alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### LENNON DAVID CAIN and LINDA S. CAIN, husband and wife v. GENCOR, INC., an Ohio corporation, d/b/a GENERAL TIRE AND RUBBER CORPORATION, INC., an Ohio corporation

No. 318PA97

(Filed 6 March 1998)

Trial § 322 (NCI4th)— instructions — contentions of parties— equal emphasis

The trial court’s instructions did not give more emphasis to defendant’s contentions of contributory negligence than it did to plaintiffs’ contentions of negligence and did not mislead the jury to the prejudice of plaintiffs.

*658On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of an unpublished decision of the Court of Appeals, 126 N.C. App. 435, 491 S.E.2d 567 (1997), affirming in part and reversing in part a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of defendants by Burroughs, J. in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, on 14 February 1996, and granting plaintiffs a new trial. Heard in the Supreme Court 15 December 1997.

*DeVore & Acton, P.A., by Fred W. DeVore III, for plaintiff - appellees.*

*Dean & Gibson, L.L.P., by Rodney Dean and D. Christopher Osborn, for defendant-appellant.*

PER CURIAM

Under Rule 51(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, the trial judge is no longer required to summarize or recapitulate the evidence, or to explain the application of the law to the evidence. Nor is the judge required to state the contentions of the parties. However, if the judge undertakes to state the contentions of the parties, equal stress must be given to the contentions of each party.

In the instant case, the Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, concluded that the trial court committed reversible error by giving more emphasis to defendant’s contentions of contributory negligence than it did to plaintiffs’ contentions of negligence. The jury answered in the negative as to whether plaintiff Lennon Cain was injured by the negligence of defendant and, therefore, did not reach the question of contributory negligence. We have reviewed the trial judge’s instructions in their entirety, including the instructions and reinstructions on negligence, contributory negligence, and willful and wanton conduct. Viewing the instructions as a whole, we are satisfied that the trial judge’s instructions, while not a model of clarity, did not mislead the jury to the prejudice of plaintiffs. *See Gregory v. Lynch,*271 N.C. 198, 155 S.E.2d 488 (1967); *Burgess v. Construction Co.,*264 N.C. 82, 140 S.E.2d 766 (1965); *Mayberry v. Charlotte City Coach Lines, Inc.,*260 N.C. 126, 131 S.E.2d 671 (1963). Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand for reinstatement of the judgment of the trial court.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Writ of Mandamus Denied; Opinion Filed October 28, 2013. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 13
- 01440
- CV IN RE ELIZABETH REBE LES, HOLLINGSWORTH S AND & GRAVEL, LLC, AND KELLY DEAN HOLLI NGSWORTH , Relators Original Proceeding from the 14th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 11
- 10674 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices O'Neill, Lang

- Miers, and Evans Opinion by Justice Evans Relators contend the trial judge erred in granting a motion to disqualify counsel . The facts and issues are well known to the parties, so we need not recount them herein. Based on the record relators have provided us, we conclude they have not shown they are entitled to the relief requested. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.8(a); Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 839

- 40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Additionally, relators’ petition does not satisfy the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. S ee T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3(j); In re Butler , 270 S.W.3d 757, 758 (Tex. App.

B Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we DENY relators’ petition for writ of mandamus and motion for temporary relief

.

131440F.P05 /David Evans/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
""'"··.r- '='"·, ::~ 

~j ~-, 

..........: -

iZ\_ 

Harbor ofRefuge- Dedieated August 6, 1961 

11 July2012 

Mr. Dennis DeVany 

Chief, Essential Air Service Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue Se., 

Washington, D. C. 20590 

};J JZ City of Harrisville 

Office of the Mayor 

P.O. Box 278 . 

Harrisville, MI 48740 

(989) 724-6666 

Reference; DOT-OST-2009-0300, Alpena, Michigan Air Service 

Dear Mr. DeVany, 

!2 

The City of Harrisville, Michigan, thru its City Council action on 4 July 2012, wishes to lend its support to the 

proposal of Sky West Airlines to provide essential air service at Alpena, Michigan as replacement fbr our 

current air service. 

Locai air service that provides an effective connection to the national and international air transportation system 

is critical to the economic well being of Alpena and to the residents o f HalTisville, Michigan. We rely on this 

local air service for both business and leisure travel. 

The SykWest proposal offers us a 50-seat regional jet with the Delta brand and code and service to the Delta 

hubs of Detroit and Minneapolis. 

We believe the SykWest air service proposal represents the best option for retaining our local air service long 

tenn and building up traffic so that government subsidies can eventually be reduced or eliminated. 

We urge the Department of Transportation to award Sky West Airways the designation to provide Alpena's 

Essential Air Service. 

Best regards,
(September 9, 1960)

#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Edward Mahoney, Relator, against Warden of the City Prison, Respondent.

Writ dismissed and relator remanded to the custody of the Warden. Nolan, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Part 842
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 842 appear at 81 FR 83688, Nov. 22, 2016.

§ 842.17 Delegations of authority. ( a ) *Settlement authority.* The Secretary of the Air Force has delegated the authority to assign areas of responsibility and designate functional responsibility for claims under the Military Personnel and Civilian Employees' Claims Act to The Judge Advocate General (TJAG).
( b ) *Reconsideration authority.* A settlement authority has the same authority specified in paragraph (a) of this section. However, with the exception of TJAG, a settlement authority may not deny a claim on reconsideration that it, or its delegate, had previously denied.
( c ) *Authority to reduce, withdraw and restore delegated settlement authority.* Any superior settlement authority may reduce, withdraw, or restore delegated authority.
[81 FR 83688, Nov. 22, 2016]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE EMONS
TRANSPORTATION GROUP, INC. CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE
MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000032666
<NAME> EMONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,750,871
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,428,077
<ALLOWANCES>                                   172,657
<INVENTORY>                                    210,136
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,080,068
<PP&E>                                      32,334,255
<DEPRECIATION>                              11,219,290
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,067,962
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,631,545
<BONDS>                                     10,561,624
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     14,873
<COMMON>                                        60,821
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,028,360
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,067,962
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,079,160
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,369,638
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             223,349
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                718,003
<INCOME-TAX>                                   264,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            454,003
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   454,003
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06
        

</TABLE>
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Frank Benjamin

*John B. Williams,*in support of the motions.

Submitted October 1

decided November 26, 1974

The defendant’s motion for a review of the order of the trial court on his motion to reduce his bond in the appeal from the Superior Court in New Haven County is granted; the relief sought therein and the defendant’s motion to expedite consideration of the motion to review are both denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 609 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 609

   To amend the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Programs 
 Enhancement Act of 2001 and title 38, United States Code, to require 
  the provision of chiropractic care and services to veterans at all 
Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers and to expand access to 
            such care and services, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 13, 2017

 Mr. Moran (for himself, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Grassley, Ms. Murkowski, 
   Mr. Whitehouse, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Brown, Mr. Tester, and Mr. King) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Programs 
 Enhancement Act of 2001 and title 38, United States Code, to require 
  the provision of chiropractic care and services to veterans at all 
Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers and to expand access to 
            such care and services, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Chiropractic Care Available to All 
Veterans Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. PROGRAM FOR PROVISION OF CHIROPRACTIC CARE AND SERVICES TO 
              VETERANS.

    Section 204(c) of the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care 
Programs Enhancement Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-135; 38 U.S.C. 1710 
note) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``The program''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(2) The program shall be carried out at not fewer than 75 medical 
centers by not later than December 31, 2018, and at all medical centers 
by not later than December 31, 2020.''.

SEC. 3. EXPANDED CHIROPRACTOR SERVICES AVAILABLE TO VETERANS.

    (a) Medical Services.--Paragraph (6) of section 1701 of title 38, 
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subparagraph:
                    ``(H) Chiropractic services.''.
    (b) Rehabilitative Services.--Paragraph (8) of such section is 
amended by inserting ``chiropractic,'' after ``counseling,''.
    (c) Preventive Health Services.--Paragraph (9) of such section is 
amended--
            (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (F) through (K) as 
        subparagraphs (G) through (L), respectively; and
            (2) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following new 
        subparagraph (F):
                    ``(F) periodic and preventive chiropractic 
                examinations and services;''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF 

ILLINOIS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and the 

State of Illinois, ex rel. Alan J. Litwiller,

Plaintiff,

v. 

OMNICARE, INC.,

Defendant.

Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr.

Civil Action No: 11-cv-8980

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the False Claims Act, 

31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1), the Plaintiff Alan J. Litwiller (“Relator”) and Defendant Omnicare, Inc. 

(“Omnicare”) filed a Stipulation of Dismissal as to all claims against Omnicare asserted in this 

civil action. Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1), the United States and State of Illinois, which 

have elected not to intervene in this action, have filed a written consent to dismissal of this action 

with prejudice as to the Relator, and without prejudice as to the United States and the State of 

Illinois. Upon due consideration of the Stipulation, the consents filed by the United States and 

the State of Illinois, and the other papers on file in this action, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, all claims in the action asserted by Relator shall be 

dismissed with prejudice as to Relator, and without prejudice as to the United States and the 

State of Illinois. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

August 4, 2014

Date The Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr. 

United States District Judge

Case: 1:11-cv-08980 Document #: 52 Filed: 08/04/14 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:673
Exhibit 32.1
Certification of the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with this quarterly report of Espey Mfg. & Electronics Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Howard Pinsley,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

      1.    The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date: May 13, 2004

                                              /s/ Howard Pinsley
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Howard Pinsley
                                              President and
                                              Chief Executive Officer


                                       29
**MEMORANDUM**

TO:  Chief Information Officer

FROM:  The Secretary

# SUBJECT:  Primary Delegation of Authority

## I. Delegation

By the authority vested in me by section 412 of the Department of Education

Organization Act, 20 USC §3472, I hereby delegate to you, to your successor in function, and to anyone serving for you in an acting capacity, or delegated the authority to perform the functions and duties of your position, the authority to perform the functions vested by the Title VIII, Subtitle D of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2015, Pub. L. No. 113-291 also referred to as Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA).

Unless otherwise noted in future delegations of authority, amendments to the existing authority delegated herein are included within the scope of this delegation.

## II. Reservations

Unless otherwise noted in existing or future delegations of authority, the following are not delegated:

A. The authority to sign Federal Register notices;

B. The authority to appoint, and fix compensation of, members of advisory councils; and

C. Unless otherwise provided by law, the authority to submit reports to Congress or the President.

## III. Redelegation

Subject to the requirements of FITARA, you may redelegate the authority delegated to you.  FITARA provides, however, that you may not redelegate your authority in Section 831(b)(1)(C)(i)(II) to review and approve requests for the “reprogramming of any funds made available for information technology programs” and you may redelegate your authority in Section 831(b)(1)(C)(i)(I) to review and approve contracts or other agreements for information technology or information technology services only to an individual who reports directly to you if the contract or agreement is “for a non-major information technology investment, as defined in the  annual information technology capital  planning guidance of the Office of  Management and Budget.”

## IV. Certification and Effective Date

This delegation is effective upon certification by the Department’s Principal Delegation Control Officer and supersedes all previous delegations of this authority.  I hereby ratify actions within the scope of this delegation taken by you prior to certification of this delegation.

Signed by 

John B. King, Jr.

OGC Clearance: Deborah Friendly

OGC Clearance Date: 10/28/16

Departmental Delegations Control Officer: Jim Clemmens

Certified on: 11/2/16

Control Number: EA/EI/17
#### § 200.2005 Ex parte contacts.

No party or person (except employees of the ALJ's office) will communicate in any way with the ALJ on any matter at issue in a case, unless on notice and opportunity for all parties to participate. This section does not prohibit a person or party from inquiring about the status of a case or asking routine questions concerning administrative functions or procedures.
#### Eli Jewelry Company, appellee, v. City of Chicago et al., appellants.

Gen. No. 29,985.

Injunction suit to restrain defendants from preventing plaintiff from selling its merchandise at auction. Temporary injunction issued. Appeal from interlocutory order from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Hugo M. Friend, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1924.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed March 23, 1925.

Francis X. Busch, Corporation Counsel, for appellants; Leon Hornstein, Assistant Corporation Counsel, of counsel.

Hyman J. Rosenberg, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.
**Exhibit
13**
  CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
connection with the Annual Report of Avino Silver & Gold Mines Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended January 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form 20-F") I David
Wolfin, President (and acting Principal Executive and Financial Officer), of the
Company, certify 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 our
knowledge and belief:
 
 (1)
    The
      Form 20-F fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78M or 78o(d)); and
 
 (2)
    The
      information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.
 
 
 
 Dated:
August 12, 2005      */s/
David Wolfin* ____________
 David Wolfin, President
 (Principal Executive and Financial Officer)
 
   
 59
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          16,735
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  184,443
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     39,540
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               248,049
<PP&E>                                       1,692,113
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,626,195)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 462,809
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          734,395
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       994,655
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,319,876)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   462,809
<SALES>                                      1,233,878
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,292,578
<CGS>                                          790,957
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,319,409
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,750
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (51,581)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (51,581)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (51,581)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)
        

</TABLE>