alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Leonard H. MOONEY *v.*Anton J. SKOUMAL et ux

5-5755

476 S.W. 2d 237

Opinion delivered February 21, 1972

*1022
      *Patterson if Patterson,*for appellant.

*Williams if Gardner,*for appellees.

George Rose Smith, Justice.

In 1969 the appellant, a contractor, built a dwelling house for the appellees for an agreed contract price of $24,000. Within less than a year after the completion of the house the appellees brought this suit to require the appellant to correct some twenty-nine defects in the structure. The trial eventually resulted in a decree for damages rather than in one for specific performance. Both parties have appealed from a decree awarding $2,500 damages to the appellees.

For reversal the appellant first contends that there was an accord and satisfaction, in that the appellees paid in full the last installment on the contract price, at a time when the sufficiency of the appellant’s performance was in dispute. *Widmer*v. *Gibble Oil Co.,*243 Ark. 735, 421 S. W. 2d 886 (1967). Upon this point Mr. Skoumal denied that the payment was intended to be a final settlement of the controversy. Moreover, the most serious defect in the construction — a weakness in the foundation which caused a wall to crack badly — did not manifest itself until some time after the asserted settlement. The appellant himself recognized the existence of a one-year warranty in favor of the owners; so it is evident that the settlement did not bar the plaintiffs’ cause of action.

Secondly, the appellant argues, on the basis of his own testimony, that houses frequently shift and settle without fault on the part of the builder, and consequently he should not be held responsible for that defect in this case. Here the specifications required the footings to be of designated dimensions and to be reinforced with steel. The chancellor was not required to accept the view that the serious crack which developed was not attributable to any fault on the part of the builder.

*1023The remaining arguments on appeal and cross appeal are, on the one hand, that the award of $2,500 is too liberal and, on the other, that it is inadequate. There was competent proof on behalf of the plaintiffs that would have justified an allowance of about $3,300. That proof was disputed by the defendant. After studying the record we cannot say with confidence that the chancellor’s decision is contrary to the preponderance of the evidence.

Affirmed.
#### OHIO TRANSIT CO v P U C

Ohio Supreme Court

No. 21314.

Decided Jan. 16, 1929.

ALLEN, J

AUTOMOBILES

(50 P2b) An order of the Public Utilities Commission to desist from operating equipment authorized by an order of such Public Utilities Commission which is void because of non-compliance with jurisdictional statutory requirements, does not constitute an alteration, amendment, or revocation of a certificate within the purview of Section 614-87, General Code.

Marshall, C J, Robinson, and Matthias, JJ, concur. Kinkade, J not participating.
Exhibit
      32 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350








CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Citizens First
      Corporation (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007,
      as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      "Report") I, Mary D. Cohron, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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) 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 results of operations of the Company.





By:
            /s/  
                Mary D. CohronMary
                D. CohronChief
                Executive OfficerDate:
            May
                15, 2007








CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Citizens First
      Corporation (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007,
      as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      "Report") I, Steve Marcum, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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) 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 results of operations of the Company.











By:
            /s/  
                 Steve MarcumSteve
                MarcumChief
                Financial OfficerDate:
            May
                15, 2007
1

The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-4036

___________

Mark B. Price, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

GKN Aerospace North America, *

Inc.; John Mink; Mike Bishop, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: November 14, 2007

Filed: December 4, 2007

___________

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Mark B. Price appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary judgment

in his lawsuit brought under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Having

conducted de novo review of the record and having considered Price’s arguments for

reversal, see Hanger v. Lake County, 390 F.3d 579, 582 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of

review), we agree with the district court that defendants’ actions did not amount to

willful FMLA violations, and that Price’s lawsuit was time-barred because the two-
-2-

year limitations period applied, see 29 U.S.C. § 2617(c) (action may be brought no

later than two years after date of last event constituting alleged FMLA violation,

unless violation is willful, in which case limitations period is extended to three years).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
§ 1625.6 Bona fide occupational qualifications. ( a ) Whether occupational qualifications will be deemed to be “bona fide” to a specific job and “reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business,” will be determined on the basis of all the pertinent facts surrounding each particular situation. It is anticipated that this concept of a bona fide occupational qualification will have limited scope and application. Further, as this is an exception to the Act it must be narrowly construed.
( b ) An employer asserting a BFOQ defense has the burden of proving that ( 1 ) the age limit is reasonably necessary to the essence of the business, and either
( 2 ) that all or substantially all individuals excluded from the job involved are in fact disqualified, or
( 3 ) that some of the individuals so excluded possess a disqualifying trait that cannot be ascertained except by reference to age. If the employer's objective in asserting a BFOQ is the goal of public safety, the employer must prove that the challenged practice does indeed effectuate that goal and that there is no acceptable alternative which would better advance it or equally advance it with less discriminatory impact.
( c ) Many State and local governments have enacted laws or administrative regulations which limit employment opportunities based on age. Unless these laws meet the standards for the establishment of a valid bona fide occupational qualification under section 4(f)(1) of the Act, they will be considered in conflict with and effectively superseded by the ADEA.
#### § 1450.27 Interest, penalties, and administrative costs.

The assessment of interest, penalties and administrative costs shall be in accordance with subpart D of this regulation.
#### § 1917.14 Stacking of cargo and pallets.

Cargo, pallets and other material stored in tiers shall be stacked in such a manner as to provide stability against sliding and collapse.
NO. 07-04-0518-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

NOVEMBER 10, 2004

______________________________

JULIA MARTINEZ,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 242nd DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;

NO. B13405-9905; HON. ED SELF, PRESIDING

_______________________________

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

__________________________________

Before QUINN, REAVIS, and CAMPBELL, JJ.

Appellant Julia Martinez, by and through her attorney, has filed a motion to dismiss

this appeal because she no longer desires to prosecute it. Without passing on the merits

of the case, we grant the motion to dismiss pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure

42.1(a)(2) and dismiss the appeal. Having dismissed the appeal at appellant’s request, no

motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

Brian Quinn

 Justice

Do not publish.
Statement Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002   The undersigned, Daniel Dror, CEO, President and Chairman of American International Industries, Inc., a Nevada corporation, hereby makes the following certification as required by Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, with respect to the following of this report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: Annual Report of Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2013.   The undersigned certifies that the above annual report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained in the above quarterly report fairly presents, in all respects, the financial condition of American International Holdings Corp. and results of its operations.  Date: April 19, 2014 Daniel Dror Chairman /s/ Daniel Dror
#### In the Matter of the Petition of Albert Weber to Vacate the Assessment for a Sewer in Seventh avenue, Confirmed May 14, 1871.

*(Supreme*Court, *General Term, First Department,*

*Filed July 9, 1889.)*

Abatement and revival—Taxes and assessment—Proceeding to vacate—When not revived.

Where after proceedings commenced to vacate an assessment for a sewer the petitioner died, and no further proceedings were taken in his behalf for nearly ten years, *Held,*that a motion to revive the proceeding in favor of the trustee of the petitioner’s estate should he denied.

Appeal from an order denying a motion to revive the proceeding by making the trustee of the estate a party to it for future prosecution.

P. *A. Hargous,*for app’lt; *G-. L. Sterling,*for resp’t.

Daniels, J.

This proceeding was commenced the last of December, 1873, to vacate an assessment for a sewer in Seventh avenue, confirmed in May, 1871. The petitioner ■died in the summer of 1879, and no further proceedings appear to have been taken in his behalf than the service of the petition. By his decease leaving it in this condition, the proceeding abated, and the delay which has since intervened in making this application, supplied a substantial ground for the denial of the motion.

For that, and the other reason, assigned in the case of *Marshall O. Boberts*the order should be affirmed, but as these several proceedings were argued as one, the costs already directed to be paid will be sufficient for the indemnity of the city. The order should be affirmed, without costs. Van Brunt, Ch. J., and Brady, J. concur.
#### § 102.79 Consent-election agreements.

Where a petition has been duly filed, the parties involved may, subject to the approval of the regional director, enter into an agreement governing the method of conducting the election as provided for in § 102.62(a), insofar as applicable.
§ 5.15 Requirements for type certificate holders that allow another person to use the type certificate to obtain a production certificate for the same product. ( a ) This section applies to any person that holds a type certificate issued under part 21 of this chapter for a product, except for persons that hold only type certificates issued under § 21.29 of this chapter, that allows another person to use the type certificate to manufacture the same product under a production certificate.
( b ) Any person that meets paragraph (a) of this section and has a licensing agreement in accordance with § 21.55 of this chapter on May 28, 2024, must: ( 1 ) Develop and maintain an organizational system description in accordance with § 5.17 of this subpart.
( 2 ) Submit an implementation plan in accordance with § 5.19 of this subpart for FAA approval in a form and manner acceptable to the Administrator no later than November 28, 2024.
( 3 ) Develop an SMS that meets the requirements of this part.
( 4 ) Implement the SMS in accordance with this part no later than May 28, 2027.
( 5 ) Make available to the Administrator, upon request, all necessary information and data that demonstrates that the person has an SMS that meets the requirements set forth in this part.
( 6 ) Maintain the SMS as long as the person continues to meet paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) Any person that meets paragraph (a) of this section and enters into a licensing agreement in accordance with § 21.55 of this chapter after May 28, 2024, must: ( 1 ) Develop and maintain an organizational system description in accordance with § 5.17 of this subpart.
( 2 ) Submit an implementation plan in accordance with § 5.19 of this subpart for FAA approval in a form and manner acceptable to the Administrator when providing written licensing agreements in accordance with § 21.55 of this chapter.
( 3 ) Develop an SMS that meets the requirements of this part.
( 4 ) Implement the SMS in accordance with this part no later than 36 months after submission of the person's implementation plan.
( 5 ) Make available to the Administrator, upon request, all necessary information and data that demonstrates that the person has an SMS that meets the requirements set forth in this part.
( 6 ) Maintain the SMS as long as the person continues to meet paragraph (a) of this section.
EX-10.17






Exhibit 10.17




Agreement Regarding the Transfer of Equity in

Aohai Radiotherapy Treatment and Diagnosis Research Center





			
	Party A:	 	Beijing Our Medical Equipment Development Company






			
	Address:	 	No. 3 Qianmen East Avenue, Beijing (Room 408, Office Building, Capital Hotel)






			
	Party B:	 	Shenzhen Aohua Medical Services Co., Ltd.







			
	Address:	 	Room 2208, Dianzi Keji Building, Shennanzhonglu Road, Shenzhen






			
	Party C:	 	Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy General Hospital







			
	Address:	 	No. 6 Fucheng Road, Beijing





Upon friendly consultations, Party A, Party B and Party C have reached the following agreement in
respect of the transfer by Party A of its equity interest hereunder:




	1.	 	Party A and Party C entered into the Agreement concerning the Establishment of the Aohai
Radiotherapy Treatment and Diagnosis Research Center on 19 September, 1995, wherein are
specified their respective percentages of equity interests in the Aohai Radiotherapy Treatment
and Diagnosis Research Center (hereinafter referred to as the “Center”).
	 
	2.	 	Party A, Party B and Party C each hereby confirm the foregoing agreement and all matters set
out therein.
	 
	3.	 	In order to facilitate the management work, improve the ownership structure, and enable the
Center to achieve better operative results and procure the Parties a satisfactory future,
Party A hereby transfers for free all of its equity interest in the Center to Party B.
	 
	4.	 	Party B agrees to accept Party A’s transfer of such equity interest. Commencing from the
effective date hereof, Party B shall enjoy all of the original rights of Party A to the Center
and shall assume all of the obligations originally assumed (or to be assumed) by Party A
(including all of the rights and obligations attached to such equity interest prior to the
transfer hereunder).
	 
	5.	 	Party C agrees to the foregoing transfer.
	 
	6.	 	This Agreement shall become effective upon execution and sealing by each of Party A, Party B
and Party C. This Agreement shall be made in four originals, with one copy to be held by
each of Party A, Party B and Party C, and one copy to be submitted to the relevant authority
for filing. Each of the four copies shall have the same legal force and effect.





 









 






			
	Party A:	 	Beijing Our Medical Equipment Development Company

(Corporate seal)






			
	Representative:	 	(Signature)






			
	Part B:	 	Shenzhen Aohua Medical Services Co.,Ltd.

(Corporate seal)





Representative: (Signature)





			
	Party C:	 	Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy General Hospital

(Corporate seal)





Representative: (Signature)




Date: 5 May, 1997
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MOAMMAR BADAWI DOKHAN, et al.,

Petitioners,

v. Civil Action No. 08-0987 (JDB)

GEORGE W. BUSH, et al.,

 Respondents.

ORDER

Upon consideration of [106] petitioner's motion to compel production of the declassified

factual return, [110] respondents' opposition thereto, and the entire record herein, it is hereby

ORDERED that respondents shall produce the declassified return to petitioner's counsel by not

later than April 22, 2009. Although the return is not due until April 24, 2009 under § I.A of the

Case Management Order, respondents recognize that petitioner's counsel, Kristine Huskey, must

be able to discuss the declassified return with petitioner when Ms. Huskey meets with him on

April 23, 2009. But respondents' proposal -- that the declassified return be produced on the date

of her meeting -- does little to abate that concern because it does not provide Ms. Huskey with an

opportunity to review the declassified return before meeting with petitioner. Production on April

22, 2009, however, will give Ms. Huskey that opportunity without overly burdening respondents. 

In producing the declassified return, respondents shall coordinate with Ms. Huskey to take into

account her travel schedule to Guantanamo Bay.

SO ORDERED.

 /s/ John D. Bates 

 JOHN D. BATES

 United States District Judge

Date: April 15, 2009
| (1) |   | Registration      Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-41532) pertaining to the 2000 Equity Incentive      Plan and to the 2000 Non-Employee Directors’ Stock Option Plan of Lexicon      Pharmaceuticals, Inc., |
|-----|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2) |   | Registration      Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-66380) pertaining to the Coelacanth      Corporation 1999 Stock Option Plan of Lexicon Pharmaceuticals,      Inc.,                                              |
| (3) |   | Registration      Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-67294) of Lexicon Pharmaceuticals,      Inc.,                                                                                                                   |
| (4) |   | Registration      Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-108855) of Lexicon Pharmaceuticals,      Inc.,                                                                                                                  |
| (5) |   | Registration      Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-111821) of Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,      and                                                                                                              |
| (6) |   | Registration      Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-144933) of Lexicon Pharmaceuticals,      Inc.;                                                                                                                  |

|   | /s/      ERNST & YOUNG LLP |
|--------|--------------------------------|
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.2


                        Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 89411) pertaining to the Multex.com, Inc. 1999 Stock Option Plan, the
Market Guide Inc. 1995 Key Employee Incentive Plan and 1995 Independent
Director's Stock incentive Plan Special Option Grants to Messrs. Byramji and
Case of our report dated May 18, 1998, except for Notes C and J, as which the
date is April 27, 1999, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
and schedule of Market Guide Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1997 included
in the Annual Report (Form 10K) of Multex.com, Inc. for the year ended December
31, 1999.

                                /S/ Zerbo, McKiernan & Zambito, LLC

Fairfield, New Jersey
March 29, 1999
EXHIBIT 32.1








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350)





Pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63
of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of FTS Group, Inc., aNevadacorporation (the “Company”), does
hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:





The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2007 (the “Form 10-K”) of the Company fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.





Date:
      April 15, 2008
            
            By:
            /s/
      Scott GallagherScott
      GallagherChief
      Executive Officer, Interim Chief Financial Officer and Principal
      Accounting Officer