alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[No. 9253.

Department One.

December 12, 1910.]

#### Herbert Smith *et al., Respondents,*v. Seattle Electric Company, *Appellant.*
      *1*

*■*Appeal — Review—Verdict—Damages—Excessive Verdict. A verdict for $6,500 for personal injuries, reduced by the trial court to $4,000, will not be set aside as excessive, where the injury was substantial, and the trial judge was better able to arrive at a just conclusion than the appellate court.

Appeal from adjudgment of the superior court for King county, Gay, J., entered August 81, 1910, upon the verdict. of a jury rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, in an action for personal injuries sustained by a passenger alighting from a street car.

Affirmed.

*James B. Howe*and *H. S. Elliott,*for appellant.

*A. R. Rutherford*and *Milo A. Root,*for respondents.

Reported in 112 Pac. 87.

Per Curiam.

This is an action to recover for injuries to the person of the respondent Georgia E. Smith, resulting from the sudden starting and stopping of one of appellant’s street cars in the city of Seattle. Mrs. Smith was at the time a passenger upon the car. Appellant admitted liability for the injury, and the case was tried to the jury solely upon the amount of damages. A verdict was returned for the respondents in the sum of $6,500. Upon motion for a new trial, the court entered an order granting the motion, unless the respondent would remit $2,500 from the verdict. The remission was made, and a judgment was entered against the appellant for $4,000. This appeal followed.

The only question presented is that the amount of the judgment is still excessive. If the testimony of the injured plaintiff and that received in her behalf is to be believed, she suffered, and still suffers, substantial' injury on account of the accident. We think it is unnecessary to discuss the *176character of the injury or the evidence. It is sufficient to say that we have read the evidence, and have concluded that the injury is substantial, and that the trial judge, having made a material reduction after having seen and heard the witnesses, is better able to arrive at a just conclusion than we are.

We conclude, therefore, that the judgment as it stands is not excessive, and must be affirmed.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

LEVERT STEWART,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:20cv5781/MCR/EMT

STATE OF FLORIDA, et al., 

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on

December 1, 2020. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff was furnished a copy of the Report and 

Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, 

United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of all 

timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any timely filed 

objections thereto, I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be 

adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 9,

is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

Case 3:20-cv-05781-MCR-EMT Document 10 Filed 01/19/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:20cv5781/MCR/EMT

2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to 

comply with court orders.

3. The clerk is directed to close this case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of January 2021.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05781-MCR-EMT Document 10 Filed 01/19/21 Page 2 of 2
Subpart 1.5 - Agency and Public Participation    **Parent topic:** Part 1 - Federal Acquisition Regulations System1.501 Solicitation of agency and public views.    1.501-1 Definition.       *Significant revisions*, as used in this subpart, means revisions that alter the substantive meaning of any coverage in the FAR System and which have a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors, or significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of the issuing agency. This expression, for example, does not include editorial, stylistic, or other revisions that have no impact on the basic meaning of the coverage being revised.1.501-2 Opportunity for public comments.       (a)                    						            Views of agencies and nongovernmental parties or organizations will be considered in formulating acquisition policies and procedures.                                          (b)                    						            The opportunity to submit written comments on proposed significant revisions shall be provided by placing a notice in the *Federal Register*. Each of these notices shall include-                                                         (1)                          								                The text of the revision or, if it is impracticable to publish the full text, a summary of the proposal;                                                            (2)                          								                The address and telephone number of the individual from whom copies of the revision, in full text, can be requested and to whom comments thereon should be addressed; and                                                            (3)                          								                When 1.501-3(b) is applicable, a statement that the revision is effective on a temporary basis pending completion of the public comment period.                                                                             (c)                    						            A minimum of 30 days and, normally, at least 60 days will be given for the receipt of comments.1.501-3 Exceptions.       (a)                    						            Comments need not be solicited when the proposed coverage does not constitute a significant revision.                                          (b)                    						            Advance comments need not be solicited when urgent and compelling circumstances make solicitation of comments impracticable prior to the effective date of the coverage, such as when a new statute must be implemented in a relatively short period of time. In such case, the coverage shall be issued on a temporary basis and shall provide for at least a 30 day public comment period.1.502 Unsolicited proposed revisions.       Consideration shall also be given to unsolicited recommendations for revisions that have been submitted in writing with sufficient data and rationale to permit their evaluation.1.503 Public meetings.       Public meetings may be appropriate when a decision to adopt, amend, or delete FAR coverage is likely to benefit from significant additional views and discussion.
2006-0223.

#### Snyder v. Am. Family Ins. Co.

Franklin App. No. 05AP-16, 2005-Ohio-6751.

Lundberg Stratton, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., dissent.
#### Grace E. Connolly, Appellant, v. Incorporated Village of East Hills, Respondent.

In an action to declare void certain provisions of the zoning ordinance of the defendant Village, plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated July 23, 1968, which, *inter alia,*granted summary judgment to defendant dismissing the complaint, and (2) a judgment of said court entered August 20, 1968 pursuant to the order. Order and judgment modified, on the law, by (1) striking from the last sentence of the decretal paragraph of the order the words “dismissing the complaint”, (2) striking out the first decretal paragraph of the judgment, and (3) adding to the order and the judgment an additional decretal provision adjudging that defendant is granted a declaration that the provisions of the zoning ordinance of the defendant Village which prohibit the construction of a one-family dwelling on plaintiff’s property by virtue of its nonconformity with the area and depth requirements of the ordinance are constitutional and valid as applied to this property. On the record presented, there is no triable issue with respect to the constitutionality of the ordinance in question, because, viewing the evidence most favorably to plaintiff, it does not appear that the ordinance is unconstitutional as applied to plaintiff’s property. In an action for declaratory judgment, even though plaintiff does not prevail, the complaint should not be dismissed and the judgment should set forth a declaration of the rights of the parties *(Town Bd. of Town of Poughkeepsie*v. *City of Poughkeepsie,*22 A D 2d 270, 276; *Lanza*v. *Wagner,*11 N Y 2d 317, 334; *Prendergast*v. *Gurevich,*11 N Y 2d 1082, 1084; *Jewish Center of Mt. Vernon*v. *Mt. Eden Cemetery Assn.,*12 N Y 2d 773, 775; *Rockland Light & Power Co.*v. *City of New York,*289 N. Y. 45, 51; *Connecticut Fire Ins. Co.*v. *Williams,*9 A D 2d 461, 463; *Civil Serv. Forum*v. *New York City Tr. Auth.,*
      *6654 AD 2d 117,129). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins andKleinfeld, JJ., concur.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Dock e t No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD llyou make dumgc: s to the l ' ulues in the tul>le he/ow. you 11/USI unsUJ'!.! the totals updute occordingly. (!' 

### th e y do not , 

### di ck l or Tuh) 

### imo and then out of 

### the c hanged cell

. Estimated Costs: Act ion Costs per Product (e

. g., aircraft, engine , (e.g., Inspec tion, _Qropeller , applianc e) Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacem e nt) (include cost (labor+ 

## u
.s. for U.S. Fleet Do n o t includ e onco ndition costs h ere access, testing , ( @ $85 /h parts) Registered and close-up) our) Products 

### I nspection/lnstall of wire bundle 

### 1.6 $9.00 1270 clamps.

The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of comp l iance for 

### U.S. fleet: $184, 1 50 Costs covered under warranty ( 

## !f known) $

On-Conditi on Costs: · • Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product Action (include access, (@$85 / hou r ) (e.g., In s pection , te s ting , and closerep lace ment) up)Spec ia l cons id erations for Economic A na lysis (U se thi sfield to explain anything in th e Estimated Costs tabl e tha t was assumed or mi g ht n o t be obv ious

. This field can also be use d to explain warrant y cost s) : 

### Boeing can supp ly the kit shown in Paragraph 2.C. of Servic e Bulletin SB737

- 29AI 1 19, Parts Necessary for Eac h A i rplane. Op erator s are encou raged to share sc hedu l e requirements w i th Boeing for incorporation of the serv ic e bulletin. The kits ar e s ubject to the terms and conditions of the Boein g s tandard purchase ord e r acknowledgment. Executive O rder 12866: 

### Cou ld the AD be considered a · ' significant regu l atory

## ac**ti on** **?~** YES* 

# D NO 

### [g) *Exp l anation: DOT Reg ul at ory Po li cies a nd Proced ures: 

### I s th e AD sign ificant? 

# 0 YES* 

# D NO 

### [g) *Explanation: Regu latory F lex i bili ty Act: 

### Will the AD have a s i g nifi can t economic impact on a s ub stan tial number of smal l entities? Explain for
e ither a Yes or No answer. 

# G YES 

# D NO 

### [g) Ex planation: I ntr· astate Aviation i n Alaska: 

### Thi s AD could aff ect intra state aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate to include specific requirements f o r ai r c raft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the o nly mode of transportati o n?

# ~ YES* 

## D NO 

### [g) *Exp l anat i on:
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 this Quarterly Report of Uniwell Electronic Corporation., on Form 10-Q for the Quarter ending October 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Luiz Brasil, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended October 31, 2012, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and October 31, 2012 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of Uniwell Electronic Corporation.



|                  |     |                                                               | 
|----------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|September 5, 2013 | By: | /s/ Luiz Brasil                                               | 
|                  |     | Luiz Brasil                                                   | 
|                  |     | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer               | 
|                  |     | (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer) |
#### PERSONS et al. v. GARDNER et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

June 1, 1906.)

Action by Henry H. Persons and another, as, etc., against William H. Gardner and others, impleaded with Robert R. Hefford and others.

PER CURIAM.

Motion of respondent Hefford to amend order, so as to allow said respondent a separate bill of costs on appeal, denied, without costs.

KRUSE, J., not sitting.
Subpart 22.11 - Professional Employee

Compensation

Parent topic: Part 22 - Application of Labor Laws to Government Acquisitions

22.1101 Applicability.

The Service Contract Act of 1965, now codified at 41 U.S.C. chapter 67, Service Contract Labor

Standards, was enacted to ensure that Government contractors compensate their blue-collar service

workers and some white-collar service workers fairly, but it does not cover bona fide executive,

administrative, or professional employees.

22.1102 Definition.

Professional employee, as used in this subpart, means any person meeting the definition of

"employee employed in a bona fide . . . professional capacity" given in 29 CFR541. The term

embraces members of those professions having a recognized status based upon acquiring

professional knowledge through prolonged study. Examples of these professions include

accountancy, actuarial computation, architecture, dentistry, engineering, law, medicine, nursing,

pharmacy, the sciences (such as biology, chemistry, and physics, and teaching). To be a professional

employee, a person must not only be a professional but must be involved essentially in discharging

professional duties.

22.1103 Policy, procedures, and solicitation provision.

All professional employees shall be compensated fairly and properly. Accordingly, the contracting

officer shall insert the provision at 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional

Employees, in solicitations for negotiated contracts when the contract amount is expected to exceed

$750,000 and services are to be provided which will require meaningful numbers of professional

employees. This provision requires that offerors submit for evaluation a total compensation plan

setting forth proposed salaries and fringe benefits for professional employees working on the

contract. Supporting information will include data, such as recognized national and regional

compensation surveys and studies of professional, public and private organizations, used in

establishing the total compensation structure. Plans indicating unrealistically low professional

employee compensation may be assessed adversely as one of the factors considered in making an

award.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                      4,688,900
<SECURITIES>                                  993,300         
<RECEIVABLES>                                   3,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            5,686,000 
<PP&E>                                      6,327,700
<DEPRECIATION>                              2,557,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             14,516,100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         601,900
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                 13,845,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               14,516,100
<SALES>                                             0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              998,100
<CGS>                                               0         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 325,500 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               80,100
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               643,600
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           643,600
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                  643,600
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   12.52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   12.52
        

</TABLE>
Directory of the Pacific Region National Wildlife Refuges and NationalFish Hatcheries

Arranged alphabetically by state:

| U.S. Department of the Interior     Fish and Wildlife Service 
No person shall, on the basis of race, color, sex, age,    national origin, religion, or physical or mental restrictions, be excluded from    participation in, denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination in    any program or activity of the Department of the Interior.*AVOCET    -MIKE BOYLAN* |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
EXHIBIT
31.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
 
 I,
Michael D. Alexander, certify that:
 
 1.
    I
      have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of The Furia
      Organization, Inc. for the nine month period ended March 31,
      2005;
 
 2.
    Based
      on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;
 
 3.
    Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects
      the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
      registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
 
 4.
    The
      registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
      establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
      defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and
      have
 
 a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;
 
 b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
 
 c)
presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;
 
 5.
    The
      registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
      most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
      committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
      equivalent functions):
 
 a) all
significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which
could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any
material weaknesses in internal controls; and
 
 b) any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and
 
 6.
    The
      registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
      quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
      controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal
      controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including
      any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and
      material weaknesses.
   ****Date: May 19,
    2005By:
    /s/ Michael D.
      AlexanderMichael
      D. Alexander, President and
      Chief
      Financial Officer and
      Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer
22.1705 Solicitation provision and contract

clause.

(a)

(1) Insert the clause at 52.222-50, Combating Trafficking in Persons, in all solicitations and

contracts.

(2) Use the clause with its Alternate I when the contract will be performed outside the United States

(as defined at 22.1702) and the contracting officer has been notified of specific U.S. directives or

notices regarding combating trafficking in persons (such as general orders or military listings of "offlimits" local establishments) that apply to contractor employees at the contract place of

performance.

(b) Insert the provision at 52.222-56, Certification Regarding Trafficking in Persons Compliance

Plan, in solicitations if

(1) It is possible that at least $550,000 of the value of the contract may be performed outside the

United States; and

(2) The acquisition is not entirely for commercially available off-the-shelf items.

Parent topic: Subpart 22.17 - Combating Trafficking in Persons
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

February 9, 2024

SC-2023-0764

Ex parte Todd Wayne Fye. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO 

THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: Todd Wayne Fye v. State 

of Alabama) (Houston Circuit Court: CC-17-1131 through CC-17-1309; 

Criminal Appeals: CR-2022-0819).

CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT

WHEREAS, the petition for writ of certiorari in the above 

referenced cause has been duly submitted and considered by the 

Supreme Court of Alabama and the judgment indicated below was 

entered in this cause on February 9, 2024:

Writ Denied. No Opinion. Mitchell, J. -- Parker, C.J., and Shaw, 

Bryan, and Mendheim, JJ., concur.

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P., IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that this Court's judgment in this cause is certified 

on this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered 

by this Court or agreed upon by the parties, the costs of this cause are 

hereby taxed as provided by Rule 35, Ala. R. App. P.

I, Megan B. Rhodebeck, certify that this is the record of the judgment of the Court, witness 

my hand and seal.

Clerk, Supreme Court of Alabama