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
⌀ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Petitioner cites to several cases in support of her claim that the unpaid portion of a real estate loan becomes an unsecured debt after foreclosure, for which a lender has no other recourse than to seek a money judgment. But Petitioner’s cases simply do not say what she claims. Petitioner claims that a junior creditor cannot continue demanding monthly payments under the former installment agreement, and cites to Marhaba Partners Ltd., P’ship v. Kindron Holdings, LLC, 457 S.W.3d 208, 215 (Tex.App-Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, pet. denied) – but the case itself never mentions such a concept. Instead, it recites numerous scenarios – such as notes secured by multiple sources of collateral – and clearly presupposes that the loan has already been accelerated in order to support the foreclosure sale. Id. Similarly, while Respondent agrees that the Wesley case stands for the proposition that a junior lienholder’s foreclosure is a nullity when attempted after the senior lienholder forecloses, nevertheless the opinion specifically held that the junior lienholder was still allowed to recover the amount owed. Wesley v. Amerigo, Inc., No. 10-05-00041-CV, 2006 WL 22213, at *2 (Tex.App.-Waco Jan. 4, 2006, no pet.)(mem. op.). Far from supporting Petitioner, the Wesley court reaffirms that the extinguishment of a junior lien does not affect the borrower’s obligation to pay the Note. | Party Submissions | 6.443894 | 6.344068 | 6.520571 |
Dist.] 2015, orig. proceeding) (nonsignatory held entitled to enforce contract against signatory); Cornerstone, 348 S.W.3d at 544-45 (same). | Party Submissions | 9.04437 | 15.995823 | 20.568544 |
B, U : the request is unduly and overly broad and burdensome as it covers a time period of five decades, going back to 1946 (prior to the establishment of Obnova). Respondent cannot reasonably be requested to produce all documents from this time period extending almost to half century that relate to Dunavska Plots. Obviously, Claimants’ request is nothing else but a fishing expedition as they are casting about for documents, the existence of which they can only surmise (as evidenced by the fact that Claimants are unable to identify a specific document or date on which the document was prepared), which they hope will support their case. | Legal Decisions | 15.234993 | 16.149618 | 15.445229 |
This is a personal injury dual-employer case where coverage and course and scope have been challenged by the respective parties. Both Mann and Bay filed opposing motions for summary judgment and their respective responses. Mann's motions and responses have challenged Bay's legal standing to assert the “exclusive remedies” doctrine. Bay's motions and responses focused on its available coverage and the fact question of “course and scope” as the determining factor. | Party Submissions | 18.191332 | 16.998306 | 19.130249 |
Here, the petition advised: “Attempts by Plaintiffs to identify how the switch happened were made. However, Plaintiffs’ medical birth records were destroyed in a fire at the hospital.” (CR 1 3). This fact was also noted at the hearing before the trial court, where counsel advised that the medical records had been destroyed. (RR 23). So, even were petitioners to try and produce an expert report on the adequacy of the medical records, it would not be possible in this case. G. This Court should take the opportunity to articulate a test for determining whether a claim relating to professional or administrative services relating to health care falls under the TMLA. | Party Submissions | 16.905062 | 15.350075 | 19.505127 |
C) The Tribunal’s analysis 181. The Tribunal considers that, in the case at hand, it should first determine the legal consequence of a declaration of illegality. Respondent claims that investments acquired through an illegal scheme are not protected under investment treaties, while Claimant alleges that only certain “gross and severe” violations of local law could ultimately deprive an investment of treaty protection. | Legal Decisions | 14.587727 | 11.838223 | 13.693051 |
In accordance with Article 77 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 (UNCLOS), the two Coastal States, the Russian Federation and Norway, exercise their sovereign rights in respect of the continental shelf of the Barents Sea for its exploration and development of its natural resources. | Legal Decisions | 4.497039 | 4.599369 | 4.484434 |
First, and perhaps most importantly, the affidavit does not at any point provide evidence that Rafiei is actually paying his own expenses. What Rafiei states is “[i]f it is determined that. .. arbitration will require me to pay more than $6,000.00 in fees and expenses up front, I do not expect to continue with my claim because I do not have that kind of money.” CR115. But he does not state that he is responsible for paying expenses. | Party Submissions | 10.56268 | 11.15413 | 12.773846 |
Further negating Weatherford’s complaints regarding insufficient discovery time, the primary purpose of governmental immunity is to protect public entities and their officials from lawsuits, and specifically protecting the public fisc. See Nazari, 561 S.W.3d at 508; see also Fed. Sign v. Tex. S. Univ., 951 S.W.2d 401, 417 (Tex. 1997) (“The modern justification for sovereign immunity is that suits against the state would deplete resources of treasury and tax funds necessary to operate the government.”). Governmental immunity aims to protect public entities from the unnecessary and costly endeavor that is discovery. Further, courts should determine “at its earliest opportunity whether it has the. .. statutory authority to decide the case before allowing litigation to proceed.” Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 226. The Trial Court correctly granted Midland’s Plea to the Jurisdiction on October 28, 2020. Midland was immune from suit, and proceeding through additional discovery in the hopes of finding a basis for its claim, as Weatherford urges, would be burdensome to Midland, and an insult to the jurisdictional gate-keeping function that precludes such a request for hail-mary jurisdictional discovery. | Party Submissions | 7.995615 | 8.052671 | 8.826083 |
To establish the Commission on National Agricultural Statistics Service Mod- ernization to modernize the data collection and reporting processes of the National Agricultural Statistics Service, and for other purposes. | Legislation | 11.859444 | 10.650517 | 10.370264 |
Not every licensed medical doctor is qualified to opine on all medical matters. See id. at 152 – 53. But the Act’s criteria are expressly nonexclusive, and the qualifications test should not be too narrowly drawn or rigidly applied. Benge v. Williams, 548 S.W.3d 466, 472 (Tex. 2018). The critical inquiry is whether the expert ’ s expertise goes to the very matter on which he is to give an opinion. Broders, 924 S.W.2d at 153 (quoting Tex. R. Evid. 702). | Party Submissions | 7.207585 | 7.015794 | 7.927109 |
The Company’s independent non-employee directors may elect to defer all or any portion of the fees above in accordance with the Company’s deferred compensation plan for its directors. | Contract | 7.808171 | 5.889999 | 9.940236 |
El inversionista no podrá presentar una reclamación si han transcurrido más de tres (3) años a partir de la fecha en la cual tuvo conocimiento o debió haber tenido conocimiento de la presunta violación a este Capítulo, así como de las pérdidas o daños sufridos. | Legal Decisions | 3.596505 | 9.244168 | 6.195397 |
To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to periodically assess cybersecurity threats to, and vulnerabilities in, the agriculture and food critical infrastructure sector and to provide recommendations to enhance their security and resilience, to require the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct an annual cross-sector simulation exercise relating to a food-related emergency or disruption, and for other purposes. | Legislation | 6.422613 | 5.843222 | 6.387313 |
Qatar BIT. The request is therefore intended to put the Tribunal but also the Claimant in a position to fully understand the context of the arrest but more generally the case or, as the Respondent itself admits, “to enable a fairer picture to be put before the Tribunal of what [the Claimant’s] misconceived claim is really about”4. | Legal Decisions | 19.738596 | 18.49987 | 21.373655 |
According to an eyewitness, three lifeguards were on duty, and although there was a bin full of lifejackets available for campers to use, none of the campers were wearing lifejackets. According to one of the campers, Catiana entered the pool while camp staff had their backs turned to the campers. A lifeguard noticed Catiana in distress, but by the time Catiana was pulled from the water, she was unresponsive. Catiana died the next day. | Party Submissions | 6.5621 | 7.147006 | 7.357372 |
Specified Date Account. A Specified Date Account means an Account established by the Committee to record the amounts payable at a future date as specified in the Participant’s applicable Compensation Deferral Agreement. | Contract | 12.55341 | 11.684443 | 14.536083 |
Appellate Court Determination:, Trial court’s dismissal of Oncor’s cause of action against the Mills Central Appraisal District and Appraisal Review Board reversed and remanded to trial court for further proceedings. Central Appraisal District’s and Appraisal Review Board’s Motions for En Banc Reconsideration Motion were denied. | Party Submissions | 8.638701 | 8.319009 | 8.417942 |
Section 161.001(b)(1) (O) of the Texas Family Code permits a court to terminate the parent-child relationship if it finds that a parent has: failed to comply with the provisions of court order that specifically established the actions necessary for the parent to obtain the return of the child who has been in the permanent or temporary managing conservatorship of the Department of Family and Protective Services for not less than nine months as a result of the removal from the parent under Chapter 262 for the abuse and neglect of a child. | Party Submissions | 3.687845 | 4.796233 | 5.209408 |
This correspondence is in response to your December 27, 2023 and January 5, 2024 letters (the “Letters”) challenging the application of Justice John Devine as a candidate for Supreme Court, Place 4 (the “Application”). | Party Submissions | 9.792653 | 9.975951 | 10.32675 |
HN6 [ ] The Texas Workers' Compensation Act provides that the recovery of workers' compensation benefits is the exclusive remedy of an employee covered by workers' compensation insurance for a work-related injury. See TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 408.001(a) (Vernon 2006). "The [**8] Workers' Compensation Act vests the power to award compensation benefits solely in the Workers' Compensation Commission, subject to judicial review." Am. Motorists Co. v. Fodge, 63 S.W.3d 801, 803 (Tex. 2001) (citing Saenz v. Fid. & Guar. Ins. Underwriters, 925 S.W.2d 607, 612 (Tex. 1996)). See TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. §§ 408.001(a), 410.168-.169, .203-.205, .208 (Vernon 2006). | Party Submissions | 2.960846 | 3.28067 | 3.265277 |
The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction claiming sovereign immunity barred all claims. The City argued that any claim by Petitioners that it did not enforce its Mandatory Safety Policy was only a claim that it failed to adequately supervise its patrons, which is not actionable. CR48 (citing Henry v. City of Angleton, 01-13-00976-CV, 2014 WL 5465704, at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 28, 2014, no pet)). The City also submitted evidence to the trial court challenging the existence of jurisdictional facts necessary to invoke the court’s jurisdiction. SCR44-400. | Party Submissions | 6.175644 | 6.962176 | 6.62334 |
Which brings me to my last point about what this case, our merits case, is not about. It’s not about harm caused by Russian measures that Norway was powerless to prevent. It’s not about that at all. It’s an attractive temptation perhaps, in this day and age, to blame the world’s ills on the Russian Federation, but that’s just not the evidence at all. | Legal Decisions | 10.895044 | 13.180903 | 12.176672 |
Moreover, the Claimant evidently can already provide considerable detail regarding his allegations about this meeting, and these documents; and he positively contends that he has knowledge of the investments he made, noting that it would be “absurd” if he did not do so. Document production is not needed for him to be able to advance whatever case it is that he wishes to advance that this alleged partnership, or his work in relation to it, allegedly constituted an “investment”. | Legal Decisions | 22.298498 | 21.10185 | 20.820862 |
KCSR’s arguments in its response articulates the flaw in the Court’s harmful-error analysis, perhaps even better than Petitioners did in their motion. According to KCSR, because the Court stated that it is “unable to discern whether the jury found it negligent based on the yield-sign theory,” the Court cannot—as a matter of law—determine with “reasonable certainty” that the jury’s liability finding was based on Petitioners’ other theory of negligence. | Party Submissions | 9.961363 | 10.696356 | 11.665864 |
The interest in the benefits hereunder of a spouse of a Participant who predeceases the Participant shall automatically pass to the Participant and shall not be transferable by such spouse in any manner, including but not limited to such spouse’s will, nor shall such interest pass under the laws of intestate succession. | Contract | 5.280144 | 6.755019 | 7.737927 |
To require institutions of higher education to designate at least one employee to coordinate compliance with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and for other purposes. | Legislation | 4.145612 | 3.674892 | 4.61171 |
Finally, Respondents argue that “Petitioner’s jurisdictional theory would leave Respondents with no ability to address Petitioner’s actions in any jurisdiction because none would have jurisdiction if the location of the accident was a requirement for 32 establishing jurisdiction.” Respondents’ Brief at 16 (emphasis in original). This is yet another strawman argument. At a minimum, Respondents could have sued Petitioner MCI in two States that have general jurisdiction over it—Delaware and Illinois. Instead, Respondents chose to add their claims against MCI to their claims against the other Defendants in the case because it was more convenient for Respondents’ counsel—not because their claims against Petitioner MCI have a “substantial” or “strong” connection to MCI’s contacts with Texas. | Party Submissions | 8.14527 | 8.147999 | 8.710116 |
Samson’s “law-of-the-case” rationale was off base, but its conclusion about the effect of Hooks legal decisions hit the mark in this case, with identical contractual provisions as in Hooks. That 2023 Samson now disagrees with both 2007 Samson and 2013 Samson does not justify its position. The judgment should be affirmed. | Party Submissions | 18.11891 | 20.978413 | 19.716576 |
Respondent has conducted a reasonable search for the category of documents requested, and provides Claimant with the documents identified in the request that are in its possession, custody or control, as resulting from that search. | Legal Decisions | 12.293462 | 19.341578 | 15.236405 |
Death Benefit. Death Benefit means the benefit payable under the Plan to a Participant’s Beneficiary(ies) upon the Participant’s death as provided in Section 6.1 of the Plan. | Contract | 3.561201 | 3.551239 | 3.943249 |
Serbia does not seem to dispute that the requested documents are not in Claimants’ possession, custody or control. Serbia only asserts that the requested documents are “ in the public domain and equally and effectively available to both parties. ” This assertion is incorrect for the same reasons that Claimants already explained in paragraphs 30 to 47 above and in their response to Serbia’s objections to Request No. 6. Claimants hereby incorporate all those arguments.207 Furthermore, as explained above, even i f the requested documents had been “equally and effectively available to both parties ” ( quod non ), Serbia would still be obliged to allow Claimants access to the responsive documents — as long as the Tribunal concluded that the documents are relevant and material and thus should be produced.208 DECISION 83 NO. | Legal Decisions | 8.95553 | 9.761185 | 9.617686 |
State Bar No. 03323015 [email protected] Scott A. Cummings State Bar No. 00793573 [email protected] 3950 State Highway 360 Grapevine, TX 76051 (817) 552-7742 (817) 328-2942 (Fax) COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS I certify that the foregoing Reply to the Response to Motion for Rehearing of Petition for Review is in compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4 because it: (1) contains 1,151 words, excluding the parts of the motion exempted by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(1); and (2) has been prepared in a proportionally-spaced typeface using Microsoft Word in 14-point Times New Roman font for text and 12-point Times New Roman font for footnotes, which meets the typeface requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(e). | Party Submissions | 3.693693 | 4.138152 | 4.927612 |
The Walkers attempt to re-write Dr. Tappan’s report, arguing that his conclusions first connect Dr. Castillo’s alleged failure to perform a C-section earlier with H.W.’s neurologic injury. (Pet. Br. at 18). True, he says that, if Dr. Castillo had delivered earlier, H.W. would not have had a neurological injury. (CR.671). But, as Jelinek requires courts to ask, how and why? Jelinek, 328 S.W.3d at 539-40. | Party Submissions | 13.297099 | 14.437407 | 15.22042 |
Q. .. when Joseph Tostado took the property from his parents we can see that by then there was on record in the real property records the City’s annexation, including the assertion that Windamere [sic.] Road existed over the Tostado property, right? | Party Submissions | 36.44103 | 52.99234 | 52.728157 |
HN13 [ ] Balancing jurisprudential considerations, both public and private, in determining whether an adequate remedy by appeal exists, while we are mindful that abatement orders are incidental rulings of the trial court and lost profits do not establish an inadequate appellate remedy, it is also true that whether an appellate remedy is adequate should be guided by general principles rather than simple rules; it is not an abstract or formulaic determination and "depends heavily on the circumstances presented." In re Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 136. Mandamus review may be essential to preserve important substantive and procedural rights from impairment or loss. Id. | Party Submissions | 12.104349 | 12.096494 | 14.558413 |
The purpose of the United Rentals, Inc. 2019 Annual Incentive Compensation Plan (this “Plan”) is to attract, retain and motivate selected executive officers and employees of United Rentals, Inc. (“United Rentals”) and its subsidiaries and affiliates (together with United Rentals, and their and its successors and assigns, the “Company”) in order to promote the Company’s growth and profitability. This Plan replaces the United Rentals, Inc. 2014 Annual Incentive Compensation Plan beginning with the Performance Period (as defined in Section 4) from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019. | Contract | 2.61165 | 2.627008 | 2.635855 |
Making emergency supplemental appropriations in line with the President’s request in response to the ongoing attack on Ukraine’s sovereignty by Russia and in response to the attacks in Israel for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024, and for other purposes. | Legislation | 7.360981 | 7.334461 | 7.153925 |
While the original Request concerned the Respondent’s AC-30 contract (and related documents) with “General Asphalt”, the Claimant now clarifies that General Asphalt is the colloquial industry name of an entity formally known as “General Supply Corporation S.R.L.”. | Legal Decisions | 21.306795 | 24.489725 | 23.911392 |
The only ground for setting aside an agreement on valuation is fraud because an appraisal procured by fraud is void ab initio. See Beck & Masten Pontiac-GMC, Inc. v. Harris Cty. Appraisal Dist., 830 S.W. 2d 291, 295 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, writ denied). (“With fraud established, the assessment became void and, thus, all of appellees’ business personal property escaped taxation.”) But Oncor did not assert fraud in its pleadings before the trial court, and has cited no authority for its claim that a mutual mistake will negate an agreement made final by the Legislature. | Party Submissions | 9.022256 | 8.822745 | 9.500047 |
Article 36. The Energy Secretariat shall issue a resolution with the economic dispatch rules to be applied by the DNDC [CAMMESA] to the energy and capacity transactions provided in Article 35(b) above. This rule shall provide that all generation companies shall receive a uniform price for the electricity they sell at each point of delivery to be defined by the DNDC, based on the economic cost of the system. In calculating such price, the cost that the unsupplied electricity represents for the community shall be taken into account. | Legal Decisions | 14.891809 | 16.074814 | 17.475632 |
West Headnotes (26) [1] Mandamus Acts and proceedings of courts, judges, and judicial officers Mandamus Matters of discretion Mandamus relief is available if the trial court clearly abuses its discretion, either in resolving factual issues or determining legal principles, when there is no other adequate remedy at law. [2] Mandamus Matters of discretion A trial court clearly abuses its discretion, for purposes of a petition for a writ of mandamus, if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law. | Party Submissions | 5.421366 | 6.519146 | 6.409877 |
Inc. v. Morgan, 670 S.W.3d 341, 346 (Tex. 2023) (“A court must have personal jurisdiction over a defendant to issue a binding judgment.”). | Party Submissions | 5.035806 | 5.314539 | 7.324778 |
The requested documents should also serve to establish whether Coropi engaged in managing the investment activities of Kalemegdan with respect to Obnova, which is relevant and material for the decision on Tribunal's jurisdiction, since, as pointed out by Respondent (Counter-Memorial, paras. 387-396), Coropi's disputed beneficial ownership of Kalemegdan, and its disputed indirect beneficial ownership of the Obnova shares, does not suffice to qualify as an "investment" under Article 1(1) of the Cyprus-Serbia BIT and Article 25(1) of the ICSID Convention. | Legal Decisions | 9.595716 | 9.388303 | 9.452874 |
When did the alleged requirement to obtain a CUSTF (Authorisation for Soil-Use Change in Forested Terrains / Autorización de Cambio de Uso del Suelo en Terrenos Forestales) come into effect for La Rosita? | Party Submissions | 18.611576 | 23.750118 | 20.21791 |
SUBPART A. Mark Marsenison was doing business in Texas. SUBPART B. Mark Marsenison purposefully availed himself of the privilege of doing business in Texas. | Party Submissions | 23.757463 | 17.794655 | 26.246555 |
As discussed previously, Oncor’s predecessor Sharyland and Wilbarger CAD entered into a signed agreement regarding the value of Oncor’s property in Wilbarger County. Different components make up market value including the size, age, location, and condition of the property being appraised, the existence of arm’s length sales, rental data, construction costs, and the relevance of the market data to the property. The physical components affect value, and the types of data needed in any appraisal assignment can be as diverse as the many influences on value in the marketplace. The Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal Of Real Estate 96 (14th Edition 2013). A property’s individual characteristics affect its value. TEX. TAX. CODE § 23.01(b). | Party Submissions | 10.41969 | 11.167584 | 11.402123 |
Samson gets the lease language completely wrong. There are two main problems with Samson’s new argument. First, the phrase “late charges” is not in art. XVII.D. Second, this argument still requires substituting distinct terms in the leases. | Party Submissions | 25.64185 | 33.292503 | 27.874008 |
Natalie A. Anderson SBOT: 24079007 Attorney for Petitioner I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been served on all counsel of record by Electronic Filing System in accordance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure on November 10, 2023. | Party Submissions | 6.275953 | 7.022643 | 10.706631 |
None of these cases, arising from the majority’s independent research rather than the parties’ briefing, is on point. In fact, the majority’s fourth case citation, Orman v. Cullman, makes clear that the majority opinion’s test has no place in a case dealing with self-dealing: “As for the fourth element, whenever a director stands on both sides of the challenged transaction he is deemed interested and allegations of materiality have not been required.” 794 A.2d at 25 n.50. | Party Submissions | 13.566468 | 14.02139 | 14.038875 |
The requested documents are relevant and material to the outcome of the dispute as they will shed much-needed light on the circumstances in which Mr Obradović's in -kind contribution was made, including who directed or initiated the decision to transfer the Obnova shares to Kalemegdan and whether Kalemegdan has made any contributions in respect of the Obnova shares. These matters are at the heart of Respondent's objections to the Tribunal's jurisdiction ratione materiae under the Cyprus-Serbia BIT which, if successful, would dispense with the Cypriot Claimants' claims and thus with a substantial part of Claimants' case against Respondent. | Legal Decisions | 8.731556 | 10.347832 | 9.415682 |
IT IS ORDERED that H A O shall maintain sole management of the 529 plan(s) for the benefit of the child. | Party Submissions | 28.43738 | 38.618523 | 38.860912 |
S.W.3d at 406–07. A defined contribution plan is one in which the employer and/or employee make contributions to an individual account set up for the employee. | Party Submissions | 5.257358 | 6.708283 | 8.742631 |
In its first, second, and fifth issues, Osprin contends that the trial court erred in entering a take-nothing judgement in favor of Backes, in determining that the termination clause was ambiguous, and in determining that the termination clause discharged Backes of his matured obligations. While we agree that the trial court erred in determining that the termination clause was ambiguous, we also agree with the trial court’s conclusion that all of Backes ’s obli gations under the guaranty were terminated when the conditions of the termination clause were met. Because this construction of the termination clause supports the take-nothing judgment of the trial court, and because the parties do not challenge the trial court ’s finding that the conditions of the termination clause were met, we will affirm the take-nothing judgment. | Party Submissions | 5.149784 | 5.645849 | 5.675324 |
A Compensation Deferral Agreement becomes irrevocable with respect to Performance-Based Compensation as of the day immediately following the latest date for filing such election. Any election to defer Performance-Based Compensation that is made in accordance with this paragraph and that becomes payable as a result of the Participant’s death or disability (as defined in Treas. Reg. Section 1.409A-1(e)) or upon a change in control (as defined in Treas. Reg. Section 1.409A-3(i)(5)) prior to the satisfaction of the performance criteria, will be void. | Contract | 4.393862 | 4.090428 | 4.744211 |
The language of the Decision on Bifurcated Preliminary Objections is clearly that of a final ruling, therefore, the Tribunal concludes that it constitutes res judicata. The Tribunal does not consider that this conclusion is altered by the fact that the jurisdictional objections now asserted by the Respondent were not asserted or addressed in the preliminary phase of this arbitration. In the Tribunal’s view, the doctrine of res judicata applies to claims or objections that could have been raised or asserted in an earlier proceeding, but were not. Here, there is no question but that the Respondent’s present jurisdictional objections could have been asserted previously. The fact that they were not does not alter application of the doctrine of res judicata.294 102. In PO No. 7, the majority of the Tribunal correctly and definitively determined that the “ancillary claim [is] within the scope of the consent of the Parties and within the jurisdiction of ICSID,”295 and that Mexico had consented under NAFTA to arbitrate the ancillary claim.296 Because Mexico was obviously aware of the USMCA when it presented its jurisdictional objections to the ancillary claim in May and June 2022, there is no “new” fact that would justify reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision. Because the Tribunal’s findings in PO No. 7 regarding jurisdiction over the ancillary claim are correct and no exceptional circumstances exist that would justify reconsideration of that decision, PO No. 7 should not be revised. | Party Submissions | 5.171639 | 5.575274 | 5.400202 |
Email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] 9.2. Following the date of signature of this Procedural Order, any intended change or addition by a Party to the above legal representatives shall be notified promptly in writing to the other Party, the Tribunal, and the Tribunal Secretary. Any such intended change or addition shall only take effect in the arbitration subject to the approval of the Tribunal. The Tribunal may withhold approval of any intended change or addition to a P arty’s legal representatives where such change or addition could compromise the composition of the Tribunal or the finality of any decision, order, or award (on the grounds of possible conflict or other like impediment). | Legal Decisions | 5.767988 | 6.278628 | 5.988273 |
Finally, HSMiller’s argument fails because the harm in a tort case is different from pure contractual harm. In a tort case the nature of the plaintiff’s harm dictates who is an RTP. A person is an RTP if they have caused or contributed to causing in any way the harm for which the plaintiff has sued. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 33.011(6). The harm in tort cases, including this one, arises from alleged 28 tortious acts. A simple breach of contract does not cause harm based in tort. See DeLanney, 809 S.W.2d at 494-95. | Party Submissions | 8.168623 | 9.584933 | 9.369573 |
Contemporaneous documents concerning any due diligence or inquiry into the rights of Obnova as regards the Objects and the Dunavska Plots until 26 April 2012, the date of alleged investment, including any communications, e-mails, analyses, notes, or memoranda on this issue, in particular exchanged between (i) Mr Rand or his advisors or representatives, and/or the Ahola Family Trust and/or Coropi and/or Kalemegdan or their advisors or representatives on the one hand, and (ii) Mr Obradović and/or his advisors or representatives, and/or Obnova and/or its advisors or representatives on the other hand. | Legal Decisions | 11.445115 | 11.397073 | 12.3516 |
In particular, Dr. Tappan explained that under the BSA oxytocin protocol the nurses had to titrate oxytocin infusion to the maternal-fetal response. App. 7, CR 669. Dr. Tappan believed the nurses breached the standard of care when they ignored this policy during Mrs. Walker’s labor, initially by failing to discontinue Pitocin in response to H.W.’s condition at 9:21 and next by continuing to increase the drug at 15:25 when the fetal monitoring strip was consistent with hypoxia and acidosis. App. 7, CR 669. | Party Submissions | 9.86353 | 11.53039 | 11.182009 |
McCarthy Subcontract -5-01-12-2017 Rev. 3.10 Subcontractor will be responsible for supplying its own crew with drinking water, ice and cups. | Party Submissions | 20.740103 | 22.528488 | 22.936617 |
Nature of the case: This is an interlocutory appeal concerning the sufficiency of expert reports under the Texas Medical Liability Act (“TMLA”). | Party Submissions | 7.165175 | 6.003 | 7.986195 |
In his testimony, referred to: “the Agreement that was executed with President De la Madrid”, referring to an (see Transcript Day 1 (Eng), 237:2-12). Please explain the basis for these statements by reference to the evidence in the record. | Party Submissions | 31.12402 | 37.416054 | 42.390293 |
This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(e) because it has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word 2016 software in Times New Roman 14-point font in text and Times New Roman 12-point font in footnotes. | Party Submissions | 4.147785 | 4.813586 | 6.416481 |
Finally, Thompson confirmed that neither Bustamante nor Windrum eliminated but-for causation in medical negligence cases. 649 S.W.3d at 159-60. Rather, when the negligent acts of multiple providers are so concurrent that they cannot be examined in isolation, the correct approach is to consider (1) whether each provider’s individual negligence was a substantial factor in the claimant’s injury; and (2) whether the providers’ combined negligence was a but-for cause of the injury. Id. at 160 (“If the negligent acts of each provider are so concurrent that they cannot be examined in isolation, the correct approach is to consider whether each provider’s individual negligence was a substantial factor in [the patient’s death] and whether the providers’ combined negligence was a but -for cause of [the patient’s] death. ”) . | Party Submissions | 4.880838 | 4.709673 | 5.215546 |
Hill, 385 U.S. 374, 389 (1967)); see also id. at 632 (instructing courts to be mindful not to “exert too great a ‘chilling effect’ on First Amendment activities.”). | Party Submissions | 6.441404 | 7.355188 | 9.554525 |
In Utts v. Short, the Court addressed a situation where one plaintiff (Walker) settled with a joint tortfeasor (HCA) for $200,000, but other plaintiffs were alleged to have benefitted from the settlement. 81 S.W.3d 822, 825 (Tex. 2002). The HCA settlement agreement stated that out of the $200,000, Walker would receive $50,000 and $150,000 would be paid to her attorneys, but the entire amount actually went into Walker’s attorneys’ IOLTA account. Id. In a separate document signed the same day, Walker instructed her attorneys to pay each of the four other individual plaintiffs $10,000.00. Id. Those family members, and the estate plaintiff, then settled with HCA for $10 each. Id. Walker nonsuited her claims against Dr. Utts, and the remaining plaintiffs proceeded to trial against him. Id. Dr. Utts filed an election of a dollar-for-dollar credit, asserting he was entitled to a $200,040 settlement credit. Id. The remaining plaintiffs argued that they were the only claimants left in the case, and “HCA’s settlement with them was only $10 each. Therefore, they argued that Dr. Utts was entitled to a $10 per plaintiff credit.” Id. | Party Submissions | 4.953156 | 5.237001 | 5.214115 |
Coinbase operates an online platform on which users can buy and sell cryptocurrencies and government-issued currencies. When creating a Coinbase account, individuals agree to the terms in Coinbase's User Agreement. As relevant *739 here, the User Agreement that disputes arising under the agreement be resolved through binding arbitration. | Party Submissions | 6.991443 | 8.676726 | 9.156124 |
Yellowfin cites cases for the undisputed principle, see supra at 3-4, that actions on notes and foreclosure actions are separate and distinct remedies. Resp. Br. 12. W e don’t disagree that a mortgagee can file both a suit on the note and a foreclosure action. See Kepler v. Slade, 896 P.2d 482, 485-86 (N.M. 1995). And it’s irrelevant that the holder of a mortgage had standing to file a foreclosure action on a mortgage securing a note that had been discharged in bankruptcy. See Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. v. Holden, 60 N.E.3d 1243, 1245 (Ohio 2016). The question here is not whether these actions can be brought, but when . | Party Submissions | 6.697727 | 6.611725 | 7.457245 |
Amendment and Termination. The Company may at any time and from time to time amend the Plan or may terminate the Plan as provided in this Article X. Each Participating Employer may also terminate its participation in the Plan. | Contract | 5.007249 | 5.670927 | 5.938714 |
Where, as here, there is an interested director, the presumption of the business judgment rule is inapplicable. “Certainly, if this is an ‘interested’ director transaction, such that the business judgment rule is inapplicable to the board majority approving the transaction, then the inquiry ceases. In that event futility of demand has been established by any objective or subjective standard .” Id. at 469 (Zimmerer, J. dissenting) (citation omitted). Even if the defalcating principals are so wealthy that their theft is “immaterial” to their fortune, their wrongdoing remains unlawful. | Party Submissions | 11.30989 | 12.478568 | 12.585023 |
In fact, Dr. Null’s report doesn’t even mention Dr. Castillo. (CR.708-09). True, he says H.W.’s postpartum course is “consistent with an antenatal asphyxia event.” (CR.709). But he never connects that with any claimed negligence by Dr. Castillo. ( See id. ). | Party Submissions | 12.428923 | 15.362842 | 15.811393 |
Finally, Petitioners cite Hawley27 and Benge28 as cases where the trial court mistakenly allowed the plaintiff to argue theories to the jury that had not been properly pled. This, of course, is not at issue here and KCSR has not made that argument. The opinions are, however, consistent with the holdings in Ca steel and 23 96 S.W.3d 230 (Tex. 2002). 24 Id. at 231-32. 25 Id. 26 Id. at 236. 27 Columbia Rio Grande Healthcare, L.P. v. Hawley, 284 S.W.3d 851, 861-62 (Tex. 2009). 28 Benge v. Williams, 548 S.W.3d 466, 476 (Tex. 2018). | Party Submissions | 5.099972 | 5.362337 | 5.798289 |
Third, Barina mischaracterizes the test for determining whether a statement is protected opinion or a statement of fact. She asserts that omitted material can transform a clear expression of rhetorical hyperbole into a statement of fact, but she ignores that it is the context in which that statement appears, rather than whatever the underlying publication includes or omits, that determines whether it is protected opinion. And she ignores clear precedent holding that, where a publication discloses the facts upon which a conclusion is based, that conclusion—however critical—is not actionable as defamation. | Party Submissions | 9.137649 | 10.069994 | 10.110655 |
For the avoidance of any doubt, Claimants reiterate their general objection to production of any documents covered by privilege under the legal or ethical rules. | Legal Decisions | 15.440399 | 16.272959 | 20.018091 |
Convention Article 44; Arbitration Rules 51 23.1. In consultation with the Parties, the Tribunal will determine at the end of the hearing whether there shall be post-hearing briefs. If so, the Tribunal will address the time limits for, and the length, format, and content of the post-hearing briefs. No new evidence may be produced together with the post-hearing briefs, except with leave or on request of the Tribunal. | Legal Decisions | 7.289355 | 7.712638 | 8.024178 |
Fleming Defendants are pretending like it is the Wilson Plaintiffs that had the pro-collateral estoppel agreement, when according to their analysis they are the ones that had the obvious anti-collateral estoppel agreements. Fleming Defendants have shamelessly complained to this Court about how long this litigation is taking, but it could have probably ended about 10 -15 years ago if Fleming Defendants hadn’t aggressively asserted an anti-collateral estoppel position from the very beginning. This dispute could have been tried once in the Karnes case, and it would be a distant memory by now. It’s not right, and it’s not just or fair for Fleming Defendants to be rewarded for their judicial gamesmanship, and for their blatantly contradictory positions on collateral estoppel. Fleming Defendants should be held to their Absolute Anti-Collateral Estoppel Agreements that they have been forcing on everyone else for the last 15 years. | Party Submissions | 7.741752 | 7.35225 | 8.265286 |
Earnings Credit. Each Account will be credited with Earnings on each Business Day, based upon the Participant’s investment allocation among a menu of investment options selected in advance by the Committee, in accordance with the provisions of this Article VIII (“investment allocation”). | Contract | 11.040908 | 10.139495 | 18.07925 |
The requested documents are relevant and material to assess whether the Secretariat for Urban Planning and Construction and/or the Public Urban Planning Company “Urban Planning Institute of Belgrade” considered Obnova’s rights to its premises at Dunavska 17 -19 and 23 during the preparation of the 2013 DRP, and if so, what was their contemporaneous understanding of these rights. | Legal Decisions | 17.703758 | 16.755117 | 17.735653 |
Forty-five percent (45%) or 112,500 shares of the One-Time PSU Special Grant (the “First PSU Tranche”) shall vest upon the Company’s stock (NASDAQ: OSPN) having a 45 trading day average closing price of at least $30.00; and the remaining fifty-five percent (55%) or 137,500 of the One-Time PSU Special Grant (the “Second PSU Tranche”) shall vest upon the Company’s stock (NASDAQ: OSPN) having a 45 trading day average closing price of at least $40.00 or higher. However, if the First PSU Tranche shall have vested and the Performance Period has not expired but the closing price target of $40.00 is not reached, then Executive shall be entitled to a portion of the Second PSU Tranche based on a linear interpolation between $30.00 and $40.00 for the highest 45 trading day average closing price achieved before the end of the Performance Period. Further, in the case of a termination without Cause or for Good Reason in accordance with Section 3.3 below prior to the expiration of the Performance Period where not all of the One-Time PSU Special Grant have vested, then there shall be an additional 18 month vesting period extension (“Tail Period”). During the Tail Period, Executive shall continue to be eligible to vest in the One-Time PSU Special Grant at the same performance measures except that the number of PSU’s delivered shall be reduced for the ratio of the number of days between termination and four years over four years plus 18-months. | Contract | 4.073923 | 4.233105 | 4.330795 |
Almost ten years ago to the day, this Court denied a mandamus petition substantially similar to this one. In re Joe Pool, No. 14-0040 (Tex. Jan. 17, 2014). There, another opportunistic candidate engaged in dilatory litigation seeking to exclude an election opponent—former Justice and now U.S. District Judge Jeff Brown—from the primary ballot at the last minute based on technical signature defects. This Court denied that mandamus petition in a single sentence. Id. The Court should likewise deny Relator’s mandamus petition. | Party Submissions | 8.118644 | 8.796516 | 9.173942 |
ASEY ) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to Supporting the contributions of Catholic schools in the United States and celebrating the 50th annual National Catholic Schools Week. | Legislation | 17.661077 | 14.959908 | 24.350405 |
The Walkers’ attempt to add context to their experts’ reports by claiming Dr. Null conducted a “differential diagnosis” to explain H.W.’s injury does not advance their position. (Pet. Br. at 33-34). To begin with, as Dr. Castillo explained above, saying that H.W.’s post-delivery course is “consistent with an antenatal asphyxia event” (CR.709) is no different than the Wright expert’s opinion that the patient there possibly had a chance at a better outcome. Wright, 79 S.W.3d at 53 (possibility of a better outcome, without explaining how the claimed negligent conduct caused injury, not enough to satisfy expert report requirements). | Party Submissions | 14.586621 | 16.913815 | 16.28881 |
TO THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS: The Motion seeks the Court’s reconsideration of its Petition for Review by misrepresenting key facts related to prior determinations of this issue to fabricate an illusory split of authority. This dispute is not ripe for review as the appellate c ourt’s ruling was properly based on the determination that Respondent’s claims were not derived from a contract with an applicable arbitration provision. The appellate court applied the proper standards of review at all stages of its analysis, and its ultimate opinion is not in conflict with this Court’s opinions cited by Petitioner. | Party Submissions | 9.211557 | 9.584904 | 9.240356 |
This text-based conclusion is further supported by existing Texas law. Absent the Late Charge provision, there would be a low statutory, likely simple, interest rate. Since 1983, the Texas Natural Resources Code has provided a default interest rate on late-paid royalties if the parties do not agree otherwise, but does not specify simple or compound interest, or if the rate is fixed at the beginning or fluctuates month to month: If payment has not been made for any reason in the time limits specified in Section 91.402 of this code, the payor must pay interest to a payee beginning at the expiration of those time limits at two percentage points above the percentage rate charged on loans to depository institutions by the New York Federal Reserve Bank, unless a different rate of interest is specified in a written agreement between payor and payee. | Party Submissions | 9.231074 | 9.512229 | 10.287436 |
Beyond this case, the El Paso court’s decision would gut the protections in § 2301.467(a)(1), threatening harm to all Texas dealers and ultimately Texans—whose interests the Legislature sought to protect by regulating in this area—by inviting manufacturers/distributors to skirt the statutory limits imposed on them. | Party Submissions | 15.445115 | 14.796371 | 18.302732 |
EACH PERSON WHO IS A PARTY TO THIS ORDER IS ORDERED TO NOTIFY EACH OTHER PARTY, THE COURT, AND THE STATE CASE REGISTRY OF ANY CHANGE IN THE PARTY'S CURRENT RESIDENCE ADDRESS, MAILING ADDRESS, HOME TELEPHONE NUMBER, NAME OF EMPLOYER, ADDRESS OF EMPLOYMENT, DRIVER'S LICENSE NUMBER, AND WORK TELEPHONE NUMBER. THE PARTY IS ORDERED TO GIVE NOTICE OF AN INTENDED CHANGE IN ANY OF THE REQUIRED INFORMATION TO EACH OTHER PARTY, THE COURT, AND THE STATE CASE REGISTRY ON OR BEFORE THE 60TH DAY BEFORE THE INTENDED CHANGE. IF THE PARTY DOES NOT KNOW OR COULD NOT HAVE KNOWN OF THE CHANGE IN SUFFICIENT TIME TO PROVIDE 60-DAY NOTICE, THE PARTY IS ORDERED TO GIVE NOTICE OF THE CHANGE ON OR BEFORE THE FIFTH DAY AFTER THE DATE THAT THE PARTY KNOWS OF THE CHANGE. | Party Submissions | 2.62641 | 2.576188 | 2.666158 |
Did the negligence, if any, of the Terry Defendants proximately cause the injury complained of by HenryS. Miller in this lawsuit? | Party Submissions | 15.905113 | 24.324759 | 32.823982 |
McCarthy for review and approval prior to submitting its first application for payment. The Schedule shall be itemized as directed by McCarthy by general areas, specific large pieces of equipment, and/or another similar method which shall accurately indicate the value of work performed or services rendered. | Party Submissions | 29.368752 | 25.220455 | 30.857622 |
This issue may at first seem narrow in impact, but in reality, it is critical. The issue directly impacts the entire auto industry in Texas, which is why the Texas Automobile Dealers Association (TADA)—the largest trade association representing Texas dealers—has urged review. | Party Submissions | 11.493285 | 11.571051 | 13.20652 |
How is Rafiei affording the expense of hiring experts and paying for depositions now if he could not afford the expense involved in arbitrating the merits of the litigation? | Party Submissions | 25.913187 | 20.403473 | 35.69726 |
Justice Jackson filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined in full, and in which Justice Thomas joined in part. | Party Submissions | 5.091571 | 4.799189 | 4.337735 |
Corrective Distribution. Corrective Distribution means the amount of any 401(k) plan excess contribution (within the meaning of Code Section 401(k)(8)) which is distributed to a Participant during any Plan Year. | Contract | 6.169442 | 6.285892 | 6.356921 |
Justice Devine also stands ready and able to cure the alleged defects. As the Appendix to this Response shows, he collected an additional 23 non-duplicative signatures from the Eighth Court of Appeals District in October. These signatures are non-duplicative and are sufficient to cure the issues Relator alleges. B. This Court’s precedents requiring an opportunity to cure There is no daylight between this Court’s precedents requiring an opportunity to cure signature defects and the facts presented by this mandamus petition. Relator never suggests otherwise. He instead argues only that these decisions have been superseded by statute. Pet.10. Not so. | Party Submissions | 14.22639 | 14.025877 | 15.5411 |
TEX. R. CIV. P. 168. Among other filing requirements, Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 28.3 states that a petition for permissive appeal in a civil case must: (1) contain the information required by Rule 25.1(d) to be included in a notice of appeal; (2) attach a copy of the order from which appeal is sought; (3) contain a table of contents, index of authorities, issues presented, *329 and a statement of facts; and (4) argue clearly and concisely why the order to be appealed involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion and how an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3(e); see id. R. 25.1(d). | Party Submissions | 3.41308 | 3.903923 | 4.028329 |
I agree with that hesitation—even one step further down this path is much too far. The mandatory-general-stay rule that the Court manufactures is unmoored from Congress's commands and this Court's precedent. And the windfall that the Court gives to defendants seeking arbitration, preferencing their interests over all others, is entirely unwarranted. The Court now mandates that result no matter how unjust that outcome is, according to traditional equitable standards, in a given case. This endeavor is unfounded, unwise, and—most fundamentally—not our role. | Party Submissions | 16.22333 | 20.663763 | 18.970835 |
See Respondent’s Memorial at para. 59. Claimants have shown that this assertion misconstrues the meaning of, and draws incorrect inferences from, Article 34.1. | Legal Decisions | 15.724683 | 16.459814 | 15.321329 |
Texas Bar No. 24007951 [email protected] MAYFIELDLAWFIRM 320 S. Polk St., Suite 400 Amarillo, Texas 79101 806-242-0152 806-242-0159 (fax) ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT RHODESIA CASTILLO, M.D. | Party Submissions | 5.428375 | 5.550367 | 6.789719 |
Small Account Balances. The Committee shall pay the value of the Participant’s Accounts upon a Separation from Service in a single lump sum if the balance of such Accounts is not greater than the applicable dollar amount under Code Section 402(g)(1)(B), provided the payment represents the complete liquidation of the Participant’s interest in the Plan. | Contract | 5.535523 | 6.978104 | 7.48648 |
Most Texans would assume that owners and operators of public pools, even if they are municipalities, have a duty to provide a certain number of lifeguards. Most Texans would also assume that when posted, mandatory safety rules prescribe owners will enforce those rules, that owners have an enforceable duty to do so. In this case, most Texans would be wrong. | Party Submissions | 12.043656 | 10.557297 | 12.781029 |
Subsets and Splits