alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Riverside Foundry, Inc., v. Poe Machine & Engineering Corp.

*Kenneth M. McLure,*for plaintiff.

June 17, 1955.

Braham, P. J.,

Plaintiff sued defendant for merchandise sold and delivered, attaching copies of each invoice. The total bill was $4,260.38. Defendant filed an answer denying in general terms all the allegations of the complaint save only the incorporation of plaintiff. To this answer plaintiff filed preliminary objections.

*380Plaintiff has seven objections which may be summarized in two. The first is that defendant has not given an address within the county where papers might be served. Rule 1025 of Pa. R. C. P. provides:

> “Every pleading of a party represented by an attorney shall be endorsed with the name of the attorney, and every pleading of a party not represented by an attorney shall be endorsed with the name of the party, together in each case with an address within the county.”

The only endorsement appearing on defendant’s answer is the endorsement of a lawyer from Cleveland, Ohio, with a Cleveland address.

The answer will have to be stricken off for this reason if for no other. The reason back of this rule is the necessity for a place within the county where pleadings may be served: Cummins Diesel Sales & Service, Inc., v. Ramsey, 71 D. & C. 503-04.

The pleading is further defective in that defendant has not answered specifically the averments of plaintiff’s complaint as is required by rule 1029. It would be hard to imagine a more brazen disregard of the rule. Confronted with allegations of the purchase of specific amounts of goods on certain named occasions defendant replied by stating only that it “denies each and every other allegation of the complaint in assumpsit”. This type of denial under the rule might have warranted a demurrer since rule 1029(6) provides that such a denial has the effect of an admission: Com., etc., et al. v. Binenstock, 358 Pa. 644, 650. However, plaintiff demands only a pleading comparable to the rule. Hence this order. .

*Order*

Now, June 17, 1955, defendant’s answer is stricken off unless it files within 10 days an answer conformable to the rules of court and to this opinion.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.1


                     APACHE OFFSHORE INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP
                     BY APACHE CORPORATION, GENERAL PARTNER

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



         I, G. Steven Farris, certify that the Quarterly Report of Apache
Offshore Investment Partnership on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending
September 30, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. ss.78m or ss.78o (d))
and that information contained in such report fairly represents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Apache Offshore
Investment Partnership.



/s/ G. Steven Farris
-------------------------------------------
By:     G. Steven Farris
Title:  President, Chief Executive Officer
        and Chief Operating Officer of
        Apache Corporation, General Partner



         I, Roger B. Plank, certify that the Quarterly Report of Apache Offshore
Investment Partnership on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending September
30, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. ss.78m or ss.78o (d)) and that
information contained in such report fairly represents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Apache Offshore
Investment Partnership.



/s/ Roger B. Plank
--------------------------------------------
By:     Roger B. Plank
Title:  Executive Vice President
        and Chief Financial Officer of
        Apache Corporation, General Partner
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0717

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

LYNDSEY MAE LALICKER,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including April 29, 2020, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 23 2020

03/23/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0717
EXHIBIT 31.2

                           SECTION 302 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Richard Bruggeman, certify that:

         1. I have  reviewed  this  quarterly  report on form 10-QSB of InMedica
Development Corporation.

         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.  I  am  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. 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

Date:  August 12, 2004


By: /s/ Richard Bruggeman
-------------------------
Richard Bruggeman, CFO
EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Quarterly Report of Capital Gold Corporation(the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Gifford A. Dieterle, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Finacial Officer 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:

      (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 result of operations of the
Company.

                                            /s/ Gifford A. Dieterle
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Gifford A. Dieterle
                                            Chief Executive Officer and
                                            Chief Financial Officer
                                            March 20, 2003
§ 423.1046 Conduct of hearing. ( a ) *Participants in the hearing.* The hearing is open to the parties and their representatives and technical advisors, and to any other persons whose presence the ALJ considers necessary or proper.
( b ) *Hearing procedures.* ( 1 ) The ALJ inquires fully into all of the matters at issue, and receives in evidence the testimony of witnesses and any documents that are relevant and material.
( 2 ) If the ALJ believes that there is relevant and material evidence available which has not been presented at the hearing, he may, at any time before mailing of notice of the decision, reopen the hearing to receive that evidence.
( 3 ) The ALJ decides the order in which the evidence and the arguments of the parties are presented and the conduct of the hearing.
( 4 ) CMS has the burden of coming forward with evidence related to disputed findings that is sufficient (together with any undisputed findings and legal authority) to establish a prima facie case that CMS has a legally sufficient basis for its determination.
( 5 ) The affected party has the burden of coming forward with evidence sufficient to establish the elements of any affirmative argument or defense which it offers.
( 6 ) The affected party bears the ultimate burden of persuasion. To prevail, the affected party must prove by a preponderance of the evidence on the record as a whole that there is no basis for the determination.
( c ) *Review of the penalty.* When an ALJ finds that the basis for imposing a civil money penalty exists, as specified in 423.752, the ALJ may not— ( 1 ) Set a penalty of zero or reduce a penalty to zero, or
( 2 ) Review the exercise of discretion by CMS to impose a civil money penalty.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

CHARLES H. ADKINS, § 

 § No. 395, 2016 

Defendant Below, § 

 Appellant, § Court Below—Superior Court 

 § of the State of Delaware 

 v. § 

 § Cr. ID No. 1407018904 

STATE OF DELAWARE, § 

 § 

Plaintiff Below, § 

Appellee. § 

Submitted: October 25, 2016 

Decided: November 7, 2016 

 ORDER

This 7th day of November 2016, it appears to the Court that, on October 7, 

2016, the Chief Deputy Clerk issued a notice directing the appellant, Charles H. 

Adkins, to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for Adkins’ failure 

to file the opening brief that was due on September 26, 2016. Adkins has not 

responded to the notice to show cause within the required ten-day period. As a 

result, dismissal of the appeal is deemed to be unopposed. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 

3(b)(2) and 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED. 

 BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 

 Justice
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN RE: APPEAL OF THE COATESVILLE

AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM THE

DECISION OF THE CHESTER COUNTY

BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS FOR

THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 50 SOUTH FIRST AVENUE, CITY OF COATESVILLE, CHESTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

PROPERTY TAX PARCEL NO. 16

- 05

- 0229.0000

PETITION OF: COATESVILLE AREA

SCHOOL DISTRICT :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 522 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6 th day of February, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED. The issue, as stated by Petitioners, is:

Whether the Commonwealth Court erred in applying the doctrines of

Technical Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel when dismissing Petitioner’s appeal because a companion case, subject to similar decision
and order issued by the trial court, was not appealed ?
EXHIBIT 21

                            U.S.B. HOLDING CO., INC.
                                  SUBSIDIARIES


                                DECEMBER 31, 2003




Union State Bank
100 Dutch Hill Road
Orangeburg, New York 10962

U.S.B. Financial Services, Inc. (subsidiary of Union State Bank)
100 Dutch Hill Road
Orangeburg, New York 10962

Dutch Hill Realty Corp. (subsidiary of Union State Bank)
100 Dutch Hill Road
Orangeburg, New York 10962

USB Delaware Inc. (subsidiary of Union State Bank)
300 Delaware Avenue, 9th Floor
Wilmington, Delaware 19801

TPNZ Preferred Funding Corporation (subsidiary of USB Delaware Inc.)
100 Dutch Hill Road
Orangeburg, New York 10962

Union State Capital Trust I
100 Dutch Hill Road
Orangeburg, New York 10962

Union State Statutory Trust II
100 Dutch Hill Road
Orangeburg, New York 10962

USB Statutory Trust III
100 Dutch Hill Road
Orangeburg, New York 10962

Ad Con, Inc.
100 Dutch Hill Road
Orangeburg, New York 10962
# C_2006048EN.01002502.xml

| 25.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/25

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2005 — Fedon & Figli and Others v Council and Commission

(Case T-135/01) (1)

1

(Non-contractual liability of the Community - Incompatibility of the Community regime governing the import of bananas with the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) - Imposition by the United States of America of retaliatory measures in the form of increased customs duty levied on imports from the Community, pursuant to a WTO authorisation - Decision of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body - Legal effects - Community liability in the absence of unlawful conduct on the part of its institutions - Causal link - Unusual and special damage)

(2006/C 48/47)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Giorgio Fedon & Figli SpA (Vallesella di Cadore, Italy), Fedon Srl (Pieve d'Alpago, Italy) and Fedon America, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: I. Van Bael, A. Cevese and F. Di Gianni, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Marquardt and F. Ruggeri Laderchi, Agents) and Commission of the European Communities (initially represented by: P. Kuijper, E. Righini, V. Di Bucci and B. Jansen and then by: P. Kuijper, E. Righini and V. Di Bucci, Agents)

Defendants:

Application for

compensation in respect of the damage allegedly caused by the levying by the United States of America of increased customs duty on the applicants' imports of spectacle cases, as authorised by the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), following a finding that the Community regime governing the import of bananas was incompatible with the agreements and understandings annexed to the Agreement establishing the WTO

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay those of the Council and the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay those of the Council and the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 275, 29.9.2001.

1

---
# C_2006154EN.01001602.xml

| 1.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/16

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 25 April 2006 — Kreuzer Medien v Parliament and Council

(Case T-310/03) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Directive 2003/33/EC - Natural or legal persons - Standing to bring proceedings - Inadmissibility)

(2006/C 154/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Kreuzer Medien GmbH (Leipzig, Germany) (represented: initially by U. Kornmeier and D. Valbert, and subsequently by M. Lenz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: E. Waldherr and U. Rösslein, Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Karlsson, Agent)

Defendants:

Intervener in support of the applicant: Falstaff Verlags-Gesellschaft mbH (Klosterneuburg, Austria) (represented by: W.-G. Schärf, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the applicant:

Interveners in support of the defendants: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M.-J. Jonczy, L. Pignataro-Nolin and F. Hoffmeister, Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: L. Fraguas Gadea, Agent) and Republic of Finland (A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, T. Pynnä and E. Bygglin, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendants:

Re:

Application for annulment of the wording of Article 3(1) of Directive 2003/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products (OJ 2003 L 152, p. 16)

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Parliament and the Council. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Parliament and the Council.

| 3. | The Kingdom of Spain and the Commission shall bear their own costs, including those relating to the application for interim measures before the Court of First Instance. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Kingdom of Spain and the Commission shall bear their own costs, including those relating to the application for interim measures before the Court of First Instance.

| 4. | The Republic of Finland shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Republic of Finland shall bear its own costs.

| 5. | Falstaff Verlags-Gesellschaft mbH shall bear its own costs, including those relating to the application for interim measures before the Court of First Instance. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Falstaff Verlags-Gesellschaft mbH shall bear its own costs, including those relating to the application for interim measures before the Court of First Instance.

---

(1)  OJ C 289, 29.11.2003.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-2097

DENNIS M. ROACH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WARREN BURKHART,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-96-2755-8-13AK)

Submitted: December 11, 1997 Decided: December 23, 1997

Before HALL and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dennis M. Roach, Appellant Pro Se. Bradley Alan Norton, BALLENGER,

FEDDER, CAIN & NORTON, Seneca, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his

civil action as barred by the statute of limitations. We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Roach v. Burkhart, No. CA-96-2755-8-13AK (D.S.C.

July 15, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
No. 00-5521.

#### Atraqchi et ux. *v.*University of the District of Columbia et al.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
§ 441.500 Basis and scope. ( a ) *Basis.* This subpart implements section 1915(k) of the Act, referred to as the Community First Choice option (hereafter Community First Choice), to provide home and community-based attendant services and supports through a State plan.
( b ) *Scope.* Community First Choice is designed to make available home and community-based attendant services and supports to eligible individuals, as needed, to assist in accomplishing activities of daily living (ADLs), instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs), and health-related tasks through hands-on assistance, supervision, or cueing.
Editorial Note on Part 411
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 411 appear at 71 FR 9471, Feb. 24, 2006

§ 411.106 Aggregation rules. The following rules apply in determining the number and size of employers, as required by the MSP provisions for the aged and disabled: ( a ) All employers that are treated as a single employer under subsection (a) or (b) of section 52 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 52 (a) and (b)) are treated as a single employer.
( b ) All employees of the members of an affiliated service group (as defined in section 414(m) of the IRC (26 U.S.C. 414m)) are treated as employed by a single employer.
( c ) Leased employees (as defined in section 414(n)(2) of the IRC (26 U.S.C. 414(n)(2)) are treated as employees of the person for whom they perform services to the same extent as they are treated under section 414(n) of the IRC.
( d ) In applying the IRC provisions identified in this section, CMS relies upon regulations and decisions of the Secretary of the Treasury respecting those provisions.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. §1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 August 2, 2007
    By:
    /s/ Craig A. ToomanCraig A. ToomanExecutive Vice President, Finance and
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)