alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Joseph C. Tilton *v.*Frederick Stein.

*Laches—as a defense to enforcing contract.*A delay of eight and a half years in filing a bill to enjoin the defendant from engaging in and carrying on a certain business in a place, in violation of his bond to the complainant, where a right was reserved to the defendant to finish work commenced, and to make good warranties of other work, and the violation of the contract was at intervals and under various pretexts, was held, under the circumstances, not sufficient to bar the complainant of equitable relief.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Bureau county; the Hon. George W. Pleasants, Judge, presiding.

This was a bill in equity, filed by Frederick Stein, against Joseph C. Tilton, to enforce the specific execution of a bond of the defendant, by enjoining him from carrying on the business of a jeweller in Geneseo. The bill was filed some eight and a half years after the date of the contract sought to be enforced. The court below granted the desired relief.

Mr. Geo. W. Shaw, for the appellant

Mr. C. Dunham, for the appellee.

Mr. Justice Dickey

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This is a bill in chancery, filed in 1875, by Stein, against Tilton. Both the parties were and are jewellers. In 1867, Tilton was carrying on, in Geneseo, his business as such, having on hand a small stock of goods suited to that business. Tilton sold to Stein at that time, his stock of goods and the good will of his business, and gave him a bond, conditioned that Tilton would not engage in the business in Geneseo so long as Stein continued to do business as a jeweller in that place. Stein took possession of the business and has ever since continued it. The decree in the case prohibits Tilton from here*123after violating the condition of his bond. Tilton appeals to this court.

As a chief ground upon which Tilton seeks to reverse the decree, he insists that Stein was guilty of laches in not filing his bill at an earlier day. This objection can not prevail in this case. In the condition of the bond was a qualification in Tilton's undertaking, which permitted him “ to finish up such work as he may now have on hand, or to make good the warranties that he has given upon work heretofore done by him.”

For a while, Tilton violated his contract under the pretense that he was merely finishing up work which he had on hand. For a while, he carried on the business in the name of another man; at one or more times he suspended business for a short period; and at other times gave out, in speeches among his neighbors, that he was about to quit business and move away. Defendant, all the while, asserted his claim that he should cease to violate his undertaking. Under such circumstances the defendant ought not to be permitted to continue in his wrong, merely upon the ground that complainant has so long fore-borne to resort to a court for a vindication of his rights under the contract.

After a full consideration of the allegations of the parties and the proofs, we have no doubt that the decree is right.

The decree is therefore affirmed.

*Decree affirmed.*
(No. 6959

#### Mercyville Hospital, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

*Opinion filed March 8, 1973.*

Mercyville Hospital, Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

*223Per Curiam.
#### Lee A. GRANT, Appellant v. U.S. GOVERNMENT and Secretary, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Appellees.

No. 05-5079.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Sept. 6, 2005.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 8, 2005.

Lee A. Grant, Washington, DC, pro se.

R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC, for Appellees.

Before GINSBURG, Chief Judge, and ROGERS and TATEL, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on appel*443lant’s brief. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order, entered March 3, 2005, dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim, be affirmed. Because appellant filed the same lawsuit previously, he is barred, by the doctrine of res judicata, from re-litigating the same claims. *See Apotex, Inc. v. FDA,*393 F.3d 210, 217 (D.C.Cir.2004) (citations omitted) (judgment on merits in prior suit bars second suit involving identical parties based on same cause of action).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
SIGN IN SHEET 

Government-to-Government Consultation 

Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR)-

Managing Emissions: Oil and Natural Gas Production in Indian Country 

Date: July 18, 2014 

Time: 9:00am- 12:00 pm (MDT) 

Location: EPA Region 8 Office- Rocky Mountain Room 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202 

Attendees 

Or anization 

U.f-fA tJCl-/-z.Q,t - 'fyadL-r~ {J.12elotcs .f--

1\.IIV & 4-v' __. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. C1L 

ji.-

7. 

8

· t1-IN"J7 y 

10. J oA-r-J L A- (2-\) E-PA11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. rl 

<lJ 

tlD 

ro 

CL 
SIGN IN SHEET 

Government-to-Government Consultation 

Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR)-

Managing Emissions: Oil and Natural Gas Production in Indian Country 

Date: July 18,2014 

Time: 9:00am- 12:00 pm (MDT) 

Location: EPA Region 8 Office- Rocky Mountain Room 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202 

Attendees 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

Or anization 

rl 

(1) 

tl() 

ro 

CL
### SUBCHAPTER II—CRITICAL NEEDS FOR TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT
Exhibit 99.2
                                  ------------

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SABRANES - OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In  connection  with the  quarterly  report of Laser  Corporation  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the quarter  ended  September  30, 2002,  Mark L.
Ballard,  hereby  certifies,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
his knowledge:

         1.   The  quarterly  report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of
              Section 13(a) of the Securities exchange Act of 1934; and

         2.   The information  contained in the quarterly report fairly presents
              in all material respects,  the financial  condition and results of
              operations of the Company.


     November 13, 2002                        /s/ Mark L. Ballard
     -----------------                        --------------------------------
           (Date)                             Vice President, Treasurer,
                                              Assistant Secretary and Director
#### John J. Picone, Respondent, v. Angelina Picone et al., as Executors of Vito Picone, Deceased, Appellants.

Judgment in favor of plaintiff, and order denying motion to set aside verdict and for a new trial, in an action to recover alleged loans made to Vito Picone, now deceased, in June, 1939, reversed on the facts as against the weight of the evidence and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. No opinion. Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur. [189 Misc. 84.]
(No. 982

Claimant awarded $192.50.)

#### Watling Manufacturing Co., Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed January 19, 1927.*

Franchise *tax*— when *refund may be made.*Where a franchise tax has been erroneously paid after the expiration of charter of the corporation it is entitled to a refund of the tax paid.

Bangs & Frankhauser, for claimant.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Frank R. Eagleton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for a refund of a franchise tax erroneously paid by claimant to the Secretary of State after the expiration of its charter in January, 1924.

It is admitted by the Secretary of State that claimant’s charter had expired prior to the payment, and the Attorney General has filed his written consent to an award being allowed claimant in the sum of $192.50.

As it is clear no tax was due from claimant, we accordingly award it the sum of $192.50.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Frank Salvatore, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed. No opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Clarke, Scott and Hotchkiss, JJ.; Hotchkiss, J., dissented.
5.5

8.7

5.5

8.1

13.8

5.4

4.3

5.9

2.7

5.2

2.9

8.1

8.3

7.1 10.9

12.5

16.8

13.1 17.6

7.8

3.9

25.4

3.6

Park

Fremont

Sweetwater Carbon

Natrona

Albany

Sublette

Lincoln

Campbell

Teton

Johnson

Crook

Converse

Uinta

Platte

Big Horn

Laramie

Weston

Niobrara

Goshen

Sheridan

Washakie

Yelowstone NP

Hot Springs

Pinedale Wyoming

Planning

Area

Minority Population by County

Map 3-8

% Minority

0 - 6.9

7 - 9.9

10 - 14.9

15 - 26

Statewide = 11.1%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000

o

0 10 20 40 60 80 100

Miles

0 15 30 60 90 120 150

Kilometers

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BLM FOR USE OF

THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM.
Exhibit 5.1

                       [Headed paper of White & Case LLP]

September 1, 2004

iPayment, Inc.
40 Burton Hills Boulevard, Suite 415
Nashville, TN 37215

Ladies and Gentlemen:

          At your request, we have examined the registration statement on Form
S-8 (the "Registration Statement") proposed to be filed pursuant to the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), by iPayment, Inc., a
Delaware Corporation (the "Company"), with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission relating to the registration of 355,326 shares of common stock
(the "Incentive Plan Common Stock") pursuant to the Company's Stock Incentive
Plan (the "Incentive Plan").

          We have examined the originals, or photostatic or certified copies, of
such records of the Company, certificates of officers of the Company and of
public officials and such other documents as we have deemed relevant and
necessary as the basis for the opinion set forth below. We have relied upon such
certificates of officers of the Company and of public officials and statements
and information furnished by officers of the Company with respect to the
accuracy of material factual matters contained therein which were not
independently established by us. In such examination we have assumed the
genuineness of all signatures, the authenticity of all documents submitted to us
as originals, the conformity to original documents of all documents submitted to
us as photostatic or certified copies, and the authenticity of the originals of
such copies.

          Based upon our examination described above, subject to the assumptions
stated, it is our opinion that the Incentive Plan Common Stock, upon issuance
and sale by the Company as contemplated under the Incentive Plan against payment
therefor, will be duly authorized, validly issued, fully paid and
non-assessable.

          We consent to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit to the
Registration Statement. In giving this consent, we do not thereby admit that we
are within the category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of
the Securities Act or the rules and regulations of the Commission.

                                                   Very truly yours,

                                                   /s/ White & Case LLP
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

DAY ELEV

 2,310.53

 2,311.17

 2,311.69

 2,312.09

 2,312.42

 2,312.69

 2,312.91

 2,313.08

 2,313.29

 2,313.44

 2,313.57

 2,313.82

 2,314.19

 2,314.94

 2,315.49

 2,315.88

 2,316.18

 2,316.43

 2,316.63

 2,316.84

 2,317.04

 2,317.18

 2,317.35

 2,317.58

 2,318.13

 2,319.37

 2,321.12

 2,322.09

 1,590.2

 1,598.2

 1,604.7

 1,609.8

 1,613.9

 1,617.3

 1,620.1

 1,622.3

 1,624.9

 1,626.8

 1,628.5

 1,631.6

 1,636.3

 1,645.9

 1,653.0

 1,658.0

 1,661.8

 1,665.0

 1,667.6

 1,670.3

 1,672.9

 1,674.7

 1,676.9

 1,679.9

 1,687.0

 1,703.2

 1,726.1

 1,739.0

STORAGE

+3.2

+8.0

+6.5

+5.0

+4.2

+3.4

+2.8

+2.2

+2.7

+1.9

+1.6

+3.2

+4.7

+9.6

+7.0

+5.0

+3.9

+3.2

+2.6

+2.7

+2.6

+1.8

+2.2

+3.0

+7.1

+16.2

+23.0

+12.8

CHANGE

2,231

4,584

3,777

2,984

2,413

1,936

1,747

1,420

1,541

1,253

1,152

2,089

2,533

5,100

3,872

2,743

2,199

1,845

1,565

1,717

1,515

1,239

1,431

1,809

3,965

8,517

11,609

6,637

INFLOW

 590

 550

 446

 446

 303

 219

 347

 299

 198

 294

 321

 415

 157

 279

 321

 223

 220

 222

 266

 326

 188

 295

 291

 278

 370

 314

 0

 177

POWER

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

SPILL

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

OUTLET

 4

 0

 41

 4

 11

 0

 0

 37

 0

 0

 0

 75

 4

 0

 0

 0

 34

 0

 0

 27

 27

 30

 30

 30

 0

 54

 27

 0

C.F.S.

 .01

 .00

 .11

 .01

 .03

 .00

 .00

 .10

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .20

 .01

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .09

 .00

 .00

 .07

 .07

 .08

 .08

 .08

 .00

 .14

 .07

 .00

INCHES

 .01

 1.26

 .78

 .30

 .02

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .30

 .00

 .02

 .00

 3.59

 .22

 .19

 .02

 .00

 .00

 .02

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .07

 .38

 1.28

 2.07

 .15

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

FEBRUARY 2019 TRINITY LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: March 11, 2019

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS +152.1 85,423 8,355 0 0 435 1.15 10.68

ACRE-FEET +152,100 169,437 16,572 0 0 863

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 16,572

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 0

 16,572

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 10.68

JULY 1, 2018 27.19

 1,587.0

Table 4

(1) (1)

OCT 1, 2018 TO DATE = 27.16
V 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 462 

For the relief of Alemseghed Mussie Tesfamical. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 21, 2015 

Mr. KING of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Alemseghed Mussie Tesfamical. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR 

4 ALEMSEGHED MUSSIE TESFAMICAL. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act, Alemseghed Mussie Tesfamical shall be eligible for 

8 issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 

9 to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent resi10 dence upon filing an application for issuance of an immi11 grant visa under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment 

12 of status to lawful permanent resident. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 462 IH

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Alemseghed 

2 Mussie Tesfamical enters the United States before the fil3 ing deadline specified in subsection (c), he shall be consid4 ered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if 

5 otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status 

6 under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

7 as of the date of the enactment of this Act. 

8 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

9 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap10 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica11 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

12 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

13 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.— 

14 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res15 idence to Alemseghed Mussie Tesfamical, the Secretary of 

16 State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, dur17 ing the current or next following fiscal year, the total num18 ber of immigrant visas that are made available to natives 

19 of the country of the alien’s birth under section 203(a) 

20 of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, 

21 the total number of immigrant visas that are made avail22 able to natives of the country of the alien’s birth under 

23 section 202(e) of such Act. 

24 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

25 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 462 IH

1 parents, brothers, and sisters of Alemseghed Mussie 

2 Tesfamical shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be ac3 corded any right, privilege, or status under the Immigra4 tion and Nationality Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
### §194. Trial of right of property; burden of proof

In all trials about the right of property in which an Indian may be a party on one side, and a white person on the other, the burden of proof shall rest upon the white person, whenever the Indian shall make out a presumption of title in himself from the fact of previous possession or ownership.

(R.S. §2126.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

R.S. §2126 derived from act June 30, 1834, ch. 161, §22, 4 Stat. 733.
In the Supreme Court of Georgia

 Decided: September 14, 2015

S15A1001. JONES v. THE STATE.

THOMPSON, Chief Justice.

Appellant Daryl A. Jones was convicted by a Bibb County jury of felony

murder and sentenced to life without parole on May 8, 2002. Appellant’s

conviction was affirmed on appeal. See Jones v. State, 278 Ga. 880 (608 SE2d

229) (2005); Jones v. State, 276 Ga. 663 (581 SE2d 546) (2005). Thereafter,

beginning in 2007, appellant filed several motions to vacate and correct a void

sentence, arguing that his sentence of life without parole was unlawful. 

Appellant’s first two motions to vacate were denied. However, on October 17,

2013, the trial court granted appellant’s third motion, vacated appellant’s

sentence of lifewithout parole, and resentenced appellant to confinement for life

with the possibility of parole.

1

On January 15, 2014, appellant filed a motion in arrest of judgment

1 The order was entered on October 17, 2013, nunc pro tunc to May 8, 2002.
asserting his indictment was defective. The trial court denied the motion and

this appeal followed. 

A motion in arrest of judgment must be filed in the term of court in which

the judgment was entered. OCGA § 17-9-61 (b). The Bibb County Superior

Court has six terms of court commencing on the first Monday in February,

April, June, August, October and December. OCGA § 15-6-3 (23) (A). 

Assuming, without deciding, the trial court’s October 17, 2013, re-sentencing

order was a new judgment which triggered “a new statutory right to seek review

of the indictment under OCGA § 17-9-61,” Simpson v. State, 292 Ga. 764, 765

(740 SE2d 124) (2013), we must nevertheless conclude that appellant’s motion

in arrest of judgment, which was filed on January 15, 2014, was untimely

because it was not filed within the term of court, i.e., the October term, in which

the new judgment was entered. 

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.

2
(No. 3025

#### Elva Jennings Penwell, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed March 25, 1955.*

John W. Preihs, Attorney for Claimant.

Latham Castle, Attorney General; C. Arthur Nebel, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

*159Tolson, C. J.

Claimant was injured on February 2, 1936 in an accident, which arose out of and in the course of her employment as a Supervisor at the Illinois Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Children’s School at Normal, Illinois. The injury was serious, causing temporary blindness and general paralysis. The facts are fully detailed in the case of *Penwell*vs. *State,*11 C.C.R. 365, in which an award of $5,500.00 was made to claimant for total permanent disability, $8,215.95 for necessary medical, surgical, and hospital services, expended or incurred to and including October 22, 1940, and an annual life pension of $660.00.

Successive awards have been made by the Court from 1942 to and including February 1, 1954, and. the matter is now before the Court for an award to and including December 1, 1954.

The record consists of a verified petition, supported by original receipts, and waivers of claimant and respondent to file statement, brief, and argument, which were allowed in this case.

The petition alleges that claimant is still bedfast, and requires daily medical and nursing care. It further discloses that claimant has incurred expenses in the following amounts:

> 1. Nursing services________________________________________________________________$1,185.00

> 2. Board and room for nurses___________________ 638.75

> 3. Drugs and supplies______________________________________________________________ 217.36

> 4. Physician’s services______________________________________________________________ 1,102.50

> 5. Miscellaneous expenses --------------------- 96.02

> TOTAL_________________________________________________________________________$3,239.63

From the previous records of this case, it appears that the Court has reserved jurisdiction of same from year to year to determine the future nqeds of claimant *160for additional care, and it further appears that the amounts involved were necessarily expended for the medical care of claimant.

An award is, therefore, made to claimant for medical, hospital and nursing care from February 1, 1954 to and including December 1, 1954 in the amount of $3,239.63.

The Court reserves jurisdiction for further determination of claimant’s need for additional medical care.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

December 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 132246 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 132246 

 COA: 272481 

Branch CC: 84-094002-FH 

ROBERT LEO OSWALD,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 27, 2006 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s 

motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). 

d1218 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 28, 2006 

 Clerk
#### Ronald Doran, Plaintiff-Appellant, *v.*Mercantile Trust and Savings Bank, Defendant-Appellee. Mercantile Trust and Savings Bank, Third-Party Plaintiff, *v.*Linda Doran *et al.,*Third-Party Defendants-Appellees.

(No. 12102;

Fourth District —

July 19, 1973.

Lewis, Blickhan, Garrison & Tucker, of Quincy, for appellant.

John T. Robertson, of Schmiedeskamp, Robertson, House, Neu & Mitchell, of Quincy, for appellee.

Pollock, Ennis, O’Connell & Cashman, of Quincy, for third-party appellees.

Opinion by

Mr. JUSTICE SIMKINS.