alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
42501.

#### DAWN MEMORIAL PARK, INC. v. SOUTHERN CEMETERY CONSULTANTS OF GEORGIA, INC.

Jordan, Judge.

This is the third appearance of this case before this court. See *Southern Cemetery &c. of Ga. v. Dawn Memorial Park,*113 Ga. App. 189 (147 SE2d 475), and *Dawn Memorial Park. v. Southern Cemetery &c. of Ga.,*113 Ga. App. 814 (149 SE2d 760). The basic facts appear in the first reported opinion. The current appeal is from the order of the court on March 4, 1966, overruling the defendant’s motion of the same date to dismiss the second count of the petition, and the further order of the trial court on Septem*181ber 22, 1966, overruling the defendant’s motion of September 12, 1966, to dismiss the first count of the petition. The defendant, as appellant, contends that neither count sets forth a cause of action. *Held:*

*Bell, P. J., and Pannell, J., concur.*

Submitted January 6, 1967

Decided February 9, 1967.

1. The ruling of the trial court as to the second count on March 4, 1966, is controlled by the first opinion of this court on February 23, 1966, in which it was stated (113 Ga. App. 189, 191) that: “[t]he defendant could not admit all the allegations of Count 2 of the petition and still escape liability to the plaintiff.”

2. By an amendment allowed and filed on March 14, 1966, the plaintiff revised the first count of the petition. As amended, the details of the agreement and commissions earned are verbatim the same as the second count, except the second count contains additional allegations as to the value of the services rendered, but this basis is the same as the alleged agreed compensation, 40% on the sale of the lots and 30% on the sale of markers. As was said with respect to the second count, supra, the defendant also cannot admit all of the allegations in the first count and escape liability.

3. The defendant contends that recovery is barred under the statute of frauds as a parol agreement not to be performed within one year *(Code*§ 20-401 (5)), but the plaintiff shows performance in the first year in substantial accord with the parol agreement, and affirmatively alleges the absence of any specific quota for the sales made after the first year. Conceding, without deciding, that the contract in its executory state was within the statute of frauds, the alleged performance brings it within the exceptions of *Code*§ 20-402. Moreover, if the action under either count be one in quantum meruit, which the defendant asserts in his brief as opposed to the allegations showing an actual promise to pay a specified commission for services rendered, the statute of frauds is no bar to the relief sought. See 37 CJS 780, Statute of Frauds, § 259.

4. Each count of the petition sets forth a cause of action good against a motion in the nature of a general demurrer, and the trial court did not err in refusing to sustain the motions of the defendant.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*182*Moretón Rolleston, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Stephens Mitchell, Grant, Spears & Duckworth, William G. Grant,*for appellee.
# C_2015158EN.01001301.xml

| 13.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/13

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 10 November 2014

in Case E-2/14

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

v

(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2005/35/EC — Failure to implement)

(2015/C 158/07)

In Case E-2/14, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland – APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of all measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 56v of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, that is Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements, as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto and by EEA Joint Committee Decision No 65/2009 of 29 May 2009, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and Article 7 EEA, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 10 November 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:

v

The Court hereby:

| 1. | Declares that by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 56v of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto and by EEA Joint Committee Decision No 65/2009 of 29 May 2009, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 56v of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto and by EEA Joint Committee Decision No 65/2009 of 29 May 2009, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement.

| 2. | Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.

---
§ 1215.12 Restrictions that apply to testimony. ( a ) The Director may impose conditions or restrictions on testimony, including but not limited to limiting the scope of testimony or requiring the demanding or requesting party and other parties to the legal proceeding to agree that the testimony transcript will be kept under seal or will only be used or made available in the particular legal proceeding for which testimony was requested. The Director may also require a copy of the transcript of testimony to be provided to FHFA at the demanding or requesting party's expense.
( b ) The Director may offer an employee's written declaration in lieu of testimony.
( c ) If authorized to testify pursuant to this part, an employee may testify as to facts within his or her personal knowledge, but, unless specifically authorized to do so by the Director, the employee must not: ( 1 ) Disclose confidential or privileged information; or
( 2 ) Testify as an expert or opinion witness with regard to any matter arising out of the employee's official duties or FHFA's mission or functions. This provision does not apply to requests from the United States for expert or opinion testimony.
( d ) The Director may assign FHFA Counsel to be present for an employee's testimony.
CA Filed by Filing Services Canada Inc. 403-717-3898






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 for Bit-X Financial Corp. (the
“Company”) on


Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange


Commission on the date hereof (the “Report), the undersigned,
Paul E. Heney, Chief Executive Officer do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our knowledge:


 


 


(1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) 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 results of operations
of the Company.


 


 


By:


 


 


/s/ Paul E. Heney


Paul E. Heney


Chief Executive Officer


April 30, 2015
§ 4.77 Visual fields. ( a ) *Examination of visual fields.* Examiners must use either Goldmann kinetic perimetry or automated perimetry using Humphrey Model 750, Octopus Model 101, or later versions of these perimetric devices with simulated kinetic Goldmann testing capability. For phakic (normal) individuals, as well as for pseudophakic or aphakic individuals who are well adapted to intraocular lens implant or contact lens correction, visual field examinations must be conducted using a standard target size and luminance, which is Goldmann's equivalent III/4e. For aphakic individuals not well adapted to contact lens correction or pseudophakic individuals not well adapted to intraocular lens implant, visual field examinations must be conducted using Goldmann's equivalent IV/4e. The examiner must document the results for at least 16 meridians 221 ⁄ 2 degrees apart for each eye and indicate the Goldmann equivalent used. See Table III for the normal extent (in degrees) of the visual fields at the 8 principal meridians (45 degrees apart). When the examiner indicates that additional testing is necessary to evaluate visual fields, the additional testing must be conducted using either a tangent screen or a 30-degree threshold visual field with the Goldmann III stimulus size. The examination report must document the results of either the tangent screen or of the 30-degree threshold visual field with the Goldmann III stimulus size.
( b ) *Evaluation of visual fields.* Determine the average concentric contraction of the visual field of each eye by measuring the remaining visual field (in degrees) at each of eight principal meridians 45 degrees apart, adding them, and dividing the sum by eight.
( c ) *Combination of visual field defect and decreased visual acuity.* To determine the evaluation for visual impairment when both decreased visual acuity and visual field defect are present in one or both eyes and are service connected, separately evaluate the visual acuity and visual field defect (expressed as a level of visual acuity), and combine them under the provisions of § 4.25.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155)
[53 FR 30262, Aug. 11, 1988, as amended at 73 FR 66549, Nov. 10, 2008; 74 FR 7648, Feb. 19, 2009; 83 FR 15320, Apr. 10, 2018]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                   5
<MULTIPLIER>                                1,000
       
<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                           SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                             SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         2,116
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 15,003
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,196
<INVENTORY>                                   20,518
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              43,866
<PP&E>                                         3,498
<DEPRECIATION>                                 4,960
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                50,976
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         23,003
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                         132
<OTHER-SE>                                         0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  50,976
<SALES>                                       74,859
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              74,859
<CGS>                                         52,128
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 52,128
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              29,012
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               722
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (6,965)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (1,915)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (6,281)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (5,050)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (1.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.16)
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1




				Exhibit 99(i)

		 	   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
			       18 U.S.C. ss.1350
			    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
		 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report  of  Datascension,  Inc.  (the"Company")
on  Form  10-QSB  for  the  quarter  ended  June  30, 2006  as  filed  with  the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date  therein specified (the "Report")
"Report"),  I,  D. Scott  Kincer,   Chief   Executive  Officer of  the  Company,
certify  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to  Section  906  of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies  with the requirements of  Section  13(a)
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  results of  operations  of  the
Company.

                                      /s/ D. Scott Kincer
                                     ------------------------------------------
                                      D. Scott Kincer , Chief Executive Officer


Dated: August 14, 2006
§ 303.185 Merger transactions involving foreign banks or foreign organizations. ( a ) *Merger transactions involving an insured branch of a foreign bank.* Merger transactions requiring the FDIC's prior approval as set forth in § 303.62 include any merger transaction in which the resulting institution is an insured branch of a foreign bank which is not a federal branch, or any merger transaction which involves any insured branch and any uninsured institution. In such cases: ( 1 ) References to an eligible depository institution in subpart D of this part include an eligible insured branch as defined in § 303.181;
( 2 ) The definition of a corporate reorganization in § 303.61(b) includes a merger transaction between an insured branch and other branches, agencies, or subsidiaries in the United States of the same foreign bank; and
( 3 ) For the purposes of § 303.62(b)(1) on interstate mergers, a merger transaction involving an insured branch is one involving the acquisition of a branch of an insured bank without the acquisition of the bank for purposes of section 44 of the FDI Act (12 U.S.C. 1831u) only when the merger transaction involves fewer than all the insured branches of the same foreign bank in the same state.
( b ) *Certain merger transactions with foreign organizations outside any State.* Merger transactions requiring the FDIC's prior approval as set forth in § 303.62 include any merger transaction in which an insured depository institution becomes directly liable for obligations which will, after the merger transaction, be treated as deposits under section 3(l)(5)(A)(i)-(ii) of the FDI Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(l)(5)(A)(i)-(ii)), as a result of a merger or consolidation with a foreign organization or an assumption of liabilities of a foreign organization.
#### § 19.210 Filing and service of documents.

Any application for an award, or any accompanying documentation related to an application, must be filed and served on all parties to the proceeding in accordance with § 19.11, except as provided in § 19.208(b) for confidential financial information.
#### WILLIAM POPINEAU, Respondent, v. WAVERLY BRICK & COAL CO., Appellant.

Kansas City Court of Appeals,

February 17, 1913.

INSTRUCTIONS: Common Error: Estoppel. Wliere an instruction for plaintiff in an action for personal injury assumes negligence in the proprietors of a coal mine, and assumes the roof of the mine was not reasonably safe, it is error. But if defend- and by its instruction also assumes these things, it cannot complain on appeal.

Appeal from Lafayette Circuit *Court.*— Hon. *Samuel Davis,*Judge.

Affirmed.

*Coivherd, Ingraham, Durham <& Morse*and *Hale Houts*for appellant.

*Alexander Graves, Chas. Lyons*and *G. R. Ristine*for respondent.

ELLISON, P. J.

Plaintiff was an employee of defendant in one of its coal mines and was injured therein. He charges the injury to defendant’s negligence and brought this action for damages. He recovered two thousand dollars.

Plaintiff’s injuries were occasioned by portions of the roof over its entryway falling upon him. There *548is but a single objection made to-the judgment, and that is directed to instruction No. 2 given for plaintiff. It sumits certain hypotheses and directs a verdict if they are found to be facts. The objection made is that it is so worded as to assume the roof was not reasonably safe. That is the ground of the objection, though there are comments which attempt to enlarge it somewhat.

It may be conceded that the instruction has the technical fault stated by defendant, but it is of no avail since defendant by its own instruction confessed the truth of the matter assumed. In its instruction No. 3, it directly adopts the fault in plaintiff’s, and thereby cures it. [Riggs v. Met. St. Ry. Co., 216 Mo. 304, 318, 319; Phelps v. City of Salisbury, 161 Mo. l, 14.] In the first of these cases the plaintiff’s instruction assumed it to be the duty of the defendant’s servants to look ahead. An instruction for defendant is then quoted and the court said of it: “The duty to look ahead is assumed in that instruction. Its theory was the theory of plaintiff’s instructions. Hence if error at all, it was common error. That common error is not reversible error is not to be gainsaid.”

In the other case the court, speaking of an instruction, said: “This instruction was therefore unwarranted by both the pleadings and the evidence and, but for the fact that defendant by its fifth and sixth instructions in substance adopted the same theory, the judgment Avould have to be reversed, but a party will not be heard to complain of an error which he invites or adopts.” Cases abound stating the same rule.

There is no merit, under the evidence, in the suggestion that the instruction failed to require notice of the defect. Besides,' that was fully covered by defendant’s instructions, especially No. 6.

Finding no error materially affecting the merits, it becomes our duty to affirm the judgment.

All concur.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-126369, 333-55732, 333-28701, and 333-03631 on Form S-8 of our reports dated
March 10, 2008, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Riviera
Holdings Corporation and subsidiaries (which report includes an explanatory
paragraphs related to the adoption of Financial Accounting Standards Board
Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes-an
interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109, on January 1, 2007, and Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards No.123(R), Share-Based Payment, on January 1,
2006) and the effectiveness Riviera Holdings Corporation internal control over
financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Riviera
Holding Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2007.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP


Las Vegas, Nevada
March 12, 2008
#### § 261a.7 Special procedures for medical records.

If you request medical or psychological records pursuant to § 261a.5, we will disclose them directly to you unless the Chief Privacy Officer, in consultation with the Board's physician or Employee Assistance Program counselor, determines that such disclosure could have an adverse effect on you. If the Chief Privacy Officer makes that determination, we will provide the information to a licensed physician or other appropriate representative that you designate, who may disclose those records to you in a manner he or she deems appropriate.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 21

- 00291

- CV
Castine McIlhargey and Jody McIntyre, Individually, and Derivatively on Behalf of A+ Pro Recovery and Towing, LLC v. Erik M. Hager, Jason Rios, Eduardo Pena, Joanna Pena, and South Padre Towing and Recov ery, LLC
On Appeal from the 107th District Court of Cameron County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2020

- DCL

- 03294

- A

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant s

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. October 28, 2021
# C_2021495EN.01000501.xml

| 9.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 495/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 495/5

---

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION

(2021/C 495/04)

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competition:

EPSO/AD/397/21 - ADMINISTRATORS (AD 6) IN THE FIELD OF MARITIME AFFAIRS AND FISHERIES

The competition notice is published in 24 languages in
  Official Journal of the European Union C 495 A of 9 December 2021.

Further information can be found on the EPSO Internet: https://epso.europa.eu/

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


<ARTICLE>                                        5

       
<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                NOV-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                     AUG-31-1997
<CASH>                                           77,070
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,453,681
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,099,671
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,890,877
<PP&E>                                           1,385,206
<DEPRECIATION>                                   946,861
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,604,269
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,181,995
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         81,936
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      200,346
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,048,431
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,604,269
<SALES>                                          13,051,666
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 13,051,666
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    13,433,226
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (143,101)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (872,829)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (872,829)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (872,829)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)
        

</TABLE>