The buyers raised several defenses and counterclaims. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years in St. Paul, Minnesota, where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. Occurs where one or both of the parties to a contract have an erroneous belief about a material (important, fundamental) aspect of the contract - such as its subject matter, value, or some other aspect of the contract Mistakes may be either unilateral or mutual Click the card to flip Flashcards Learn Test Match Created by carbrooks64 The Court went on to note: The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Discuss the court decision in this case. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. Stoll planned to sell or trade the litter. Effectively, Stoll either made himself a partner in their business for no consideration or he would receive almost double to way over double the purchase price for his land over thirty years. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years in St. Paul, Minnesota, where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Yang didnt understand that signing the contract meant Stoll received the right to the litter. The court held that the clause at issue provided that the plaintiff seller was entitled to all the chicken litter from the defendants poultry houses on the subject property for 30 years and that the defendants were to construct a poultry litter shed on the property to store the litter. 7 After the first growing cycle, Buyers de-caked3 their chicken houses at a cost of $900. Unconscionability has generally been recognized to include an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties, together with contractual terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." He also claims he is entitled to immediate possession and if the litter has been taken in execution of a judgment against him, is exempt from being so taken. Prior to coming to the United States, Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidentiary materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff. Court of appeals finds Stoll's 30 year clause unconscionable. Stoll v. Xiong. "Although a trial court in making a decision on whether summary judgment is appropriate considers factual matters, the ultimate decision turns on purely legal determinations, i.e. Do all contracts have to be in writing to be enforceable? Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. She received no education in Laos and her subsequent education consists of a six month "adult school" program after her arrival in 1985 in the United States at age 19. . BLAW 1 Cases Flashcards | Quizlet 8 Xiong testified that in February of 2009 he had traded the chicken litter from the first complete clean out of their six houses for shavings. "Ordinarily the mere inadequacy of consideration is not sufficient ground, in itself, to justify a court in canceling a deed, yet where the inadequacy of the consideration was so gross as to shock the conscience, and the grantor was feeble-minded and unable to understand the nature of his contract, a strong presumption of fraud arises, and unless it is successfully rebutted, a court of equity will set aside the deed so obtained." 2 When addressing a claim that summary adjudication was inappropriate, we must examine the pleadings, depositions, affidavits and other evidentiary materials submitted by the parties and affirm if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. 19 An analogy exists regarding the cancellation of deeds. https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Docket No. technology developed exclusively by vLex editorially enriches legal information to make it accessible, with instant translation into 14 languages for enhanced discoverability and comparative research. Stoll testified in a deposition taken in the companion case that the litter had value to him because "I was trading it for a litter truck and a tractor." She did not then understand "when or what paperwork that we had signed with him giving him the rights to the litters.". Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. Under Stoll's interpretation of paragraph 10 (which was his "idea"), the land sale contract is onerous to one side of the contracting parties while solely benefitting the other, and the parties to be surcharged with the extra expense were, due to language and education, unable to understand the nature of the contract. View the full answer Step 2/2 3 On review of summary judgments, 27 Citing Cases From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Loffland Bros. Co. v. Overstreet Download PDF Check Treatment Red flags, copy-with-cite, case summaries, annotated statutes and more. Fichei v. Webb, 1930 OK 432, 293 P. 206; Morton v. Roberts, 1923 OK 126, 213 P. 297. Nantz v. Nantz, 1988 OK 9, 10, 749 P.2d 1137, 1140. Chicken litter referred to the leftover bedding and chicken manure. 107,879. (2) When it is claimed or appears to the court that the contract or any clause thereof may be unconscionable the parties shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence as to its commercial setting, purpose and effect to aid the court in making the determination. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis We agree. Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required). Factual descriptions are somewhat confusing in some of parts of Stoll's motion due to a reliance upon his deposition taken in Stoll v. Lee, companion Case No. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. That judgment is AFFIRMED. But in any country, no one will buy you a free lunch or provide you a-or give you a free cigarette pack of three dollars. The de-caking process involves removal of some of the upper layer of bedding used by a flock. The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience.". After 2008, rising oil prices drove up the cost of commercial fertilizer, but before then he had not sold litter for more than $12 per ton. 3. v. Stoll v. Xiong (Unconscionable contracts) Mr. and Mrs. Xiong are Laotian refugees with limited English abilities. The purchase contract further provided that Xiong and Yang would construct a litter shed and that Stoll would be entitled to receive all chicken litter (guano?) He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. Page one ends with numbered paragraph 7 and the text appears to be in mid-sentence. UCC 2-302 Legal Meaning & Law Definition: Free Law Dictionary View Case Cited Cases Citing Case Cited Cases Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. Stoll testified in a deposition taken in the companion case that the litter had value to him because I was trading it for a litter truck and a tractor., He was unsure what damages he would sustain from not having the litter but had told people he would have litter for sale, now it's not available.. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, GIBBS ARMSTRONG BOROCHOFF MULLICAN & HART, P.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant, The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. But in any country, no one will buy you a free lunch or provide you a-or give you a free cigarette pack of three dollars. Evoking Anticipated Guilt: Stoll (2010) - Guilt-Free Markets The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception and oppression. Mark D. Antinoro, Taylor, Burrage Law Firm, Claremore, OK, for Defendants/Appellees. People v. SILLIVAN, Michigan Supreme Court, State Courts - Court Case I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. According to his petition, Stoll discovered Yang and Xiong were selling the chicken litter to others and the chicken litter shed was empty on or about March 24, 2009.4 His suit against Buyers was filed the next day. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Bmiller Final Study Guide.docx - MWSU 2019 BUSINESS LAW The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. Yes. September 17, 2010. 318, 322 (N.D.Okla. Super Glue Corp. v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc. Get full access FREE With a 7-Day free trial membership Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our key terms: A complete online legal dictionary of law terms and legal definitions; The court concluded that, effectively, plaintiff either made himself a partner in the defendants business for no consideration or he would receive almost double to much more than double the purchase price for his land over thirty years. The agreement also describes the property as a parcel which is "adjacent to the farm recently purchased by Shong Lee and Yer Xiong Lee," i.e., Xiong's sister and brother-in-law, who are the defendants in the companion case. Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. UNITED STATES v. XIONG (2001) | FindLaw The actual price Buyers will pay under the paragraph Stoll included in the land sale contract is so gross as to shock the conscience. As the actual price that the defendants would pay under the chicken litter paragraph was so gross as to shock the conscience. Stoll included a clause that required giving all the chicken litter to Stoll for free for 30 years. He claims the trial court should have recognized "the validity of the contract at issue" and granted him judgment as a matter of law. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 107879, brought by Stoll against Xiong's sister, Yer Lee, and her husband, Shong Lee, to enforce provisions of a contract containing the same 30-year chicken litter provision, were argued at a single hearing. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Court of Civil Appeals of ask 7 1. Defendant testified that plaintiff told her that they had to understand that they had signed over the litter to him. Stoll moved for summary judgment in his favor, claiming there was no dispute Buyers signed the Agreement to Sell Real Estate on January 1, 2005, and under that agreement he was entitled to the chicken litter for 30 years. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian . Loffland Brothers Company v. Overstreet, 1988 OK 60, 15, 758 P.2d 813, 817. Stoll moved for summary judgment in his favor, claiming there was no dispute Buyers signed the Agreement to Sell Real Estate on January 1, 2005, and under that agreement he was entitled to the chicken litter for 30 years. When they came to the United States, Xiong and his wife signed a contract real estate from Stoll in Oklahoma. Xiong, who is from Laos, became a refugee due to the Vietnam War. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. Xiongs wife Mee Yang needed an English interpreter to communicate. 107,879. Try it free for 7 days! The buyers of a chicken farm ended up in court over one such foul contract in Stoll versus Xiong.Chong Lor Xiong spoke some English. 10th Circuit. 9 Stoll's petition claims Buyers breached their contract with him by attempting to sell their chicken litter to someone else and asks for specific performance and a temporary injunction to prevent any sales to third-parties. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. whether one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there are no material disputed factual questions." Gu L, Xiong X, Zhang H, et al. 5 This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. They argued Stoll's own inability to articulate a reason any party would agree to give their chicken litter away when they also had to bear all the costs of generating it. Factual descriptions are somewhat confusing in some of parts of Stoll's motion due to a reliance upon his deposition taken in Stoll v. Lee, companion Case No. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. Afterwards, the bedding shavings are replenished for the next flock to a level set by Simmons contract. Defendant Yang was a Hmong immigrant from Laos, and received no education. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. Brown v. Nicholson, 1997 OK 32, 5, 935 P.2d 319, 321. 13 At hearing, the trial court commented: I've read this and reread this and reread this. Would you have reached the . Stoll included the litter provision in the draft and final contracts. at 1020. The trial court found the chicken litter clause was unconscionable, granted Buyers' motion for summary judgment, denied Stoll's motion for summary judgment, and entered judgment in favor of Buyers on Stoll's petition. armed robbery w/5 gun, "gun" occurs to Phillips Machinery Company v. LeBond, Inc., 494 F. Supp. Released for Publication by Order of the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. Ut ultricies suscipit justo in bibendum. We affirm the trial court's findings the contract paragraph supporting Stoll's claim is unconscionable and Buyers were entitled to judgment in their favor as a matter of law. Yang testified: I don't know if he's supposed to get the chicken litter free or not. In posuere eget ante id facilisis. PDF Bicar Course Selected Court Cases - Ncrec Under Stoll's interpretation of paragraph 10 (which was his "idea"), the land sale contract is onerous to one side of the contracting parties while solely benefitting the other, and the parties to be surcharged with the extra expense were, due to language and education, unable to understand the nature of the contract. . Ronald STOLL, Plaintiff/Appellant,v.CHONG LOR XIONG and Mee Yang, Defendants/Appellees. Eddie L. Carr, Christopher D. Wolek, Oliver L. Smith, Gibbs Armstrong Borochoff Mullican & Hart, P.C., Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellant. Unconscionability has generally been recognized to include an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties, together with contractual terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a "couple" written words. This prior agreement lists the purchase price as $120,000 and there is no provision for a road. "Although a trial court in making a decision on whether summary judgment is appropriate considers factual matters, the ultimate decision turns on purely legal determinations, i.e. The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted, (60) acre parcel of real estate located in Delaware County, Oklahoma approximately .5 miles East of the current Black Oak Farm, and adjacent to land recently purchased by Shong Lee and Yer Xiong Lee.. Stoll v. Xiong (unconscionable contract not enforced) Mance v. Mercedes-Benz USA (arbitration clause in automobile purchase contract enforced) Menendez v. O'Neill (sole shareholder of corporation not liable for corporation's liabilities) In re Estate of Haviland (undue influence on elderly man in preparing estate documents) Yarde Metals . He contends the contract was valid and enforceable. He testified that one house de-caking of a house like those of Buyers yields about 20 tons of litter. ", Bidirectional search: in armed robbery Yang, who were husband and wife.251 Stoll argued that they had . 107,879, and hearing was held on the motions in both cases on November 4, 2009. Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Xiong had three years of school in Laos and learned to read and write Laotian. Cases and Materials on Contracts - Quimbee 107,880. He alleged Buyers had a prior version of their agreement5 which contained the same paragraph in dispute but did not attempt to have it translated or explained to them and they should not benefit by failing to take such steps or from their failure to read the agreement. 14 Stoll argues the trial court erred in finding the chicken litter clause was unconscionable as a matter of law, "by considering the fairness of the contract," and by considering "anything other than fraud, duress, undue influence, mistake, or illegality of the contract." - Stoll contracted to sell the Xiong's a 60-acre parcel of land in Oklahoma for $130,000 ($2,000 per acer plus $10,000 for a road). Under Stoll's interpretation of paragraph 10, Buyers' separate business would generate an asset for thirty years for which they receive no consideration and would serve as additional payment to him over and above the stated price for the land. Like in Fickel, the actual price is so gross as to shock the conscience. C. Hetherington, Jr., Judge: 1 Ronald Stoll appeals a judgment finding a clause in his contract with Chong Lor Xiong and Mee Yang (collectively, Buyers) unconscionable. Contracts or Property IRAC Case Brief - SweetStudy 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." 4. 16 In Barnes v. Helfenbein, 1976 OK 33, 548 P.2d 1014, the Court, analyzing the equitable concept of unconscionability in the context of a loan with the Uniform Consumer Credit Code, 14A O.S.1971 1-101, et seq., found that "[a]n unconscionable contract is one which no person in his senses, not under delusion would make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept on the other." The officers who arrested Xiong found incriminating physical evidence in the hotel room where he was arrested, including card-rigging paraphernalia and a suitcase containing stacks of money made to appear as if consisting solely of $100 bills. Stoll v. Xiong 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Figgie International, Inc. v. Destileria Serralles, Inc. 190 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may, substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis. Stoll v. Xiong Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. Perry v. Green, 1970 OK 70, 468 P.2d 483. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong , 241 P.3d 301 ( 2010 Explain unconscionable contracts and the legal principle behind it. Her subsequent education consists of a six-month adult school program after her arrival in the United States. Stoll v. Chong Lor Xiong - 2010 OK CIV APP 110, 241 P.3d 301 Rule: The equitable concept of unconscionability is meaningful only within the context of otherwise defined factors of onerous inequality, deception, and oppression. However, at her own deposition, Ms. Lee was herself assisted by an interpreter. pronounced. 1. And to be real honest with you, I can't think of one. Opinion by Wm. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. 18 According to Stoll's deposition testimony in the companion case, which testimony is provided to support his motion for summary judgment in this case, it was his idea to include the chicken litter paragraph in the land purchase contract. And I have tried to think of an example that I think was more unconscionable than the situation than (sic) I find to have been here as far as that clause. Carmichael v. Beller, 1996 OK 48, 2, 914 P.2d 1051, 1053. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA Ross By and Through Ross v. City of Shawnee, 1984 OK 43, 683 P.2d 535. His access to chicken litter was denied in that case in late 2008. Buyers responded, arguing their illiteracy forced them to rely upon representations made to them and the interpreter available to them, Xiong's sister, explained the land purchase price but did not herself understand the meaning of the chicken litter paragraph.8. Uneonscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Xiong and his wife were immigrants from Laos. And I have tried to think of an example that I think was more unconscionable than the situation than (sic) I find to have been here as far as that clause. Stoll testified he believed his land was worth $2,000 per acre rather than the $1,200 per acre price of nearby land in 2004 due to the work he had done to clear and level it. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Stoll v. Xiong | 241 P.3d 301 (2010)From signing a lease to clicking a box when downloading an app, people regularly agree to contracts that may include undesirable or unfair terms. 3 On review of summary judgments, the appellate court may "substitute its analysis of the record for the trial court's analysis" because the facts are presented in documentary form. 9. 241 P.3d 301 (2010) Strong v. Sheffield. Section 2-302 provides: (1) If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result. C. HETHERINGTON, JR., Judge. Business Management Business Law BUL 2241 Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert Answered by thomaskyalo80 The purchase price is described as "One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($130,000) [sic]. He also claims he is entitled to immediate possession and if the litter has been taken in execution of a judgment against him, is exempt from being so taken. We just asked him to help us [sic] half of what the de-cake cost is, and he said no. Stoll v. Xiong. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 743 N.W.2d 17 (2008) PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Delonnie Venaro SILLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos.1 She received no education in Laos and her subsequent education consists of a six month "adult school" program after her arrival in 1985 in the United States at age 19. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. 2 When addressing a claim that summary adjudication was inappropriate, we must examine the pleadings, depositions, affidavits and other evidentiary materials submitted by the parties and affirm if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. According to his petition, Stoll discovered Yang and Xiong were selling the chicken litter to others and the chicken litter shed was empty on or about March 24, 2009. 1 Her deposition testimony was taken using Yer Lee, a defendant in companion Case No. 17 "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma,Division No. Rationale? Stoll v. Xiong, 241 P.3d 301 (2010): Case Brief Summary 15 In their motion for summary judgment, Buyers argued the contract was unconscionable and there is no "colorable argument that the contract was bargained for between informed parties." He alleged Buyers had a prior version of their agreement which contained the same paragraph in dispute but did not attempt to have it translated or explained to them and they should not benefit by failing to take such steps or from their failure to read the agreement. Stoll testified in a deposition taken in the companion case that the litter had value to him because "I was trading it for a litter truck and a tractor." Stoll appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. Under Stoll's interpretation of paragraph 10, Buyers' separate business would generate an asset for thirty years for which they receive no consideration and would serve as additional payment to him over and above the stated price for the land. CIV-17-231-D United States United States District Courts. He alleged Buyers. 5 According to Stoll, on November 8, 2004, Buyers signed a "preliminary" version of the contract which he did not execute, the contract terms at issue are the same as those in the executed January 1, 2005 contract, and they had time to have the disputed terms explained to them during the interim. Effectively, Stoll either made himself a partner in their business for no consideration or he would receive almost double to way over double the purchase price for his land over thirty years. Stoll moved for summary judgment in his favor, claiming there was no dispute Buyers signed the Agreement to Sell Real Estate on January 1, 2005, and under that agreement he was entitled to the chicken litter for 30 years. Melody Boeckman, No. Supreme Court of Michigan. Mauris finibus odio eu maximus interdum. 6 On January 1, 2005, Buyers contracted2 to purchase from Stoll as Seller "a sixty (60) acre parcel of real estate located in Delaware County, Oklahoma approximately .5 miles East of the current Black Oak Farm, and adjacent to land recently purchased by Shong Lee and Yer Xiong Lee." He alleged Buyers had a prior version of their agreement5 which contained the same paragraph in dispute but did not attempt to have it translated or explained to them and they should not benefit by failing to take such steps or from their failure to read the agreement. 5 According to Stoll, on November 8, 2004, Buyers signed a "preliminary" version of the contract which he did not execute, the contract terms at issue are the same as those in the executed January 1, 2005 contract, and they had time to have the disputed terms explained to them during the interim. As is recognized in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 208, Comment a, (1981): We agree such an analogy is helpful with this analysis. Unconscionability is directly related to fraud and deceit. Delacy Investments, Inc. v. Thurman & Re/Max Real Estate Guide, Inc. 693 N.W.2d 479 (2005) Detroit Institute of Arts Founders Society v. Rose. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos. "The question of unconscionability is one of law for the Court to decide." Under such circumstances, there is no assent to terms. You can explore additional available newsletters here. That judgment is AFFIRMED. The first paragraph on the next page is numbered 10, and paragraph numbering is consecutive through the third page, which contains the parties' signatures. We affirm the trial court's findings the contract paragraph supporting Stoll's claim is unconscionable and Buyers were entitled to judgment in their favor as a matter of law. An alternative to lists of cases, the Precedent Map makes it easier to establish which ones may be of most relevance to your research and prioritise further reading. He testified he understands some spoken English but can only read a couple written words. Stoll asked the court to order specific performance on the litter provision of the contract. He lived in a refugee camp in Thailand for three years. 10 Buyers answered and stated affirmative defenses and counter claims, including that the sales contract has merged into their deed filed February 18, 2005 without incorporation of the provision on chicken litter such that the provision can not run with the land; impossibility of performance due to Stoll's violations of concentrate feeding operations statutory provisions; unconscionability of the contract; fraud due to Stoll's failure to provide cost information despite their limited language skills; trespass; and damages for harm to a shed caused by Stoll's heavy equipment. After arriving in the United States, he attended an adult school for two years in St. Paul, Minnesota, where he learned to speak English and learned the alphabet. Facts. Mark D. Antinoro, TAYLOR, BURRAGE LAW FIRM, Claremore, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees. Stoll v. Xiong Mr and Mrs. Xiong are foreigners with restricted English capacities. Yang is a Hmong immigrant from Laos.1 She received no education in Laos and her subsequent education consists of a six month "adult school" program after her arrival in 1985 in the United States at age 19. 35- Apply (in your own words) the three required elements of unconscionability to the facts of the case Stoll v. Xiong. 6. 2010). Unconscionability has generally been recognized to include an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties, together with contractual terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party. We agree.
Puttshack Atlanta Parking,
Why Is Kelly And Ryan Previously Recorded Today,
Big Cat Public Safety Act Pros And Cons,
Ebikemotion Error Codes,
Laguardia Airport Covid Requirements,
Articles S