alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James E. Boyd, appellant, v. Thomas Mulvihill et al., appellees.

Filed June 5, 1901.

No. 9,446.

1. Conflicting Evidence. A finding of fact based upon sufficient competent evidence will be sustained on review, although the evidence is conflicting and would have upheld a contrary finding.

3. Insanity of Obligor. Insanity of the obligor at the time the contract was entered into is a good defense to an action thereon, although no advantage was taken of him by the obligee.

Appeal from the district court for Douglas county. Heard below'before Keysor, J.

Affirmed.

*879
      *Parke Godwin,*for appellant.

*Frank H. Gaines*and *Duffle, Gaines, Kelly & Storey, contra.*

Norval, C. J.

Janies E. Boyd commenced this suit to foreclose a real estate mortgage executed by Thomas Mulvihill and Mary, his wife, to plaintiff to secure a certain promissory note given by said defendants to said Boyd. The defense was that at the time of the execution and delivery of the note and mortgage Thomas Mulvihill was insane, and incapable of understanding or entering into the same, and incapable of understanding or transacting the matters out of which the mortgage and note arose, and that they are for that reason null and void. On the trial the court found the issues in favor of the defendants, and from a decree in their favor plaintiff appeals.

Plaintiff relies wholly upon the weight of the evidence to reverse the case. The rule of this court that a finding of fact based upon conflicting evidence will not on review be reversed, where there is any competent evidence to-sustain it, is too well established to make it necessary to cite cases so holding. We have carefully examined the record, and it is clear that there is therein sufficient evidence to have upheld a finding of the trial court in favor of either party. That being true, it is-our duty to sustain the decree as rendered.

We think it unnecessary to enter into a discussion of the case at length. There being in the record sufficient competent evidence to establish the insanity of Thomas Mulvihill at the time the note and mortgage were executed (and the contrary is not seriously contended), they are void, although no advantage was taken of Mulvihill by the plaintiff. *Wager v. Wagoner,*53 Nebr., 511; *Curtis v. Brownell,*3 N. W. Rep. [Mich.], 936.

The only question involved here is, was there sufficient *880evidence of the insanity of Thomas Mulvihill introduced to sustain the finding of the court that his condition at the time of the making of the contract was such that he was incapable of understanding or entering into it? That question must be answered in the affirmative, and being so determined, the decree is accordingly

Affirmed.
### §1081. Definitions

As used in this chapter:

The term "gambling ship" means a vessel used principally for the operation of one or more gambling establishments. Such term does not include a vessel with respect to gambling aboard such vessel beyond the territorial waters of the United States during a covered voyage (as defined in section 4472 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as in effect on January 1, 1994).

The term "gambling establishment" means any common gaming or gambling establishment operated for the purpose of gaming or gambling, including accepting, recording, or registering bets, or carrying on a policy game or any other lottery, or playing any game of chance, for money or other thing of value.

The term "vessel" includes every kind of water and air craft or other contrivance used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water, or on water and in the air, as well as any ship, boat, barge, or other water craft or any structure capable of floating on the water.

The term "American vessel" means any vessel documented or numbered under the laws of the United States; and includes any vessel which is neither documented or numbered under the laws of the United States nor documented under the laws of any foreign country, if such vessel is owned by, chartered to, or otherwise controlled by one or more citizens or residents of the United States or corporations organized under the laws of the United States or of any State.

The term "wire communication facility" means any and all instrumentalities, personnel, and services (among other things, the receipt, forwarding, or delivery of communications) used or useful in the transmission of writings, signs, pictures, and sounds of all kinds by aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the points of origin and reception of such transmission.

(Added May 24, 1949, ch. 139, §23, 63 Stat. 92; amended Pub. L. 87–216, §1, Sept. 13, 1961, 75 Stat. 491; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXII, §320501, Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2114.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 4472 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, referred to in text, is classified to section 4472 of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code.

#### Amendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–322, in definition of "gambling ship", inserted at end "Such term does not include a vessel with respect to gambling aboard such vessel beyond the territorial waters of the United States during a covered voyage (as defined in section 4472 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as in effect on January 1, 1994)."

1961—Pub. L. 87–216 inserted definition of "wire communication facility".
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 506

 493

 469

 454

 442

 447

 462

 461

 468

 475

 476

 469

 486

 492

 483

 488

 480

 478

 484

 486

 491

 497

 499

 504

 513

 515

 514

 503

 498

 505

 507

 441

 407

 435

 431

 421

 423

 434

 427

 428

 388

 445

 431

 451

 458

 449

 464

 422

 422

 469

 479

 476

 481

 484

 495

 469

 470

 457

 467

 429

 413

 495

 466

 454

 452

 444

 429

 433

 449

 447

 439

 436

 459

 448

 466

 475

 466

 478

 468

 460

 477

 483

 484

 487

 493

 500

 500

 498

 490

 487

 472

 490

 502

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MAY 2002 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: June 5, 2002

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 304

 297

 295

 290

 281

 284

 293

 292

 287

 285

 300

 293

 304

 310

 304

 311

 305

 300

 311

 314

 315

 317

 321

 325

 325

 324

 319

 317

 308

 319

 326

TOTAL 14,532

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 21
(No. 78-CC—0692

#### Jerry Carnes, Claimant, *v.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Order filed May 4, 1978.*

*289Per Curiam.

Claimant, an inmate of an Illinois penal institution, has brought this action to recover the value of certain items of personal property of which he was allegedly possessed while incarcerated. Claimant contends that his property was lost, misplaced, stolen or destroyed while he was imprisoned, and that the loss of his property was proximately caused by the negligence of employees of the State of Illinois.

In *Bargas v. State, 32*Ill.Ct.Cl._, this Court held that the State of Illinois does not owe a duty to inmates of its penal institutions to safeguard property which inmates keep in their cells. In the companion case of *Doubling v. State, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl.1,*we further held that only where the State takes actual physical possession of the property of an inmate, as during the course of his transfer between penal institutions, does a duty arise to use reasonable care in protecting the inmate’s property.

The complaint in this action does not allege that Claimant’s property was delivered to agents of the State, but rather that the property disappeared or was damaged in Claimant’s cell. Under our reasoning in *Bargas v. State, supra,*and *Doubling v. State, supra,*the complaint herein fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

It is therefore ordered that this cause he, and hereby is, dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

APPOINTMENT TO THE DOMESTIC
RELATIONS PROCEDURAL RULES
COMMITTEE :

:

:

:

: N O

. 730

C IVIL PROCEDURAL RULES DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 25 th day of February , 202 2 , Kenneth J. Horoho, Jr., Esquire,

Allegheny County, is hereby appointed as a member of the Domestic Relations

Procedural Rules Committee for a term of three years, commencing April 1, 2022

.
#### SASS, Appellant, v. BOTHUN, et al, Respondents.

(253 N. W. 154.)

(File No. 7557.

Opinion filed March 6, 1934.)

*Conway, Feyder & Conzvay,*of Sioux Falls, for Appellant.

*James O. Berdahl*and *Odean Hareid,*both of Sioux Falls, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This action, instituted for the recovery of damages for the alleged wrongful eviction of the plaintiff from a farm owned by the defendants, was before this court on a former appeal reported in 60 S. D. 77, 243 N. W. 283. The jury returned a verdict awarding the plaintiff damages. Defendant made a motion for judgment nothwithstanding the verdict. The motion was granted, for the reasons and upon the grounds that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, and that the verdict returned by the jury was contrary to the instructions of the court, and the court entered judgment accordingly. We have carefully examined the abstract of the evidence. We are of the opinion that the trial court properly granted the motion. The evidence does not show that the plaintiff sustained any damages by reason of the eviction. The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

All the Judges concur.
Company Filings

Skip to Main Content
              -  About                  - Careers
                - Commissioners
                - Contact
                - Reports and Publications
                - Securities Laws
                - Mission 
              -  Divisions & Offices                  - Corporation Finance
                - Enforcement
                - Investment Management
                - Economic and Risk Analysis
                - Trading and Markets
                - Examinations
                - Office of Administrative Law Judges
                - Regional Offices
                - All Divisions and Offices 
              -  Enforcement                  - Litigation Releases
                - Administrative Proceedings
                - Opinions and Adjudicatory Orders
                - Accounting and Auditing
                - Trading Suspensions
                - How Investigations Work
                - Receiverships
                - Information for Harmed Investors 
              -  Regulation                  - Rulemaking Index
                - Proposed Rules
                - Final Rules
                - Interim Final Rules
                - Other Orders and Notices
                - Self-Regulatory Organizations
                - Staff Interpretations 
              -  Education                  - Investor.gov
                - Five Questions to Ask Before You Invest
                - About Investment Professionals
                - Check Your Investment Professional
                - Investing Tools and Calculators
                - Investment Products
                - Understanding Fees
                - Investor Alerts and Bulletins
                - Glossary 
              -  Filings                  - EDGAR Search & Access
                - Company Filing Search
                - How to Search EDGAR
                - Requesting Public Documents
                - Forms List
                - Information for Filers
                - About EDGAR 
              -  News                  - Press Releases
                - Speeches and Statements
                - Spotlight Topics
                - Upcoming Events
                - Webcasts
                - SEC in the News
                - SEC Videos
                - Media Gallery 

# Revised Open Meeting Agenda

## Thursday, June 28, 2018

| **Item 1:** | **Amendments to Smaller Reporting Company Definition** |
|-------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
| Office:     | Division of Corporation Finance                        |
| Staff:      | Elizabeth Murphy, Amy Reischauer, and Jennifer Riegel  |
||
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MICHAEL ALAN WILKINS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 178 MM 2016

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 2nd day of February, 2017, the Petition for Leave to File Petition 

for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.
§ 303.19 Indian; Indian tribe. ( a ) *Indian* means an individual who is a member of an Indian tribe.
( b ) *Indian tribe* means any Federal or State Indian tribe, band, rancheria, pueblo, colony, or community, including any Alaska Native village or regional village corporation (as defined in or established under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 43 U.S.C. 1601 *et seq.*).
( c ) Nothing in this definition is intended to indicate that the Secretary of the Interior is required to provide services or funding to a State Indian Tribe that is not listed in the Federal Register list of Indian entities recognized as eligible to receive services from the United States, published pursuant to section 104 of the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. 479a-1.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1401(12)-(13))
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE  SHEET OF HITCHIN  POST  INCORPORTED  AS OF  SEPTEMBER  30, 2000 AND THE
RELATED  STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS  AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE NINE MONTHS THEN ENDED
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               8
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       4
<OTHER-SE>                                     (5)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               5
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.00)



</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

Richmond Division 

In re: Christopher Joseph Matisa 

 Sandra Matisa 

 DBA Kiss of Ink, LLC 

 AKA Sandra Stillwell 

 Debtors 

Case No. 16-34506-KRH

Chapter 13

NOTICE OF HEARING 

 TO: The Debtors, the Chapter 13 Trustee, Office of the U.S. Trustee, and all parties in 

interest. 

 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Debtors filed an Objection to Claim relating to 

the claim of Jeff Ribera, d/b/a JR Direct (a/o DS Funding, LLC.....Washington Mutual Bank) 

(“JR Direct”), which the Court designated as Claim No. 4-1. JR Direct filed a Response to the 

Objection to Claim within the time period required by Local Bankruptcy Rule Number 9013-

1(H)(3)(d). Accordingly, Debtors request that the Court hold a hearing and determine the 

validity of Claim No. 4-1. 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A HEARING ON THE OBJECTION TO 

CLAIM NO. 4-1 AND THE ENTRY OF A PROPOSED ORDER SUSTAINING THE 

OBJECTION TO CLAIM WILL BE HELD ON September 12, 2018 at 12:00 p.m. in 

Honorable Kevin R. Huennekens’s Courtroom, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 701 E. Broad 

Street, Room 5000, Richmond, Virginia. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 By: /s/ Mark C. Leffler 

Mark C. Leffler (VSB #40712) 

Kathryne Mary Rose Shaw (VSB #89561) 

Boleman Law Firm, P.C. 

P.O. Box 11588 

Richmond, VA 23230-1588 

Telephone (804) 358-9900 

 Counsel for Debtors 

Case 16-34506-KRH Doc 44 Filed 08/02/18 Entered 08/02/18 15:41:10 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I certify that on August 2, 2018 a copy of the foregoing has been sent to the Chapter 13 

Trustee via the Court’s CM/ECF system and mailed via first class mail to the following: 

JR Direct 

3802 Rosecrans Street #536 

San Diego, CA 92110 

DS Funding, L.L.C. 

c/o Darell A. Drinkwater, Registered Agent 

605 Lynnhaven PKWY STE 200 

Virginia Beach, VA 23452 

Christopher Joseph Matisa 

Sandra Matisa 

171 Alameda Drive 

Pamplin, VA 23958 

 /s/ Mark C. Leffler 

 Counsel for Debtors

Case 16-34506-KRH Doc 44 Filed 08/02/18 Entered 08/02/18 15:41:10 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 2
WWW . 78 FR 17157, “Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; Disapproval of

State Implementation Plan Revision for ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor” Proposed Rule, March 20, 2013 (Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR - 2013 - 03 - 20/pdf/2013 - 06419.pdf

) XXX .71 FR 12623, “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri“ Final Rule, March 13, 2006 (Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR 2006 - 03 - 13/pdf/06 - 2378.pdf) YYY . 78 FR 78720, “Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; Disapproval of State Implementation Plan Revision for ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor” Final R ule, December 27, 2013 (Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR 2013 - 12 - 27/pdf/2013 - 30885.pdf) ZZZ . 79 FR 17043, “Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozon e National Ambient Air Quality Standards” Final Rule, March 27, 2014 (Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR - 2014 - 03 - 27/pdf/2014 - 06586.pdf#page=1 ) AAAA . 79 FR 62022, “Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards” Final Rule, October 16, 2014 (Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR - 2014 - 10 - 16/pdf/2014 - 24658.pdf#page=1 ) BBBB .80 FR 46271, “Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Updated Ozone Transport Modeling Data for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)” Notice of Data Availability, August 4, 2015 (Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR - 2015 - 08 - 04/pdf/2015 - 18878 .pdf )
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4779 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.4779

                     One Hundred Sixteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday,
            the third day of January, two thousand and twenty

                                 An Act

 
  To extend the Undertaking Spam, Spyware, And Fraud Enforcement With 
      Enforcers beyond Borders Act of 2006, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF THE U.S. SAFE WEB ACT OF 2006.
    Section 13 of the U.S. SAFE WEB Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-455; 15 
U.S.C. 44 note) is amended by striking ``September 30, 2020'' and 
inserting ``September 30, 2027''.
SEC. 2. REPORT.
    Not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
the Federal Trade Commission shall transmit to the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report describing 
its use of and experience with the authority granted by the U.S. SAFE 
WEB Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-455) and the amendments made by such 
Act. The report shall include--
        (1) the number of cross-border complaints received and acted 
    upon by the Commission;
        (2) identification of the foreign agencies with which the 
    Commission has cooperated and the results of such cooperation, 
    including any foreign agency enforcement action or lack thereof;
        (3) a description of Commission litigation brought in foreign 
    courts and the results of such litigation; and
        (4) any recommendations for legislation that may advance the 
    mission of the Commission in carrying out the U.S. SAFE WEB Act of 
    2006 and the amendments made by such Act.
SEC. 3. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.
    The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying 
with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be determined by 
reference to the latest statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO 
Legislation'' for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional 
Record by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that 
such statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<CURRENCY>                      U.S. DOLLARS
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                         24529000
<SECURITIES>                                   1097000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3846000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   800000
<INVENTORY>                                    12394000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               49290000
<PP&E>                                         33794000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 9034000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 115574000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          40816000
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1217000
<OTHER-SE>                                     67588000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   115574000
<SALES>                                        345415000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               348748000
<CGS>                                          284024000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  284024000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               42869000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             560000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                24549000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   9183000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            15366000
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   15366000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  1.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.25



</TABLE>