alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Margaret Bell and Husband vs. C. D. Baker.

February 28, 1890.

Disaffirming Lease for Fraud — Promptness Requisite. — Rule, that one electing to disaffirm a contract for fraud must act promptly, applied in the case of a tenant continuing to occupy the leased premises for a long time after the discovery of the alleged fraud involved in the making of the lease.

Plaintiffs brought this action in the district court for Otter Tail county, to recover $240 rent reserved in a written lease, and $100 damages for breach of defendant’s covenant to keep in repair. In his answer the defendant pleaded a counterclaim for $200 damages for alleged fraudulent representations made by plaintiffs at the time of the execution of the lease. At the trial before *Sectrle,*J., the jury were instructed to find for plaintiffs for the full amount claimed as rent, and also such damages as they should think plaintiffs entitled to. The defendant appeals from an order refusing a new trial.

*87
      *Chas. L. Lewis,*for appellant.

*C. C. Houpt,*for respondents.

Dickinson, J.

The plaintiffs rented to the defendant certain premises for the term of three years, commencing on the 1st day of April, 1885, at a stipulated monthly rental. The defendant occupied under the lease until July, 1887. In this action the plaintiffs seek to recover the rental for the time subsequent to that date. On the trial the defendant offered to prove that he was induced to enter into the contract by false and fraudulent representations of the lessors as to the condition of the premises as to warmth, and the purity of the water; which fraudulent representations the defendant.had set forth in his answer. The court rejected this evidence, and instructed the jury that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the rent specified in the written lease.

The ruling and instruction were right. The offer was insufficient to show a right of recovery, or counterclaim, of damages for fraud, even if, under the admitted facts of the case, the defendant had not precluded himself from the right to recover damages for that cause. The only effect that could be claimed for the evidence offered was that the alleged fraud avoided the contract. But, if the fraud had been established, it would only have rendered the contract voidable at the election of the defendant, and not void; and, if he desired to disaffirm the contract on that ground, it was incumbent on him to act with promptness after the discovery of the fraud. He could not, after such discovery, continue to treat the contract as still subsisting, availing himself of the benefits conferred by it, and afterwards relieve himself from the contract obligation by disaffirmance. The defendant, in his answer, admits that he discovered the fraud in the winter following the commencement of his lease, and that, nevertheless, he continued to occupy the premises for about a year and a half after that. There was nothing in the evidence offered to modify the effect of this fact as a ratification or affirmance of the contract.

Order affirmed.
#### 303.602 Exceptions.

The HCA (non-delegable) is the official authorized to approve an exception to the policy stated in FAR 3.601.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 64991]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27065]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7660]

Certification Related to Guatemalan Armed Forces Under Section 
7045(D) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related 
Programs Appropriations Act, 2010 (Division F, Pub. L. 111-117), as 
Carried Forward by the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 
(Division B, Pub. L. 112-10)

    Pursuant to the authority vested in me as Deputy Secretary of 
State, including under Section 7045(d) of the Department of State, 
Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2010 (Div. 
F, Pub. L. 111-117) (``the Act''), as carried forward by the Full-Year 
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Div. B, Pub. L. 112-10), and 
Delegation of Authority No. 245-1, I hereby certify that:
    (A) The Guatemalan Air Force, Navy, and Army Corps of Engineers are 
respecting internationally recognized human rights;
    (B) The Guatemalan Air Force, Navy, and Army Corps of Engineers are 
cooperating with civilian judicial investigations and prosecutions of 
current and retired military personnel who have been credibly alleged 
to have committed violations of such rights, including protecting and 
providing to the Attorney General's office all military archives 
pertaining to the internal armed conflict; and
    (C) The Guatemalan Air Force, Navy, and Army Corps of Engineers are 
cooperating with the International Commission Against Impunity in 
Guatemala (CICIG) by granting access to CICIG personnel, providing 
evidence to CICIG, and allowing witness testimony.
    This Certification shall be published in the Federal Register, and 
copies shall be transmitted to the appropriate committees of Congress.

    Dated: August 15, 2011.
Thomas R. Nides,
Deputy Secretary for Management and Resource.
[FR Doc. 2011-27065 Filed 10-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-29-P
```
#### 42.1101 General.

Production surveillance is a function of contract administration used to determine contractor progress and to identify any factors that may delay performance. Production surveillance involves Government review and analysis of (a) contractor performance plans, schedules, controls, and industrial processes and (b) the contractor's actual performance under them.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-21149

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JORGE A. FUENTES,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CR-405-1

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

June 18, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Yolanda E. Jarmon, court-appointed appellate counsel for

Jorge A. Fuentes, has requested leave to withdraw and has filed a

brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Fuentes has not responded to the motion. Our independent review

of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issues for

appeal. Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,

counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the appeal

is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

MOTION GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CENTEX
CORPORATION'S JUNE 30, 1999, FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<CIK> 0000018532
<NAME> CENTEX CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         105,333
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,817,619
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,681,439
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         572,621
<DEPRECIATION>                                 250,260
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,471,870
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        335,743
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        14,873
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,239,308
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,471,870
<SALES>                                      1,372,233
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,372,233
<CGS>                                        1,245,973
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,245,973
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,322
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,828
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 93,110
<INCOME-TAX>                                    34,674
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             58,436
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    58,436
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.98
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.95


</TABLE>
# C_2020180EN.01001201.xml

| 29.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/12

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

28 May 2020

(2020/C 180/07)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1016 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 118,68 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4544 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,89728 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,5480 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0683 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 150,80 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,8553 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,017 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 349,74 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4242 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,8435 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 7,5072 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6624 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5155 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,5407 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7776 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5621 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 363,76 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 19,1981 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,8804 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5900 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 210,04 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7980 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 55,792 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 77,9343 |
| THB | Thai baht | 35,108 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,8495 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 24,5580 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 83,4635 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1016

JPY

Japanese yen

118,68

DKK

Danish krone

7,4544

GBP

Pound sterling

0,89728

SEK

Swedish krona

10,5480

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0683

ISK

Iceland króna

150,80

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,8553

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,017

HUF

Hungarian forint

349,74

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4242

RON

Romanian leu

4,8435

TRY

Turkish lira

7,5072

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6624

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5155

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,5407

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7776

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5621

KRW

South Korean won

1 363,76

ZAR

South African rand

19,1981

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,8804

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5900

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 210,04

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7980

PHP

Philippine peso

55,792

RUB

Russian rouble

77,9343

THB

Thai baht

35,108

BRL

Brazilian real

5,8495

MXN

Mexican peso

24,5580

INR

Indian rupee

83,4635

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
# C_2021059EN.01000501.xml

| 19.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 59/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 59/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

18 February 2021

(2021/C 59/04)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2084 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 127,69 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4362 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,86540 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,0328 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0829 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 155,80 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,2178 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,864 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 358,73 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4888 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,8751 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 8,3975 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5518 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5307 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,3684 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6735 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6028 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 336,85 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,5602 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,8172 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5765 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 998,02 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8844 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,616 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 88,9872 |
| THB | Thai baht | 36,276 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 6,5252 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 24,3890 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 87,6695 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2084

JPY

Japanese yen

127,69

DKK

Danish krone

7,4362

GBP

Pound sterling

0,86540

SEK

Swedish krona

10,0328

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0829

ISK

Iceland króna

155,80

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,2178

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,864

HUF

Hungarian forint

358,73

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4888

RON

Romanian leu

4,8751

TRY

Turkish lira

8,3975

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5518

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5307

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,3684

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6735

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6028

KRW

South Korean won

1 336,85

ZAR

South African rand

17,5602

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,8172

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5765

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 998,02

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8844

PHP

Philippine peso

58,616

RUB

Russian rouble

88,9872

THB

Thai baht

36,276

BRL

Brazilian real

6,5252

MXN

Mexican peso

24,3890

INR

Indian rupee

87,6695

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
<PAGE>


                                                                EXHIBIT 11



                            CHATTEM, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
          FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 1997 AND FEBRUARY 29, 1996
                       (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)

                                                 FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                 FEBRUARY 28,   FEBRUARY 29,
                                                     1997           1996
                                                  ---------      ---------

NET INCOME (LOSS) ............................     $   136        $   (38)
                                                  ---------      ---------

WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF COMMON AND COMMON
  EQUIVALENT SHARES OUTSTANDING:
WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF COMMON SHARES 
  OUTSTANDING.................................       8,603          7,292
SHARES ISSUED UPON ASSUMED EXERCISE OF
  OUTSTANDING STOCK OPTIONS AND STOCK
  WARRANTS....................................         204             --
                                                  ---------      ---------
WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF COMMON AND COMMON
  EQUIVALENT SHARES OUTSTANDING...............       8,807          7,292
                                                  ---------      ---------
                                                  ---------      ---------

NET INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE ...........     $   .02        $  (.01)
                                                  ---------      ---------
                                                  ---------      ---------
336.570 Contract clause. ( a ) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 352.236-70, Design-Build Contracts, in all solicitations and contracts for all design-build requirements.
( b ) The contracting officer shall use Alternate I to the clause at 352.236-70, Design-Build Contracts, in all solicitations and contracts for construction when Fast-Track procedures are being used.
( c ) Due to the importance of maintaining consistency in the contractor's personnel during design-build construction, the contracting officer should consider including the clause at 352.237-75, Key personnel.
**Who May Apply: (by category)**:  Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs)

Institutions of higher education (IHEs) (as defined under section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA)) and consortia of IHEs are eligible to receive grants under the TPSID program.  All grant recipients must partner with one or more local educational agencies to support students with intellectual disabilities who are still eligible for special education and related services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Institutional Service Home

|Last Modified: 09/30/2014
|-------------------------
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

We consent to the use of ourreport dated March 28, 2005, included in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB ofNational Mercantile Bancorp and subsidiaries asof December 31, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements asof December 31, 2004 and for the two years in the period ended December 31,2004 included in this Form 10-KSB.

 

 
|   | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP |   |
|--------|---------------------------|--------|

 

Los Angeles, California

March 27, 2006

 

1

----
countyIDfuelYearIDmonthGroupIDfuelFormulationIDmarketSharemarketShareCV

11172009 1 8220 0.3756 0.5 11172009 1 2821 0.6244 0.5 11172009 1 20043 1 0.5 11172009 2 8220 0.3756 0.5 11172009 2 2821 0.6244 0.5 11172009 2 20043 1 0.5 11172009 3 8249 0.3756 0.5 11172009 3 2849 0.6244 0.5 11172009 3 20043 1 0.5 11172009 4 8249 0.3756 0.5 11172009 4 2849 0.6244 0.5 11172009 4 20043 1 0.5 11172009 5 8249 0.3756 0.5 11172009 5 2849 0.6244 0.5 11172009 5 20043 1 0.5 11172009 6 8250 0.3756 0.5 11172009 6 2850 0.6244 0.5 11172009 6 20043 1 0.5 11172009 7 8250 0.3756 0.5 11172009 7 2850 0.6244 0.5 11172009 7 20043 1 0.5 11172009 8 8250 0.3756 0.5 11172009 8 2850 0.6244 0.5 11172009 8 20043 1 0.5 11172009 9 8250 0.3756 0.5 11172009 9 2850 0.6244 0.5 11172009 9 20043 1 0.5 11172009 10 8249 0.3756 0.5 11172009 10 2849 0.6244 0.5 11172009 10 20043 1 0.5 11172009 11 8249 0.3756 0.5 11172009 11 2849 0.6244 0.5 11172009 11 20043 1 0.5 11172009 12 8220 0.3756 0.5 11172009 12 2821 0.6244 0.5 11172009 12 20043 1 0.5
#### PAGE v. BRUMMER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

June 22, 1903.)

1. Appeal—Verdict—Review.

Whether certain items in a counterclaim in an action for attorney’s services should have been allowed will not be reviewed where it does not affirmatively appear that the verdict included such items.

Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.

Action by William R. Page against John Brummer. A verdict was rendered in favor of plaintiff for $25,t and, defendant’s costs having been duly taxed at the sum of $68.45, a judgment was rendered in favor of defendant for the difference, from which, and from an order denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial, he appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and MacLEAN, JJ.

Elon S. Hobbs, for appellant.

Charles H. Fuller, for respondent.

MacLEAN, J.

In a contract of July 14, 1893, between these ties, respecting a claim of the defendant for damages' done his premises on Third avenue by the New York Elevated Railroad Company, the plaintiff undertook to prosecute and collect the claim, and pay the owner two-thirds of the sum recovered and received, retaining *269one-third of the sum for his services, for which latter, in case he failed to collect, he was to receive nothing. Four years later, and before the plaintiff had collected anything, the defendant sold his property. So the plaintiff brought this action to recover the value of his services, stated at $1,000. As a witness, he estimated their worth at $1,000; his witness estimated them at $750; and the witness for the defendant considered them worth $250. The defendant denied the liability, and set up two counterclaims—demands assigned him by his wife—against the plaintiff, arising out of two contracts substantially similar, respecting other pieces of property, consisting in the two actions of claims for overcharges of costs for $193.34 and $128, extra fees of $60 and $60, and of one-third disbursements, $48.63 and $32.66; aggregating in both $522.63. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $25. As no appeal was taken by the defendant, most of the questions of law have been eliminated. Some others, urged upon the supposition that there was no proof of the character of the contract with Mrs. Brummer, need not be considered, because his counsel has overlooked the plaintiff’s testimony that the contract with the wife was substantially similar. The plaintiff’s assuming certain things as necessarily involved in the verdict of the jury for the amount in his favor bases a good part of his argument upon the necessary exclusion of the amounts charged by him to Mrs. Brummer for disbursements, because such an arrangement would be champertous. Even if this construction be put upon the agreement, presumably drawn by the plaintiff himself, the deductions, if allowed, would not be decisive here; for, if the jury threw out the items for disbursements altogether, and took something between the lowest and the middle estimate of the lawyer’s services, their verdict would be justifiable, and the judgment should be sustained.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.
#### BRINKMAN v. KURSHEEDT.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

November 6, 1903.)

1. Physicians—Action for Services—Defense of Malpractice.

Where, in an action by a physician for services, the evidence was,, sufficient to raise an inference of malpractice, a verdict for defendantwill not be disturbed.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Tenth District.

Action by Morris W. Brinkman against Manuel A. Kursheedt for services rendered as a physician. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and BISCHOFF and BLANCHARD, JJ.

Melvin H. Dalberg, for appellant.

Joseph Fettretch, for respondent.

BISCHOFF, J.

The justice’s conclusion upon the affirmative defense of malpractice is not opposed to the weight of the evidence, in view of the condition of the patient as disclosed within a very few days after the treatment had been discontinued by the plaintiff. .The *576probability that the stone in the bladder were of sudden arising, due to a prior engysted condition, was not necessarily to be adopted, since that probability was met by the defendant’s testimony that the treatment was directed to some supposed abdominal trouble, and, so far, the physician’s failure to find the presence of stone in the bladder would not necessarily suggest that this actual condition, shortly afterward found in full development, did not then exist. Upon the proof submitted, an inference that the plaintiff failed to exercise the skill reasonably to be expected from a member of the profession in the community could easily be reached, and there is no ground for our disturbing the result.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.
(051 W U)-CH )Cf)

C0UBT0FCW1NALAPPEALS

3&fal£g ^15 feb 09 r

^WAco8ta,Cterfc

AaZky7eak£ 7f7f{

InfoldAt* M-tffte-0i^tffa5/h6-M

.3, rz£

7i^£t.fa;/M7£ifc&^^d5%tf!-3

j^ &*&&.^Ife^ J^vz/sm?^/>&h?#&&foJatAjdt __

^?z£ ^tz^k^k^Mdj4zkJXYs^>z<fb 7Zm4^^^^
•H6dt jo** £11.

fib