text
stringlengths 89
3.77k
⌀ | category
stringclasses 4
values | saul-7b_perplexity
float64 1.76
124
⌀ | llama2-7b_perplexity
float64 1.8
127
⌀ | mistral-7b_perplexity
float64 1.76
157
⌀ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
This Court, too, has recognized the potential constitutional implications of dismissing cases with no opportunity for a hearing on the merits. See Hebner v. Reddy, 498 S.W.3d 37, 41 (Tex. 2016). | Party Submissions | 7.205946 | 8.618442 | 8.252687 |
Convention Article 60; Administrative and Financial Regulation 14; ICSID Schedule of Fees; Memorandum on Fees and Expenses 3.1. The fees and expenses of each Tribunal Member shall be determined and paid in accordance with the ICSID Schedule of Fees and the Memorandum on Fees and Expenses in force at the time the fees and expenses are incurred. | Legal Decisions | 5.170247 | 4.772722 | 5.999746 |
This Court need look no further than the Program’s repeated emphasis on and discussion of the importance of the state’s role in general, and the court system’s in particular, in establishing and maintaining guardianships. Throughout the Program, interviewees assert that guardianship exploitation is uniquely pernicious because a guardian’s power is derived from, and guaranteed by, the state—for which the guardian is the court-appointed representative. Interviewees consistently emphasize that, once under the control of a guardian, a ward’s estate effectively belongs to the state, because guardianships are expressions of a “state’s power.” CR1:911 at 02:34; see also id. at 02:19 (ward describing losing his home and money “to the state”). | Party Submissions | 9.419618 | 10.267823 | 10.213521 |
The court of appeals erred in judging the evidence as legally insufficient instead of factually insufficient and thus erred in rendering judgment on both issues against Husband. | Party Submissions | 14.510526 | 12.4986 | 19.203836 |
Walker’s delay in his attempt to remove a two-term incumbent statewide officer from the primary ballot is neither excused nor excusable. The people of Texas deserve the opportunity to elect the candidates of their choosing. Walker cannot place himself under duress by deadline and then complain of the result. Equity requires that mandamus relief be denied under the principles of Purcell and Khanoyan. | Party Submissions | 24.391005 | 26.089924 | 28.282255 |
Oncor contends that the agreement it made was the result of a mutual mistake and is therefore not binding. Such a defense is not available under the Texas Tax Code. The remedies and procedures provided in the Tax Code for claims under § 42.01 are exclusive. TEX. TAX CODE § 42.09(a)(2). Claims that an agreement between Wilbarger CAD and a taxpayer are void or voidable due to mutual mistake are contrary to the comprehensive scheme of the Texas Tax Code and are not available to avoid such an agreement. | Party Submissions | 7.591312 | 8.705884 | 8.701981 |
Tex. 28, 6 S.W.2d 738 (Tex. 1928). Texas Courts have uniformly held that such benefits are community property provided they are acquired during marriage. | Party Submissions | 8.648436 | 12.733204 | 12.19611 |
Compounding this is the absence of definitive cost caps in the arbitration agreement, coupled with the vagueness enveloping arbitrator and administrative fee allocations in any award. This places Rafiei in a volatile situation, risking unforeseen expenses with no clear foresight on the cumulative costs until the arbitration's culmination — demonstrating the lack of transparency and fairness. | Party Submissions | 24.451113 | 21.788395 | 25.652212 |
The Arbitral Tribunal considers that the documents sought under this request are included in Request 2.a and no decision is therefore made. | Legal Decisions | 25.689241 | 30.791883 | 37.788612 |
An expert report under the TMLA must, as to each defendant, “provide[] a fair summary of the expert’s opinions. .. regarding applicable standards of care, the manner in which the care rendered by the physician or health care provider failed to meet the standards, and the causal relationship between that failure and the injury, harm, or damages claimed.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 74.351(r)(6); Jernigan v. Langley, 195 S.W.3d 91, 94 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam). An expert report is sufficient only if it satisfies the statute’s dual purpose of “inform[ing] the defendant of the specific conduct the plaintiff has called into question” and “provid[ing] a basis for the trial court to conclude that the claims have merit.” Am. Transitional Care Ctrs. of Tex., Inc. v. Palacios, 46 S.W.3d 873, 879 (Tex. 2001). The trial court should grant the motion to dismiss if the report does not meet the elements of the statute. Loaisiga v. Cerda, 379 S.W.3d 248, 260 (Tex. 2012) (citing Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 74.351(l)). | Party Submissions | 3.046978 | 4.049808 | 4.060428 |
Second, given the vague wording of Serbia’s request, potential responsive documents would cover, for example, any forms of communication between Kalemegdan’s shareholders and/or Kalemegdan’s directors and Claimants’ legal or other advisors. There are potentially hundreds of such responsive documents. A search for all such documents and their potential production, or even their inclusion in a privilege log, would be unreasonably burdensome (Article 9(2)(c) of the IBA Rules). | Legal Decisions | 11.853497 | 11.300313 | 13.130178 |
Deferrals shall be calculated with respect to the gross cash Compensation payable to the Participant prior to any deductions or withholdings but shall be reduced by the Committee as necessary so that it does not exceed one hundred percent 100% of the cash Compensation of the Participant remaining after deduction of all required income and employment taxes, 401(k) and other employee benefit deductions, and other deductions required by law. Changes to payroll withholdings that affect the amount of Compensation being deferred to the Plan shall be allowed only to the extent permissible under Code Section 409A. | Contract | 6.378067 | 5.399415 | 6.61659 |
PCC : The requested documents are accessible to Obnova/Claimants who can obtain the documents from the Secretariat for Urban Planning and Construction in accordance with the applicable regulations121. In other words, requested documents are "in the public domain and equally and effectively available to both parties".122 Respondent, just like Claimants, must address the Secretariat in order to obtain documents in question.123 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. U : Claimants' request for "any and all minutes or recordings" of internal meetings concerning the 2013 DRP would put Respondent in the difficult position of searching both physical archives and electronic files (including emails) of the Urban Planning Institute dating back more than a decade. In yet another example of a classic "fishing expedition", Claimants are seeking production of a time-unlimited category of documents, which may or may not contain information concerning Obnova's purported rights and the decision to locate the bus loop at the Dunavska Plots. | Legal Decisions | 12.948035 | 13.329084 | 13.953679 |
This is a drowning case where a six-year-old girl died because the City of Cedar Park consciously refused to enforce its mandatory safety rule. The rule required the City to deny access to the pool based on the number of attendees and lifeguards. The court of appeals erred when it held that the City’s failure to enforce the mandatory safety rule did not constitute a “use” of real property and Petitioners could not plead a premises defect claim against the City because the risks associated with swimming are open and obvious. | Party Submissions | 8.844458 | 8.511263 | 9.171589 |
Retirement Account. Retirement Account means an Account established in the Participant’s initial Compensation Deferral Agreement upon his or her initial participation in the Plan in order to record such Participant’s Deferrals allocated to such Account (and any discretionary Company Contributions described in Article V, if any) and payable as part of a Participant’s Separation from Service Benefit under Sections 6.1(a) and 6.2(a) and as otherwise provided under the terms of this Plan (for clarity, and to the extent permitted by the Committee, a Participant may establish one or more Separation from Service Accounts under any Compensation Deferral Agreement, such Account to have a different Payment Schedule from his or her Retirement Account and may allocate Deferrals to such Separation from Service Account, subject to the limits, terms and conditions described herein). Each “Separation from Service Account” (for clarity, including such accounts referred to as “Retirement/Termination Accounts” under applicable Compensation Deferral Agreements) established under a Compensation Deferral Agreement that became effective and irrevocable prior to the Second Restatement Date is redesignated as a Retirement Account as of the Second Restatement Date. | Contract | 5.781631 | 5.09599 | 5.96134 |
While Houston Cement Co. was decided in favor of the appraisal district, § 1.111(e) binds appraisal districts as well as property owners. In Bastrop Cent. | Party Submissions | 19.20504 | 17.771238 | 18.510101 |
But in reviewing the denial of a motion to compel arbitration5 or enforce a forum-selection clause, courts are limited to the grounds advanced in the trial court. | Party Submissions | 11.764741 | 14.843368 | 17.265562 |
Next, the Walkers claim Dr. Tappan connected labor stress, fetal heart rate abnormalities, and external manipulation of H.W.’s head as causing a “perinatal arterial ischemic stroke.” (Pet. Br. at 18). The problems with that theory are: (i) Dr. Tappan never actually makes that statement (i.e., he writes that the MRI and MRA results “suggested the possibility” of stroke) (CR.670), and (ii) Dr. Tappan believed only that H.W. was “at risk” for hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy because of Dr. Castillo’s actions. (CR.669). | Party Submissions | 8.97597 | 10.034721 | 9.896027 |
Claimants do not allege a direct expropriation of First Claimant’s investments, but an indirect expropriation.1411 Pursuant to Annex 10-B of the Treaty (see ¶ 1010 above), an indirect expropriation takes place where “an action or series of actions by a Party has an effect equivalent to direct expropriation without formal transfer of title or outright seizure.” As such, whether under Claimants’ primary or alternative arguments set out at ¶¶ 1229 and 1230 above, the relevant criteria of an indirect expropriation in Annex 10-B, paragraph 3 of the TPA apply (see ¶ 1010 above). | Legal Decisions | 5.796921 | 5.677436 | 5.527373 |
To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize and improve the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program for fiscal years 2024 through 2028, and for other purposes. | Legislation | 2.684099 | 2.47574 | 2.564798 |
Obviously, no court should allow such blatant mis-deeds to succeed. This Court held that to allow Sebastian to so utilize § 1.111(e) would thwart the Legislative intent behind the statute, not further it. Willacy at 51. This Court further noted that § 1.111(e) agreements are made between the appraisal district and the property owner. Sebastian disclaimed its own capacity to enter the agreement by contending that it was not the property owner. Willacy at 48-49. | Party Submissions | 13.007853 | 12.279381 | 14.948879 |
Most importantly, Petitioner waived her waiver defense in the Note, which states that “You agree that:... (d) we may waive or delay the enforcement of our rights under this Note without waiving or otherwise affecting such rights;... (f) you waive... waiver, dela y and all other notices or demands in connection with this Note.” 1CR9, at para. 13. The Note makes it very clear that Petitioner’s obligations to pay continued until the very end of the Note, stating that “If on May 1, 2025, you still owe amounts under this Note, you will pay those amounts in full on that date.” 1CR8, at para. 3. Petitioner did not allege in the trial court that she did not sign or understand these provisions of the Note. She contractually waived her defense of waiver, and has provided no argument that she is not contractually obligated to abide by the cited terms. | Party Submissions | 8.426753 | 9.104826 | 8.890747 |
HOLDINGS: [1]-The district court abused its discretion by lifting the stay on litigation of the tort suit because a suit for judicial review filed by employee's family in the district court was still pending and there was therefore no final administrative determination that allowed the court to lift the abatement. | Party Submissions | 15.389112 | 12.209332 | 14.977748 |
An insurance carrier is liable for compensation for an employee's injury with regard to fault or negligence if at the time of injury, the employee is subject to this subtitle and the injury arises out of and in the course and scope of employment. | Party Submissions | 6.978499 | 7.020521 | 8.011101 |
Letter from the Luka “Beograd” dated 12 October 2001 is already in the c ase files as Exhibit R-061. As to other two documents, Respondent agrees to produce the requested documents as they are already in its possession, custody or control. | Legal Decisions | 19.63188 | 19.934544 | 26.9828 |
PCC : The requested documents are accessible to Obnova/Claimants who can obtain the documents from the Secretariat for Urban Planning and Construction in accordance with the applicable regulations128. In other words, the requested documents are "in the public domain and equally and effectively available to both parties".129 Respondent, just like Claimants, must address the Secretariat in order to obtain documents in question.130 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. U : Claimants' request for "any and all documents" concerning the 2013 DRP which are in the Secretariat for Urban Planning and Construction's files would put Respondent in the difficult position of searching both physical archives and electronic files (including emails) of the Secretariat dating back more than a decade. In yet another example of a classic "fishing expedition", Claimants are seeking production of a broad and time-unlimited category of documents, which may or may not contain information concerning Obnova's purported rights and the decision to locate the bus loop at the Dunavska Plots. | Legal Decisions | 10.940871 | 11.625365 | 11.736238 |
This marked the end of North Star’s snow crab fishing activities in the NEAFC area, since Russia almost simultaneously closed its continental shelf that same month as advocated by Norway. | Legal Decisions | 48.810566 | 43.888317 | 51.11005 |
The President: [...] [Y]esterday, counsel for the Respondent said that, if I remember rightly, 98% of the snow crab harvested by your ships in 2015 and 2016 was taken from the Russian part of the Loop Hole, is that correct ? | Legal Decisions | 14.527897 | 17.517 | 15.88496 |
Nonetheless, the established case law holds that the significance of Mann being in or out of the course and scope of employment only determines the defenses available to Bay in a negligence case. If Mann was not in the course and scope of employment, then Bay retains its common-law defenses. If Mann was in the course and scope of his employment then Bay loses its common-law defenses. Either way, the trial court retains jurisdiction based upon the facts in this record. Course and scope merely determines what defenses are available to Bay at common law. | Party Submissions | 8.292233 | 8.247852 | 9.578068 |
C) The Tribunal’s analysis 499. The Tribunal notes from the outset that, in order to decide on Claimant’s request, it must decide on three different issues: first, whether the absence of a contractual relationship (privity) with Claimant renders the umbrella clause inapplicable; second, whether the existence of a dispute settlement clause in the Concession Agreement precludes the application of the umbrella clause; and, lastly, whether the contractual obligations raised by Claimant have indeed been breached. It is understood that the Tribunal can only arrive at the final question if it concludes that the arguments raised by Respondent in relation to the other two issues should be rejected. | Legal Decisions | 6.434037 | 7.105121 | 6.325866 |
For example, while the Seventh Court faulted the experts for failing to provide an “ adequate explanation ” linking H.W. ’ s “ asphyxia event ” to his stroke, neither expert claimed that an “asphyxia event,” standing alone, caused H.W.’s stroke and resulting brain injury. Walker, 2022 WL 17324338, at *4 with App. 7, CR 670-671. Rather, Dr. Tappan explained that the prolonged second stage labor, the resulting fetal heart rate abnormalities, and the forceful external manipulation of H.W.’s head during delivery combined to cause the stroke sometime during the last hour to hour and a half of labor and delivery. App. 7, CR 670-671. | Party Submissions | 9.357306 | 10.206023 | 9.934072 |
Protective caps like the ones in In re Poly-America ensure that arbitration remains an accessible forum. In In re Poly-America, the Court was confronted with an arbitration agreement that, while containing a fee-splitting provision, incorporated protective mechanisms by capping the employee's share of the costs. 262 S.W.3d at 344. Such measures ensured that arbitration remained a viable and accessible avenue for dispute resolution. | Party Submissions | 9.694006 | 10.934675 | 13.103524 |
Miller resulted from gross negligence by the Terry Defendants in not timely seeking to designate James Flaven a responsible third party? | Party Submissions | 62.250755 | 113.03547 | 99.879395 |
Grant did not appear at the January 20 hearing. The trial court found that Grant did not offer evidence of her inability to afford costs. It further found that Grant’s most recent statement of inability to afford costs, which was filed in January of 2023, reflected that (1) Grant has $5,053.95 in monthly income; (2) Grant stated the total value of her property was $70.00, but the attachments showed Grant owns (i) a home purchased in April of 2022 with an undisclosed equity and value, (ii) a 2021 Toyota Highlander purchased in August of 2021 with an undisclosed equity and value, and (iii) personal property which Grant pays $504 monthly to store; and (3) Grant failed to disclose her ownership of an undivided 3.334 percent interest in the 53.524-acre tract at issue, which the commissioners valued at $30,000 per acre. The trial court determined that Grant has the ability to pay court costs and granted Heo’s request. | Party Submissions | 6.706182 | 6.910089 | 7.165903 |
The court noted that trial courts often decide disputes about whether the TWCA’s exclusive remedy provision applies as a defense to an injured worker’s personal injury suit. Id. | Party Submissions | 12.475899 | 14.143283 | 16.101576 |
To amend section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act relating to judicial review of a permit issued under such section, and for other purposes. | Legislation | 5.09062 | 4.529072 | 5.141322 |
Petitioners and those interviewed in the Program repeatedly highlight the courts’ critical role in establishing, maintaining, and legitimizing a guardian’s control over a ward’s person and finances. CR1:911 at 00:36, 04:55, 13:36. The Program argues that it is a court’s involvement in a guardian’s affairs—just as much as a particular guardian’s actions—that makes the guardianship experience so Kafkaesque. E.g. id. at 20:45 (noting that Thrash ended up in a permanent guardianship only after “the courts got involved”); id. at 25:00 (describing how courts are responsible for instituting guardianships and appointing guardians, and criticizing the extreme brevity of the related hearings). As John Savanovich, the other ward featured in the program, succinctly puts it at the end of the Program, the financial exploitation of wards is especially harmful because, “according to the courts, it’s all legal.” Id. at 51:35 (emphasis added). | Party Submissions | 9.178853 | 8.966433 | 9.076822 |
A MENDMENT .— 1 The table of sections for chapter 1 of title 36, United 2 States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to 3 the second section 146 and inserting the following: 4 ‘‘147. Choose Respect Day. ‘‘148. African Diaspora Heritage Month.’’. | Legislation | 10.869328 | 9.540802 | 11.128107 |
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 | 12.981053 | 12.903673 | 14.327745 |
What is the proper analysis to determine whether alleged departures involving professional or administrative services trigger the application of the TMLA? | Party Submissions | 43.377785 | 59.645683 | 66.76252 |
The same is true of Abilene Regional Medical Center v. Allen, 387 S.W.3d 914 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2012, pet. denied). Again, the Court allowed an obstetrician to offer an opinion about the cause of a newborn’s neurological injuries only because “he stated that he is familiar with the biological mechanism by which a fetus suffers brain injury when deprived of oxygen.” Id. at 923. | Party Submissions | 5.687854 | 5.870301 | 6.275511 |
The declarant ignored there was no possibility that the contaminants that leaked from Midland’s sewer system could have ever been mixed with household sewage. In R.R. | Party Submissions | 30.990856 | 31.884441 | 36.72088 |
For the reasons below, the Court should take another look at the issues presented in this case and should grant review. | Party Submissions | 15.276963 | 13.951676 | 17.478153 |
By: /s/ David M. Gunn David M. Gunn State Bar No. 08621600 [email protected] Attorney for Petitioners I hereby certify that on October 26, 2023 a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been electronically filed and served on all counsel below. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.2(c)(1), 9.5(b)(1). | Party Submissions | 4.233804 | 5.764318 | 7.395896 |
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex.1992). Generally, appellate courts lack jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus to supervise or correct incidental rulings of a trial judge when there is an adequate remedy by appeal. | Party Submissions | 4.326536 | 4.99712 | 5.928743 |
Rules Applicable to Installment Payments. If a Payment Schedule specifies installment payments, annual payments will be made beginning as of the payment commencement date for such installments and shall continue on each anniversary thereof until the number of installment payments specified in the Payment Schedule has been paid. The amount of each installment payment shall be determined by dividing (a) by (b), where (a) equals the Account Balance as of the Valuation Date and (b) equals the remaining number of installment payments. | Contract | 5.480147 | 4.86248 | 6.594262 |
B, U : Claimants’ request is insufficiently narrow and specific as it does not specify the time period in which these unspecified decisions were issued or to whom were they issued (i.e. who was obliged to pay the fee for the use of urban construction land). For the same reason the request is overly burdensome because it requires Respondent to search the decisions of the City of Belgrade over a decades-long period of time. R, M : Claimants failed to demonstrate how the requested documents are relevant to its case and material for the outcome of the proceedings. In particular, Claimants failed to explain how the decisions of the City of Belgrade are relevant to the question of Obnova's alleged property rights or material to the Tribunal's 249 Memorial, ¶¶ 222-224. | Legal Decisions | 12.363438 | 11.792789 | 12.377034 |
To the extent that the trial court simply took the value ofthe account on the date of divorce, subtracted Husband’s contributions during the marriage and then awarded the remaining $31 1,778.24 as his separate property, the trial court abused its discretion in its characterization and division of the property. See, e.g., Sanchez, 2022 WL 1055373,-at *8. We further conclude that the trial court’s abuse of discretion affected the just and right division of the community estate and remand is necessary' for the trial court to reconsider division of the community estate. We sustain Wife’s third issue. | Party Submissions | 7.749883 | 8.574055 | 9.134311 |
In August 2018, RLB started its dredging work under the Subcontract. When RLB reached minus 38 feet below sea level, it encountered substantially harder material. RLB began to have equipment problems and difficulty excavating the harder material. RLB believed that the subsurface condition it had encountered varied greatly from the information provided by MVP and McCarthy in the Phase 1 report. On July 22, 2019, RLB advised McCarthy that it had encountered a differing site condition as defined in the MCC and the Subcontract, entitling RLB to change orders for additional time and compensation. was entitled to the relief from MVP under the MCC, RLB also requested that McCarthy seek a similar change order from MVP. After McCarthy advised RLB that it was required to continue its work during the dispute and McCarthy would take action to achieve completion, RLB retained its own geotechnical engineer, which found that the material RLB encountered at minus 38-foot elevation was substantially different than the subsurface conditions represented in the Phase 1 report. On August 10, 2019, MVP denied the request for a change order. | Party Submissions | 6.486056 | 6.71529 | 7.159226 |
Dr. Joseph Burns is the Superintendent of Schools for Copperas Cove ISD, a position he has held throughout the pendency of this dispute. | Party Submissions | 7.635394 | 10.925101 | 9.058633 |
A “fair summary” does not require a full statement of the applicable standard of care and how it was breached. Am. Transitional Care Ctrs. of Tex. v. Palacios, 46 S.W.3d 873, 880 (Tex. 2001). Instead, the report must simply set out what care was expected, but not given. Id. | Party Submissions | 5.5457 | 7.673261 | 6.856378 |
On June 1, 2017, Wife filed an original petition for divorce indicating the marriage was insupportable, in part, because of discord or conflict of personalities. | Party Submissions | 5.216299 | 7.187021 | 5.943598 |
But the Court of Appeals still faulted the experts for supposedly failing to provide an “ adequate explanation ” tying the “ purported asphyxia event” to H.W.’s “ large subacute infarction involving the majority of his left cerebral cortex. ” 2022 WL 17324338, at *3. In the Seventh Court ’ s view, the reports were deficient because they “left to inference and speculation” whether “asphyxia, in general, or the extent allegedly encountered by the unborn child, in particular, can lead to such a brain injury.” 2022 WL 17324338, at *3. | Party Submissions | 9.144082 | 9.971724 | 10.022141 |
To amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to clarify ican Rescue Plan Act of 2021, including amounts paid on behalf of a deceased participant or beneficiary, and for other purposes. | Legislation | 5.692601 | 6.227986 | 6.309098 |
As Rafiei explained to the trial court in this case, the arbitration of his claims would require three arbitrators under the arbitration agreement. Thus, Rafiei would be liable for half of the three arbitrators’ fees, as well as half of all other costs of arbitration, including room rental fees, abeyance fees, and other filing fees. Although billed rates vary among arbitrators, the average rate reasonably expected in a case like this is $450/hour. Additionally, a hearing to determine unconscionability could reasonably be expected to last for approximately one hour. Thus, the arbitrator fees alone would likely cost Appellee $675.00. Supplementing this further is the AAA’s Administrative Fee Schedules, which provide that a claimant like Rafiei would be solely responsible for the Initial Filing Fee, which under the current “Standard Fee Schedule” would be no less than $7,000.00. | Party Submissions | 8.743323 | 8.098689 | 9.194709 |
To enhance the Federal Government’s planning and preparation for extreme weather and the Federal Government’s dissemination of best practices to respond to extreme weather, thereby increasing resilience, improving regional coordination, and mitigating the financial risk to the Federal Government from such extreme weather, and for other purposes. | Legislation | 8.732777 | 8.195639 | 10.245343 |
PCC : The requested documents are accessible to Obnova/Claimants who can obtain the requested documents from the Secretariat for Urban Planning and Construction in accordance with the applicable regulations251. In other words, the requested documents are "in the public domain and equally and effectively available to both parties".252 Respondent, just like Claimants, must address the Secretariat in order to obtain documents in question.253 Therefore, it is equally burdensome for Respondent as it is for Claimants, to obtain these documents and it is not justified encumbering Respondent with the task that can be performed by Claimants themselves. B, U : The request is overly broad as Claimants seek "any and all" meeting minutes and recordings related to the preparation of the 2015 DRP in general, without specifying the time frame, and not only those dealing specifically with the rezoning of the land plot located across the street from Dunavska 17-19 and 23 (in particular, the reasons therefor). As a result, production of the requested documents would be unreasonably burdensome for Respondent. | Legal Decisions | 10.964424 | 11.33816 | 11.879593 |
Upon cessation of the cause or causes for any such failure or delay, performance hereof shall be resumed as soon as practicable. Such failure or delay shall not operate to extend the duration of this Agreement nor obligate either TDCC or any UCC Member to make up deliveries or receipts of product. If, by reason of any such circumstances, TDCC's supply of product shall be insufficient to meet all of its requirements, TDCC shall apportion among any and all existing contract purchasers, including without limitation its Affiliates, in an equitable manner so that all parties share the product in proportion to their take prior to the circumstance reducing availability. | Contract | 10.867037 | 10.607958 | 11.987103 |
Respondent does not voluntarily produce these documents by October 26, Claimants request that the Tribunal order Respondent to produce them by November 27, 2023. | Legal Decisions | 8.872431 | 11.805756 | 12.102904 |
The Parties’ positions A) The Claimant’s position 522. To begin with, Claimant asserts that, as the material damages that he sustained were caused by Respondent in breach of the Treaty and international law, Respondent must make full reparation for such harm.678 Claimant further seeks reparation for the moral damage caused by Respondent. | Legal Decisions | 10.057759 | 9.225266 | 9.413273 |
The DWC has exclusive jurisdiction to determine compensability because the Act vests the power to determine whether a *74 claimant is entitled to workers' compensation benefits solely in the DWC, subject to judicial review. | Party Submissions | 8.063659 | 8.958947 | 9.821647 |
Corrective Distribution Equivalent Deferrals. A deferral election shall also indicate whether a Participant elects to defer an additional amount of Compensation equal in amount to any Corrective Distribution received during the Plan Year to which the deferral election refers (“Corrective Distribution Equivalent Deferral”). Unless otherwise determined by the Committee, in the event that a Participant elects a Corrective Distribution Equivalent Deferral, the total amount of such Deferral will be divided by the number of pay periods remaining in the Plan Year following the receipt by the Participant of the Corrective Distribution, and the resulting amount will be added to the percentage of base salary deferred by such Participant. | Contract | 4.76467 | 4.943307 | 5.015377 |
Petitioner’s most tenuous argument is that Respondent waived its contractual acceleration rights by waiting twelve years to accelerate. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The collection attempts of Respondent and the prior holders of the note are not in the record for the simple reason that they are irrelevant to the “technical and exacting process” of acceleration. See, e.g., Tapia v. Collins Asset Group, LLC, No. 02-20-00129-CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 836 at *14 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth Feb. 3, 2022, no pet.)(mem. op.)(collection attempts ten years before acceleration did not constitute acceleration). Any attempt to read more into the record is unsupported by the record. | Party Submissions | 6.359321 | 7.525557 | 6.523527 |
TBA respectfully requests that this Court grant Osprin’s petition for review and reverse the judgment of the court of appeals regarding the Guaranty. | Party Submissions | 20.176552 | 22.122707 | 32.166546 |
The Norwegian Coast Guard is prepared to enforce Norwegian law, and vessels starting fishing activity after snow crab without expressed consent from Norway will be arrested and prosecuted .771 578. The Senator was arrested the following day (see paragraph 113, above). The Norwegian courts, up to the level of the Supreme Court, upheld the penalties imposed on North Star and the captain of the Senator (see paragraphs 118 to 121, above). | Legal Decisions | 18.048471 | 18.34217 | 19.154142 |
US$ 915,263.19, the Tribunal orders that Respondent shall bear 70% thereof, i.e. US$ 640,684.23 and accordingly shall pay to Claimants US$ 640,684.23. | Legal Decisions | 5.317744 | 6.594438 | 7.044148 |
The mootness exception for an issue “capable of repetition, yet evading review” applies only in rare circumstances. Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171, 184 (Tex. 2001). A plaintiff invoking this exception must establish that: (1) the challenged action was too short in duration to be litigated fully before the action ceased or expired; and (2) a reasonable expectation exists that the same complaining party will be subjected to the same action again. Id. We acknowledge that no one can predict with certainty that a world-wide pandemic will never again occur and cause restrictions on the public like those that were in place temporarily in Texas. But we have held that a mere theoretical possibility that a party may be subjected to the same action again is insufficient to satisfy the test. City of Dallas v. Woodfield, 305 S.W.3d 412, 419 (Tex. App. — Dallas 2010, no pet.). Despite the fact that Covid-19 has not disappeared completely, none of the appellees has ordered similar restrictions for more than two years. Like our sister court, “[W]e see that as a powerful signal that whatever course the Covid – 19 pandemic takes, a return to restrictions like those challenged here is highly unlikely.” Stand for Something Group Live, LLC, 2022 WL 11485464, at *4 (citing Eden, LLC v. Justice, 36 F.4th 166, 171 (4th Cir. 2022)). | Party Submissions | 5.82393 | 5.669742 | 6.058731 |
But you would not know that from reading the Response Brief (“Resp. Br.”) of Tonya Barina (“Barina”). Despite containing enough quotes from fictional characters to fill a “quotes about defamation” page on brainyquotes.com, Barina’s brief utterly fails to engage with these important principles. Instead, Barina simply parrots the appellate court’s erroneous analysis without once addressing Petitioners’ legal challenges. | Party Submissions | 11.7786 | 12.955293 | 13.153722 |
Second, Walker’s delay and the fact the primary election process is already well underway preclude this Court from granting relief. As this Court has observed, “avoidable delays, in particular, may be fatal to the courts’ ability to proceed” with election-related litigation. In re Khanoyan, 637 S.W.3d at 764. Walker has not even attempted to identify the “practical consequences of [his] requested judicial action,” as he was obligated to do, and for good reason: to grant him relief would be essentially to award him the Republican Party’s endorsement for the general election by default. This Court does not grant such intrusive relief on a split-second basis—let alone to one who has delayed acting until his opponent’s mistake, if so, might be incurable. As this Court has repeatedly cautioned, mandamus relief is “controlled largely by equitable principles,” In re Int’l Profit Assocs., Inc., 274 S.W.3d 672, 676 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding), which required Walker to act diligently. He did not. | Party Submissions | 9.008528 | 9.832858 | 9.547358 |
To amend the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 to expand permissible uses of assistance to firefighters grant funds relating to behavioral and mental health, and for other purposes. | Legislation | 6.449681 | 5.624119 | 5.932087 |
Relator’s own delay in bringing this proceeding—which forced him to file in this Court rather than a trial court with fact-finding capabilities— precludes Justice Devine from obtaining additional declarations, preparing evidence, and otherwise developing a full factual record in the single business day given to respond. That is why this Court’s precedent places the burden on Relator to clearly show that the relief he seeks would not cause these types of problems. Here, Relator has shown only that, as in Khanoyan, “[o]rdering the requested relief on the paltry record before this Court would be an irresponsible shot in the dark.” 637 S.W.3d at 766; see id. at 766 n.4 (citing the same declarations discussed above). | Party Submissions | 12.758247 | 14.434491 | 14.268944 |
S.W.3d 614, 617-18 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, no pet.) (quoting Lenger v. Physician’s Gen. Hosp., Inc., 455 S.W.2d 703, 706 (Tex. 1970) (“The proof must establish causal connection beyond the point of conjecture. It must show more than a possibility .”) (emphasis added). | Party Submissions | 4.509729 | 5.158882 | 5.304708 |
Even read in conjunction with Dr. Tappan’s report, Dr. Null does not explain, factually, how and why Dr. Castillo’s alleged breaches caused an injury. The reader is asked to draw inferences because, simply, Dr. Null never explains the basis for his opinions or links his conclusions to the facts of Dr. Castillo’s care. See Zamarripa, 526 S.W.3d at 460. Therefore, his report also was deficient under section 74.351, and the Court of Appeals correctly decided it was conclusory and lacking as to the required element of proximate cause. | Party Submissions | 9.173456 | 11.292521 | 11.419158 |
States have had the right to regulate the “times, places, and manner of holding elections” since the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. U.S. CONST. ART. I, SEC. 1. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Elections Clause expansively, enabling states to regulate “not only as to times and places, but in relation to notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election returns.” Smiley v. Holm, 285 U.S. 355, 366 (1932). The Court has further recognized the states’ ability to regulate political party primaries. United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 320 (1941). Saying that the State cannot disallow a single voter from signing the petition of more than one candidate in the same election is tantamount to saying that the State cannot restrict a voter from voting for more than one candidate in the same election. Ballot petition signatures are an expression 11 of an individual’s candidate preference in a specific primary. Like elections, the State has the right to legislate this form of restriction. The First Amendment is not “extended to a voter’s every desire at the ballot box” and if it was, “it ceases to be of any analytic use.” Clingman, 544 U.S. at 589 (2005). Like Respondent’s constitutional assertions, Devine’s is another red herring, designed to distract this Court from the real, uncontroverted issue in this case—whether Respondent can choose to ignore Texas law requiring him to reject Devine’s application. | Party Submissions | 5.850709 | 5.289695 | 5.854778 |
In Sprague,‘ the Fourteenth Court of Appeals remanded the case based on its conclusion that issues of fact were required to be resolved to determine how the bonus should be characterized. 363 S.W.3d at 802. The appellate court did not determine whether the bonus was community or separate pr0perty. Id. | Party Submissions | 10.093381 | 10.907216 | 13.27329 |
The ground assigned for the motion is want of jurisdiction, in this court, of appeals from the judgments of inferior courts in cases of habeas corpus . | Party Submissions | 10.421286 | 15.41194 | 15.231924 |
The decision below transgresses the boundary between those separate spheres. And Respondents barely attempt to argue otherwise. They simply try to make the decision mean something other than what it actually says. | Party Submissions | 20.476015 | 24.643051 | 29.213772 |
The Lender hereby expressly waives presentment, demand, notice, protest and all other demands and notices in connection with the delivery, acceptance, performance, default or enforcement of this Promissory Note and the Loan Agreement. | Contract | 3.408132 | 4.60129 | 6.696687 |
Harvesting of snow crab on the Norwegian continental shelf is prohibited unless an exemption has been granted. No such exemption has been granted to vessels flying the flag of an EU Member State. Therefore your vessels are not authorized to fish on the Norwegian continental shelf. This includes the whole Norwegian continental shelf, including the areas around Svalbard. | Legal Decisions | 5.961978 | 5.946973 | 6.582137 |
The trial court duly noted that it had denied the request for a jury trial (CR:759), which it conditioned solely on the absence of any claim for separate property. This is wrong, and such a narrow construction of Section 6.703 should not be upheld or condoned. From this point forward, based on an improperly restrictive reading of Section 6.703, Kacey was denied the right to a jury trial. This is a significant issue of the Court to address. There was a fact issue—the vesting period for a senior employee like Heath. | Party Submissions | 18.567911 | 20.333965 | 19.646132 |
MVP next contends it is not “unreasonable or unjust” to dismiss RLB’s claims against McCarthy and Travelers. For all of MVP’s talk about “waiver,” MVP (and McCarthy) ignore that McCarthy and Travelers never sought dismissal of RLB’s claims in the trial court—or even in the court of appeals until RLB moved for rehearing. In fact, in the trial court, McCarthy fought against litigating in Oklahoma. It never requested that RLB’s Texas claims against it be dismissed and litigated in Oklahoma. R.0361-75, 0689-96, 0707-10. MVP and McCarthy do not explain why dismissal of RLB’s claims against McCarthy and Travelers would be appropriate or subject to MCC paragraph 47.7 when McCarthy and Travelers never asked for that relief. | Party Submissions | 7.58533 | 7.886683 | 8.163366 |
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 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 | 10.032359 | 10.485844 | 10.868278 |
At the preliminary stage, however, there is no evidence, much less evidence that could demonstrate other plausible causes of a claimant’s injury. As a result, this Court’s preliminary expert report jurisprudence— which developed in tandem with Bustamante, Windrum, and Thompson— has uniformly rejected provider’s efforts to elevate their own speculation about possible alternative causes of as claimant’s injury to the status of “evidence” that an expert must preemptively address for a medical negligence claim to proceed. | Party Submissions | 16.786612 | 16.647505 | 18.167147 |
First, unlike in Rosenthal, Barina’s denial is made on camera, in the Program.10 And not only is it true that Barina made that offer, but when Thrash’s former attorney ad litem informed the probate judge of the offer, she did not deny having made it and instead complained that the lawyer had divulged privileged statements made during settlement negotiations. CR1:697. Barina’s willingness to keep Thrash in Martinez’s care (despite her asserted belief that Martinez was taking advantage of Thrash) in exchange for over $500,000 unquestionably evinces an intent to use her court-appointed position for her own personal benefit. | Party Submissions | 14.315951 | 13.083517 | 14.612132 |
It is also noteworthy that respondents’ argument is internally inconsistent. They contend the UDJA does not authorize the district court to consider Oncor’s claim because a different statute—the Texas Tax Code—sets out a comprehensive regulatory scheme that vests appraisal review boards with exclusive jurisdiction over property tax disputes. They concede that this scheme gives a property owner a process by which to challenge “the appraised value of the owner’s property, the inclusion of the property on the appraisal records, a failure by the chief appraiser or the Board to provide the property owner with any notice to which the owner is entitled, and any other action by the chief appraiser, appraisal district, or Board that applies to and adversely affects the property owner.” See Respondents’ Brief at 40 (citing Appraisal Review Bd. of Harris Cnty. Appraisal Dist. v. O’Connor & Assocs., 267 S.W.3d 413, 416-17 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (emphasis added)). But elsewhere, Respondents insist that the Texas Tax Code does not confer jurisdiction on the district court to consider challenges like Oncor’s. Respondents cannot have it both ways. | Party Submissions | 4.286574 | 4.803688 | 4.704225 |
The Manns filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment, attempting to defeat Bay's exclusive-remedy defense. The trial court granted the Manns' motion and struck Bay's exclusive-remedy defense. The trial court then gave Bay leave to seek a permissive appeal in this Court concerning four questions, which Bay raises as its issues on appeal: 1. Under Valero's Rolling Owner Controlled Insurance Program (“ROCIP”) and section 406.123 of the Labor Code, was Bay an employer of Randy Mann for purposes of the exclusive remedy defense? | Party Submissions | 9.439899 | 8.431343 | 10.197369 |
Given the Respondent’s objections regarding the lack of specific mention in the Request for Arbitration, and for the sake of efficiency, the Claimant is prepared to withdraw the Request. | Legal Decisions | 14.538063 | 10.749494 | 13.81025 |
WATERCRAFT ARE USED TO PERFORM WORK) If required by Exhibit 6, Subcontractor shall procure and maintain in force Protection and Indemnity Liability covering all vessels used subject to not less than the terms and conditions of the P&I SP-23 (Revised 1/56) form of policy or its equivalent including Collision and Tower’s Liability, Crew Liability (Jones Act), Contractual Liability and Pollution Buy-Back Endorsement. | Party Submissions | 17.866537 | 14.00535 | 18.86496 |
And, in Matagorda Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, L.L.C. v. Brooks, No. 13-16-00266-CV, 2017 WL 127867 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi, Feb. 9, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.), the appellate court considered whether a well-credentialed pathologist was qualified to offer an opinion about the cause of injuries and death of a nursing home patient. Plaintiff’s Petition alleged, among other things, that the nursing facility failed to protect the decedent from avoidable injury and failed to assess his risk for falls. Matagorda, 2017 WL 127867 at *6. | Party Submissions | 3.871852 | 4.030646 | 4.23157 |
Weatherford’s next contention incorrectly asks the Court to recharacterize sewer systems as “solid waste facilities” on the grounds that sewer systems sometimes leak, and therefore, under a separate and inapplicable federal CERCLA 11 standard, strict liability should apply to a sewer system. As such, Weatherford requests the Court do something that the Texas Legislature has declined to do—impose a CERLCA-based “status-based strict liability.” Brief at 38–39. Tellingly, the cases Weatherford cites for this proposition are federal CERLCA or RCRA12 cases, not Texas SWDA cases, as Weatherford cannot cite to Texas law or precedent (either by case or statute) that has imposed CERCLA-based strict liability on an “owner-operator” entity. Weatherford’s strict liability contentions also assume as a baseline once again that Midland’s sewer system is a “solid waste facility.” Such a conclusory and unsupported claim is apparent in its statement that “[i]nsufficient or non-existent oversight of the sewage system is enough to make the City a person responsible. .. .” Brief at 40. As noted above, the SWDA is a responsibility statute—it is not a strict liability statute, as the SWDA requires more than a showing that a contaminant was found in a certain location; it mandates responsibility (i.e., an act) between such contaminant and its disposal—neither of which was shown, despite Weatherford having the opportunity to do so. Weatherford’s entreaty to this Court to graft CERCLA strict liability standards onto a statute that does not set such a liability standard is better addressed to the Texas Legislature than to the courts that interpret state law as actually written. | Party Submissions | 9.092978 | 9.597277 | 9.789591 |
Subcontractor shall be responsible for providing insurance for all its property, tools and equipment used on the site or away from the site. | Party Submissions | 12.026348 | 13.734248 | 16.460592 |
Berrelez v. Mesquite Logistics USA, Inc., 562 S.W.3d 69 (2018) the alleged injury. In sum, we hold Berrelez had to exhaust her administrative remedies under the Act before filing suit in district court. We therefore overrule her appellate complaints. | Party Submissions | 10.423174 | 10.595881 | 12.07079 |
The issues presented are whether this Court should reject Relator’s emergency petition for writ of mandamus for any of the following independent reasons: 1. Relator seeks relief that would disrupt an ongoing or imminent election in violation of this Court’s precedent; 2. The relief Relator seeks—removing Justice Devine from the ballot— is inequitable not only because Justice Devine submitted his ballot petition in good faith with every reason to believe the signatures on it were valid, but because the emergency posture of this proceeding is entirely the product of Relator’s own avoidable delay in bringing the matter to the courts several weeks after the statutory deadline and six full weeks after Relator could have known about the purported defects; 3. The relief Relator seeks is contrary to this Court’s precedent allowing candidates to cure technical defects related to their petition signatures when the defects are not apparent from the face of the petition and the candidate filed the petition before the statutory deadline; and 4. Although the Court need not reach the issue, the prohibition on individuals signing multiple ballot petitions for candidates in the same election burdens First Amendment rights of both candidates and signers without advancing any sufficient governmental interest, and this prohibition cannot be constitutionally applied on these facts to exclude Justice Devine from the ballot where he is not at fault and an opportunity to cure would serve any possibly sufficient governmental interest in election administration. | Party Submissions | 7.160004 | 7.110083 | 7.207523 |
The uncontroverted affidavit testimony of Laura V. Yeager, an attorney with Defendant Fleming & Associates, L.L.P., states that the majority of the Fen-Phen clients were referred to Defendants by 120 different attorneys located in 38 different states, 110 of whom used “separate and distinct client retainer contracts when signing up diet drug clients.” Document No. 45, Affidavit of Laura V. Yaeger (“Yaeger Aff.”), at 2. Ms. Yaegar also cites significant differences in the retainer contracts with respect to the charging of litigation expenses. Id. At 2-3. Indeed, the differences in expense provisions are manifest in the contracts themselves, some of which were submitted by Karnes. (VII CR 4136-37). | Party Submissions | 10.87018 | 9.891729 | 10.709157 |
To complicate the instant case, Dallas served not just as a regulator but also as the lessor in Trinity’s lease of the mineral interests and Surface Tracts. In addition to other benefits, as part of this lease, Dallas received a bonus payment of over $19 million. While not extensively covered in Trinity II, the jury and trial court also held Dallas liable for fraud and negligence related to the leases, awarding damages exceeding $23 million, plus interest. The amici curiae refrain from commenting on the fraud or negligence aspects of the case. Although the takings analysis should not be influenced by Dallas’ role as a market participant, one might question if perceptions of fairness or “unclean hands” influenced the jury’s damage findings or the court’s regulatory takings analysis. Consider hypothetically if Dallas did not own the disputed mineral rights and had not received a 17 City of White Settlement v. Super Wash, Inc., 198 S.W.3d 770, 772 n.2 (Tex. 2006). 18 Texas Cities by Population, https://www.texas-demographics.com/cities_by_population (December 12, 2023). | Party Submissions | 9.121534 | 8.867011 | 9.464849 |
Just as with the objective prong, the analysis focuses on the alleged act or omission, from the actor’s perspective, at the time the act occurred. Reviewing “courts focus on the defendant’s state of mind, examining whether the defendant knew about the peril caused by his conduct but acted in a way that demonstrates he did not care about the consequences to others.” Reeder v. Wood Cnty. Energy, LLC, 395 S.W.3d 789, 796 (Tex. 2012). | Party Submissions | 6.870048 | 7.663441 | 7.424004 |
At its core, the purposeful availment analysis seeks to determine whether a nonresident’s conduct and connection to a forum are such that it could reasonably anticipate being haled into court there. At 152. It is important to note that the alle g atio n that a defendant committed a tort in Texas is sufficient to justify the exercise of specific jurisdiction over said defendant, Morris v. Kohls-York, 164 SW3d 686 (Tex. App. -Austin, 2005, rev dism’d) at 694. “When dealing with a plea to the jurisdiction, ‘we take the factual allegations in the plaintiff’s petition as true.’” Gonzales v. Texas Parks and Wildlife, 87 Sw 3d 563 (Tex. App.-Austin, 1988, rev. den’d). | Party Submissions | 6.797325 | 7.634473 | 7.451346 |
Disposition: The Court of Appeals (Chief Justice Quinn, joined by Justices Parker and Doss) unanimously concluded that the Walkers’ expert reports were insufficient under Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The Court issued a memorandum opinion reversing the trial court’s order and dismissed the Walkers’ claims. See Baptist St. Anthony’s Hosp. v. Walker, No. 07-22-00032-CV, 2022 WL 17324338 (Tex. App.—Amarillo, Nov. 29, 2022, pet. filed) (mem. op.). | Party Submissions | 4.630643 | 4.802552 | 4.708509 |
Roskey v. Continental Cas. Co., 190 S.W.3d 875, 880 (Tex. App.-- Dallas 2006, pet. denied) ; see also American Motorists Ins. Co. v. Fodge, 63 S.W.3d 801, 804-05 (Tex. 2001) ; In re Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa., 233 S.W.3d 925, 928 (Tex. App.-- Waco 2007, orig. proceeding) . | Party Submissions | 2.98974 | 3.561635 | 3.442428 |
WHEREAS, the Company desires to continue to employ the Executive, and Executive desires to continue to be employed by the Company, as the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer, on the terms set forth in this Agreement. | Contract | 3.667454 | 4.193292 | 4.812273 |
Subsets and Splits