alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### KNEPPER v BUNK et

Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist, Lucas Co

No 2275.

Decided Feb. 3, 1930

Powell & Starritt, Toledo^ for Knepper. F. J. Szumigala, Toledo, for Bunk, et.

*246LLOYD, J.

Mr. Knepper testified, and it is undisputed, that the only written contract entered into by any' of the parties was that above quoted and that no other written contract with defendants had been made by him, and it will be observed that his petition so alleges. The evidence contained in the bill of exceptions shows that the case was tried on the theory that plaintiff w,as entitled to a verdict unless proof of one or the other of the two affirmative defenses pleaded in the answer of defendants precluded a recovery and the briefs of counsel also proceed on this theory.

The written contract pleaded in the petition and hereinbefore quoted was apparently by oversight not formally offered in evidence, but since it was produced at the trial .and witnesses were examined in relation to it without objection as to its admissability, the court was justified in regarding it as evidence.

Bevington vs. State, 2 Ohio St., 161.

After examining the record, this court concludes that the judgment of the court of common pleas is correct for the reason that the written agreement pleaded and proved is not in any sense such an agreement or memorandum in writing as will permit a recovery by plaintiff on the claim made by him in his petition. It does not purport to be a contract between Knepper and the Bunks, nor between Knepper and the Boldts. It is apparently written on a letterhead of plaintiff, but his name is nowhere mentioned in the contract, except ,as a witness, nor does it state to whom or for what the “5% commission” is to be paid. Assuming that there was an existing contract between plaintiff and defendants, as plaintiff claims, its character, conditions and purposes were ascertainable only by resort to oral evidence. As to whether the commission was based upon the sale price of the property owned by one or both of the parties, or was to be paid when a purchaser was procured or when the exchange of properties or a sale was consummated, the written contract relied upon is silent, and only by inference or speculation can one deduce therefrom what, if any, interest plaintiff had therein.

Section 8621, GC» provides that

(Here follows quotation)

Clearly the writing in question does not fulfil the requirements of the foregoing section.

> Kling, Admr. vs. Bordner, 65 Ohio St., 86, 99;

> Laudt Realty Co. vs. Parchman, 29 O. C. A., 63; 7 Ohio App., 164;

> Foldenauer vs. Leibold, 28 O. L. R., 147;

> Grafton vs. Cummings, 99 U. S., 100.

The judgment of the court of common pleas is therefore affirmed.

Williams and Richards, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 99.1



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 Elgrande.com, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended February 28, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael F. Holloran, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, 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 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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/ Michael F. Holloran

Michael F. Holloran

Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer



Date:  April 14, 2003
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 23, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33324-33325]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12846]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained

[[Page 33325]]

from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than June 16, 2000.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (JoAnne F. Lewellen, 
Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 
55480-0291:
    1. Dakota Western Bankshares, Inc. Bowman, North Dakota; to acquire 
100 percent of the voting shares of West River Holding Company, Inc., 
Hettinger, North Dakota, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares 
of West River State Bank, Hettinger, North Dakota.

    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (D. Michael Manies, 
Assistant Vice President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 
64198-0001:
    1. Central Financial Corporation, Hutchinson, Kansas; to acquire 
18.94 percent of the voting shares of Premier Bancshares, Inc., 
Jefferson City, Missouri, and thereby indirectly acquire Premier Bank, 
Jefferson City, Missouri.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 17, 2000.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 00-12846 Filed 5-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
#### In the Matter of Jeremiah R. and Others, Children Alleged to be Neglected. Rita R. et al., Appellants; Little Flower Children’s Services et al., Respondents.

[698 NYS2d 556]

—In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect, the mother and the father separately appeal from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County (Rivera, J.), dated November 25, 1997, which, after a hearing, terminated their parental rights to their children Jeremiah, Shamale, and Elijah and transferred guardianship and custody of the children to the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York and Little Flower Children’s Services for the purpose of adoption.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In this proceeding to terminate parental rights based on permanent neglect, the petitioner agency established by clear and *554convincing evidence that it exercised diligent efforts to strengthen the relationship between the parents and the subject children *(see, Matter of Star Leslie*W., 63 NY2d 136, 140; *Matter of Sheila G.,*61 NY2d 368), but that the parents failed to adequately plan for the children’s future *(see,*Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a], [f]; *Matter of Gregory B.,*74 NY2d 77; *Matter of Alicia Shante H.,*245 AD2d 509).

The paramount concern at a dispositional hearing is the best interests of the child *(see, Matter of Star Leslie*W., 63 NY2d 136, 147, supra; *Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. of City of N. Y. v Leona W.,*192 AD2d 602, 603). Here, there is ample evidence that the best interests of the subject children would be served by freeing them for adoption by the foster parent and not subjecting them to the potential harm that could result from their being returned to their parents *(see, Matter of Sylvia Esther O.,*253 AD2d 465). Santucci, J. P., Sullivan, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CELIA ELICINIA BARRIENTOS,

Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 15-70016

Agency No. A070-639-600

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 14, 2016** 

Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Celia Elicinia Barrientos, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an

immigration judge’s order denying her motion to reopen deportation proceedings. 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the

FILED

DEC 19 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
denial of a motion to reopen. Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir.

2011). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Barrientos’ motion to

reopen as untimely, where Barrientos filed the motion over sixteen years after her

final order of deportation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and she has not

demonstrated the due diligence necessary to warrant equitable tolling of the filing

deadline, see Avagyan at 679 (equitable tolling is available to an alien who is

prevented from filing a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud, or error, as long

as the alien exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances).

In light of our disposition, we do not reach Barrientos’ remaining

contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 15-70016
**EXHIBIT
      32**


**STATEMENT
      FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Capitol Federal Financial (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007, as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), we, John B. Dicus, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Kent
      G. Townsend, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify,
      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
                as of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial statements
                included in such Report.














Date:   May
      11, 2007  
          
    
                  
 By: /s/
      John B.
      Dicus


John B. Dicus, President and


Chief Executive Officer











Date:   May
      11, 2007          
              
            
By: /s/
      Kent G.
      Townsend


Kent G. Townsend, Executive Vice President,


Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
(81 South. 134)

#### HOULTON v. CITY OF MONTGOMERY.

(3 Div. 341.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Feb. 11, 1919.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Leon McCord, Judge.

T. J. Houlton was convicted of violating an ordinance of the City of Montgomery, and appeals.

Affirmed.

Brassell & Brassell, of Montgomery, for appellant.

L. A. Sanderson, of Montgomery, for appellee.

BROWN, P. J.

There are no assignments of error on the record, and nothing presented for review. Craig v. City of Birmingham, 14 Ala. App. 630, 71 South. 983.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 99 (Monday, May 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32085-32086]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12715]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 516]


South Carolina Electric and Gas Co.; Notice of Public Information 
Meetings on the Saluda Project No. 516

May 16, 2000.
    South Carolina Electric & Gas Company's Saluda Project's license 
expires in August 2007. The hydropower project and its reservoir, Lake 
Murray, are located in Saluda, Lexington, Newberry and Richland 
Counties, South Carolina. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(Commission) will hold two public information meetings to familiarize 
the public with the Commission's hydropower licensing program. 
Commission staff will give an overview of the Commission and its 
licensing procedures. There will be an opportunity for questions and 
answers.
    Interested persons are invited to attend either or both meetings 
scheduled as follows:

Tuesday, June 20, 2000

2 to 4 p.m. (afternoon session)

6:30 to 8:30 p.m. (evening session)

    Auditorium, Irmo Elementary School, 7401 Gibbes Street, Irmo, SC 
29063; (803) 732-8278.
    Please direct any questions regarding these meetings to either Jack 
Hannula, Commission Licensing Team Leader, 888 First Street NE, 
Washington, DC

[[Page 32086]]

20426; (202) 219-0116; or Charlie Compton, Lexington County Planning 
and Development, (803) 359-8121.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-12715 Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 99 (Monday, May 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 32083]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12718]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-277-000]


Canyon Creek Compression Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

May 16, 2000.
    Take notice that on May 10, 2000, Canyon Creek Compression Company 
(Canyon) tendered for filing to be a part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth 
Revised Volume No.1, the tariff sheets listed on Appendix A to the 
filing, to be effective June 1, 2000.
    Canyon states that these tariff sheets are being filed in 
compliance with the Commission's Order No. 587-G issued April 16, 1998 
in Docket No. RM96-1-008, which order relates to interstate pipelines' 
business transactions using Internet communication as well as to 
various issues relating to the standardization of these business 
communications using the Internet.
    Canyon requested any waivers which may be required for the tendered 
tariff sheets to become effective June 1, 2000, consistent with Order 
Nos. 587-G and 587-I.
    Canyon states that copies of the filing have been mailed to its 
customers, interested state commissions and all parties set out the 
Commission's official service list in Docket No. RM96-1.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for pubic inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-12718 Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
§ 2582.8478-2 Amount of the bond. ( a ) *General.* Under the authority of section 8478(b)(1) of the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986 (FERSA), the amount of a bond for each person, group or class to be bonded shall not be less than 10 percent of the amount of funds handled by such person, group or class with respect to any fiscal year of the Fund. In no case shall such bond be less than $1,000 nor more than $500,000. However, the Secretary of Labor reserves the authority under section 8478(b)(1) of FERSA to prescribe an amount in excess of $500,000, after due notice and opportunity for hearing to all interested parties, and other consideration of the record.
( b ) *Effectiveness.* This section shall remain in effect until it is amended or withdrawn in accordance with section 8478(b)(1) of FERSA, but in no event shall this section remain in effect beyond December 31, 1989.
[52 FR 35866, Sept. 23, 1987, as amended at 54 FR 53609, Dec. 29, 1989]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF COMMUNITY CAPITAL BANCSHARES, INC. FOR THE NINE MONTHS
ENDED SEPTEMBER 1, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-01-1999
<CASH>                                       1,300,500
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          61,918
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             4,105,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  7,469,931
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     13,416,981
<ALLOWANCE>                                    210,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              27,666,731
<DEPOSITS>                                  18,789,613
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            109,521
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,050,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,817,597
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              27,666,731
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                297,333
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               97,135
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               169,767
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               564,235
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             191,067
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             202,496
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          361,739
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  210,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                802,572
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (628,602)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                    (628,602)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (628,602)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.60)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.60)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              210,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           210,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32




  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(B) AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this
Quarterly  Report  on  Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 fully
complies  with  the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange  Act  of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in such report
fairly  presents,  in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of  operations  of  the  Company.


This  13th  day  of  November,  2003.



                                               /s/ Charles M. Jones, III
                                               -----------------------------
                                               Charles M. Jones, III
                                               Chief Executive Officer


                                               /s/ David J. Baranko
                                               -----------------------
                                               David J. Baranko
                                               Chief Financial Officer


                                       18
<PAGE>
NO. 07-12-00250-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B JULY 5, 2012

IN RE R. WAYNE JOHNSON, RELATOR

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator R. Wayne Johnson, proceeding pro se , has filed a petiti on seeking a writ of mandamus compelling the respondent, the Honorable Edward L. Self, Judge of the 242nd District Court of Castro County, to re scind an order dismissing a lawsuit Johnson filed in Castro County. 1 According to Johnson, Judge Self abused his discretion by dismissing the suit because mandatory venue lay in another county. We previously

denied Johnson’s mandamus relief for this same dismissal. In re Johnson, No. 07-11- 0433-CV, 2011 Tex. App. Lexis 8662 (Tex .App.--Amarillo Oct. 31, 2011, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.). We also affirmed the dismissal on Johnson’s appeal. Johnson v. Cornelius, No. 07-11-0091-CV, 2011 Tex. App. Lexis 7762 (Tex.App.--Amarillo Sept. 28, 2011, no pet.) (me m. op.). The contentions in his present

1 Johnson v. Cornelius, No. B9231-1011 (242nd Dist. C t. Castro County, Tex. Jan. 13, 2011).2 petition are variations on the same arguments he made in those proceedings. Johnson’s petition is denied.

Per Curiam