alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### FIZBURG v. RAMSEY.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

January 17, 1906.)

Dismissal and Nonsuit—Right to Discontinue—Interposition of Counterclaim.

Where a counterclaim is interposed, plaintiff has no absolute right to discontinue upon payment of costs, but he must show facts such as to justify the court in permitting him to discontinue, and whether such permission shall be granted over defendant’s objection rests within the discretion of the court.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 17, Cent. Dig. Dismissal and Nonsuit, § 34.]

Appeal from City Court of New York.

Action by Philip Fizburg against Charles Ramsey. From an order denying a motion for leave to discontinue, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and BLANCHARD and DOW-LING, JJ.

Henry Fluegelman, for appellant.

Job E. Hedges, for respondent.

BLANCHARD, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the City Court denying a motion by the plaintiff for leave to discontinue. The cause of action alleged in the complaint is substantially the same as that set up in the answer, each party seeking to recover from the other the sum of $1,000 upon two similar promissory notes given by each to the other, to secure the performance of a contract made between them.

The learned court below held, and rightly, that no sufficient reason was given in the moving papers for granting tb" motion. The rule laid down by the Court of Appeals in the matter of Lasak, 131 N. Y. 624, 627, 30 N. E. 112, is decisive. It states.:

> “In ordinary actions it is not always the absolute right of a plaintiff to discontinue his action. In all cases where the defendant becomes an actor and is interested in the continuance and trial of the action, as when he sets up a counterclaim or sets up a claim to property, which is in litigation, and asks in his answer for affirmative relief in reference thereto, he may resist the discontinuance of the action, and then it rests in the discretion of the court whether or not the plaintiff shall be permitted to discontinue it.”

The defendant is equally an actor with the plaintiff in the prosecution of the action, and the burden is upon the plaintiff to present the facts, which would justify the court in granting the relief he seeks. He presents no facts, whatever, but “believes that it will be for the best interests of the parties hereto that this action be discontinued,” and, in making the motion, he appears to have proceeded upon the erroneous theory that he had an absolute right to discontinue. The plaintiff is no more entitled to have this action discontinued upon payment of costs than would the defendant. The defendant has been put to trouble and expense in defending the action and in asserting his counterclaim, and he is entitled to have his rights determined therein.

The order appéaled from is affirmed, with costs and disbursements. All concur.
#### 225.1070 Clause deviations in overseas contracts.

See 201.403(2) for approval authority for clause deviations in overseas contracts with governments of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries or other allies or with United Nations or NATO organizations.

[65 FR 19856, Apr. 13, 2000]
#### 215.371-6 Solicitation provision.

Use the provision at 252.215-7007, Notice of Intent to Resolicit, in competitive solicitations, including solicitations using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services, that will be solicited for fewer than 30 days, unless an exception at 215.371-4 applies or the requirement is waived in accordance with 215.371-5.

[78 FR 65216, Oct. 31, 2013, as amended at 88 FR 6582, Jan. 31, 2023]
Second Department,

June, 1960

(June 1, 1960)

#### In the Matter of Harriet Goldstein, Appellant-Respondent, against William D. Meisser et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the County of Nassau, Respondents-Appellants, and Nathan Peskin et al., Respondents.

Appeal by petitioner from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered May 27, 1960, which denied her application to overrule objections of the Board of Elections of the County of Nassau to her petition; and appeal by said board from so much of such order as declares valid and countable the signatures of Joseph Zollman, Thelma Zuroff and Roslyn Leader. Order insofar as appealed from affirmed, without costs. We are in accord with the determination at Special Term that the petitioner was not authorized to commence this proceeding pursuant to the provisions of subdivision 1 of section 330 of the Election Law, as amended by chapter 1001 of the Laws of 1960. We are also of the opinion that the petition filed is invalid because it fails to describe properly the public office for which the candidate was to be nominated and the political unit in which the candidate was to he elected, as required by section 148-a of the Election Law, as amended by chapter 1042 of the Laws *688of 1960. Nolan, P. J., Christ and Pette, JJ., concur; Beldoek, J., concurs in the result, with the following memorandum: While I do not concur with the majority that the petitioner was not authorized to commence this proceeding, I concur for affirmance solely on the second ground above stated.
#### HARMS, Respondent, v. RINALDO, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 23, 1903.)

Action by Charles Harms against David M. Rinaldo.

L. Cohen, for appellant. J. C. Guggenheimer, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE FORM

NOTE: In order to appear before this Court an attorney must either be a member in good

standing of this Court’s general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for

by Local Rules 83.12 through 83.14.

In the Matter of Case Number:

AN APPEARANCE IS HEREBY FILED BY THE UNDERSIGNED AS ATTORNEY FOR:

NAME (Type or print)

SIGNATURE (Use electronic signature if the appearance form is filed electronically)

 s/

FIRM

STREET ADDRESS

CITY/STATE/ZIP

ID NUMBER (SEE ITEM 3 IN INSTRUCTIONS) TELEPHONE NUMBER

ARE YOU ACTING AS LEAD COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? YES NO 

ARE YOU ACTING AS LOCAL COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? YES NO 

ARE YOU A MEMBER OF THIS COURT’S TRIAL BAR? YES NO 

IF THIS CASE REACHES TRIAL, WILL YOU ACT AS THE TRIAL ATTORNEY? YES NO 

IF THIS IS A CRIMINAL CASE, CHECK THE BOX BELOW THAT DESCRIBES YOUR STATUS.

RETAINED COUNSEL APPOINTED COUNSEL 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 71 Filed: 05/02/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:419
#### 1827.404 Basic rights in data clause.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RAMEL ANDERSON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 304 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 2nd day of January, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          647886
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                647886
<PP&E>                                           9,939
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,939
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  731238
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             3219
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          2015
<OTHER-SE>                                      495161
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    731238
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 72985
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    66597
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   6388
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (5537)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              11925
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     11925
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
OCR Case Number 08-06-4006: The Office for Civil  Rights of the U.S. Department of Education (OCR) and the Civil Rights Division  of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) initiated an  investigation of the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) in response to a  class action, statewide discrimination complaint.  The complaint  specifically alleged that ADE’s methods of reclassifying national origin  minority students who are English language learners (ELL) result in many  thousands of ELL students being reclassified as “proficient” in English when  test results indicate that they are not proficient in English, thereby exiting  them from ELL services prematurely.  With the  cooperation of ADE and Arizona school districts, the Departments of Education  and Justice conducted an extensive investigation of the state’s ELL policies  and programs.  The Departments determined that ADE’s mandated use of the  English language proficiency composite test score as the sole criterion  for determining whether a student is ELL resulted in  tens of thousands of ELL students being misidentified as Initially Fluent  English Proficient (IFEP) or exited from ELL services without English  proficiency in reading and writing, which is key to academic success. ADE entered into a resolution agreement to voluntarily  resolve the matter.  Under the agreement,  ADE and Arizona public schools will offer targeted reading and writing English  language support intervention services to ELL students who were prematurely  exited or incorrectly identified as IFEP over the past five school years.   The agreement also requires ADE to develop English proficiency criteria that  accurately identify and exit ELL students.***Press Release*** | ***Read the Resolution Letter***PDF (433K) ***| Read the Resolution Agreement***PDF (359K)

  

Top
#### Tipton *v.*Pendergrass.

November 18, 1912.

Equitable petition. Before Judge Jones. Jackson superior court. December 14, 1911.

*Ray & Ray,*for plaintiff.

Evans, P. J.

There was no error in granting a nonsuit.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002



I, Mark A. Libratore, the
President and Chief Executive Officer of Liberator Medical Holdings, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1.          This
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 (the “Report”) 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 this Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.



|Dated: February 21, 2012 | /s/ Mark A. Libratore                
|------------------------ | -------------------------------------
|                         | Mark A. Libratore,                   
|                         | President and Chief Executive Officer
U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE FORM

NOTE: In order to appear before this Court an attorney must either be a member in good standing 

of this Court`s general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for by Local 

Rules 83.12 through 83.14.

In the Matter of: Case Number: 1:12-cv-1521

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO WELLS FARGO BANK 

MINNESOTA, N.A., AS TRUSTEE F/K/A NORWEST BANK MINNESOTA, N.A., AS TRUSTEE 

FOR DELTA FUNDING HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST 2001-1

vs.

Leo Kent, personally, and as personal representative of the Estate of Daisy Kent

AN APPEARANCE IS HEREBY FILED BY THE UNDERSIGNED AS ATTORNEY FOR:

(In the space below, enter the name of the party or parties being represented)

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO WELLS FARGO BANK 

MINNESOTA, N.A., AS TRUSTEE F/K/A NORWEST BANK MINNESOTA, N.A., AS TRUSTEE 

FOR DELTA FUNDING HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST 2001-1, Plaintiff

Name (Type or Print)

JAMES NICK PAPPAS

SIGNATURE (Use electronic signature if the appearance form is filed electronically)

 s/JAMES NICK PAPPAS

FIRM

Burke Costanza & Carberry LLP

STREET ADDRESS

225 W. Washington St, Suite 2200

CITY/STATE/ZIP

Chicago, IL 60606

ID NUMBER (SEE ITEM 3 IN INSTRUCTIONS)

6291873

TELEPHONE NUMBER

(219) 769-1313

ARE YOU ACTING AS LEAD COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? (Enter "Y" or "N") Y

ARE YOU ACTING AS LOCAL COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? (Enter "Y" or "N") N

ARE YOU A MEMBER OF THIS COURT`S TRIAL BAR? (Enter "Y" or "N") N

IF THIS CASE REACHES TRIAL, WILL YOU ACT AS THE TRIAL ATTORNEY? (Enter "Y" or "N") N

Case: 1:12-cv-01521 Document #: 3 Filed: 03/01/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:35
IF THIS IS A CRIMINAL CASE, USE AN "X" TO DESCRIBE YOUR STATUS IN THIS CASE.

RETAINED COUNSEL APPOINTED COUNSEL

Case: 1:12-cv-01521 Document #: 3 Filed: 03/01/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:36
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, John J. Holland, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Butler Manufacturing
Company, certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period
       ended June 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
       of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15
       U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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

August 14, 2003                           /s/ John J. Holland
---------------                           -------------------------------------
Dated                                     John J. Holland
                                          Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO BUTLER MANUFACTURING COMPANY AND WILL BE RETAINED BY THE COMPANY AND
FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
Exhibit 32

Certification of Trust Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 (the
Report) of Kiewit Royalty Trust (the Trust), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Luke H. Paladino, the Trust Officer of U.S. Bank National Association, the trustee of the Trust,
certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.



|                                    |  |     |  |                                           
|----------------------------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Dated this 30th day of March, 2009. |  | By: |  | /s/ Luke H. Paladino                      
|                                    |  |     |  | Luke H. Paladino, Trust Officer           
|                                    |  |     |  | U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee
E X H I B I T   2 3.2

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-5404) pertaining to the 1981 Incentive Stock Option Plan and the 1983
Non-Statutory Stock Option Plan of ALPNET, Inc. and subsidiaries, and in the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-06091) pertaining to the ALPNET, Inc.
1996 Executive Stock Option Plan, of our Auditors' Report dated February 10,
1997 with respect to the balance sheets of ALPNET Canada Inc. (formerly
Multiscript Inc.) as at December 31, 1996 and 1995 and the statements of
earnings, deficit and changes in financial position for each of the years ended
December 31, 1996, 1995 and 1994, which we have been advised is included in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K) of ALPNET, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1996.

\s\FRIEDMAN & FRIEDMAN

Chartered Accountants

Montreal, Quebec
March 21, 1997
Exhibit 32.1

       Form of Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63
                 of Title 18 of the United States Code


I, Joseph F. Kruy, the chief executive officer and chief financial officer of
Cambex Corporation, certify that

(i) This quarterly report on Form 10QSB for the fiscal quarter ended July 1,
2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and

(ii) The information contained in this quarterly report on Form 10QSB fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Cambex Corporation.


Dated: August 11, 2006       /s/ Joseph F. Kruy
                             Joseph F. Kruy
                             President and Treasurer
                             [principal executive officer and
                              principal financial officer]


This certification accompanies this quarterly report pursuant to section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the
Company for purposes of Section 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

October 14, 2010 

Order 

 

October 14, 2010 

140371(56) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 SC: 140371 

v COA: 286479 

Jackson CC: 07-004218-FH 

DAVID RAY SMITH, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

____________________________________ 

 On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by Criminal Defense Attorneys of 

Michigan for leave to file a late brief amicus curiae is considered and it is GRANTED.
Publications
#### 1832.502-470 NASA contract clause.

The contracting officer may insert a clause substantially as stated at 1852.232-82, Submission of Requests for Progress Payments, in fixed-price solicitations and contracts that provide for progress payments. The recipient of the requests and number of copies may be changed as required.
#### Beverly *v.*Gilmore.

April 18, 1913.

Complaint. Before Judge Thomas. Colquitt superior court. May 4, 1912.

*Shipp & Kline,*for plaintiff in error. *W. F. Way,*contra.

Lumpkin, J.

1. There was no error in the rulings complained of in the grounds of the motion for a new trial. Nor are the grounds of such a character that a discussion of each of them individually would be profitable.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and there was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial.

3. After a careful consideration of the evidence and the motion for a new trial, it does not so clearly appear that the ease was brought to this court for delay only as to require the award of damages on that ground.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Flava Works, Inc., )

)

Plaintiff, ) Case No. 1:12-cv-01887

)

)

v. )

)

Lloyd Johnson, )

)

Defendant. )

PLAINTIFF, FLAVA WORKS, INC.’S, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

FILE PROPOSED THIRD AMENDED 

Now comes Plaintiff, Flava Works, Inc. (hereinafter “Flava Works”), by and 

through its attorneys, Meanith Huon and The Huon Law Firm, and states as follows:

1. This case was severed from Flava Works, Inc. v. Andrew Clavio, Case No. 

11-cv-5100 in which Flava Works, Inc. had sued former paid members of its websites for 

copyright infringement.

2. Plaintiff seeks leave to file a proposed Third Amended Complaint in lieu of 

Responding to the Section of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim.

3. FRCP 15 provides that “The court should freely give leave when justice so 

requires.”

4. A copy of the proposed Third Amended Complaint is attached with Exhibits.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court grant Plaintiff leave to 

file the proposed Third Amended Complaint.

Respectfully submitted,

Case: 1:12-cv-01887 Document #: 14 Filed: 09/04/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:211
/s/ Meanith Huon

Meanith Huon

PO Box 441

Chicago, Illinois 60690

Phone: (312) 405-2789

E-mail: huon.meanith@gmail.com

IL ARDC. No.: 6230996

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Under penalties of law, I attest the following documents or items have been or are being 

electronically served on all counsel of record on or before September 4, 2012:

PLAINTIFF, FLAVA WORKS, INC.’S, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

FILE PROPOSED THIRD AMENDED 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Meanith Huon

Meanith Huon

PO Box 441

Chicago, Illinois 60690

Phone: (312) 405-2789

E-mail: huon.meanith@gmail.com

IL ARDC. No.: 6230996

Case: 1:12-cv-01887 Document #: 14 Filed: 09/04/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:212
Case: 1:12-cv-01887 Document #: 14 Filed: 09/04/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:213
**CERTIFICATION      OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

| 1. | I                have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of SORL Auto Parts,                Inc.;                and |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based                on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement                of a                material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make                the                statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements                were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this                report. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/                Zhong Yun ZhouChief                Financial Officer |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----