex. 2018), and the language of Texas Tax Code sections 1.111(e), 25.25(c), 25.25(c-1)(4) and (d-1)(2),2 confirm that the lower court’s interpretation of the statutory scheme is wrong. Section 25.25(c) authorizes corrections even when a previous settlement under section 1.111(e) states an appraised value. The only time a settlement bars subsequent correction of an error under section 25.25(c) is when the agreement expressly addresses that particular error.

Party Submissions

First, given the fetal heart tracings and the evidence that the widest part of H.W.’s head may not have descended from 11:00 to 15:50, Dr. Tappan concluded that had Dr. Castillo performed a C-section around 15:15 and delivered by 15:45 as the standard of care required, H.W. would have been born without neurologic injury. App. 7, CR 668, 670.

Party Submissions

Backes focuses only on Ospri n’s argumen t in the trial court claiming its entitlement to attorney fees under the guaranty agreement. However, Osprin also argued that it was entitled to attorney fees under the UDJA. And as noted above, the trial court awarded Osprin attorney fees under the UDJA, not under the guaranty agreement.

Party Submissions

Convention Article 44; Arbitration Rules 51 24.1. After consultation with the Parties, the Tribunal shall determine whether post-hearing briefs are necessary and, if so, shall set the schedule and procedure for their submission The statement of costs will be submitted by the Parties according to a schedule to be decided at the end of the hearing.

Legal Decisions

Separation from Service. An Employee incurs a Separation from Service upon termination of employment with the Employer. Whether a Separation from Service has occurred shall be determined by the Committee in accordance with Code Section 409A.

Contract

Directors who are also employees of the Company will not receive any compensation for their services as directors of the Company.

Contract

Investment Allocations. A Participant’s investment allocation constitutes a deemed, not actual, investment among the investment options comprising the investment menu. At no time shall a Participant have any real or beneficial ownership in any investment option included in the investment menu, nor shall the Participating Employer or any trustee acting on its behalf have any obligation to purchase actual securities as a result of a Participant’s investment allocation. A Participant’s investment allocation shall be used solely for purposes of adjusting the value of a Participant’s Account Balances.

Contract

American Motorists Insurance Co. v. Fodge, 63 S.W.3d 801(Tex. 2001). The answer depends on whether the injured person is seeking benefits as an injured claimant. So, it's no coincidence that a helpful inquiry is: who is the defendant?

Party Submissions

In its Counter-Memorial, Serbia relies on a “NOTICE” prepared by the Serbian Republic Geodetic Authority, submitted as Serbia’s exhibit R -043, that compiles various information related to Obnova’s premises at Dunavska 17-19 and 23 supposedly available to the Serbian Cadaster Office, including excerpts of various sketches ( in Serbian: Skice ). The document was compiled and provided on the basis of Request no. Is pov-3/21 of 26 June 2023.

Legal Decisions

Accounts; Allocations. The Participant shall specify on his or her Compensation Deferral Agreement (i) the amount of Deferrals for the applicable Plan Year(s), (ii) the allocation of such Deferrals among Accounts in accordance with this Section 4.1(b), and (iii) with respect to any Account established under such Compensation Deferral Agreement, a Payment Schedule consistent with the requirements of Sections 6.1 and 6.2. To the extent that the allocation of Deferrals amongst a Participant’s Accounts has not been specified in a Participant’s Compensation Deferral Agreement, Deferrals under such Compensation Deferral Agreement shall be allocated to the Participant’s Retirement Account. The Committee may, in its discretion, establish a minimum deferral period for Specified Date Accounts (for example, the third (3rd) Plan Year following the Plan Year in which Deferrals are first allocated to such Account.

Contract

Harbin explained the twenty-three residents who backed up to Windemere Road were requesting the City abandon the right-of-way up to the Lake Friendswood property. She said the right-of-way would remain past the Lake Friendswood property and private access easements, as well as utility easements, would be required. Harbin said Windemere Rd. was not on the Major Thoroughfare Plan to be improved.

Party Submissions

ETMC further cites to a Fifth Circuit case stating that "a cause of action does not arise under workers' compensation laws merely because the workers' compensation statute deprives the defendant of certain defenses to the cause of action." Am. Int'l Specialty Lines Ins. Co. v. Rentech Steel, L.L.C., 620 F.3d 558, 568 (5th Cir.

Party Submissions

The first sentence of the instruction5 also is legally flawed because, under Rule 13, Terry’s signing of the motion for leave to designate constituted a certificate that, “to be the best of [his] knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry the [designation] is not groundless,” that is, has “no basis in law or fact. .. .” TEX. R. CIV. P. 13. Thus, Terry was required to have a basis for designating Flaven as an RTP, even if he did not have to show that basis right away.

Party Submissions

Additionally, Weatherford repeatedly references as “evidence” the single apocryphal statement in the Ramboll Report in an attempt to connect Midland to the disposal, ignoring the fact that its only purported “evidence” was properly stricken as hearsay. Such insistence on the inclusion and consideration of evidence excluded by the Trial Court challenges the evidentiary ruling of the Trial Court. The standard of review for a Trial Court’s inclusion or exclusion of evidence is abuse of discretion. Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Able, 35 S.W.3d 608, 617 (Tex. 2000) (“The inclusion and exclusion of evidence is committed to the trial court’s sound discretion.”); City of Brownsville v. Alvarado, 897 S.W.2d 750, 753 (Tex. 1995). As such, abuse of discretion is the appropriate standard for Weatherford’s functional challenge of the Trial Court’s exclusion of the hearsay-upon-hearsay “evidence” Weatherford offered to try to connect Midland to an alleged disposal of Contaminants.

Party Submissions

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

Party Submissions

To amend the National Dam Safety Program Act to require the inclusion of low-head dams in the national dam inventory, and for other purposes.

Legislation

MVP also misleadingly claims its “first-filed Oklahoma” case shows it sought to enforce the forum-selection clause before RLB voided it. MVP’s Brief at 59. But RLB is not—and has never been—a party to MVP’s Oklahoma lawsuit. E.g., R.0334. MVP did not seek to enforce any forum-selection clause against RLB until MVP’s Plea in Abatement, which was after RLB filed its original petition.

Party Submissions

Finally, the proceedings on the merits are in no way prejudiced by the parallel briefing or by the Tribunal’s deliberations and decision on the objection.

Legal Decisions

The Planning Commission provided expert assistance and performed tasks in the process of drafting and implementing 2015 DRP. The requested documents are relevant and material for evaluating the factors that the Planning Commission 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

WHEREFORE, Respondent, Yellowfin Loan Servicing Corp. respectfully asks this Court to DENY Deysi Santos’ Petition for Review, or alternatively uphold the decision below.

Party Submissions

To establish requirements relating to size standard compliance of small busi- ness concerns owned and controlled by women for certain purposes, and for other purposes.

Legislation

Midland is not subject to the SWDA because it has no connection or “nexus” to the alleged disposal, as is required under this Court’s precedent, and is thus not a “person responsible for solid waste.” R.R. St. & Co. Inc. v. Pilgrim Enters., Inc., 166 S.W.3d 232, 242, 246 (Tex. 2005). Midland’s undisputed status as an owner and operator of a sewage collection system (not a “solid waste facility” under the SWDA) does not subject Midland to the SWDA, without some other separate and specific showing of Midland’s agency to a solid waste disposal. Further, Midland is neither an arranger nor acceptor of solid waste because it had no control or knowledge over the alleged disposal of trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene, chloroform, and Freon 113, (the “Contaminants”), and it expressly prohibited such disposals into its sewer system. Weatherford failed to present a genuine issue of material fact as to Midland’s status as a “person responsible for solid waste,” and absent such showing, there is no jurisdiction, and as a result, it is unnecessary to analyze the SWDA as applicable to Midland. Beyond that, it is unnecessary to take a subsequent step to consider whether the domestic sewage exclusion to the SWDA merits analysis—if the baseline statute itself does not apply to Midland, it is a purely academic and impermissibly advisory exercise to consider whether an exclusion to that statute would apply. Yet, that is precisely the invitation Weatherford presents to this Court.

Party Submissions

Except as the parties otherwise agree, the Tribunal may, if it considers that the circumstances so require, recommend any provisional measures which should be taken to preserve the respective rights of either party.

Legal Decisions

Investment Options. Investment options will be determined by the Committee. The Committee, in its sole discretion, shall be permitted to add or remove investment options from the Plan menu from time to time, provided that any such additions or removals of investment options shall not be effective with respect to any period prior to the effective date of such change. In addition, following a Change in Control, the Committee may add or remove an investment option, provided however, that (i) any decision to add or remove an investment option shall be made in good faith, and (ii) there shall at all times be no less than the number of investment options that existed immediately prior to the Change in Control.

Contract

The issue in Tyler Asphalt was whether the Harris County tort litigation should be stayed pending the resolution of the Smith County judicial review suit. Id. at 842. Both suits involved the same course and scope issue, and each court was equally able to address it. Id. Since course and scope issue was already committed to the statutory workers' compensation process, the Fourteenth Circuit properly abated the tort action. Id. The case at bar is only pending in the trial court for personal injuries, so Tyler Asphalt doesn't apply under these facts.

Party Submissions

Fleming Defendants spent their entire Brief on the Merits attempting to prove Taylor Privity Path 1, i.e., but they failed to prove this for all the reasons stated in Respondents’ briefs and above.

Party Submissions

Subcontractor agrees to perform such part of the Work under the general direction of McCarthy and subject to the final approval of the Architect/Engineer or other specified representative of the Owner, in accordance with and reasonably inferable from the Contract Documents (hereinafter called "Subcontractor's Work"). Subcontractor will furnish all of the labor and materials, along with competent supervision, shop drawings and samples, tools, equipment, protection, hoisting, and scaffolding which are necessary for such performance.

Party Submissions

In an affidavit submitted to the trial court, the individual testified he could not afford to pay more than $5,000.00, and if the costs of arbitration were over that, he would most likely have to abandon his claim. Accompanying this was an affidavit executed by a certified arbitrator stating that, based on the arbitrator’s knowledge of the amount of money required to arbitrate similar claims, the costs of arbitration would likely be above $5,000.00. From these affidavits, the court deduced that if the arbitration lasted even one day, it was unlikely the individual could afford it. Id. Based on this and the fact that the fee-splitting clause contained no cap as to the amount of money the individual would have to pay, the appellate court upheld the trial court’s finding that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable and confirmed the trial court had properly denied the motion to compel arbitration. Id at 10-11.

Party Submissions

Well, it's obvious. The City denied the SUPs on the Gun Club and Radio Tower tracts for no valid reason.

Party Submissions

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

Party Submissions

R.L.S. appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for expunction. Because R.L.S. was not entitled to expunction, the trial court's judgment is affirmed.

Party Submissions

The provisions in this resolution contain partial and transitory rules which are both necessary and urgent to address the state of emergency affecting the country’s economy, in as much as it has a detrimental effect on the WHOLESALE ELECTRIC MARKET (WEM).

Legal Decisions

McCarthy Subcontract -14-01-12-2017 Rev. 11.3 of this Agreement. Any disputes remaining following mediation shall be resolved through litigation in the state or federal court having jurisdiction, with venue being in accordance with Paragraph 11.1 of this Agreement. IN THE EVENT OF SUCH LITIGATION, UNLESS OTHERWISE PRECLUDED BY LAW, MCCARTHY AND SUBCONTRACTOR AGREE TO WAIVE THEIR RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY.

Party Submissions

R, M : Claimants failed to demonstrate how requested documents are relevant to its case and material for the outcome of the proceedings. In particular, Claimants failed to explain how the documentation relating to the Environmental Impact Assessment is relevant to the question of Obnova's alleged property rights or material to the Tribunal's determination of this question. This is a classic "fishing expedition", with Claimants simply casting about for any documents which might contain information they consider helpful in substantiating their (unsubstantiated) case.

Legal Decisions

PCC : To the best of Respondent’s knowledge, the document Claimants are referring to is the document that is already in the case files as exhibit R-100. Alternatively, the requested documents are accessible to Obnova/Claimants who can obtain the documents from the Urban Planning Institute of Belgrade (who prepared the document according to Article 11 of the said Decision)114 in accordance with the applicable regulations.115 In other words, the requested documents are "in the public domain and equally and effectively available to both parties".116 Respondent, just like Claimants, must address the Institute in order to obtain documents in question.117 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. In fact, Claimants 53 obviously already obtained certain documentation from the Urban Planning Institute of Belgrade (exhibit C-025), so they can also request the document whose production they now seek.

Legal Decisions

HSMiller, once again, argues about the “magnitude” of HSMiller’s “exposure” at trial and the likelihood of a fraud finding against HSMiller. Resp’t’s Br. at 58. This evidence is irrelevant because it does not relate to Terry’s strategy to wait to seek leave to designate Flaven as an RTP. See id. Regardless, Terry was already worried about a fraud finding against HSMiller and Defterios whether or not Flaven was an RTP.

Party Submissions

Samson insisted that law-of-the-case doctrine required that both explicit and implicit legal holdings that Samson perceived had been made in Hooks foreclosed any different result in T.S.Reed : Samson’s Appellant’s Brief filed January 6, 2014, in T.S. Reed at 30, located at: https://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=3660681b-414e-4201-8236-5556e611eedd&coa=coa09&DT=Brief&MediaID=f87ea8a4-6125- 4514-b749-457e5b1e1bf5.

Party Submissions

Trial Court’s Disposition : Summary judgment in favor of Yellowfin Loan Servicing Corp. and against Santos for $21,023.13 in damages and $5,160.00 in attorney’s fees. Santos’ counterclaims and plea to the jurisdiction were denied.

Party Submissions

For column 21: Indicate the number of samples found positive, negative or undetermined. ‘Undetermined’ are those analysed samples for which no result was obtained due to different factors (e.g. below detection level, unprocessed sample-not identified, old).

Legislation

Osprin argues that, because Backes’ s obligations matured when TX 1111 failed to pay the note at maturity, those obligations became fixed and were not terminated when the tax credit rehabilitation was completed. Yet, the termination clause specifically referred to the guarantor’s obligations under the guaranty. The guaranty refers to two primary obligations of the guarantor.

Party Submissions

And the reason is simple. Two courts simultaneously analyzing the same judgment could step on each other's toes. It would interfere with the appellate court's review of an order if the district court modified that order mid-appeal. Instead, **1928 an order should be reviewed by one court at a time.

Party Submissions

Instead, based on its independent review of the facts, the Seventh Court simply concluded that the causation opinion was deficient in its view, and substituted its judgment for that of the trial court. Walker, 2022 WL 17324338, at *3-*5. This is precisely what an appellate court is forbidden from doing under the applicable standard. See, e.g., Miller, 536 S.W.3d at 513; Wooten, 332 S.W.3d at 410; Wright, 79 S.W.3d at 52; see also E.D., 644 S.W.3d at 664 (acknowledging under an abuse-of-discretion standard, that “[c]lose calls must go to the trial court.”).

Party Submissions

Opinion; delivered by Justice Smith. Justices Carlyle and Garcia participating. In accordance with this Court’ sopinion of this da'te, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED and RENDEREDin part, and REVERSED and REMANDED 1n part.

Party Submissions

This Court should decline to reach these arguments for the reasons stated above, but RLB’s arguments also fail on the merits.

Party Submissions

The causation issue here relates to “ the causal relationship between labor and delivery and the complications that stem from labor and delivery, including a newborn ’ s neurological injuries. ” See Livingston v. Montgomery, 279 S.W.3d 868, 876 (Tex. App. — Dallas 2009, no pet.).

Party Submissions

S.W.3d 319, 324 (Tex. 2014). Parties also can “ waive in personam jurisdiction, a requirement of due process.” Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 131.

Party Submissions

Their response hinges on the assertion that the court of appeals’ rejection of Westwood’s constructive eviction and breach-of-contract claims did not depend on the legal effect of the agreed judgment in the forcible entry and detainer action, but instead on “evidence” that Westwood “voluntarily” “agreed to leave the premises” on its own as part of a strategic effort to gain a “fresh start with a new entity.” (Resp. 7, 8, 12, 31, 38) And they insist this “voluntary abandonment” was memorialized in a “Rule 11 Agreement” contained in the agreed judgment. (Resp. 21, 28) Maintaining that assertion requires Responde nts to rewrite the court’s opinion and take evidence entirely out of context, and to conflate Westwood’s abandonment of its appeal with the abandonment of all rights Westwood ever had in the premises .

Party Submissions

Claimant means by executive summaries and the subject matter to which the documents would relate, merely stating that they are executive summaries relating to the 2013 Contract.

Legal Decisions

I have read, understand and agree to abide by the terms of this Award Agreement, the Plan and the most recently executed Associate Confidentiality, Non-Solicitation and Non-Competition Agreement that I entered into with the Company (the “Associate Agreement”). By checking the box labeled “I Agree,” or by otherwise electronically indicating my acceptance of this Award Agreement, I hereby acknowledge that the grant of the Performance Share Units pursuant to this Award Agreement is consideration for my entering into and complying with the Associate Agreement. I understand this Award Agreement, the Plan and the Associate Agreement in all respects and the terms and conditions of the Performance Share Units granted to me.

Contract

The Union shall provide part-financing equivalent to 50 % of the expenditure borne by Italy to support the market of eggs and poultrymeat seriously affected by the 23 outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza of subtype H5 which were detected and notified by Italy between 1 January 2022 and 30 April 2022.

Legislation

Agreements, among others, in violation of the umbrella clause contained in Article II(2)(c) of the US-Argentina BIT imported by virtue of Article IV(2) of the BIT. 306. The Claimant denies that Argentina’s breaches can be excused by the necessity defense. 307. The Claimant thus contends that it is entitled to compensation in the amount needed to wipe out the consequences of Argentina’s Treaty breaches, which the Claimant quantifies in the amount of USD 667.3 million plus interest and costs.

Legal Decisions

MVP retained Terracon Consultants, Inc. to perform a geotechnical analysis of the subsurface conditions at the Project and prepare a geotechnical engineering report documenting the Project’s subsurface conditions for Phase 1 of the Project. The Phase 1 report was not updated for Phase 2. MVP gave the Phase 1 report to contractors, including RLB Contracting, Inc., to use and rely on in preparing bids for Phase 2. On May 23, 2018, McCarthy entered into a subcontract (the “Subcontract”) with RLB for dredging work for the Project.

Party Submissions

The case is an interlocutory appeal surrounding the Harris County Appraisal District’s (“HCAD”) challenge of the trial court’s denial of its plea to the jurisdiction. Id at *1. In its sole issue, HCAD contended that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the property owner’s suit. Id. Summarized simply, HCAD presented the uncontested fact that it had entered into a § 1.111(e) agreement with the property owner and that resolved value for the year in dispute permanently. Id. The property owner’s argument, on the other hand, was that despite there being in place a § 1.111(e) agreement that determined a final agreed value, HCAD had made an alleged clerical error in determining that value by failing to recognize “established ordinances affecting the ... property by creating a minimum lot size requirement ... which negatively affected the value of the ... property.” Id. HCAD attached as evidence an agreement similar to the agreement in the case at the bar. Titled “Informal Interview Settlement Form,” it included a clear reference to the subject property in the county, a dollar value, and an acknowledgement of the “settled value.” Id. In response to HCAD’s plea to the jurisdiction, the property owner contended that the agreement “had nothing to do with the correction of the tax roll, which [was] the only issue for which [the property owner] ... s[ought] review.” Id at *2. According to the property owner, the agreement only concerned the market and “appraised value of the [p]roperty,” not whether HCAD “committed a clerical error in regard to th[e] property by failing to retrieve information about city ordinances that placed restrictions on the [p]roperty’s use”—which the property owner asserted was the basis for its request for judicial review by the trial court. Id .

Party Submissions

Therefore, Liberty is prohibited from ceasing to accept flows from Ames, not because of a general prohibition against waste or some obscure provision in its wastewater permit, but because cutting off Ames would result in Liberty cutting off some of its own retail customers within its CCN in direct violation of state law. Liberty cannot suspend or terminate accepting flows from Ames unless Liberty builds its own wastewater facilities to serve the part of Liberty’s CCN that is currently being served with retail wastewater service by Ames.

Party Submissions

Discretionary Company Contributions. The Participating Employer may, from time to time in its sole and absolute discretion, credit Company Contributions to any of its Employee Participants in any amount determined by the Participating Employer. Such contributions shall be credited to a Participant’s Retirement Account and subject to the Payment Schedule applicable thereto.

Contract

Appellee/Defendant: Sharon West 7015 Anderson St. Texas City, TX 77591 shangrewe@gmail.com Citation Certified Mail Rejected No Counsel on Record IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL .........................................................ii.

Party Submissions

The Urban Planning Institute of Belgrade was the holder of the plan development for the 2013 DRP.134 As the holder of the plan, this authority was responsible for numerous important tasks in plan development, such as creating a plan draft, conducting strategic environmental impact assessments, collecting the relevant documents and information for plan preparation. The requested documents are relevant and material to assess the factors the Institute took into consideration when working on the 2013 DRP — including whether it considered Obn ova’s rights to its premises at Dunavska 17-19 and Dunavska 23 and if so, the Institute’s contemporaneous understanding of the extent of these rights.

Legal Decisions

Indeed whenever the question of whether or not a crab species fell within the definition of “sedentary species” gave rise to an international dispute, e.g. the dispute between Japan and the United States about the latter’s classification of Alaskan king crab as “sedentary species”, the relevant coastal State has always prevailed in the end.

Legal Decisions

Regarding the unconscionability of fee-splitting provisions, this Court explained that: Courts across the country have universally condemned the use of fee-splitting agreements in employment contracts that have the effect of deterring potential litigants from vindicating their statutory rights in an arbitral forum. Some courts have gone so far as to find fee-sharing agreements unenforceable per se. These courts reason that “an employee can never be required, as a condition of employment, to pay an arbitrator's compensation in order to secure the resolution of statutory claims.... [T]his would surely deter the bringing of arbitration and constitute a de facto forfeiture of statutory rights. Id. at 355 –56 (citations omitted).

Party Submissions

VerDate Sep 11 2014 23:44 Jan 31, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\SR538.ATS SR538 ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS • SRES 538 ATS (A) the President of Blue Mountain Chris-tian University, Dr. Barbara Childers McMillin; (B) the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs of Blue Mountain Christian University, Dr. Sharon Ball Enzor; and (C) the Director of Intercollegiate Athletics of Blue Mountain Christian University, Mr. Will Lowrey.

Legislation

According to Claimant’s witness, “.. . there were enough reserves in 2014. .. that the need for the Company remaining extraction activities until at least 2037, and that’s why the Port Concession got extended to that date.” (Transcript Day 1 (Eng), 239:2-7). Please explain the basis for this statement by reference to evidence in the record.

Party Submissions

David H. Gilliland State Bar No. 07941400 dgilliland@dwmrlaw.com Marnie A. McCormick State Bar No. 00794264 mmccormick@dwmrlaw.com P. O. Box 1149 Austin, Texas 78767-1149 (512) 744-9300 (512) 744-9399 fax I certify that this document contains 5,609 words in the portions of the document that are subject to the word limits of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i), as measured by the undersigned’s word-processing software.

Party Submissions

Arbitration Rule 31 20.1. A case management conference for purposes of discussing hearing organization and logistics will be held on the date provided in Annex B by way of videoconference. The videoconference shall be between the Tribunal, or its President, and the Parties and should resolve any outstanding procedural, administrative, and logistical matters (including modality of interpretation and transcription) in preparation for the hearing.

Legal Decisions