alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

July 21, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

128715 Michael F. Cavanagh 128283 Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. JOHN R. JACOBS, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices v SC: 128715 COA: 258271 Oakland CC: 91-405664-NO TECHNIDISC, INC., and PRODUCER’S COLOR SERVICES, INC., Defendants-Appellees, and

MICHIGAN MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY n/k/a AMERISURE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Intervenor-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

MARCIA VAN TIL, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 128283 COA: 250539 Ottawa CC: 02-042717-NO ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, supplemental brie fs filed by the parties pursuant to the order of May 12, 2006 are considered, a nd IT IS ORDERED that these cases be
resubmitted without further br iefing or oral argument.

W EAVER , J., dissents and joins the statement of K ELLY , J.

K ELLY , J., dissents and states as follows:

Because I see no need to de lay ruling on these cases until next term, I must dissent
from the order. The issues in these two cases were fully briefed and argued before this_______________________________________ __ 2

Court in May 2006. We later asked for ad ditional briefing on the likely practical consequences should we overrule Sewell v Clearing Machine Corp , 419 Mich 56 (1984).

The parties and the amici cu riae dutifully and quickly filed supplemental briefs.
The court clerk received the last of them on J une 23, 2006. Therefor e, we have had three weeks to consider all the parties’ latest fili ngs. This has provided ample time to weigh the implications of overruling Sewell

.

Those favoring a delay in deciding these cases offer no rationale for it. Because
over two weeks remain in our term, and because we have had the parties’ briefs for weeks, we should decide the cases now. These appeals were br ought to us over 15 months ago. The parties deserve a decision on them sooner, not later.

t0718 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 21, 2006

Clerk
Exhibit 23
The Partners
DUKE REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration
statements (No. 33-61361 and No. 333-04695) on Form S-3 of
Duke Realty Investments, Inc. and Duke Realty Limited
Partnership of our report dated January 29, 1997, relating
to the consolidated balance sheets of Duke Realty Limited
Partnership and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and
1995, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
partners' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in
the three-year period ended December 31, 1996, and the
related schedule, which report appears in the December 31,
1996 annual report on Form 10-K of Duke Realty Limited
Partnership.


/s/   KPMG Peat Marwick, LLP
Indianapolis, Indiana
March 12, 1997
EXHIBIT 23.2


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-53507,  333-95577 and 333-90606) and on Form S-8
(No.   333-90035  and   333-36359)  of   Silverstar   Holdings,   Ltd  (formerly
Leisureplanet  Holdings, Ltd) of our report dated September 6, 2002, relating to
the  consolidated  financial  statements  for the years  ended June 30, 2002 and
2001, which appears in this Form 10-K.

                            RACHLIN COHEN & HOLTZ LLP

Fort Lauderdale, Florida
September 26, 2002
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Adam M. Moskowitz

Joseph M. Kaye

THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC

2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601

Coral Gables, FL 33134 

Telephone: (305) 740-1423

Service@moskowitz-law.com

David Boies

(Pro Hac Vice Application Forthcoming)

Stephen Neal Zack

Hon. Ursula Ungaro (Ret.)

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP

333 Main Street, Armonk, NY 10504

100 SE 2nd St., Suite 2800, Miami, FL 33131

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 13-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 13-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 1

Case 0:22-cv-62029-RAR Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2022 Page 1 of 11
Case 0:22-cv-62029-RAR Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2022 Page 2 of 11
Case 0:22-cv-62029-RAR Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2022 Page 3 of 11
Case 0:22-cv-62029-RAR Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2022 Page 4 of 11
Case 0:22-cv-62029-RAR Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2022 Page 5 of 11
Case 0:22-cv-62029-RAR Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2022 Page 6 of 11
Case 0:22-cv-62029-RAR Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2022 Page 7 of 11
Case 0:22-cv-62029-RAR Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2022 Page 8 of 11
Case 0:22-cv-62029-RAR Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2022 Page 9 of 11
Case 0:22-cv-62029-RAR Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2022 Page 10 of 11
Case 0:22-cv-62029-RAR Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2022 Page 11 of 11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

Case No. 22-81877-CV-MIDDLEBROOKS 

DANIEL LUGO, 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

CAPITAL VACATIONS, LLC and 

CAPITAL VACATIONS RESORT 

MANAGEMENT, LLC, 

Defendants. 

I ---------------

O RD ER CLOSING CASE 

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Parties Joint Stipulation for Dismissal 

with Prejudice, filed on January 4, 2023. (DE 25). The Court congratulates the Parties on their 

amicable resolution of this matter and notes that pursuant to Anago Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz, 

LLC, 677 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2012), the Parties' Stipulation is self-executing and no Order of 

the Court is required to dismiss this action. Accordingly, it is hereby 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this CASE and 

DENY all pending motions AS MOOT. 

D ALD M. MIDDLEBROOKS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Copies to: Counsel of Record 

Case 9:22-cv-81877-DMM Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/09/2023 Page 1 of 1
§ 102-192.95 Why does GSA require annual mail management reports? GSA requires annual agency mail management reports to— ( a ) Ensure that Federal agencies have the policies, procedures, and data to manage their mail operations efficiently and effectively;
( b ) Ensure that appropriate security measures are in place; and
( c ) Allow GSA to fulfill its responsibilities under the Federal Records Act, especially with regard to sharing best practices, information on training, and promulgating standards, procedures, and guidelines.
#### § 102-117.140 What is cargo preference?

Cargo preference is the statutory requirement that all, or a portion of all, U.S. Government owned, procured, furnished, or financed ocean-borne cargo that moves internationally be transported on U.S. flag vessels.

[87 FR 32322, May 31, 2022]
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULES 13a-14 AND 15d-14
OF THE 1934 SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
   
  
 
  
  (a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; and(b)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
 
 
 
 Date:   September 16, 2005
    /s/ Michael R. RodriguezMichael R. RodriguezSenior Vice President, Finance and
Chief Financial Officer
(principal accounting officer)
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 117 (Friday, June 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 37805]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15226]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Civil and Mechanical Systems; Notice of 
Meetings

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meetings of the Special Emphasis Panel in Civil and 
Mechanical Systems (1205):

    Date and Time: July 6-7, 2000, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Place: NSF, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 530, Arlington, Virginia 
22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Alison Flatau, Program Director, Dynamic 
Systems and Control, Sensor Technologies for Civil and Mechanical 
Systems, Room 545, (703) 306-1361.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate nominations for the FY'00 Sensor 
Technologies for Civil and Mechanical Systems Review Panel proposals 
as part of the selection process for awards.

    Date and Time: July 10, 2000, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Place: NSF 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 530, Arlington, Virginia 
22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Alison Flatau, Program Director, Dynamic 
Systems and Control, Sensor Technologies for Civil and Mechanical 
Systems, Room 545, (703) 306-1361.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate nominations for the FY'00 Dynamic 
Systems and Control Review Panel as part of the selection process 
for awards.

    Date and Time: July 14, 2000, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Place: NSF, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 530, Arlington, Virginia 
22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Jorn Larsen-Basse, Program Director, Surface 
Engineering and Materials Design, Division of Civil and Mechanical 
Systems, Room 545, (703) 306-1361.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate nominations for the FY'00 
Mechanics and Structures of Materials and Surface Engineering and 
Material Design Review Panel as part of the selection process for 
awards.

    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Reason For Closings: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. 
These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Note: Closed portions are proper under Sunshine Act exemptions 
cited. The CMO's signature on this Notice is the required 
determination.


    Dated: June 12, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-15226 Filed 6-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 1, 2022

No. 04

- 21

- 00366

- CV

Vonda L. COLLIER

, Appellant

v.

Hayward COLLIER

, Appellee

Fro m the County Court At Law No. 10

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020CV04756

Honorable J Frank Davis , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The brief of appellant Vonda L. Collier was originally due on December 29, 2021 . To date, appellant has not filed a brief. Appellant is therefore ORDERED to file, within fifteen days of the date of this order, her brief and a written response reasonably explaining: (1) her failure to timely file a brief, and (2) why appellee Hayward Collier is not significantly injured by appellant ’ s failure to timely file a brief. If appellant fail s to timely file a brief and the written

respo nse, we will dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a); see also T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal if an appellant fails to comply with a court order).

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 1st day of February, 2022

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz
, Clerk of Court
Exhibit 32.3 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2008, (the Report) of Allied Capital Corporation (the Registrant),
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof; I, John C. Wellons, the Chief Accounting Officer of the Registrant, certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. /s/ John C. WellonsName:
    John C. WellonsDate: November 10, 2008
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

December 20, 2010 

1213 

Order 

 

December 20, 2010 

141723 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141723 

 COA: 292030 

Kent CC: 08-007986-FH 

MATTIE JAVON RICKMAN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 27, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
EXHIBIT 11.2
DUKE REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
EARNINGS TO DEBT SERVICE CALCULATIONS (in thousands)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                  DECEMBER 31,
                                                  1998
                                                  ------------
<S>                                              <C>
CONSOLIDATED NET INCOME AVAILABLE FOR
 COMMON UNITS                                    $103,112
GAIN ON PROPERTY SALES                             (1,351)
RECURRING PRINCIPAL AMORTIZATION                    7,072
INTEREST EXPENSE (EXCLUDES AMORTIZATION OF
 DEFERRED FINANCING FEES)                          58,855
                                                  -------
   EARNINGS BEFORE DEBT SERVICE                  $167,688
                                                  =======

INTEREST EXPENSE (EXCLUDES AMORTIZATION OF
 DEFERRED FINANCING FEES)                        $ 58,855
RECURRING PRINCIPAL AMORTIZATION                    7,072
                                                  -------
   TOTAL DEBT SERVICE                            $ 65,927
                                                  =======

DEBT SERVICE RATIO                                   2.54
                                                  =======
</TABLE>
Rockingham

No. 78-151

#### Patricia Folger v. Vincent Peter Corbett, M.D.

October 30, 1978

*Perkins, Holland, Donovan & Beckett,*of Exeter *(Robert B. Donovan*orally), for the plaintiff.

*Sulloway, Hollis, Godfrey & Soden,*of Concord *(Michael P. Lehman*orally), for the defendant.

Douglas, J.

The principal issue in this case is whether it is necessary for the plaintiff to produce expert testimony on the issue of informed consent. The defendant’s motion for a nonsuit was granted at the close of plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff’s exceptions to the granting of the motion and an evidentiary ruling were reserved and transferred by the Trial Court *(Cann,*J.).

*738The defendant oral surgeon had removed the plaintiff’s four wisdom teeth without complication in January 1972. Afterwards plaintiff felt a numbness on the right side of her tongue as a result of damage to her lingual nerve. At trial she called no expert witnesses, except the defendant.

Generally a doctor has a duty to inform his patient of the reasonable risks involved in an operation or treatment so that the patient can make an effective choice. *See Guarracino v. Beaudry,*118 N.H. 435, 387 A.2d 1163 (1978). The defendant in this case did not inform the patient of any risk of damage to the lingual nerve. *See generally*J. Waltz and T. Scheuneman, *Informed Consent to Therapy,*64 Nw. U.L. Rev. 628 (1970). In this State, we have long held that issues such as this are generally not within the competence of the average juror. “The problem still remains one of proper dental practice under the circumstances, and the correct solution of that problem depends upon the testimony of those who have technical knowledge on the subject.” *April v. Peront,*88 N.H. 309, 311—12, 188 A. 457, 459 (1936).

 We see no reason to disturb the rule that whether a doctor uses ordinary care must generally depend on expert testimony. See RSA 507-C:1 III, :2 (Supp. 1977). *But see Mehigan v. Sheehan,*94 N.H. 274, 51 A.2d 632 (1947). The motion for a nonsuit was properly granted.

Plaintiff also asserts error in the refusal of the trial court to admit into evidence a three-page medical journal article about lingual anesthesia during her examination of the defendant. The article was hearsay, but was properly admitted by the trial court for the limited purpose of testing the credibility of an expert witness. *Ordway v. Haynes,*50 N.H. 159, 165 (1870); *Laird v. Boston & Maine R.R.,*80 N.H. 377, 117 A. 591 (1922). We find no error.

*Exceptions overruled.*

All concurred.
In the 

United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit 

USCA11 Case: 22-13688     Document: 29-1     Date Filed: 12/20/2023     Page: 1 of 7 

USCA11 Case: 22-13688     Document: 29-1     Date Filed: 12/20/2023     Page: 2 of 7 

USCA11 Case: 22-13688     Document: 29-1     Date Filed: 12/20/2023     Page: 3 of 7 

USCA11 Case: 22-13688     Document: 29-1     Date Filed: 12/20/2023     Page: 4 of 7 

USCA11 Case: 22-13688     Document: 29-1     Date Filed: 12/20/2023     Page: 5 of 7 

USCA11 Case: 22-13688     Document: 29-1     Date Filed: 12/20/2023     Page: 6 of 7 

USCA11 Case: 22-13688     Document: 29-1     Date Filed: 12/20/2023     Page: 7 of 7
§ 334.770 Gulf of Mexico and St. Andrew Sound, south of East Bay, Fla., Tyndall Drone Launch Corridor, Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla.; restricted area. ( a ) *The area.* The waters of the Gulf of Mexico and St. Andrew Sound within an area described as follows, including Crooked Island: Beginning at a point on shore at latitude 30°01′30′′, longitude 85°32′30′′, thence to latitude 30°00′58′′, longitude 85°33′38′′, thence to latitude 29°56′38′′, longitude 85°33′38′′, thence to latitude 29°55′15′′, longitude 85°31′21′′, thence to a point on shore at latitude 30°00′58′′, longitude 85°31′21′′, thence northwest to the point of beginning. This area will be referred to as the “Tyndall Drone Launch Corridor.”
( b ) *The regulations.* ( 1 ) Military usage of areas is Monday through Friday between the hours of 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.
( 2 ) Vessels are allowed to enter and remain in this area provided they have operational communication equipment capable of monitoring VHF Marine frequency Channel 16, (156.80 MHz). In the event the Marine radio equipment is not installed on the vessel, CB equipment with Channel 13 (27.115 MHz) will be used as an alternate means of communications. Warnings will be broadcast by the Air Force on Channel 16 (156.80 MHz) and Channel 13 (27.115 MHz) using the following sequence: ( i ) Announcement 90 minutes prior to drone launch.
( ii ) Announcement 60 minutes prior to drone launch.
( iii ) Announcement of drone launch or drone cancelled, and the expected time of the drone launch. Upon receipt of the drone warning on either Channel 16 (156.80 MHz) or Channel 13 (27.115 MHz), vessels will take the necessary action to vacate the drone launch corridor not later than 60 minutes prior to expected drone launch.
( 3 ) Vessels are authorized direct movement without stopping through this area at any time unless warned by helicopter or patrol boat.
( 4 ) The area will be patrolled by helicopter/vessels during periods of hazardous military activity. Verbal warnings or instructions issued by these craft will be strictly adhered to.
( 5 ) The regulations in this section shall be enforced by the Commanding Officer, Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, and such agencies as he may designate.
(Sec. 7, 40 Stat. 266; 33 U.S.C. 1)
[40 FR 8949, Mar. 4, 1975; 40 FR 10988, Mar. 10, 1975. Redesignated at 50 FR 42696, Oct. 22, 1985]
Agenda

January 29, 2016

9:00

– 10:00 a.m.

1800 G Street, Conference Room 1

RMP Interagency Review

1. Third Party Audits

2. Incident Investigation/Root Cause

3. STAA /IST

4. LEPC Disclosure/Public Meetings

5. Public Disclosure