alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### FRANK D. CLARK AND EDNA A. CLARK, PLAINTIFFS, v. PETER CHAISSON, DEFENDANT.

Decided March 18, 1929.

Before Justices Tbenchaed, Kalisch and Lloyd.

For the rule, *Schneider & Schneider (William T. Braun,*of counsel).

*Contra, Evans, Smith & Evans.*

Pee Cueiah.

Liability in this case was admitted. The only question mooted on this rule to show cause is the question of damages.

*270Husband and wife, in a joint action, sued to recover compensation for injuries sustained by them, respectively, resulting from a collision between the husband’s automobile, in which the wife was riding, and the automobile of the defendant. There was a verdict of $2,000 for the husband, and a verdict of $3,000 for the wife. Both of the verdicts are attacked by counsel of defendant, upon the grounds that they are excessive, contrary to the charge of the court, and contrary to law.

As to. the husband’s award for damages, there was testimony from which the jury was warranted in finding that the damage done to his automobile was between $350 and $400; that as a result of his wife’s injuries, he was required to hire a housekeeper for $15 a week for three weeks, and subsequently paid his mother-in-law $25 a week for a period of ten months in superintending and taking care of his household and attending'her daughter during her illness and incapacity to do the household work. There was testimony that he paid for doctors and hospital bills about $406, and that his expenditures, including the damage to his automobile, amounted to $1,942.75.

Qf course, the husband was also entitled to recover damages for the loss of the society of his wife, which circumstance was not referred to by the trial judge in his charge, but nevertheless, we think its omission is of no material consequence, since there is no reason why the jury could not properly have taken into consideration the fact of the loss of consortium. We think the jury, under the evidence, arrived at a just result.

As to -the injuries sustained by the female plaintiff. She suffered a fracture of the fifth rib on the left side, severe pain in the sacro-illiac joint, bruises on both knees, and on both elbows; she was bruised in and about her left eye, and sustained a nervous shock. There was testimony that she was confined to the hospital in Passaic for one week, and then removed to her home where she was confined to her bed a month and four days, and during all that time she suffered pains in her back and head continuously; that she has been compelled to wear spectacles as a result of her injuries, and has suffered from intermittent watery diarrhoea, irregular and painful *271menstruation and was incapacitated for a long time from performing her household duties. It has not, therefore, been made to appear to us that the award to her is excessive.

The rule to show cause is discharged, with costs.
#### Same *v.*Same. Same *v.*Same.

Hardin, J., not sitting in either case.
#### § 308.102 Issuance of interim binder; terms and conditions; fees.

Upon acceptance of an application, an interim binder in the form set forth in § 308.106, will be issued and there shall be deemed to be incorporated therein by references all the terms, conditions, and warranties contained in the application for war risk hull and disbursements insurance and the standard war risk hull insurance policy (set forth in § 308.107), to the same extent as if such application and policy were made a part of the binder. The binder fee (not refundable) for American vessels shall be $25 per application for vessels under 500 gross tons; $100 per application for vessels 500 gross tons or over; and $100 per barge application. The binder fee (not refundable) for foreign-flag vessels shall be $50 per application for vessels under 500 gross tons; $200 per application for vessels 500 tons or over; and $200 per barge application. All fees are payable in U.S. funds by check to order of “Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.”
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 Sanders Morris Harris Group Inc. (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 (the “Report”), as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Ben
      T.
      Morris, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





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 Company.


/s/
                BEN T. MORRISBen
                T. Morris
              Chief
                Executive OfficerMay
                10, 2007




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Sanders Morris Harris Group Inc. and will be retained by Sanders Morris Harris
      Group Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
      upon request.
#### Adelaide M. Thomson, *Appellant, v.*Patrick Cashin and others, *Respondents*.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Ingalls, J.
EXHIBIT 99.18

CONSENT OF EXPERT

Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F
(the Form 40-F) of Cameco Corporation (the Corporation) to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

I hereby consent to reference to my name and my involvement in the preparation of, or supervision of the preparation of, scientific and
technical information in the following instances:



| | (a) | under the headings Operations and Development Projects  Uranium Development Project  Cigar Lake, Mineral Reserves and Resources and
Governance  Interest of Experts in the Corporations Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2011 dated February 24, 2012 for the Cigar Lake property; and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | under the heading Mineral Reserves and Resources in Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation for the year
ended December 31, 2011 dated February 9, 2012 for the Cigar Lake property,
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(collectively the Technical
Information) in the Form 40-F, and to the inclusion and incorporation by reference of information derived from the Technical Information in the Form 40-F.

I also hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of such Technical Information in the registration statements (Nos. 333-11736, 333-6180 and 333-139165) on Form S-8 for the Cameco Corporation Stock
Option Plan, and registration statement (No. 333-139324) on Form S-8 for the Cameco Corporation Employee Share Ownership Plan.

Sincerely,



|                    |  |                                                                              
|------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ C. Scott Bishop
|Name:               |  | C. Scott Bishop, P. Eng.                                                     
|Title:              |  | Principal Mine Engineer, Cameco Technology and Innovation, Cameco Corporation
|                    | 
|Date:               |  | February 24, 2012
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2408 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2408

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 15, 2010

     Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To expand the research and awareness activities of the National 
 Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with respect to scleroderma, 
                        and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Scleroderma Research and Awareness 
Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ARTHRITIS AND MUSCULOSKELETAL AND SKIN 
              DISEASES; SCLERODERMA RESEARCH EXPANSION.

    Part B of title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 284 
et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 409K. SCLERODERMA RESEARCH.

    ``The Director of NIH may expand, intensify, and coordinate the 
activities of the National Institutes of Health with respect to 
scleroderma, with particular emphasis on the following:
            ``(1) Research focused on the etiology of scleroderma and 
        the development of new treatment options.
            ``(2) Clinical research to evaluate new treatments options.
            ``(3) Basic research on the relationship between 
        scleroderma and secondary conditions such as pulmonary 
        hypertension, gastroparesis, Raynaud's phenomenon, Sjogren's 
        Syndrome, and other diseases as determined by the Director.''.

SEC. 3. PROMOTING PUBLIC AWARENESS OF SCLERODERMA.

    Part P of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
280g et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 399V-5. PROMOTING PUBLIC AWARENESS OF SCLERODERMA.

    ``The Secretary may carry out an educational campaign to increase 
public awareness of scleroderma. Print, video, and Web-based materials 
distributed through this campaign may include--
            ``(1) basic information on scleroderma and its symptoms; 
        and
            ``(2) information on--
                    ``(A) the incidence and prevalence of scleroderma;
                    ``(B) diseases and conditions affiliated with 
                scleroderma; or
                    ``(C) the importance of early diagnosis and 
                treatment of scleroderma.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 30 
      (legislative day September 29), 2010.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
rA/1.- ~Q to-OL30

Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date Response

National Business Aircraft Association Eli Coni '-/),jotl -

Regional Airline Association Oa\'c Lotterer I.-Jj,J{J1 -

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman '4) 0'1 -

ATA Craig Fabian

y I,Jo'l ~
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

THOMAS E. GIRON, Appellant, vs. DWIGHT NEVEN; AND THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondents. No. 70575 

# FILED JUL 2 8 2016 TRACE K LINDEMAN CLERK OF UPREME COURT BY 

### 5- DEPUTY CLERK 

### ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL Pursuant to appellant's notice of withdraw of appeal filed on June 21, 2016, this appeal is dismissed. NRAP 42(b).

It is so ORDERED. CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT TRACE K. LINDEMAN BY: 

# Al L cidi t

cc: Hon. Linda Marie Bell, District Judge Thomas E. Giron Attorney General/Carson City Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA CLERK'S ORDER
101-1547 .sea 5SloG
#### Anna Mally, *Respondent, v.*The Village of Little Falls, *Appellant*.

Motion granted, with ten dollars costs, with leave ■ to defendant to answer within twenty days, on payment of costs of the demurrer and of this motion.
2:15-cr-20093-MOB-APP Doc # 10 Filed 02/06/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 69
2:15-cr-20093-MOB-APP Doc # 10 Filed 02/06/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 70
2:15-cr-20093-MOB-APP Doc # 10 Filed 02/06/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 71
2:15-cr-20093-MOB-APP Doc # 10 Filed 02/06/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 72
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

SOUTHWEST METALS, 

INC., et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CITY OF DETROIT, et al. , 

 Defendants. 

 

Case No. 2:15-cv-11080 

District Judge Marianne O. Battani 

Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti 

___________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE (DE 49) 

 Defendants filed a motion for protective order and to compel the deposition 

of Joseph Fawaz on August 8, 2016. (DE 38.) Plaintiffs responded to the motion 

on August 18, 2016 (DE 42), and Defendants filed a reply brief on August 24, 

2016 (DE 48). On August 25, 2016, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion, asking the 

Court to strike Defendants’ reply brief. Defendants’ initial motion and Plaintiffs’ 

motion to strike were both referred to me. (DE 45 and 51.) 

 Defendants’ motion for protective order and to compel the deposition of 

Joseph Fawaz came before me for a hearing on August 25, 2016. For the reasons 

stated on the record, Plaintiffs’ motion to strike is DENIED. (DE 49.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 53, PageID.976 Filed 08/26/16 Page 1 of 2
2 

Dated: August 26, 2016 s/Anthony P. Patti 

 Anthony P. Patti 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:15-cv-11080-MOB-APP ECF No. 53, PageID.977 Filed 08/26/16 Page 2 of 2
# C_2012273EN.01000802.xml

| 8.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 273/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 273/8

---

Order of the General Court of 4 July 2012 — TME v Commission

(Case T-329/11) (1)

1

(Public service contracts - Call for tenders in relation to the rehabilitation of the Bucharest wastewater treatment plant, jointly financed by the ISPA structural funds - Allegedly unlawful decision of the Romanian authorities to reject the tender submitted by the applicant - Refusal of the Commission to open a financial adjustment procedure with respect to Romania - Manifest inadmissibility)

2012/C 273/13

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: TME SpA — Termomeccanica Ecologia (Milan, Italy) (represented by: C. Malinconico, S. Fidanzia and A. Gigliola, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Aresu and P. van Nuffel, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

First, application for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 20 April 2011 concerning the complaint of TME SpA in respect of infringements of European Union law by Romania in the context of the project ‘Bucharest Wastewater Treatment Plant Rehabilitation: Stage I ISPA 2004/RO/16/P/PE/003-03’, inherent in the restructuring of the Bucharest wastewater treatment plant [D(2011)REGIO.B3/MAD] and, second, a claim for damages.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | TME SpA — Termomeccanica Ecologia shall bear its own costs as well as those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

TME SpA — Termomeccanica Ecologia shall bear its own costs as well as those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.

1

---
# C_2012303EN.01002107.xml

| 6.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/21

---

Order of the President of the Court of 18 June 2012 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Vu Thang Dang, interested party: Generalbundesanwalt beim Bundesgerichtshof

(Case C-39/12) (1)

1

2012/C 303/42

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.

1

---
#### Nathan Cobb *et al., Respondents, v.*Dwight B. Cowles, *Impleaded, etc.,*with others, Appellants.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered before another referee, costs to abide the event, unless the plaintiffs stipulate that the judgment may be reduced m the sum of fifty dollars, with the interest thereon from the 23d day of May, 1877, to the date of the entry of judgment; if stipulation is given, the judgment for the amount so reduced affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         12,738 
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         16,892 
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               0      
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               0      
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    75,487 
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         0      
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           0      
<LOANS>                                        333,838
<ALLOWANCE>                                    2,895  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 439,613
<DEPOSITS>                                     364,058
<SHORT-TERM>                                   1,000  
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            2,254  
<LONG-TERM>                                    11,000 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0      
<PREFERRED>                                    0      
<COMMON>                                       50     
<OTHER-SE>                                     57,779 
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 439,613
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                13,445  
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              1,914  
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               0      
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               15,359  
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             7,695  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             8,102
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          7,257
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  230
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                5,397
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,208
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     2,208
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,371
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 7.50
<LOANS-NON>                                    1,069
<LOANS-PAST>                                   463
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                1,532
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               2,665
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  0
<RECOVERIES>                                   0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              2,895
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           2,895
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        724
        


</TABLE>
# C_2008212EN.01000401.xml

| 20.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 212/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/4

---

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/M.4726 — Thomson Corporation/Reuters Group

(Pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

(Pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

(2008/C 212/03)

On 3 September 2007, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 by which the undertaking the Woodbridge Company Limited (‘Woodbridge’), which is the Thomson Corporation (‘Thomson’, Canada) family holding company, acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation sole control of the undertaking Reuters Group plc (‘Reuters’, United Kingdom), by way of scheme/plan of arrangement involving a dual-listed company structure.

After examination of the notification the Commission concluded on 8 October 2007 that the notified operation fell within the scope of the Merger Regulation and that it raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market and the EEA Agreement. The Commission therefore initiated proceedings in accordance with Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation.

Thomson and Reuters were given access to the key documents in the file, in accordance with the Best Practices rules for merger cases, in the form of a selection of non-confidential versions of third parties' replies to the phase-one requests for information; these were provided to the notifying parties on 12 November 2007.

On 6 December 2007 Thomson and Reuters offered initial commitments and, following a market test conducted by the Commission, they offered on 21 December 2007 a final version of commitments with a view to rendering the concentration compatible with the common market.

The Commission has concluded that the commitments entered into by Thomson and Reuters remove the serious doubts as to the compatibility of the notified operation with the common market. Accordingly, no Statement of Objections was sent to the notifying party and the concentration is to be declared compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement pursuant to Articles 8(2) and 10(2) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement.

No queries or submissions have been made to me by the parties or any third party. The case does not call for any particular comments as regards the right to be heard.

Brussels, 12 February 2008.

Karen WILLIAMS

---