alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
39544.

#### SAFFOLD v. CHEATHAM et al., Executors.

Carlisle, Presiding Judge.

The sole question presented by the appeal in this case is whether the plaintiff, being one of three co-executors of his father’s estate, may maintain a suit against the other co-executors to enforce an alleged oral contract of employment to manage the properties of the estate, *378which contract was allegedly entered into between him and his father during the father’s last illness, where the will under which he qualified as co-executor provided that the management of the properties of the estate would be in the three co-executors. Such an action may not be maintained for two reasons: (1) Having qualified as co-executor under the will, the plaintiff is estopped to assert a position contrary to the express provisions of the will. *Hardeman v. Ellis,*162 Ga. 664, 682-91 (4) (135 SE 195); *Crummey v. Crummey,*190 Ga. 774 (2) (10 SE2d 859); *Parnelle v. Cavanaugh,*191 Ga. 464 (12 SE2d 877); *Spratlin v. Spratlin,*216 Ga. 27 (114 SE2d 370); *Maxwell v. Hollis,*216 Ga. 224, 226 (3a) (115 SE2d 360); and, (2) One of several co-executors cannot maintain a suit at law in his individual capacity against the other co-executors. *Williams v. McHugh,*17 Ga. App. 59 (2) (86 SE 272). While the rule in this latter regard may be otherwise in an equitable proceeding in that one co-executor may sue another *(McFadden v. Dale,*155 Ga. 256, 116 SE 596) or a co-executor suing as an individual may be joined in his representative capacity as a defendant *(MacDougall v. National Bank of Columbus,*150 Ga. 579 (2), 104 SE 630), this case is not an equitable one since it was originally carried to the Supreme Court and by that court held not to be within its jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petition was properly dismissed by the trial court after the p-lea of estoppel had been sustained.

Decided June 22, 1962

Rehearing denied July 25, 1962.

*Emanuel Lewis, Lewis, Wylly ■& Javetz,*for plaintiff in error.

*Frank S. Cheatham, Jr.,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Russell, J., concur.*
§ 1.857-1 Taxation of real estate investment trusts. ( a ) *Requirements applicable thereto.* Section 857(a) denies the application of the provisions of part II, subchapter M, chapter 1 of the Code (other than sections 856(g), relating to the revocation or termination of an election, and 857(d), relating to earnings and profits) to a real estate investment trust for a taxable year unless— ( 1 ) The deduction for dividends paid for the taxable year as defined in section 561 (computed without regard to capital gain dividends) equals or exceeds the amount specified in section 857(a)(1), as in effect for the taxable year; and
( 2 ) The trust complies for such taxable year with the provisions of § 1.857-8 (relating to records required to be maintained by a real estate investment trust). See section 858 and § 1.858-1, relating to dividends paid after the close of the taxable year.
( b ) *Failure to qualify.* If a real estate investment trust does not meet the requirements of section 857(a) and paragraph (a) of this section for the taxable year, it will, even though it may otherwise be classified as a real estate investment trust, be taxed in such year as an ordinary corporation and not as a real estate investment trust. In such case, none of the provisions of part II of subchapter M (other than sections 856(g) and 857(d)) will be applicable to it. For the rules relating to the applicability of sections 856(g) and 857(d), see § 1.857-7.
(Sec. 856(d)(4) (90 Stat. 1750; 26 U.S.C. 856(d)(4)); sec. 856(e)(5) (88 Stat. 2113; 26 U.S.C. 856(e)(5)); sec. 856(f)(2) (90 Stat. 1751; 26 U.S.C. (856(f)(2)); sec. 856(g)(2) (90 Stat. 1753; 26 U.S.C. 856(g)(2)); sec. 858(a) (74 Stat. 1008; 26 U.S.C. 858(a)); sec. 859(c) (90 Stat. 1743; 26 U.S.C. 859(c)); sec. 859(e) (90 Stat. 1744; 26 U.S.C. 859(e)); sec. 6001 (68A Stat. 731; 26 U.S.C. 6001); sec. 6011 (68A Stat. 732; 26 U.S.C. 6011); sec. 6071 (68A Stat. 749, 26 U.S.C. 6071); sec. 6091 (68A Stat. 752; 26 U.S.C. 6091); sec. 7805 (68A Stat. 917; 26 U.S.C. 7805), Internal Revenue Code of 1954))
[T.D. 6598, 27 FR 4087, Apr. 28, 1962, as amended by T.D. 7767, 46 FR 11277, Feb. 6, 1981]
----

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 October 2006 — Castell del Remei v OHIM — Bodegas Roda (ODA)

(Case T-13/05) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Earlier international word mark RODA and earlier national word marks BODEGAS RODA, RODA I and RODA II - Application for a Community word mark ODA - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2006/C 310/31)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Castell del Remei, SL (Castell del Remei, Spain) (represented by: J. Grau Mora, A. Angulo, M. Baylos Morales, A. Velázquez Ibánez, F. de Visscher, E. Cornu, É. De Gryse, D. Moreau and P. Merino Baylos, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. García Murillo, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance: Bodegas Roda, SA (La Rioja, Spain) (represented by: M. López Camba, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 October 2004 (Case R 691/2003-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Bodegas Roda SA and Castell del Remei, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

----

(1)OJ C 69, 19.3.2005.

----
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

June 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133358 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

STEVEN PRICE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 133358 

 COA: 257577 

Court of Claims: 01-018063-MT 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 5, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ., would grant leave to appeal. 

s0618 

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. 

June 26, 2007 

 Clerk
**EXHIBIT 31.2****Certification**I, William J. Pasenelli, Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer ofTri–County Financial Corporation, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Tri–County Financial Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a15(e) and15d15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report,based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board or directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: November 13, 2006       /s/ William J. Pasenelli William J. Pasenelli    Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### § 1.303-1 General.

Section 303 provides that in certain cases a distribution in redemption of stock, the value of which is included in determining the value of the gross estate of a decedent, shall be treated as a distribution in full payment in exchange for the stock so redeemed.
**Exhibit 31(b)**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Wayne R. Brownlee, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Potash Corporationof Saskatchewan Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
 (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
   By: /s/ Wayne R. Brownlee
# Úřední věstník L 272/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0626 |
| --- | --- |
| Úřední věstník
  Evropské unie | L 272 |
| | |
| České vydání | Právní předpisy | Ročník 6319. srpna 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0626

Úřední věstník

Evropské unie

L 272

České vydání

Právní předpisy

Ročník 6319. srpna 2020

---

| Obsah | | Opravy | Strana |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Oprava přijetí (EU, Euratom) 2020/1078 opravného rozpočtu Evropské unie č. 4 na rozpočtový rok 2020 s konečnou platností ( Úř. věst. L 254, 4.8.2020 ) | 1 |

Obsah

Opravy

Strana

*

Oprava přijetí (EU, Euratom) 2020/1078 opravného rozpočtu Evropské unie č. 4 na rozpočtový rok 2020 s konečnou platností ( Úř. věst. L 254, 4.8.2020 )

( Úř. věst. L 254, 4.8.2020 )

1

| CS | Akty, jejichž název není vytištěn tučně, se vztahují ke každodennímu řízení záležitostí v zemědělství a obecně platí po omezenou dobu.
  Názvy všech ostatních aktů jsou vytištěny tučně a předchází jim hvězdička. |
| --- | --- |

CS

Akty, jejichž název není vytištěn tučně, se vztahují ke každodennímu řízení záležitostí v zemědělství a obecně platí po omezenou dobu.

Názvy všech ostatních aktů jsou vytištěny tučně a předchází jim hvězdička.

---

Opravy

| 19.8.2020 | CS | Úřední věstník Evropské unie | L 272/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2020

CS

Úřední věstník Evropské unie

L 272/1

---

Oprava přijetí (EU, Euratom) 2020/1078 opravného rozpočtu Evropské unie č. 4 na rozpočtový rok 2020 s konečnou platností

(
  Úřední věstník Evropské unie L 254 ze dne 4. srpna 2020
  )

Strana 36, řádek „Celkem“ ve sloupci „Rozpočet 2020 – Platby“

místo:

„
  167 248 223 575
  “

má být:

„
  150 948 403 832
  “.

Strana 36, řádek „Celkem“ ve sloupci „Nová částka – Platby“

místo:

místo

„
  167 520 721 783
  “

má být:

má být

„
  151 220 902 040
  “.

---
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 144 (Wednesday, July 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 37736]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18043]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-70,107]


International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 567, 
Lewiston, ME; Notice of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on May 19, 2009, in response to a worker 
petition filed by the State of Maine Workforce Office on behalf of 
workers of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 
Union 567, Lewiston, Maine.
    The petitioner requested that this petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no 
purpose, and the investigation under this petition has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of June 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-18043 Filed 7-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### § 1.954-5 Increase in qualified investments in less developed countries; taxable years of controlled foreign corporations beginning before January 1, 1976.

For rules applicable to taxable years of controlled foreign corporations beginning before January 1, 1976, see section 954(b)(1) (as in effect before the enactment of the Tax Reduction Act of 1975) and 26 CFR 1.954-5 (Revised as of April 1, 1975).

[T.D. 7893, 48 FR 22508, May 19, 1983]
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 2 5 , 2022

NO. 03

- 21

- 00694

- CR

Forrest Newsom, Jr. , Appellant

v.

The State of Texas , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY
BEFORE CHIEF JU STICE BYR NE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND SMITH
MODIFIED AND AFFIRMED IN PART ; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART
OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE

This is an appeal from the judgment of co nviction entered by the county court

. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in the

county court’s judgment of conviction

. Th er efore, we modify Appellant ’ s judgment of

conviction for the Class B misdemeanor of criminal mischief to reflect that he was convicted of

the Class C misdemeanor of criminal mischief and affirm the judgment of guilt as modified . We

reverse the part of the judgment imposing sentence and remand to the county court for a new

punishment hearing for that off ense

. The appell ee s hall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both

in this Cour t and in the court below.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial  information extracted from the balance
sheet of CNL Income  Fund VII,  Ltd. at March 31,  1999,  and its  statement  of
income for the three  months  then ended and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by
reference  to the Form 10Q of CNL Income  Fund VII,  Ltd.  for the three  months
ended March 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         918,362
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  33,481
<ALLOWANCES>                                   28,853
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0<F1>
<PP&E>                                         17,552,433
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,550,015
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 25,111,407
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0<F1>
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     24,181,211
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   25,111,407
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               635,668
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  162,172
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                542,415
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            542,415
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   542,415
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Due  to the  nature  of its  industry,  CNL  Income  Fund VII,  Ltd.  has an
unclassified  balance  sheet;  therefore,  no values are shown above for current
assets and current liabilities.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Order entered March 4 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 14
- 01137
- CV BISHOP ABBEY HOMES, LTD. AND NATHAN HALS EY, Appellant s V. BYRON AND PAIGE HALE , Appellee s On Appeal from the 439th Judicial District Court Roc kwall County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1
- 11
- 1207 

### O RDER
W e GRANT appellees’ March 2, 2015 second unopposed motion for extension of time to file brief and ORDER the brief be filed no later than March 25, 2015

. No further extensions will be granted abse nt exigent circumstances.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
**Exhibit32.1**

**Certification ofthe Chief Executive OfficerPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

In connection with the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of Kaiser Group Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) forthe period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Douglas W. McMinn, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| August 14, 2007 |   | /s/ Douglas W. McMinn                 |
|----------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                 |   | Douglas W. McMinn,                    |
|                 |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

----
```

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 10, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 3071]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00185]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property 
at the South Texas Regional Airport at Hondo in Hondo, Texas

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of request to release airport property.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the 
release of land at the South Texas Regional Airport at Hondo under the 
provisions of Section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment 
Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 9, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to 
the FAA at the following address: Mr. Ben Guttery, Manager, Federal 
Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Airports Division, Texas 
Airports District Office, ASW-650, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, 
Texas 76177.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be 
mailed or delivered to Mr. Robert Lee, Director of Aviation, at the 
following address: 700 Vanderberg Rd, Hondo, Texas 78232.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Anthony Mekhail, Program Manager, 
Federal Aviation Administration, Texas Airports Development Office, 
ASW-650, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177, Telephone: (817) 
222-5663, email: Anthony.Mekhail@faa.gov.
    The request to release property may be reviewed in person at this 
same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the 
request to release property at the South Texas Regional Airport at 
Hondo under the provisions of the AIR 21.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    City of Hondo requests the release of 63.033 acres of non-
aeronautical airport property. The property is located on the west side 
of the airport, north of Zerr Road. The property to be released will be 
sold and revenues shall be used to enhance development, operations and 
maintenance of the airport. Any person may inspect the request in 
person at the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, 
notice and other documents relevant to the application in person at the 
South Texas Regional Airport at Hondo, telephone number (830) 426-6989.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on December 21, 2016.
Ignacio Flores,
Director, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 2017-00185 Filed 1-9-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P
```