alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### HARRY M. VEIX, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. SIXTH WARD BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF NEWARK, NEW JERSEY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Submitted May 26, 1939

Decided September 22, 1939.

For the plaintiff-appellant, *Walter P. Reilly (James L. Handford,*of counsel).

For the defendant-respondent, *Mulligan & Koenig.*

Per Curiam.

The complaint in the instant case was struck out on defendant’s motion and from the judgment entered thereon the plaintiff appeals.

In this suit at law the plaintiff sought to recover the face value and interest of twenty-five prepaid shares of the defendant building and loan association stock purchased on October 1st, 1928, and also the face value and interest of an additional seventeen and one-half shares of like stock purchased a year later.

Plaintiff’s case is rested on the provisions of the statute which was controlling at the time of the purchase — chapter 65, *Pamph. L.*1925; *R. 8.*17:12-2, *et seq.*At that time the 1925 statute, *supra,*provided, *inter alia,*that the owner *357of such stock might have same redeemed for cash by giving a thirty-day notice in writing and that such withdrawal should be paid by the association in the order in which notice had been received. On August 17th, 1932, the plaintiff gave the defendant such written notice of withdrawal and, after the lapse of thirty days, demanded payment. But prior thereto the legislature had amended the 1925 statute by chapter 102, *Pamph. L.*1932; *B. S.*17:12-53.

The plaintiff-appellant says that the 1932 statute is invalid and the burden of the argument is that that statute is unconstitutional because it impairs the obligation of the contract, but we have already held to the contrary in the case of *Bucsi*v. *Longworth Building and Loan*Association, 119 *N. J. L.*120, and *Rocker*v. *Cardinal Building and Loan*Association, 119 *Id.*134, and this appeal is entirely controlled by our holding in those cases.

The judgment under review will be affirmed.

*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Chiee Justice, Parker, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Porter, Heteield, Dear, Wells, WolesKeil, Eaeeerty, Hague, JJ. 15.

*For reversal*— Hone.
No. 17,522.

#### Ueker, Admx., *v.*The Bedford Blue Stone Co.

Bill of Exceptions.'— *Filing.*— Record.—A bill of exceptions will not be considered as part of the record where the transcript does not show that it was ever filed in the office of the clerk of the trial court.

Appellate *Procedure.*— Court *Directing Verdict.*— Evidence *Not in Record.*—A direction of a verdict for defendant will be presumed, on appeal, to have been justified by the evidence, where the evidence is not properly in the record.

From the Lawrence Circuit Court.

*N. F. Crooke,*J. *R. Fast*and *R. G. Miller,*for appellant.

*J. H. Willard*and *W. H. Martin,*for appellee.

McCabe, J.

The appellant sued the appellee to recover damages sustained by the widow and childi-en of her intestate August Ueker, through the alleged negligence of the appellee iii causing his death. There was a trial of the issues joined, by a jury. After the close of the evidence, the court instructed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant, which they accordingly did. The court overruled the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial and rendered judgment on the verdict for the defendant. The only error assigned is upon that ruling. Among the reasons assigned in the • motion for a new trial, and the only one insisted on in the appellant’s brief, is that the trial court erred in directing the jury to return a verdict for the defendant. The ground of this contention is that the evidence was of such a character that it was not subject to a demurrer, and that it was sufficient to have warranted the jury in finding a verdict for the plaintiff. That involves the necessity *679of an examination of the evidence. We are at this point met with the contention from the appellee that the evidence is not in the record, and hence the question sought to be raised is not presented thereby for our consideration. There is in the transcript what purports to be a bill of exceptions incorporating therein what purports to be a long hand manuscript of the evidence.

Filed December 11, 1895.

But the transcript nowhere shows that such bill of exception was ever filed in the office of the clerk of the trial court. Without such a showing, such supposed bill of exceptions is not and cannot be regarded as a part of the record. *Loy*v. *Loy,*90 Ind. 404; *Stewart*v. *State,*113 Ind. 505; *Guirl*v. *Gillett,*124 Ind. 501; *Shewalter*v. *Bergman,*132 Ind. 556; *Board, etc.,*v. *Huffman,*134 Ind. 1; *Downey*v. *Head,*138 Ind. 503; *Pittsburgh, etc., R. W. Co.*v. *O’Brien,*142 Ind. 218; *Armstrong*v. *Dunn,*41 N. E. 540; *Ayres*v. *Armstrong,*142 Ind. 263 ; *Drake*v. *State,*41 N. E. R. 799 ; *Wenning*v. *Teeple,*41 N. E. R. 600.

The presumption is that the trial court was justified by the evidence in directing a verdict for the defendant, until the contrary is made affirmatively to appear by the record. Therefore the judgment is affirmed.
# C_2006132EN.01000201.xml

| 7.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 132/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 132/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

5 June 2006

(2006/C 132/02)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2958 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 144,66 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4586 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,6884 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1893 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5597 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 92,01 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,7603 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,575 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,338 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 263,94 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,696 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9548 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,5284 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,66 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 37,74 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,046 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7254 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4235 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,0536 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,0478 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0403 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 221,94 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 8,5671 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,3788 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2528 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 025,02 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7096 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 68,328 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,605 |
| THB | Thai baht | 49,42 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2958

JPY

Japanese yen

144,66

DKK

Danish krone

7,4586

GBP

Pound sterling

0,6884

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1893

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5597

ISK

Iceland króna

92,01

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,7603

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,575

CZK

Czech koruna

28,338

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

263,94

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,696

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9548

RON

Romanian leu

3,5284

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,66

SKK

Slovak koruna

37,74

TRY

Turkish lira

2,046

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7254

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4235

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,0536

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,0478

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0403

KRW

South Korean won

1 221,94

ZAR

South African rand

8,5671

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,3788

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2528

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 025,02

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7096

PHP

Philippine peso

68,328

RUB

Russian rouble

34,605

THB

Thai baht

49,42

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
#### Danny Richard GRILLO and Arline Grillo, Appellants, v. SOUTHERN AMERICAN FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 73-286.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 3, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
HomeCzech Republic

# Czech Republic

106 items

        -    TIAS  		Czech Republic (07-808.2) – Agreement Concerning the Provision of Assistance for Counterterrorism, Military, and Stability Operations	  August 2, 2007 
        -    TIAS  		Czech Republic (07-503) – Atomic Energy Agreement Related to the Transfer of Spent Nuclear Fuel from the Research Reactor in the Nuclear Research Institute at Rez to the Russian Federation for Management and Storage	  May 3, 2007 
        -    TIAS  		Czech Republic (02-214) – Agreement Amending the Air Transport Agreement of September 10, 1996	  February 14, 2002 
        -    TIAS  		Czech Republic (12928) – Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters	  May 7, 2000 
        -    TIAS  		Czech Republic (12815) – Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement	  November 19, 1996 
        -    TIAS  		Czech Republic (93-1001) – Employment Agreement Effected by Exchange of Notes at Prague February 18 and October 1, 1993	  October 1, 1993 

previous page1…91011

Back to Top
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Informal Consultations on Supporting Libya’s Political Process on the Margins of the U.N. General Assembly

# 									Informal Consultations on Supporting Libya’s Political Process on the Margins of the U.N. General Assembly							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

September 20, 2023

Representatives from Algeria, Egypt, France, Germany, Italy, Morocco, Qatar, Türkiye, the UAE, the UK, the UN, and the United States held informal consultations yesterday, with participation of the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Libya Abdoulaye Bathily, focused on promoting the political consensus needed for successful Libyan elections.  Participants expressed their solidarity with the Libyan people following the devastating flooding in eastern Libya and noted the urgency of enhanced coordination among Libyan and international parties to ensure an effective and transparent humanitarian response.  In remarks to the group, Assistant Secretary Barbara A. Leaf underscored full U.S. support for Special Representative Bathily’s efforts and stressed the need for a renewed international commitment to advancing the UN-led political process, including to urge finalizing the draft election law and to support Special Representative Bathily’s efforts to convene key Libyan stakeholders to galvanize the electoral track through a political agreement.

Tags

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and LaborBureau of Near Eastern AffairsHuman Rights and DemocracyLibyaNew YorkOffice of the SpokespersonOfficial Domestic TravelSecretary TripThe Secretary of StateUNGA 78

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
EXHIBIT 32.1



                           PAR TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
                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 Annual Report of PAR  Technology  Corporation  (the
Company)  on Form 10-K for the year ended  December  31,  2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),  we, John W.
Sammon,  Jr. and Ronald J.  Casciano,  Chairman  of the Board & Chief  Executive
Officer and Vice President,  Chief Financial Officer & Treasurer of the Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of our knowledge:


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

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






John W. Sammon, Jr.
--------------------------------------------
John W. Sammon, Jr.
Chairman of the Board & Chief Executive Officer
March 16, 2009

Ronald J. Casciano
--------------------------------------------
Ronald J. Casciano
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer & Treasurer
March 16, 2009
No. 74-1015.

#### Intercounty Construction Corp. et al. *v.*Walter, Deputy Commissioner, Bureau of Employees’ Compensation, U. S. Department of Labor, et al.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition. Reported below: 163 U. S. App. D. C. 147, 500 F. 2d 815.
# C_2006096EN.01001302.xml

| 22.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/13

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 February 2006 — Centro Europa 7 v Commission

(Case T-338/04) (1)

1

(Article 86(3) EC - Rejection of complaint - Action for annulment - Plea of inadmissibility)

(2006/C 96/25)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties:

Applicant: Centro Europa 7 Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: V. Ripa di Meana and R. Mastroianni, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Oliver and F. Amato, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Mediaset SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Bay, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Application for

Annulment of the Commission's letter of 4 June 2004 [D (2004) 471] in so far as it rejects the applicant's complaint that the Italian Republic had infringed the combined provisions of Articles 86 EC and 82 EC.

Operative part of the Order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | In addition to bearing its own costs, the applicant is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the Commission and the intervener. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In addition to bearing its own costs, the applicant is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the Commission and the intervener.

---

(1)  OJ C 262 of 23.10.2004.

1

---
#### STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Appellant, v. Lou KING and Ronnie King, Appellees.

No. UU-52.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 9, 1980.

Thomas E. Stone, Madison, and Joseph R. Boyd, of Boyd, Harris & Smith, Tallahassee, for appellant.

*1225Chriss Walker, Tallahassee, for Lou King, appellee.

WENTWORTH, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order requiring a portion of child support money, remitted following legal efforts by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, to be paid directly to the custodial parent for current obligations accruing after termination of HRS assistance, although the remaining money was insufficient to reimburse the department for public assistance previously paid on behalf of the dependent child. We affirm.

The legislatively declared public policy behind the child support enforcement provisions of our statutes is to maintain children from the resources of the responsible parents, thereby relieving the burden currently borne by the general citizenry through public assistance programs. § 409.2551, Florida Statutes. The law provides that any payment of public assistance money made for the benefit of any dependent child creates a debt due and owing to the department by the responsible parent. § 409.2561, Florida Statutes. However, that section specifically provides that “[pjriority shall be given to establishing continuing reasonable support for the dependent child.” This provision is not inconsistent with the federal statutes asserted by the department as governing its aid to families with dependent children. 42 U.S.C.A. § 654 provides in pertinent part:

> A state plan for child support must — (5) provide that, in any case in which child support payments are collected for a child with respect to whom an assignment under section 602(a)(26) of this title is effective, such payments shall be made to the State .. . and shall not be paid directly to the family *except that this paragraph shall not apply to such payments .. . for any month in which the amount collected is sufficient to make such family ineligible for assistance under the State plan*- (e. s.)

Upon consideration of the record facts and applicable law, we conclude the trial court here properly ordered that the children’s present support needs were to be met before HRS was reimbursed. The order is accordingly affirmed.

ERVIN and SHAW, JJ„ concur.
# C_2006108EN.01002103.xml

| 6.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/21

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 February 2006 Commission v Trends and Others

(Case T-448/04) (1)

1

(Arbitration clause - Plea of inadmissibility - Action against the partners of a company)

(2006/C 108/39)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties:

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia, acting as Agent, assisted by M. Bra, K. Kapoutzidou and S. Chatzigiannis, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendants: Transport Environment Development Systems (Trends) (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer), Marios Kontaratos (Athens), Anastasios Tillis (Neo Irakleio, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer), Georgios Argyrakos (Athens), Konstantinos Petrakis (Cholargos, Greece) and Fotini Koutroumpa (Glyfada, Greece)

Defendants:

Re:

Application made by the Commission for an order that the defendants reimburse the excess of the financial contribution paid by the European Community under two contracts concluded in connection with the implementation of the Community programme ‘Telematics applications of common interest’.

Operative part of the Order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it is brought against Mr Tillis, Mr Kontaratos, Mr Argyrakos, Mr Petrakis and Ms Koutroumpa. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it is brought against Mr Tillis, Mr Kontaratos, Mr Argyrakos, Mr Petrakis and Ms Koutroumpa.

| 2. | The Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Mr Tillis relating to his plea of inadmissibility. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Mr Tillis relating to his plea of inadmissibility.

---

(1)  OJ C 184, 2.8.2003.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                          5

<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                         Jun-30-1999
<CASH>                                                        226,734
<SECURITIES>                                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                    0
<PP&E>                                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                226,734
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          32,107
<BONDS>                                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                               0
<PREFERRED>                                                         0
<COMMON>                                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                                    194,627
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                  226,734
<SALES>                                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                5,232
<CGS>                                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               43,833
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-TAX>                                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                     0
<CHANGES>                                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  (38,601)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                       0



</TABLE>
HomeLaw Enforcement...Field and Resident Offices

# 									Field and Resident Offices							

Bureau of Diplomatic Security

		Directory – DSS Field Offices		

DSS has the largest global presence of any U.S. law enforcement agency and has a robust domestic mission in the United States.  Through its 29 domestic offices, DSS investigates violations of the law involving U.S. passports and visas and protects the Secretary of State and visiting foreign dignitaries.

A special agent-in-charge and an assistant special agent-in-charge manage each field office, and staffing varies with the size of the region and workload. Resident offices, managed by a resident special agent-in-charge, are smaller in size.

The primary responsibilities of field and resident offices include:
        - Conducting criminal investigations for passport and visa fraud and related crimes;
        - Conducting background investigations of applicants, current employees, and high-level appointees to the Department of State;
        - Protecting  the Secretary of State, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, and  certain visiting foreign dignitaries;
        - Providing protective and security related support with foreign diplomatic and consular missions located in their geographic regions; and
        - Providing security support for foreign diplomats working and residing in the United States.

Click Here for a directory of the DSS Field Offices.

Back to Top
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Charles Ucless FOBB v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 81-KH-0782.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 27, 1981.

In re Charles Ucless Fobb, applying for writs of habeas corpus. Parish of Jefferson. Nos. 17948, 22547 and 22792.

Writ denied.
#### Charles E. SADLER and R. R. Hamilton v. HANCOCK BANK.

No. 47859.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Jan. 27, 1975.

Mize, Thompson & Blass, Gulfport, for appellants.

White & Morse, Gulfport, for appellee.

Before RODGERS, P. J., and SMITH and SUGG, JJ.

Affirmed as to direct and cross-appeal.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**STATEMENT
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 BY PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
      OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**





I,
      O'Donnell Iselin II, herby certify, to my knowledge, that:





1.
      the
      accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Cadiz Inc. for the period ended
      June 30, 2007 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934,
      as
      amended; and





2.
      the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of Cadiz Inc.





IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Statement as of the date
      first written above.





Dated:
      August 6, 2007




/s/
      O'Donnell Iselin II__


O'Donnell
      Iselin II


Chief
      Financial Officer and Secretary