alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jacob v. Barnard et al.

April 30, 1948.

A. H. Barker for appellant.

W. Marvin Davis for appellee.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Thomas

Affirming.

On March 3, 1924, H. J. Barnard, who was a resident of Pendleton County, Kentucky, executed his will. After directing payment of debts and expenses the will contains this provision: “I give, devise and bequeath to my beloved wife, Martha Barnard, all my Real Estate, Personal property or mixed, including all cash, bonds, or other property I may have at the time of decease to have and to hold and use as she thinks best and .at her death what remains is to revert to my Brothers and Sisters or their heirs, share and share alike.”

No children were born to Mr. and Mrs. Barnard, the latter of whom survived him. The heirs and devisees of “what remains” after the death of Mrs. Barnard took charge of the property and held and occupied it, later filing this action for its sale for the purposes of division. At the sale the appellant, Joseph Jacob, became the purchaser. He filed exceptions to the report ■of sale raising the question as to whether or not Mrs. Barnard took a fee under the will of her husband or ■only a life estate.

The court overruled the exceptions and adjudged that the “remnant” clause of H. J. Barnard’s will was valid under the court’s interpretation that the wife was ■devised only a life estate with, perhaps, the right to encroach upon the corpus if necessary for her comfortable support and maintenance.

The question submitted — though raised in a different manner — is on all fours with the one deter*322mined by ns in Hanks v. McDanell, 307 Ky. 243, 210 S. W. 2d 784. That opinion also considers and determines all the questions raised in this litigation and such determination supports and upholds' the judgment appealed from herein.

We deem it unnecessary to repeat the reasons for our conclusions reached in the Hanks case, since such information may be easily obtained by reference thereto. Still approving the conclusions reached in that opinion it follows that the judgment of the court was and is correct, and it is affirmed.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed June 12, 2024

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No s

. 3D23

- 109 & 3D23

- 687 Lower Tribunal No. 21

- 20697

________________ 

### Elves Julmist, Jr. , Appellant,

vs. 

### Miami - Dade County, et al. ,

Appellee s

. Appeal s from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Migna Sanchez

- Llorens, Judge. Law Offices of Jimmy De La Espriella, and Javier A. Finlay , for appellant. Fox Rothschild LLP, John R. Herin, Jr., Victor G. Sanabria; Geraldine Bonzon

- Keenan, Miami

- Dade County Attorney, and Daniel Frastai , Assistant County Attorney, for appellee s

.
Before SCALES, MILLER, and GORD O, JJ. PER CURIAM.2

Affirmed. See Miami

- Dade County, Fla., Code of Ordinances, ch. 2, art. XIII , § 2

- 96.1 (2023) (“ From and after September 16, 1960, all traffic engineering services shall be performed by the traffic and transportation department, and such department shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all traffic control devices in both the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the county, and shall have exclusive jurisdiction to exercise the powers, duties and functions set forth herein. ”); Miami

- Dade County, Fla., Code of Ordinances, ch. 2, art. XIII , § 2

- 95.1(g) (2023) (“The department shall assume full responsibility for the operation, maintenance[,] and replacement of all existing signs[,] signals, and markings now in use in t he several municipalities .

. . .”); see also Polite v. State , 116 So. 3d 270, 27 5 (Fla. 2013) (“[I]n Florida, the witness’s testimony as to the correctness of the [recorded] statement is essential to the admission of the evidence.”); Robles v. Metropolita n Dade County , 802 So. 2d 453, 454 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (upholding sovereign immunity based on emergency exception where county “had to choose between different actions, each of which posed a potential threat to the public”); Kaisner v. Kolb , 543 So. 2d 732, 738 n.3 (Fla. 1989) (“The way in which government agents respond to a serious emergency is entitled to great deference, and may in fact reach a level of such urgency as to be considered discretionary and not operational.”).
#### Michael Schroeder, Appellee, v. East St. Louis and Suburban Railway Company, Appellant.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Madison county; the Hon. William E. Hadley, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed May 1, 1914.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Michael Schroeder against East St. Louis and Suburban Railway Company to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff through the alleged negligence of defendant in operating one of its cars while plaintiff was riding as a passenger thereon.

The declaration alleged that plaintiff rang the bell as a signal for the car to stop at a station where he desired to alight and walked out on the rear platform and stood there waiting for the car to stop, and instead of stopping the car, the employes in charge thereof suddenly started the car at a greater speed, thereby causing the car to make a sudden start or lunge and causing plaintiff to unavoidably lose his balance and fall off. The general issue was filed and the trial resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff for four hundred dollars. To reverse the judgment, defendant appeals,

*583Williamson, Burroughs & Ryder, for appellant.

J. V. E. Marsh, for appellee.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Carriers, § *476*
      ***
      *—when Recovery for injury to passenger by falling off car not sustained by the evidence.*In an action against a suburban railway company for personal injuries alleged to have resulted from the negligence of the defendant in suddenly starting its car so as to cause plaintiff to fall off after he had given a signal for the car to stop at a station and while he was standing on the rear platform waiting for the car to stop, *held*that a verdict for plaintiff was not sustained by the evidence, the preponderance of the evidence not showing that there was any sudden starting of the car as alleged.

2. Carriers, § *491*
      ***
      *—when refusal of requested instruction improper.*A requested instruction telling the jury “that, although you may believe from the evidence that the defendant did not stop its car for plaintiff to alight, yet that fact does not justify the plaintiff in going upon the platform and so near to the step as to be in a dangerous position while the car was running at a high rate of speed, and if you believe, from the evidence, that before the defendant’s car began to slacken its speed the plaintiff went upon said platform and near to the steps of said car while it was running at a high rate of speed, and that his action in so doing was negligent, and a lack of due care for his own safety, and that such action on his part helped to bring about the injury, then you should find the defendant not guilty,” *held*improperly refused.

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice Higbee

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### Nathan Nedboy, Appellant, v. Borough Garden Apartment, Inc., Respondent.

No opinion. Present — Nolan, P. J., Johnston, Sneed, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ.
### §7503. Amount of assistance; duration

(a) Amount of Assistance.—The amount of the financial assistance provided an individual under the scholarship program under this chapter shall be the amount determined by the Secretary as being necessary to pay the tuition and fees of the individual. In the case of an individual enrolled in a program of study leading to a dual degree or certification in both the areas of study described in section 7501(a)(1) of this title, the tuition and fees shall not exceed the amounts necessary for the minimum number of credit hours to achieve such dual degree or certification.

(b) Relationship to Other Assistance.—Financial assistance may be provided to an individual under the scholarship program to supplement other educational assistance to the extent that the total amount of educational assistance received by the individual during an academic year does not exceed the total tuition and fees for such academic year.

(c) Maximum Amount of Assistance.—(1) The total amount of assistance provided under the scholarship program for an academic year to an individual who is a full-time student may not exceed $15,000.

(2) In the case of an individual who is a part-time student, the total amount of assistance provided under the scholarship program shall bear the same ratio to the amount that would be paid under paragraph (1) if the participant were a full-time student in the program of study being pursued by the individual as the coursework carried by the individual to full-time coursework in that program of study.

(3) The total amount of assistance provided to an individual under the scholarship program may not exceed $45,000.

(d) Maximum Duration of Assistance.—Financial assistance may not be provided to an individual under the scholarship program for more than six academic years.

(Added Pub. L. 111–163, title III, §302(a), May 5, 2010, 124 Stat. 1147.)
NRC DENIES NUCLEAR INDUSTRY PETITION SEEKING 

EXTENDED DEADLINE FOR SECURITY ENHANCEMENTS

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has denied a petition submitted by the Nuclear Energy 

Institute on Sept. 25, 2009, that sought an additional nine months for nuclear power plants to comply with 

new security requirements. Specifically, the petition sought an expedited rulemaking that would revise the 

compliance date for new requirements in the power reactor security rule (10 CFR section 73.55) from 

March 31 to Dec. 31. 

The petition was docketed and given immediate consideration due to the time sensitivity of the 

request. The request stated that two provisions of the new security rule dealing with physical barriers and 

detection and assessment systems were problematic to complete on time since they involve engineering 

analysis and design, equipment procurement, installation, testing, and related training. 

The NRC staff reviewed the petition and the Commission voted to deny it based on several 

reasons, including the lack of time before the compliance date for the staff to collect and analyze the 

necessary data and to complete an adequate notice and comment for rulemaking. 

The NRC believes the exemption process is the best regulatory tool to address this situation since 

it allows the NRC and the licensee to focus on the unique circumstances that pertain to each specific 

extension request. In addition, the NRC believes that revising the compliance date is an overly broad 

solution to an implementation problem. Those licensees that have requested extensions are encountering 

problems implementing only a few parts of the new requirements. 

The petition denial is published in the Federal Register today and can be found at: 

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-4827.htm. 

### 

News releases are available through a free listserv subscription at the following Web address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE 

link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site. 

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 

E-mail: opa.resource@nrc.gov

Site: http://www.nrc.gov

No. 10-042 March 8, 2010
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CACTUS WATER SERVICES, LLC,

Appellant,

v. 

COG OPERATING, LLC,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-22-00037-CV

Appeal from the

143rd District Court

of Reeves County, Texas

Cause No. 20-03-23456-CVR

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

trial court’s judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that 

Appellee recover from Appellant and its sureties, if any, see TEX. R. APP. P. 43.5, on the judgment 

and all costs, both in this Court and the court below for which let for which let execution issue. 

This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2023.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.

Palafox, J. Dissenting
#### Bernice Dombrowski, Appellant, v. Stanley Dombrowski, Respondent.

Present—Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Harris and McCurn, JJ.
#### § 2011.106 Agreements with foreign countries.

Agreements or arrangements providing for the certificate system may be entered into by the United States Government with the governments of foreign countries. Such agreements or arrangements may provide for the designation of certifying authorities, the designation of seals or other forms of authentication, the transmittal and exchange of pertinent information, and other appropriate means or forms of cooperation.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 16, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 67202]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25410]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending October 29, 2004

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart 
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations (see 14 CFR 301.201 et seq.). The due date for Answers, 
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below 
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: OST-2004-19500.
    Date Filed: October 26, 2004.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: November 16, 2004.
    Description: Application of Air Executive LU.at GmbH requesting a 
foreign air carrier permit authorizing it to conduct charter foreign 
air transportation of persons, property, and mail between any point or 
points in Austria and any point or points in the United States; and 
between any point or points in the United States and any point or 
points in a third country or countries, provided that such service 
constitutes part of a continuous operation, with or without a change of 
aircraft, that includes air service to Austria for the purpose of 
carrying local traffic between Austria and the United States, and other 
charters between third countries and the United States.

    Docket Number: OST-2004-19518.
    Date Filed: October 28, 2004.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: November 18, 2004.
    Description: Application of Aviation Ventures, Inc. d/b/a Vision 
Air requesting a certificate of public convenience and necessity to 
engage in interstate scheduled air transportation of passengers, 
property, and mail using 19 passenger seat aircraft.

    Docket Number: OST-2004-19543.
    Date Filed: October 29, 2004.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: November 19, 2004.
    Description: Application of Lakeland Air Transport, Inc., 
requesting a certificate of public convenience and necessity to engage 
in interstate air transportation of persons, property, and mail 
operating 5 roundtrip flights between Ft. Lauderdale, FL and Gulfport, 
MS.

Andrea M. Jenkins,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 04-25410 Filed 11-15-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**  I, Paul C. Slevin, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Tatonka Oil and Gas, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thistransition report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rule 13a-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the resented in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and;5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant rolein the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.DATED this 24th day of March, 2008.         /s/ Paul C. Slevin   Paul C. Slevin                  Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    Page 9 of 25

                                                                   EXHIBIT 99(a)

                        KEYCORP STUDENT LOAN TRUST 1999-B

                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE


Bank One, National Association              Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas
One Bank One Plaza, Suite 0126              fka, Bankers Trust Company
Chicago, IL 60670                           280 Park Avenue 9th Floor
Attn: Corporate Trust Administration        New York, NY 10017
Phone: (312) 407-0192                       Attn: Corporate Trust & Agency Group
Fax: (312) 407-1708                         Structured Finance
                                            Phone: (212) 454-4298
                                            Fax: (212) 454-2331

Key Bank USA, National Association
800 Superior Ave, 4th Floor
Cleveland, OH 44114
ATTN: Senior Vice President
Key Education Resources
Phone: (216) 828-9342
Fax: (216) 828-9301

Pursuant to Section 4.09 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement among Key Bank USA,
National Association, as Seller, Master Servicer and Administrator, KeyCorp
Student Loan Trust 1999-B Trust, and Bank One, National Association, as Eligible
Lender Trustee, dated as of September 1, 1999 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned
hereby certifies that (i) a review of the activities of the Master Servicer from
January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2002, and of its performance under the
Agreement has been made, and (ii) to the best of our knowledge, based on our
review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the
Agreement throughout such period.


                                           Key Bank USA, National Association,
                                           as Master Servicer

                                           by: /s/ DARLENE H. DIMITRIJEVS
                                               ---------------------------------
Date: March 14, 2003                           Name: Darlene H. Dimitrijevs, CPA
                                               Title: Senior Vice President


                                           by: /s/ DEBRA S. FRONIUS
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Name: Debra S. Fronius
                                               Title: Vice President
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 16, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 67112]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25392]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Public Meeting With Interested Parties on Improving Army's 
Ability To Quickly Acquire Materiel and Services To Meet Unforseen 
Operational Requirements

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This meeting involves surge planning and contracting issues 
with Army in support of unforeseen operational requirements. The 
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and 
Technology would like to hear the views of interested parties regarding 
the improvement of Army's ability to acquire needed but unforeseen 
operational requirements for producing additional weapon systems, 
parts, and services. Possible issues include procedures for 
establishing the meaningful contract options or other commitments 
without the need to have a legal reservation of funds. Other issues 
include an inability to forecast these requirements with precision, 
buying from nontraditional suppliers, buying nonstandard items and 
other issues submitted by attendees. Subsequent meetings may be held.

DATES: A public meeting will be conducted on December 7, 2004, 
beginning a 1 p.m. and continuing to 5 p.m., local time.

ADDRESSES: The location of the public meeting is Presidential Towers, 
Army Conference Room 11100, 11th Floor, located at 2511 Jefferson Davis 
Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Steven R. Linke, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6e3d1a0b180b0040220700050b2e1b1d400f1c031740030702"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4d1e39283b28236301242326280d383e632c3f203463202421">[email protected]</span></a>, or telephone (703) 604-7006; fax (703) 604-
7717.

Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-25392 Filed 11-15-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
### §50104. Membership

Eligibility for membership in the corporation and the rights and privileges of members are as provided in the constitution and bylaws of the corporation.

(Pub. L. 105–225, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1342.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 50104 | 36:3705. | Dec. 9, 1985, Pub. L. 99–172, §5, 99 Stat. 1021. |

Section