alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Lane *v.*City of Tuscaloosa.

Violating Municipal Ordinance.

(Decided August 1, 1916.

72 South. 576.)

Witnesses; Examination; Scope. — In a prosecution for violating a municipal prohibition ordinance, a question on cross examination of a defend-at’s witness, if it were not a fact that the city had so many prohibition cases against Charlie Lane that you might have become confused as to which case it was stated that the money was given to Charlie Lane, and which to Ada Lane, the defendant, was proper, as eliciting an answer having a tendency to sustain the credibility of a witness for the city whom defendant was trying to impeach by that particular witness, as well as to test the credibility and accuracy of the witness, although the question might have been irrelevant.

Appeal from Tuscaloosa County Court.

Heard before Hon. Henry B. Foster..

Ada Lane was convicted of violating the prohibition ordinances of the city of Tuscaloosa, and she appeals.

Affirmed.

The question to the witness Sullivan was as follows:

Isn’t it a fact, Mr. Sullivan, that the city has had so many prohibition cases against Charley Lane that you might have become confused as to which case it was stated that the money was given to Charley, and which to Ada?

The court overruled defendant’s motion to exclude the answer.

Wright & Fite, for appellant.

Brown & Ward, for appellee.

PELHAM, P. J.

The assignments of error predicated upon the appellant’s insistence that the ordinance of the municipality offered in evidence, and for a violation of which the defendant was tried and convicted, was not a valid ordinance in force at the time of the commission of the alleged offense was disposed of in the case of *Lane v. City of Tuscaloosa,*12 Ala. App. 599, 67 South. 778, adversely to the appellant’s contention.

*29The question asked the witness Sullivan by counsel for the city on cross-examination was within the discretion of the trial court. It was proper, in eliciting an answer having a tendency to sustain the credit of the city’s witness Giles, that the defendant was seeking to impeach by this *witness.*— Holley *v. State,*105 Ala. 100, 17 South. 102. The purpose of the question was within the range of testing the accuracy of the memory of the witness, and this is permissible and in the discretion of the court, even to the extent of asking irrelevant questions *(Cox v. State,*162 Ala. 66, 50 South. 398) that would reflect on the accuracy or truth of the statement of the witness on his examination in chief. *—Savage v. State,*174 Ala. 94, 57 South. 469. We do not think the court abused its discretion or transcended the proper limits of cross-examination in allowing the question.

Other matters presented are -not insisted upon in such a way as to require *discussion.*— W. *U. Tel. Co. v. Emerson, et al.,*14 Ala. App. 247, 69 South. *335; L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Holland,*173 Ala. 675, 55 South. 1001.

Affirmed.
### Geology and ground-water resources of Uvalde and Medina Counties, Texas

By: Albert Nelson Sayre

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp678

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

This report is based on an investigation by the United States Geological Survey, the Texas State Board of Water Engineers, and the Texas State Board of Health to determine the ground-water resources of Uvalde and Medina Counties, especially in relation to irrigation, both in these counties and in the counties to the south where water is obtained for irrigation from the Carrizo sand and younger formations. This investigation was carried on between September 12, 1928, and May 25, 1930. Observations of the water levels in selected wells were made at intervals up to August 1935.

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
§ 2520.104a-1 Filing with the Secretary of Labor. ( a ) *General reporting requirements.* Part 1 of title I of the Act requires that the administrator of an employee benefit plan subject to the provisions of part 1 file with the Secretary of Labor certain reports and additional documents. Each report filed shall accurately and comprehensively detail the information required. Where a form is prescribed, the reports shall be filed on that form. The Secretary may reject any incomplete filing. Reports and documents shall be filed as specified in this part.
( b ) *Exemption for certain welfare plans.* See §§ 2520.104-20, 2520.104-21, 2520.104-22, 2520.104-24, and 2520.104-25.
( c ) *Alternative method of compliance for pension plans for certain selected employees.* See § 2520.104-23.
[42 FR 37185, July 19, 1977]
#### WALL v GLASS

Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist, Lucas Co

No 2282.

Decided Feb 17, 1930

Taber, Chittenden and Daniels, Toledo, for Wall.

Geer & Lane, Toledo, for Glass.

*207WILLIAMS, J.

There is no question but that the arrest and imprisonment of the plaintiff was unlawful. Counsel for plaintiff in error contends, however, that there is nothing to connect the defendant with the unlawful arrest. Under the law of torts any one who aids, abets, advises, encourages, promotes or instigates the commission of a tort by another, is jointly and severally liable therefor. 26 R. C. L., 766, Sec. 15.

The evidence tends to show not only that the defendant actively participated in the arrest of the plaintiff but advised and encouraged it. There was sufficient evidence to require the submission of the cause to the jury, and the trial court did not err in overruling the motion for a directed verdict in favor of the defendant.

Lloyd and Richards, JJ., concur.
#### Michael J. Higgins, Respondent, *v.*New York Florists Supply Co., Inc., Appellant.

Argued June 7, 1937;

decided July 13, 1937.

*507
      *H. H. Brown*and *E. C. Sherwood*for appellant.

*Arthur K. Wing*and *George S. Wing*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ. Taking no part: O’Brien, J.
#### § 36.440 Health and insurance benefits and services.

Subject to § 36.235(d), in providing a medical, hospital, accident, or life insurance benefit, service, policy, or plan to any of its students, a recipient shall not discriminate on the basis of sex, or provide such benefit, service, policy, or plan in a manner that would violate §§ 36.500 through 36.550 if it were provided to employees of the recipient. This section shall not prohibit a recipient from providing any benefit or service that may be used by a different proportion of students of one sex than of the other, including family planning services. However, any recipient that provides full coverage health service shall provide gynecological care.
----

----

I Comunicaciones

Comisión

----

Tipo de cambio del euro (1)

4 de agosto de 2004

(2004/C 198/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Fuente: tipo de cambio de referencia publicado por el Banco Central Europeo.

----
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

February 11, 2005

Mr. William C. Odeneal

Odeneal and Odeneal

4849 Greenville Ave., Suite 1540

Dallas, TX 75206

Mr. Patrick Thomas Mulry

Jones & Davis, L.L.P.

15851 Dallas Parkway,  Suite 1220

Addison, TX 75001

RE:Case Number:  04-0043

Court of Appeals Number:  05-02-01749-CV

Trial Court Number:  DF-99-01694-U

Style:SANDRA F. WHEELER

v.

DARRIN EDWARD GREEN

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed per curiam opinion and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  

Sincerely,

Andrew Weber, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 04-0043Page 1**
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AU GUST 24, 2018

NO. 03

- 18

- 00543

- CV

Marina Ginn, Appellant

v.

Gregory Ginn, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 425TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND BOURLAN D

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on May 2, 2018. Appellant has filed a

motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the motion, the Court agrees that the motion

should be granted. Therefore, the Court grants the motion and dismisses the appeal. Because

appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
§ 2701.3 Announcement of meetings. ( a ) *Generally.* The Commission shall publicly announce and submit to the Federal Register at least 7 days before a meeting, the time, place, subject matter of a meeting, whether it is to be open or closed, and the name and phone number of the Commission employee who will respond to requests for information about the meeting. The description of the subject matter of a meeting at which the Commission will consider adjudicatory matters, shall include the names and docket numbers of the cases to be considered. The Commission shall also contact, by phone or mail, the parties to the cases to be considered at the meeting, shall post a copy of a notice of the meeting at the Office of Public Information, shall mail notices to persons who have requested inclusion of their names on a meeting mailing list, and may issue press releases.
( b ) *Shorter notice.* If a majority of the members of the Commission or a panel of three or more Commissioners determines by a recorded vote that pressing Commission business requires that a meeting be called in less than 7 days, the announcement required by paragraph (a) of this section shall be made at the earliest practicable time.
( c ) *Changes in time, place, subject matter, and decision whether to open or close after public announcement of meeting.* If the time or place of a meeting publicly announced is changed, or an item to be considered at such a meeting is to be deleted, the change or deletion shall be publicly announced without a recorded vote at the earliest practicable time in the manner required by paragraph (a) of this section. The subject matter of a meeting publicly announced shall not be expanded and the decision to open or close such a meeting shall not be changed unless a majority of the members of the Commission or if a panel of three or more Commissioners determines by a recorded vote that agency business so requires and that no earlier announcement of the change was possible; the Commission shall publicly announce such a change and the vote of each member upon the change at the earliest practicable time.
#### FINCHER v. THE STATE.

(Decided January 18, 1917.)

Appeal from Anniston City Court.

Heard before Hon. Tho. W. Coleman, Jr.

P. F. Wharton, for appellant.

W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.

Per curiam.

Appeal dismissed by appellant.
EXHIBIT 11
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

LILLY INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
(In thousands, except per share data)

                                          Year Ended November 30
                                        1997         1996         1995    
Primary:
  Average shares outstanding           22,940        22,600       22,677  
                                                  
  Net Income                          $28,095       $18,776      $20,264  
  Net Income per common share           $1.22         $0.83        $0.89  
                                      =======       =======      =======  
                                                  
  Average shares outstanding           22,940        22,600       22,677  
  Dilutive stock options based                    
     on treasury stock method                     
     using average market                         
     price                                460           500          409  
                                      -------       -------      -------  
                                       23,400        23,100       23,086  
                                      =======       =======      =======  
                                                  
  Net Income                          $28,095       $18,776      $20,264  
  Net Income per common                           
     and common equivalent                        
     share                              $1.20         $0.81        $0.88  
                                     ========       =======      =======  
Fully diluted:                                    
  Average shares outstanding           22,940        22,600       22,677  
  Dilutive stock options based                    
     on treasury stock method                     
     using  the higher of year-end,               
     quarter-end or average market                
     price                                460           600          423  
                                     --------       -------      -------  
                                       23,400        23,200       23,100  
                                     ========       =======      =======  
                                                  
  Net Income                          $28,095       $18,776      $20,264  
  Net Income per common                           
     and common equivalent                        
     share                              $1.20         $0.81        $0.88  
                                     ========       =======      =======
#### The Nyack and Warren Gas Light Co., Resp’t, v. The Tappan Zee Hotel Co. (Limited), App’lt.

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

*Filed June 28, 1889.)*

Attachment—When vacated.

Where it appears that the answering affidavits of the defendant meet and answer a case made by a plaintiff for an attachment, and it appears, that the removal of the goods from the state was but temporary, and only while they were in transit through another state to New York for storage, the attachment should be vacated.

Appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate an attachment.

The ground of the attachment is stated to be that the defendant has assigned or disposed of its property with intent to defraud its creditors, or is about to do so.

*A. S. Tompkins,*for resp’t; *George Wilcox,*for app’lt.

Pratt, J.

It may be doubted whether the papers upon which the attachment was granted were sufficient. But if that question be decided in favor of plaintiff, it appears that the answering affidavits of the defendant meet and answer the case made by the original papers.

The person who removed the goods from Nyack to New York avers that he acted openly, showing to all inquirers the written instructions under which he acted.

It appears that if the goods were removed from the state of New York, it was but a temporary absence, while they *724were in transit through the state of New Jersey to New York for storage and safe-keeping.

The circumstance of suspicion upon which the attachment was granted having been explained, it should be vacated. But as some apparent grounds existed, which may well have given rise to alarm to creditors, it must be upon condition that no action be brought upon the undertaking. Upon that condition being complied with, order appealed from reversed, and attachment vacated. No costs.

All concur.
#### § 1919.29 Limitations on safe working loads and proof loads.

The proof loads specified by §§ 1919.27 and 1919.28 shall be adjusted as necessary to meet any pertinent limitations based on stability and/or on structural competence at particular radii. Safe working loads shall be reduced accordingly.
§ 2520.104-22 Exemption from reporting and disclosure requirements for apprenticeship and training plans. ( a ) An employee welfare benefit plan that provides exclusively apprenticeship training benefits or other training benefits or that provides exclusively apprenticeship and training benefits shall not be required to meet any requirement of part 1 of the Act, provided that the administrator of such plan: ( 1 ) Has filed with the Secretary the notice described in paragraph (b) of this section;
( 2 ) Takes steps reasonably designed to ensure that the information required to be contained in such notice is disclosed to employees of employers contributing to the plan who may be eligible to enroll in any course of study sponsored or established by the plan; and
( 3 ) Makes such notice available to such employees upon request.
( b ) The notice referred to in paragraph (a) of this section shall contain accurate information concerning: ( 1 ) The name of the plan;
( 2 ) The Employer Identification Number (EIN) of the plan sponsor;
( 3 ) The name of the plan administrator;
( 4 ) The name and location of an office or person from whom an interested individual can obtain: ( i ) A description of any existing or anticipated future course of study sponsored or established by the plan, including any prerequisites for enrolling in such course; and
( ii ) A description of the procedure by which to enroll in such course.
( c ) The notice referred to in paragraph (a) of this section shall be filed with the Secretary electronically in accordance with the instructions published by the Department.
[45 FR 15529, Mar. 11, 1980, as amended at 45 FR 27933, Apr. 25, 1980; 54 FR 8629, Mar. 1, 1989; 68 FR 16400, Apr. 3, 2003; 84 FR 27955, June 17, 2019]
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

GEORGE C. GRIMSLEY,

Appellant,

v.

J. MICHAEL BURMAN,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-1393

[November 14, 2019]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Meenu Sasser, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2018-CA-003402-

XXXX-MB.

George C. Grimsley, West Palm Beach, pro se.

John Michael Burman of Reid Burman Lebedeker Xenic, West Palm 

Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, KLINGENSMITH and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 51 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 51

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas high quality after school programs provide safe, challenging, engaging, 
        and fun learning experiences to help children and youth develop their 
        social, emotional, physical, cultural, and academic skills;
Whereas high quality after school programs support working families by ensuring 
        that the children in such families are safe and productive after the 
        regular school day ends;
Whereas high quality after school programs build stronger communities by 
        involving the Nation's students, parents, business leaders, and adult 
        volunteers in the lives of the Nation's youth, thereby promoting 
        positive relationships among children, youth, families, and adults;
Whereas high quality after school programs engage families, schools, and diverse 
        community partners in advancing the well-being of the Nation's children;
Whereas ``Lights On Afterschool!'', a national celebration of after school 
        programs held on October 18, 2007, promotes the critical importance of 
        high quality after school programs in the lives of children, their 
        families, and their communities;
Whereas more than 28,000,000 children in the United States have parents who work 
        outside the home and 14,300,000 children in the United States have no 
        place to go after school; and
Whereas many after school programs across the United States are struggling to 
        keep their doors open and their lights on: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That Congress supports the goals and ideals of ``Lights On 
Afterschool!'' a national celebration of after school programs.

            Passed the Senate October 18, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            S. CON. RES. 51

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Supporting ``Lights On Afterschool!'', a national celebration of after 
                            school programs.
```
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Results of an advanced fanstage operating over a wide range of speed and bypass ratio**
 
Parts: One | Two
 
SuDoc Number:NAS 1.15:2011-216769/PT.1 | NAS1.15:2010-216769/PT.2
Item Number:0830-D (online)
CGP systemNumber:000799160
 
March 29, 2018
```

[113th Congress Public Law 139]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 128 STAT. 1745]]

Public Law 113-139
113th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
  369 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive in Jersey City, New Jersey, as the 
 ``Judge Shirley A. Tolentino Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: July 25, 
                         2014 -  [H.R. 1376]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. JUDGE SHIRLEY A. TOLENTINO POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 369 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive in Jersey City, New Jersey, 
shall be known and designated as the ``Judge Shirley A. Tolentino Post 
Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Judge 
Shirley A. Tolentino Post Office Building''.

    Approved July 25, 2014.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 1376:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014):
            Mar. 24, considered and passed House.
            July 10, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```