alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Williams *vs.*Hill.

NEW-YORK,

May, 1838.

Slander lies for charging an unmarried female with incontinence, where special damage is alleged and proved.

Evidence that the plaintiff has been deprived of the hospitality of her friends is sufficient to support the allegation of special damage.

This was an action of *slander,*tried at the New-York circuit in May, 1835, before the Hon. Ogden Edwards, one of the 'circuit judges.

The plaintiff is an *unmarried female.*The charge against her was that she had criminal connection with a person of the other sex. She alleged as *special damage,*that certain individuals, named in the declaration, refused to hold intercourse and discourse with her, and to receive her into their houses, as before the speaking of the slanderous words they had been accustomed to do. On the trial, an uncle of the plaintiff testified that the plaintiff had been in the habit of visiting his family, consisting of his wife and daughters, and was considered a welcome visitor;‘that after he heard the charges made against her by the defendant, he told her she must not come to his house any more till she cleared up her character; that she then left and had not been at his house since on a visit; that she called a few times afterwards on errands, when he requested her to keep away. On his cross-examination he testified that he never believed the report against the plaintiff. The defendant moved for a nonsuit on the ground that there was no evidence of *special*damage; but the judge refused to grant a nonsuit, and submitted the case to the jury, *306who found a verdict for the plaintiff with $2000 damages. The defendant applied for a new trial.

K. Miller 4~ S. Stevens, for the defendant.

*M. T. Reynolds,*for the plaintiff.

*By the Court,*

Cowen, J.

The words were proved importing direct criminal connection between the plaintiff and a man who visited her in the character of a suitor. The plaintiff’s connections forbade her visits to their houses ; she appears to have been thus ejected from the house of her uncle, John Williams, while there on a visit, by reason of the report, not to mention other like instances. *Moore*v. *Meagher,*1 Taunt. 39, in the exchequer chamber, is in point. The very decision was that the plaintiff being cut off from the hospitality of her friends, is such legal damage as will sustain an action on the charge of incontinency. And see Starkie on slander, 266.

The motion must be denied.
Exhibit
4.6

    

    


    


    
      Power of
Attorney

    

    


    
       
September
9, 2008

    

    


     

    
      	Appointee: 	
              NHN Games
      Co., Ltd.

              Address:
      6th Fl., 102-Dong I-Park Bundang Bldg., Jeongja-dong,
      Bundang-gu,

              Seongnam-si,
      Gyeonggi-do, Korea
      
                Business
      Registration Number:
220-86-93752

              

            


    

     

    


    In
accordance with Article 86-6 of the Presidential Decree to the Securities and
Exchange Act of Korea, the undersigned hereby appoints the Appointee as the
attorney-in-fact, with full authority to exercise any power or act on behalf of
the undersigned with respect to the matters arising in connection with Section
200-2 of the Securities and Exchange Act of Korea, and agrees to report as a
co-owner when filing significant equity ownership reports.

    


     

    
      	Authorizer:	
              /s/ Nam
      Ju Kim

              Address:
      Daelim Acrotel Building 6th Fl, 467-6 Dogok-Dong
      
                Kangnam-Gu,
      Seoul,Korea 135-971
§ 91.1050 Employment of former FAA employees. ( a ) Except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, no fractional owner or fractional ownership program manager may knowingly employ or make a contractual arrangement which permits an individual to act as an agent or representative of the fractional owner or fractional ownership program manager in any matter before the Federal Aviation Administration if the individual, in the preceding 2 years— ( 1 ) Served as, or was directly responsible for the oversight of, a Flight Standards Service aviation safety inspector; and
( 2 ) Had direct responsibility to inspect, or oversee the inspection of, the operations of the fractional owner or fractional ownership program manager.
( b ) For the purpose of this section, an individual shall be considered to be acting as an agent or representative of a fractional owner or fractional ownership program manager in a matter before the agency if the individual makes any written or oral communication on behalf of the fractional owner or fractional ownership program manager to the agency (or any of its officers or employees) in connection with a particular matter, whether or not involving a specific party and without regard to whether the individual has participated in, or had responsibility for, the particular matter while serving as a Flight Standards Service aviation safety inspector.
( c ) The provisions of this section do not prohibit a fractional owner or fractional ownership program manager from knowingly employing or making a contractual arrangement which permits an individual to act as an agent or representative of the fractional owner or fractional ownership program manager in any matter before the Federal Aviation Administration if the individual was employed by the fractional owner or fractional ownership program manager before October 21, 2011.
[Doc. No. FAA-2008-1154, 76 FR 52235, Aug. 22, 2011]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0411

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

CATHIE WARREN

a/k/a CATHIE ODEGAARD,

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 October 28, 2022, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 21 2022

09/21/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0411
Exhibit 21


Subsidiaries of Cobalt


Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wisconsin - a Wisconsin stock insurance
 corporation
   Government Health Systems, LLC - a Wisconsin limited liability company
     United Government Services, LLC - a Wisconsin limited liability company
     Trust Solutions, LLC - a Wisconsin limited liability company
   Compcare Health Services Insurance Corporation - a Wisconsin stock insurance
    corporation
     CC Holdings, LLC - a Wisconsin limited liability company
       Meridian Resource Company, LLC - a Wisconsin limited liability company
       United Wisconsin Proservices, Inc. - a Wisconsin corporation
       Comprehensive Receivables Group, Inc. - a Michigan corporation
         Michigan Healthcare Collections, Inc. - a Michigan corporation
     Family Health Systems, Inc. - a Wisconsin for-profit stock corporation
     United Wisconsin Insurance Company - a Wisconsin stock insurance
      corporation
   Claim Management Services Inc. - a Wisconsin corporation

United Heartland Life Insurance Company - a Wisconsin stock life insurance
 company

Meridian Marketing Services, Inc. - a Wisconsin corporation

Valley Health Plan, Inc. - a Wisconsin stock insurance corporation

HMO-W, Incorporated - a Wisconsin corporation
   Unity Health Plans Insurance Corporation - a Wisconsin corporation
   Hometown Insurance Services, Inc. - a Wisconsin corporation
§ 1910.22 General requirements. ( a ) *Surface conditions.* The employer must ensure: ( 1 ) All places of employment, passageways, storerooms, service rooms, and walking-working surfaces are kept in a clean, orderly, and sanitary condition.
( 2 ) The floor of each workroom is maintained in a clean and, to the extent feasible, in a dry condition. When wet processes are used, drainage must be maintained and, to the extent feasible, dry standing places, such as false floors, platforms, and mats must be provided.
( 3 ) Walking-working surfaces are maintained free of hazards such as sharp or protruding objects, loose boards, corrosion, leaks, spills, snow, and ice.
( b ) *Loads.* The employer must ensure that each walking-working surface can support the maximum intended load for that surface.
( c ) *Access and egress.* The employer must provide, and ensure each employee uses, a safe means of access and egress to and from walking-working surfaces.
( d ) *Inspection, maintenance, and repair.* The employer must ensure: ( 1 ) Walking-working surfaces are inspected, regularly and as necessary, and maintained in a safe condition;
( 2 ) Hazardous conditions on walking-working surfaces are corrected or repaired before an employee uses the walking-working surface again. If the correction or repair cannot be made immediately, the hazard must be guarded to prevent employees from using the walking-working surface until the hazard is corrected or repaired; and
( 3 ) When any correction or repair involves the structural integrity of the walking-working surface, a qualified person performs or supervises the correction or repair.
#### CHESTER PARK CO v SCHULTE

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21196.

Decided Mar 27, 1929

Syllabus by

MARSHALL, CJ.

TRIAL

(590 V2) In an action for unliquidated damages neither the trial court nor any *222reveiwing court has the power to reduce the verdict of a jury or to render judgment for a lesser amount without the consent of the party in whose favor the verdict was rendered to such reduction.

If a trial court in an action for un-, liquidated damages finds that the verdict is excessive and that it was rendered under the influence of passion or prejudice, it has no alternative except to set it aside and grant a new trial.

If a verdict in an action for unliquidated damages, is, in the opinion of the trial court, excessive but not appearing to be influenced by passion or prejudice, the court may with the assent of plaintiff reduce the verdict by remittitur to any amount warranted by’the evidence.

Neither the trial court nor any reviewing court has power or authority to reduce a verdict on any grounds without the assent of the prevailing party, unless the undisputed testimony shows an error in mathematical calculation.

The court of appeals has the same unlimited power and control of verdicts and judgments as the trial court and may weigh the evidence and exercise an independent judgment upon questions of excessive damages and when no passion or prejudice is apparent may modify and affirm the judgment by ordering a remittitur with the consent of the prevailing party.

If the court of appeals in an error proceeding in an action for unliquidated damages finds that the verdict was rendered under the influence of passion or prejudice it has, no alternative except to reverse and remand for a new trial. (Schendel v Bradford, Admr., 106 Ohio St., 387, approved and followed.)

Jones, Day and Allen, JJ, concur. Kinkade, Robinson and Matthias, JJ, dissent.
[No. 27949-5-II.

Division Two.

November 22, 2002.]

#### Edwin D. Uselmann, et al., *Appellants,*v. Clark County, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clark County, No. 00-2-03950-0, Diane M. Woolard, J., entered October 2, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Houghton, J., concurred in by Morgan and Bridgewater, JJ.
#### § 91.301 [Reserved]
<PAGE>




                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


         KMART CORPORATION
         SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

         In connection with this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Kmart Corporation
for the fiscal year ended January 29, 2003, I, Albert A. Koch, Chief Financial
Officer of Kmart Corporation, hereby 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. this Form 10-K 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 this Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Kmart
Corporation.


         Date: March 24, 2003

/s/ Albert A. Koch
------------------------
Albert A. Koch
Chief Financial Officer
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463 as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meetings:

*Name:*                         Special Emphasis Panels in Materials Research (1203).                    

*Dates/Time:*                         14 February, 18 February, 21-22 February 25 February 2000; 8:00 am-5:00 pm.                    

*Place:*                         National Science Foundation; 4201 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, Va; Room 1060.                    

*Type of Meetings:*                         Closed.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dr. Liselotte J. Schioler, Program Director, Ceramics Program, Division of Materials Research, Room 1065, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone (703) 306-1836.                    

*Minutes:*                         May be obtained from the contact person listed above.                    

*Purpose of Meetings:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.                    

*Agenda:*                         Review and evaluate proposals as part of the selection process to determine finalists considered for Ceramic Program awards.                    

*Reason for Closing:*                         The activity being reviewed includes information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information, financial data such as salaries, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the activity. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552 b(c) (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

Dated: January 13, 2000.

Karen J. York,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-1237 Filed 1-18-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
EXHIBIT
32.1





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 Centracan Incorporated, a Florida
corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), Jerome Goubeaux, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 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.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company, and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.








/s/ Jerome GoubeauxJerome
      GoubeauxChief
      Executive OfficerNovember
      19, 2009
# EUR-Lex - 31998R2580 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31998R2580

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 2580/98 of 30 November 1998 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 establishing an agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds **

*
Official Journal L 322 , 01/12/1998 P. 0031 - 0032 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2580/98 of 30 November 1998 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 establishing an agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in poultrymeat (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2916/95 (2), and in particular Article 8(12) thereof,

Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2512/98 (4), establishes an agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds based on the Combined Nomenclature;

Whereas presentations other than 70 % chickens and 65 % chickens have appeared on the market; whereas they should be included in the refund nomenclature with a view to the granting of refunds; whereas that nomenclature should accordingly be amended;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Poultrymeat and Eggs,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In Section 7 of the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87, the following particulars relating to product code 0207 12 90 9990 are inserted before CN code ex 0207 14:

>TABLE>

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 30 November 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 282, 1. 11. 1975, p. 77.

(2) OJ L 305, 29. 12. 1995, p. 49.

(3) OJ L 366, 24. 12. 1987, p. 1.

(4) OJ L 313, 21. 11. 1998, p. 15.
#### § 1620.24 Time unit for determining violations.

In applying the various tests of equality to the requirements for the performance of particular jobs, it is necessary to scrutinize each job as a whole and to look at the characteristics of the jobs being compared over a full work cycle. For the purpose of such a comparison, the appropriate work cycle to be determined would be that performed by members of the lower paid sex and a comparison then made with job duties performed by members of the higher paid sex during a similar work cycle. The appropriate work cycle will be determined by an examination of the facts of each situation. For example, where men and women custodial workers in a school system perform equal work during the academic year, but the men perform additional duties in the summer months, the appropriate work cycle for EPA purposes would be the academic year. In that instance, the additional summer duties would not preclude the application of the equal pay standard or justify the higher wage rate for men for the period when the work was equal.
#### MOSBY v STATE

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 10,138.

Decided Oct. 14, 1929

Thomas M. Frey and L. J. Pridgeon, both of Cleveland, for Mosby.

Carl Shuler, Cleveland, for State.

*645VICKERY, PJ.

We think the evidence in this case is conclusive that this woman was an occupant of this- place and used the rooms that she .occupied for the purpose of prostitution and she was so engaged when the officers entered the house and arrested her.

One of the errors complained of in this case is that there was “no evidence except the confession to prove the corpus delicti.” We are quite familiar with the rule that corpus delicti cannot be- proven by the confession of. the accused alone, but we are also quite familiar with the rule that it is not necessary to conclusively prove the corpus delicti by other evidence, excluding the confession: If there is corroborative evidence which with the confession proves the corpus delicti, it is sufficient; in other words, it is ¡not erroneous to supplement the corroborative proof by the confession to prove the corpus delicti. In this case we think there is ,an abundance of corroborative proof.. The attitude of this woman, her relation with the visitor and all the circumstances tend to corroborate the officer’s testimony and her confession.

We think the evidence warrants the judgment of the court below and we do not see any error in the record that would warrant us in disturbing, the judgment of the court. It will, therefore, be affirmed.

Sullivan and Levine. JJ, concur.
#### § 1601.27 Civil actions by the Commission.

The Commission may bring a civil action against any respondent named in a charge not a government, governmental agency or political subdivision, after thirty (30) days from the date of the filing of a charge with the Commission unless a conciliation agreement acceptable to the Commission has been secured: *Provided, however,* That the Commission may seek preliminary or temporary relief pursuant to section 706(f)(2) of title VII, according to the procedures set forth in § 1601.23 of this part, at any time.
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

**Certification**

 

The undersigned officer ofCapital Crossing Preferred Corporation (the “Company”) hereby certifies thatthe Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period endedMarch 31, 2003 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.  This certification is providedsolely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

 

 
| Date: May  13, 2003 | By:    | /s/ Edward  F. Mehm                       |   |
|---------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------|--------|
|                |   | Edward F.  Mehm                           |   |
|                |   | *Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)* |   |
|                     |        |                                           |        |  |

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

BRENTT SHERWOOD, 

Appellant

 v.

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS; JOHN E. WETZEL; 

BRUCE BEEMER; ROBERT GILMORE; 

KAREN PATTERSON; TIFFANY 

PAULEY; JOAN KENNEDY; J. CARTER; 

THERON R. PEREZ; DORINA VARNER; 

KERI MOORE; JUSTIN 

DUNKELBERGER; JAMIE SALESKI; 

SARAH SNYDER; TRACY SHAWLEY; 

CRYSTAL GREENAWALT; LESLIE 

WYNN; MINDY ANDREETTI; JOHN/JANE 

DOE (1-99), 

Appellees

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 61 MAP 2020

Notice of Appeal from the Order of 

Commonwealth Court dated 9/9/2020 at 

No. 767 MD 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 4th day of January, 2021, the Notice of Appeal is QUASHED,

without prejudice to Appellant’s ability to raise the claims therein on appeal from a final 

order of the Commonwealth Court. See United States Orgs. for Bank. Alts., Inc. v. Dep't 

of Banking, 611 Pa. 370, 26 A.3d 474 (Pa. 2011).