alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
RAILROAD AND PASSENGER.

[Knox Circuit Court,

May Term, 1885.]

Albaugh, Jenner and Follett, JJ.

#### * Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. Kent.

Ejectment of Passenger from Train.

Duty of passenger obtaining ticket at reduced rate, under contract to comply with conditions as to signing the contract.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Knox county.

W. C. Cooper, of Mt. Vernon, and J. H. Collins, of Columbus, for plaintiff in error.

J. D. Critchfield and General Devin, of Mt. Vernon, for defendant in error.

*

This case was reversed by the Supreme Court in Kent v. Ry. Co., 45 O. S., 284.

Kent brought suit in the common pleas court to recover $5,000 damages, caused, as alleged in his petition, by reason of being wrongfully ejected from a passenger train of the Straitsville Division of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad.

The testimony showed that Kent purchased of the general ticket agent of the defendant company a one-thousand mile commercial traveler’s ticket. The ticket he purchased provided that it was good only when properly stamped, and the contract on the last page was signed by the purchaser, and one of the express provisions of the ticket was that conductors would not honor it unless the contract was signed by the owner of the ticket. When Kent presented the ticket to the conductor, the latter called his attention to the terms of the ticket, and informed him that the ticket would not be honored unless he signed the contract, and that he must either sign it or pay his fare. He refused to do either, and was ejected from the train.

In the court of common pleas a verdict and judgment for $765 was rendered, and this proceeding was instituted to reverse that judgment.

Kent contended that he was not bound to sign the contract, because it was not called to his attention when he purchased the ticket, and also because the contract exempted the company from liability for the negligence of its agents and servants, and was therefore invalid.

Held, by the court, that Kent had the right to rid'e upon defendant’s cars, first, by paying the usual fare and assuming the rights and liabilities of an ordinary passenger, while the defendant assumed those of a common carrier of passengers ; and second, by making a special contract for a reduced rate of fare, such as provided for by this ticket. If the plaintiff below relied on a special contract, it was incumbent upon him to show compliance on his part with all the terms upon which the reduced rate was obtained, and the question as to whether the contract, which he refused to sign, was or was not valid, does not arise in this case, and can only arise in an action on the part of Kent to recover damages for some act of negligence on the part ot the servants of the company, against which this contract protects it.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

All judges concur.
41574.

#### HOMEYER v. STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT et al.

Submitted October 5, 1965

Decided October 15, 1965.

*463*Darrell W. MacIntyre, Telford, Wayne & Greer, Joe K. Telford,*for appellant.

*Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, Bichard L. Chambers, E. J. Summerour, Assistant Attorneys General, Stark <& Stark, Hope Stark,*for appellees.

Eberhardt, Judge.

The facts alleged in this petition are strikingly similar to those in *Johnson v. Burke County,*101 Ga. App. 747 (115 SE2d 484), except that in that case the header curb was constructed by the Highway Department under the authority of the County Commissioners of Burke County, whereas here it was constructed by the property owner herself. *464A diagram of the property attached to this petition shows, as did the one attached in that case, that the header curb had some restrictive effect on free access to the filling station, in that vehicles could not approach it across the curb. But here, as there, it appears from the diagram that customers from either road still have access to the station and its pump island. Widening of the highway does make it appear that a relocation of the station will improve plaintiff’s position, and that present access from the two roads can thus be better and more fully utilized. We do not regard the impairment of access by reason of the header curb to be substantial, and for the reasons stated in *Johnson v. Burke County,*and cases there cited, the sustaining of the demurrer was proper.

Additionally, it affirmatively appears from the petition here that if plaintiff’s access has been impaired by reason of the construction of the header curb, that is from her act and not that of the county or of the State Highway Department. The curb was constructed by plaintiff on her own land. Though she alleges that this was done in response to a demand from the representatives of the Highway Department that she do so, and under a threat from them to cut off all access to her property if she did not, nothing is alleged that would place her under any duty to construct it, nor are any allegations of fraud or of facts that would support allegations of fraud to be found in the petition. Plaintiff was free to refuse .to accede to the demand or to act under any threat. Under the facts pleaded, if plaintiff has suffered any loss by depreciation in the value of her property, it resulted from her own act.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Pannell, J., concur.*
NO. 07-06-0179-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

MAY 11, 2006

______________________________

IN RE MICHAEL LOU GARRETT, 

Relator

_______________________________

Memorandum Opinion

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

 Michael Lou Garrett, acting pro se, petitioned for a writ of mandamus asking us to

order respondent, the district clerk of Potter County, to forward him a copy of the dismissal

order entered in his lawsuit against Jack M. Borden, et al. in cause number 94,198-A,

Potter County, Texas. Garrett, who is incarcerated, alleges that he requested a copy of

the dismissal order after receiving notice from the Potter County District Clerk that the

cause had been dismissed on March 31, 2006. So too does he allege that he needs a

copy of the order to effectively prosecute an appeal now pending with this court. Why the

copy of the dismissal order that will be included in the appellate record will not suffice goes

unmentioned. Nonetheless, we have attached a copy of the particular decree to this

opinion for Garrett’s perusal and overrule the petition for writ of mandamus as moot.

Per Curiam
Exhibit 31(a)
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Interphase Corporation (the Company);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The Companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Company and have:
     5.
    
    The Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the
audit committee of the Companys board of directors:
   Date: August 7, 2008
    Signature:    
    /s/  Gregory B. KalushChief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 184 (Thursday, September 24, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 48807]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23131]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6770]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Bauhaus 1919-1933: Workshops for Modernity''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 
of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of 
April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects in 
the exhibition: ``Bauhaus 1919-1933: Workshops for Modernity,'' 
imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, 
are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan 
agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that 
the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The Museum of 
Modern Art, New York, N.Y., from on or about November 8, 2009, until on 
or about January 25, 2010, and at possible additional exhibitions or 
venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice 
of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the Federal 
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6467). The address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, SA-5, 2200 C 
Street, NW., Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: September 18, 2009.
Maura M. Pally,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, 
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E9-23131 Filed 9-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
Exhibit
32





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §1350 (as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002), we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
of Peoples Educational Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify that the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended
August 31, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:  October
      6, 2009/s/ Brian T. BeckwithBrian
      T. Beckwith,President
      and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Michael L. DeMarcoMichael
      L. DeMarco,Executive
      Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer


21
## Publications List

Series:Jails in Indian Country

##   Use Search Filters  

### Select Filters

### Enter search criteria

### Sort by

Jails in Indian Country, 2023Date Published  September 2024SeriesJails in Indian CountryPublication TypePublication

Jails in Indian Country, 2022Date Published  May 2023SeriesJails in Indian CountryPublication TypePublication

Jails in Indian Country, 2021, and the Impact of COVID-19, July–December 2020Date Published  August 2022SeriesJails in Indian CountryPublication TypePublication

Jails in Indian Country, 2019–2020 and the Impact of COVID-19 on the Tribal Jail PopulationDate Published  October 2021SeriesJails in Indian CountryPublication TypePublication

Jails in Indian Country, 2017-2018Date Published  October 2020SeriesJails in Indian CountryPublication TypePublication

Jails in Indian Country, 2016Date Published  December 2017SeriesJails in Indian CountryPublication TypePublicationAgenciesBJS

Jails in Indian Country, 2015Date Published  November 2016SeriesJails in Indian CountryPublication TypePublication

Jails in Indian Country, 2014Date Published  October 2015SeriesJails in Indian CountryPublication TypePublication

Jails in Indian Country, 2013Date Published  July 2014SeriesJails in Indian CountryPublication TypePublicationAgenciesBJS

Jails in Indian Country, 2012Date Published  June 2013SeriesJails in Indian CountryPublication TypePublication

Jails in Indian Country, 2011Date Published  September 2012SeriesJails in Indian CountryPublication TypePublicationAgenciesBJS

Jails in Indian Country, 2010Date Published  December 2011SeriesJails in Indian CountryPublication TypePublicationAgenciesBJS

Jails in Indian Country, 2009Date Published  February 2011SeriesJails in Indian CountryPublication TypePublicationAgenciesBJS

Jails in Indian Country, 2008Date Published  December 2009SeriesJails in Indian CountryPublication TypePublicationAgenciesBJS

Jails in Indian Country, 2007Date Published  November 2008SeriesJails in Indian CountryPublication TypePublication

Jails in Indian Country, 2004Date Published  November 2006SeriesJails in Indian CountryPublication TypePublication

Jails in Indian Country, 2003Date Published  April 2005SeriesJails in Indian CountryPublication TypePublication

Jails in Indian Country, 2002Date Published  November 2003SeriesJails in Indian CountryPublication TypePublication

Jails in Indian Country, 2001Date Published  May 2002SeriesJails in Indian CountryPublication TypePublication

Jails in Indian Country, 2000Date Published  July 2001SeriesJails in Indian CountryPublication TypePublication

Jails in Indian Country, 1998 and 1999Date Published  July 2000SeriesJails in Indian CountryPublication TypePublication

## Side navigation

-  Just the Stats 
-  Search Publications 
-  Forthcoming Publications 
-  Research and Third-party Reports 
-  Data Corrections 

**Interested in Statistics?**

Sign up for email notices of new crime and justice statistical materials as they become available from BJS.

Subscribe
§ 20.502 Rule 502. Time limits for filing Notice of Disagreement, Substantive Appeal, and response to Supplemental Statement of the Case in simultaneously contested claims. ( a ) *Notice of Disagreement.* In simultaneously contested claims, the Notice of Disagreement from the person adversely affected must be filed within 60 days from the date of mailing of the notification of the determination to him or her; otherwise, that determination will become final. The date of mailing of the letter of notification will be presumed to be the same as the date of that letter for purposes of determining whether a Notice of Disagreement has been timely filed. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7105A(a) (2016))
( b ) *Substantive Appeal.* In the case of simultaneously contested claims, a Substantive Appeal must be filed within 30 days from the date of mailing of the Statement of the Case. The date of mailing of the Statement of the Case will be presumed to be the same as the date of the Statement of the Case for purposes of determining whether an appeal has been timely filed. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7105A(b) (2016))
( c ) *Supplemental Statement of the Case.* Where a Supplemental Statement of the Case is furnished by the agency of original jurisdiction in a simultaneously contested claim, a period of 30 days from the date of mailing of the Supplemental Statement of the Case will be allowed for response, but the receipt of a Supplemental Statement of the Case will not extend the time allowed for filing a Substantive Appeal as set forth in paragraph (b) of this section. The date of mailing of the Supplemental Statement of the Case will be presumed to be the same as the date of the Supplemental Statement of the Case for purposes of determining whether a response has been timely filed. Provided a Substantive Appeal has been timely filed in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, the response to a Supplemental Statement of the Case is optional and is not required for the perfection of an appeal.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7105(d)(3), 7105A(b) (2016))
[57 FR 4109, Feb. 3, 1992, as amended at 68 FR 64806, Nov. 17, 2003. Redesignated and amended at 84 FR 183, Jan. 18, 2019; 84 FR 34788, July 19, 2019.]
REGISTRATION

56872-2

Vol. 3 
1
2
3

*Inert ingredient information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
4
5
6
7

*Manufacturing process information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15*Inert ingredient information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
______________________________________________________________

Page 16 is not included in this copy. 

Pages through are not included in this copy. 

_________________________________________________________________

The material not included contains the following type of 

information:

 X Identity of product inert ingredients. 

__ __ Identity of product impurities. 

__ __ Description of the product manufacturing process. 

__ __ Description of quality control procedures. 

__ __ Identity of the source of product ingredients. 

_____ Sales or other commercial/financial information. 

_____ A draft product label. 

__ __ The product confidential statement of formula. 

_____ Information about a pending registration action. 

__ __ FIFRA registration data. 

_____ The document is a duplicate of page(s) _______. 

_____ The document is not responsive to the request. 

_____ Internal deliberative information. 

__ __ Attorney-client privileged communication. 

__ __ Claimed confidential by submitter upon submission to the

 Agency.

The information not included is generally considered confidential 

by product registrants. If you have any questions, please 

contact the individual who prepared the response to your request. 

_________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

Page 17 is not included in this copy. 

Pages through are not included in this copy. 

_________________________________________________________________

The material not included contains the following type of 

information:

_____ Identity of product inert ingredients. 

__ __ Identity of product impurities. 

__ __ Description of the product manufacturing process. 

__ __ Description of quality control procedures. 

__ __ Identity of the source of product ingredients. 

_____ Sales or other commercial/financial information. 

_____ A draft product label. 

__X__ The product confidential statement of formula. 

_____ Information about a pending registration action. 

__ __ FIFRA registration data. 

__ __ The document is a duplicate of page(s) _ .

_____ The document is not responsive to the request. 

__ __ Internal deliberative information. 

__ __ Privileged attorney-client communication. 

__ __ Claimed Confidential by submitter upon submission to the

 Agency.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
#### L. VOGELSTEIN & CO., INC., v. THE UNITED STATES.

[56 C. Cls. 362 ; 262 U.S. 337.]

Judgment was rendered in favor of the United States in the court below. On appeal the judgment was *affirmed,*and the Supreme Court decided:

Just compensation for copper taken by the United States for war purposes under the Act of June 3, 1916, c. 134, secs. 120, 123, 39 Stat. 215, is to be measured by the market value of the copper at the time of the taking, and not by higher prices which the owner was obliged to pay under long time purchase contracts.

Mr. Justice Butler

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court May 21,1923.
EXHIBIT 35.1





SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT








I, Ryan M. Hershberger, certify that:





(a)    A review of the Servicer’s activities and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement during the period from January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021 has been made under my supervision.





(b)    To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned period.








Dated March 22, 2022


/s/ Ryan M. HershbergerRyan M. HershbergerAssistant Treasurer ofFord Motor Credit Company LLC,as Servicer of Ford Credit Auto Owner Trust 2020-C
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2072 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2072

 To authorize and request the President to award the Medal of Honor to 
  Richard Gresko, of Newtown, Pennsylvania, for acts of valor in the 
Republic of Vietnam on March 11 and 12, 1970, while serving as a lance 
          corporal in the Marine Corps during the Vietnam War.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2007

 Mr. Patrick J. Murphy of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize and request the President to award the Medal of Honor to 
  Richard Gresko, of Newtown, Pennsylvania, for acts of valor in the 
Republic of Vietnam on March 11 and 12, 1970, while serving as a lance 
          corporal in the Marine Corps during the Vietnam War.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION AND REQUEST FOR AWARD OF MEDAL OF HONOR TO 
              RICHARD GRESKO FOR ACTS OF VALOR DURING THE VIETNAM WAR.

    (a) Authorization.--The President is authorized and requested to 
award the Medal of Honor under section 6241 of title 10, United States 
Code, to Richard Gresko, of Newtown, Pennsylvania, for the acts of 
valor during the Vietnam War described in subsection (b).
    (b) Action Described.--The acts of valor referred to in subsection 
(a) are the actions of Richard Gresko in the Republic of Vietnam on the 
night of March 11 and 12, 1970, while a lance corporal in the United 
States Marine Corps serving in the Third Battalion, Fifth Marine 
Regiment, First Marine Division. On that night, Sergeant (then Lance 
Corporal) Gresko was in one element of an ambush set up to protect a 
village from enemy attack. Around midnight, his element ambushed a Viet 
Cong unit that was attempting to enter the village. During the ensuing 
fight, Sergeant Gresko observed an enemy hand grenade land near his 
position. With complete disregard for his own personal safety and fully 
aware of the dangers involved, he unhesitatingly threw himself on top 
of the grenade, absorbing most of the blast fragments with his own body 
in order to protect his men from certain injury and possible death. 
Although painfully wounded, he continued to direct his men's actions 
until the squad made their sweep.
    (c) Waiver of Time Limitations.--The award under subsection (a) may 
be made without regard to the time limitations specified in section 
6248 of title 10, United States Code, or any other time limitation with 
respect to the awarding of certain medals to persons who served in the 
Navy or Marine Corps.
                                 <all>
```