alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Respondent, v. Town of Altamont, Defendant-Appellant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. Water Resources Commission of the State of New York, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

Herlihy, J.

Appeal by the Town of Altamont, Franklin County, from two orders, one of which directed summary judgment in favor of the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation and the other of which dismissed the third-party complaint against the Water Resources Commission. The appellant raises the question as to whether article 5 of the Conservation Law intended to give the Water Resources Commission authority to control the waters of this State. The present factual situation does not require an answer to the question posed, as the Water Resources Commission has not exercised any such authority. By court decisions in 1900 and 1911, water levels were regulated at a dam located at Setting Pole Rapids on the Raequette River, which property was conveyed to the Village of Tupper Lake (thereafter conveyed to the Town of Altamont) by the utility owner, now part of Niagara Mohawk, subject to the judgments, and reserving to the said grantor the right to build and maintain structures at the dam location and imposing certain affirmative duties on the grantee and further providing that upon the failure of .the grantee or its successors to comply with the conditions and duties imposed in the conveyances and *inter alia*the right of the grantor to enter upon the premises conveyed, the land was to revert to the grantor or its successors, the present utility corporation. In August, 1965, the town put locks on the gates of the dam and refused to further comply with the terms and conditions of the deeds. The present action was brought to restrain the town from violating the terms and conditions of the said deeds. As to the present litigation with which we are concerned, the town, contrary to its claim, has exercised control over the dam by its own act and it continues to exercise control subject, however, to the limitations contained in the deeds, until some affirmative act by the State of New York. Therefore, whether the commission has the questioned authority is not the issue presently before this court. Until there is some intervention by the State the Town of Altamont retains juris*618diction over the dam and must comply with the terms and conditions of the deeds which conferred jurisdiction and which presently govern the rights, obligations and responsibilities between the town and the Niagara Mohawk. We decide no other issue. The Attorney-General argues that the method and extent of regulation and control of water levels is a matter for the Legislature. (See *Matter of City of Syracuse*v. Gibbs, 283 N. Y. 275.) Orders affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Brink, JJ., concur with Herlihy, J.
Exhibit 12-A

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
               Chrysler Financial Corporation and Subsidiaries
             Computations of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                            (dollars in millions)

                                                    Nine Months Ended September 30,
                                                    -------------------------------
                                                           1997         1996
                                                           ----         ----
                                                              (unaudited)
<S>                                                       <C>          <C>
Net earnings before cumulative effect of
 changes in accounting principles                         $  307       $  293

 Add back:
  Taxes on income                                            158          160
  Fixed charges                                              622          616
                                                          ------       ------
   Earnings available for fixed charges                   $1,087       $1,069
                                                          ======       ======


 Fixed charges:
  Interest expense                                        $  609       $  605
  Rent                                                        13           11
                                                          ------       ------
   Total fixed charges                                    $  622       $  616
                                                          ======       ======


Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                          1.75         1.74
                                                          ======       ======
</TABLE>



The ratio of earnings to fixed charges is computed by dividing
earnings before income taxes and fixed charges by fixed charges. Fixed
charges consist of interest, amortization of debt discount and expense, and
rentals. Rentals included in fixed charges are the portion of total rent
expense representative of the interest factor (deemed to be one-third).


<PAGE>








                     This page intentionally left blank.
#### In the Matter of Eugene F. Clayton, Appellant, v Board of Education of Central School District No. 1 of the Towns of Conklin, Binghamton, Kirkwood and Vestal, et al., Respondents.

from a *766judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered June 22, 1978 in Broome County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to transfer the proceeding to the Appellate Division, and to vacate respondent’s determination that petitioner be dismissed from his position as a tenured school teacher. On February 19, 1974, petitioner, a tenured eighth grade music teacher, was charged with insubordination, use of excessive force upon students, and conduct unbecoming a teacher. Effective February 28, 1974, he was suspended without pay. Thereafter, pursuant to section 3020-a of the Education Law, a hearing was held as a result of which the hearing panel recommended that the charges be dismissed and that petitioner be reinstated. On August 8, 1974, the board of education refused to accept the panel’s recommendation, found petitioner guilty of the three charges and dismissed him as of the original suspension date. This is the third occasion the dismissal of petitioner has been before this court. The first time was a constitutional attack on certain administrative regulations (8 NYCRR 82.10, 82.11) which this court turned down in *Hodgkins v Central School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Conklin, Binghamton, Kirkwood & Vestal, Broome County*(48 AD2d 302). Thereafter, on transfer, this court annulled the determination of the board of education for lack of substantial evidence and directed the reinstatement of petitioner *(Matter of Clayton v Board of Educ.,*49 AD2d 343, revd 41 NY2d 966). The Court of Appeals, in reversing, held that substantial evidence supported the findings of the board of education and that the board’s determination should be reinstated with the exception of one charge. The Court of Appeals did not reinstate the penalty of dismissal, but remitted the matter to the Supreme Court, directing remand to the board of education for imposition of an appropriate penalty. On May 4, 1977, the board voted to dismiss petitioner. The instant article 78 proceeding was commenced to review that determination. We do not find that imposition of the penalty of dismissal is so shocking and excessive in the existing circumstances that it should be set aside. Judicial review of the penalty inflicted, in a disciplinary proceeding is a narrow one *(Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222). In the instant case, the Court of Appeals has found substantial evidence that, despite the warnings of superiors, petitioner used excessive force on students, committed acts of insubordination and engaged in conduct unbecoming a teacher. Petitioner’s other contentions relate to matters previously litigated and, by virtue of the Court of Appeals decision, are now foreclosed by the rule of the law of the case. Judgment affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
ATP Oil & Gas Corporation:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-60762) on Form S-8 of ATP Oil & Gas Corporation and subsidiaries of our
report dated March 26, 2003, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of
ATP Oil & Gas Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and
the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity
(deficit), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 2002, which report appears in the December 31, 2002, annual report
on Form 10-K of ATP Oil & Gas Corporation and subsidiaries.

Our report refers to a change in accounting for derivative financial instruments
effective January 1, 2001.

KPMG LLP

Houston, Texas
March 31, 2003
Sarah Woolard, on behalf of B.J.W., a Minor,

Individually,

Petitioner,

v.

MONTANA EIGHTEENTH JUJDICIAL DISTRICT

COURT, HON. RIENNE McElyea, Presiding,

Respondent.

Bowen 

Greenwood

Vatic of SuPreme 

Court

State of 

Montana

ORDER

Petitioner Stephanie Mooring, by counsel, has filed a petition for a writ of

supervisory control asking this Court to reverse two Eighteenth Judicial District Court

orders denying Petitioner's discovery requests for peer-reviewed health care information

regarding her son Eryon Barnett's death.

Having reviewed the petition, the Court deems it appropriate to obtain a response in

accordance with M. R. App. P. 14(7)(a). Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Defendant Bozeman

Deaconess Hospital, or both are granted twenty days to respond to the petition.

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to all counsel of record in

Gallatin County Cause No. DV-18-235B, and to the Honorable Rienne H. McElyea,

District Court Judge, presiding.

DATED this 011 day of September, 2020.

For the Court,
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed March 27, 2019.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-19-00205-CV

NITIN JARIWALA AND CHETNA HIRA, Appellants

V.

FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF PRATT, KANSAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-17308

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Brown, Schenck, and Pedersen, III

Opinion by Justice Brown

Before the Court are appellants’ amended motion for dismissal with prejudice and 

appellee’s response reflecting agreement with the dismissal. We GRANT the motion and dismiss 

the appeal with prejudice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1).

190205F.P05

/Ada Brown/

ADA BROWN

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

NITIN JARIWALA AND CHETNA 

HIRA, Appellants

No. 05-19-00205-CV V.

FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF PRATT, 

KANSAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-17308.

Opinion delivered by Justice Brown, 

Justices Schenck and Pedersen, III 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal with 

prejudice.

We ORDER that each party bear its own costs of this appeal as agreed.

Judgment entered this 27th day of March 2019.
#### Frederick Hitchler, Respondent, *v.*Gottfried Voelker, Appellant.

March 30, 1880.

1. The jury are the proper judges of the weight o'f evidence and the relative-credibility of witnesses.

*2.*Where a man’s teeth have been wantonly knocked out by a blow of the fist, an instruction as to punitive damages is proper.

*493•3. Though there is testimony tending to show that the loss of the teeth was a benefit to the plaintiff, this need not be considered by the jury in mitigation of damages.

Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court.

*Affirmed.*

G. H. Hospes, for the appellant.

George A. Bitter and W. H. H. Bussell, for respondent,

cited: *Malecele*v. *Railroad Go.,*57 Mo. 17 ; *Brown*v. *Emerson,*18 Mo. 103.

Hayden, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action to recover damages for an assault and battery. The answer was a general denial. The assault and battery were proved, and the chief issue of fact appears to have been whether the blow given by defendant to the plaintiff knocked teeth out of the mouth of the former, or not. The plaintiff produced teeth upon the trial, but the identity of these teeth was the subject of much conflicting evidence. It is clear, however, that the question whether such teeth could have been extracted from the plaintiff’s mouth by a blow of the fist, though there was medical testimony to the contrary, was for the jury. Though this may have been scientifically an impossibility, the jury may have believed it to have been physically a fact. The conflict of evidence was for them.

The question as to the teeth was important, as affecting the damages, which the defendant complains were excessive. But if the teeth were knocked out, and consequences followed as testified to, we cannot say that the amount given was too much. The defendant, indeed, argues that the plaintiff suffered merely a dental, and not a pecuniary loss; but we must take it that the former implies the latter, in spite of the testimony of some of the defendant’s medical witnesses, who seem to say that the deprivation of the teeth was a benefit rather than an injury to the plaintiff. It may be that the general health of the plaintiff was improved by *494the extraction of the teeth, but the law does not compel a man to pay for benefits thus thrust upon him. Neither can such benefits, remote and uncertain as they would necessarily be, be considered in mitigation of damages.

There was evidence from which the jury may have inferred that the injury was wantonly and maliciously inflicted, and therefore it was not error to give the instruction as to punitive damages. *Edelmann*v. *Transfer Co.,*3 Mo. App. 503.

The judgment is affirmed.

Judge Bakewell concurs Judge Lewis is absent.
§ 1.812 Copies of the transcript. ( a ) During the period in which the proceeding has an active status in the Department, a copy of the transcript and exhibits shall be kept on file with the hearing clerk where it shall be available for examination during official hours of business. Thereafter the transcript and exhibits shall be made available by the hearing clerk for examination during official hours of business after prior request and reasonable notice to the hearing clerk.
( b ) A copy of the transcripts of the hearing shall be made available to any person at actual cost of duplication.
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch on Law Enforcement Responses to Opioid Overdoses (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -           Research Roundup: What Do We Know About Hispanic Youth and Teen Dating Violence?      

# Research Roundup: What Do We Know About Hispanic Youth and Teen Dating Violence?

This article highlights recent research that analyzes dating violence among Hispanic teens. It draws from the research to provide an overview of the prevalence of dating violence among Hispanic teens, the kinds of help-seeking behavior these teens exhibit, and what makes prevention programs successful in reducing teen dating violence among this group of young people. 

http://ncfy.acf.hhs.gov/news/2015/02/research-roundup-what-do-we-know-about-hispanic-youth-and-teen-dating-violence?utm_source=FindYouthInfo.gov&utm_medium=Federal-Links&utm_campaign=Reports-and-Resources
ml 4/09

4 LegendOld Forest Emphasis

General Forest

Sugar Pine Map 4

Land Allocation

Old Forest - General Forest

0 0.35 0.7 1.4 2.1 2.8

Miles
**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**
 
 In
        connection with the report of Java Detour, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB
        for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
        Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned,
        in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant
        to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:
 
 (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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
                  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
                  the
                  Company.
 
 /s/
        Michael Binninger
 Michael
        Binninger
 Chief
        Executive Officer
 April
        2,
        2007
 
 /s/
        Ronald Sands
 Ronald
        Sands
 Chief
        Financial Officer
 April
        2,
        2007
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richie Rivera, Appellant.

[776 NYS2d 565]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles J. Tejada, J.), rendered May 8, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree (two counts) and robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of life without parole, 25 years to life, 25 years to life and 25 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The hearing record establishes that each of defendant’s statements was voluntary, and that none were subject to suppression pursuant to *Miranda v Arizona*(384 US 436 [1966]). The initial interrogation was not custodial and thus did not require *Miranda*warnings (see *Thompson v Keohane,*516 US 99, 112 [1995]; *People v Yukl,*25 NY2d 585 [1969], *cert denied*400 US 851 [1970]). Defendant willingly accompanied the detectives to the precinct, was expressly told he was not under arrest, was neither handcuffed nor placed in a cell, was left alone and unsupervised in an interview room, and was interviewed in a nonaccusatory manner *(see e.g. People v Collazo,*216 AD2d 98 [1995], *lv denied*86 NY2d 780 [1995]). Under the totality of these circumstances, the fact that a detective confronted defendant with purportedly incriminating evidence was not enough to transform the interview into a custodial interrogation *(see Matter of Kwok T.,*43 NY2d 213, 219-220 [1977]; *People v Rivera,*4 AD3d 131 [2004]). Once defendant acknowledged his presence at the time the victim was killed, the police promptly administered *Miranda*warnings before defendant made his first written statement. Even if we were to find this initial statement to be inadmissible, we would find that defendant’s second written statement and his videotaped confession were sufficiently attenuated from the original statement to be admissible *(see e.g.*
      *359
      *People v Dunkley,*200 AD2d 499 [1994], *lv denied*83 NY2d 871 [1994]). Moreover, there is no suggestion of a police scheme to deliberately withhold *Miranda*warnings in order to obtain an initial statement that would lead to a *post-Miranda*statement.

The court properly ruled on the applications made by both the People and defendant pursuant to *Batson v Kentucky*(476 US 79 [1986]). In each instance, the record supports the court’s findings as to pretextuality. Such findings require the trial court to assess the credibility of the explanations given, and are entitled to great deference on appeal *(see People v Hernandez,*75 NY2d 350 [1990], *affd*500 US 352 [1991]).

Defendant’s claim regarding the court’s denial of his challenge for cause of a prospective alternate juror is moot because no alternate jurors participated in the deliberations *(see People v White, 297*AD2d 587 [2002], *lv denied 99*NY2d 565 [2002]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Ellerin, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Media Systems Co. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, AJ Vesak, Chief Executive Officer and Chief 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:

(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.

Dated this 15th day of May, 2008.

BY:
/s/ AJ VESAK                        Alexander Vesak, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer**