alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Essex County Court of Common Pleas.

#### CATHERINE HAMILTON, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, v. CONGOLEUM NAIRN, INCORPORATED, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

Por the petitioner-appellee, *Samuel Greenstone.*

Plannagan, J.

This is an appeal from the workmen’s compensation bureau awarding compensation to the petitioner for the death of her husband, William Hamilton.

The decedent, while discharging the duties of his employ, fell from a scaffold, broke his leg, and sustained injuries to his head. These injuries were not of such a character as alone to produce death; The deceased died about eight months after these injuries were received and it is contended that these injuries accelerated and brought to a fatal and final stage a previous condition of syphilis and were thus the cause of his death.

The proceedings on the part of the petitioner were undoubtedly tainted with fraud in which she persisted until it was obvious that her program could not be successfully carried further. Her purpose was to conceal the previous symptoms of advanced syphilis which had been manifested by her husband in a marked degree before the accident, testifying that he was in good health, was cleanly and had no trouble with his bowel movements or mental condition prior to that time. She swore that the physician, Dr. Poster, who had attended him for syphilis years before the accident had never attended *249him at all except for some stomach'disturbance. Being forced on cross-examination to admit that her testimony was perjured she adopted the contention above indicated.

The deceased had been a sufferer from syphilis for eight or ten years before the accident. He had never received any intensive modern'hospital treatment.. The disease is fatal in ordinary cases in from eight to ten years. Though going about his daily work the deceased had reached an advanced stage of the disease. He had already had several strokes or epileptic seizures, he dragged his leg when he walked, had so far lost control of his organs that he urinated and deñcated involuntarily in his clothes on the street and elsewhere, and manifested other symptoms.

The petitioner claims to have shown by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the trauma sustained at the time of deceased’s fall accelerated the syphilis from which the deceased suffered, and was thus the cause of his death.

I am of the opinion that this claim is not made good. On the contrary, I am of the opinion that the petitioner’s husband’s disease was in the last and final stages at the time of the accident and that his death about eight months thereafter was due to the normal progress of the disease and not to the accident. The weight of testimony sustains this conclusion.

A statement of fact and determination in accordance herewith may be submitted in accordance with rule 6.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

STEVEN SMUKALA,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 15-cv-10612

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION (document no. 17), GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (document no. 13), AND

DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (document no. 16)

The Social Security Administration denied Plaintiff Steven Smukala’s application for

a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. After the Social Security Appeals

Council denied his request for review, Smukala filed the present case. The Court referred

the case to a magistrate judge for a Report and Recommendation. The magistrate judge

issued a Report and Recommendation on February 23, 2016, and advised the Court to

grant Smukala’s Motion for Summary Judgment, deny the Commissioner of Social

Security’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and remand the case for further proceedings,

Report, ECF No. 17. 

Under Civil Rule 72(b), each party had fourteen days from the date of service to file

any written objections to the recommended disposition. Thus, each party had until March

8, 2016, to file an objection. Neither party lodged an objection in the prescribed time. De

novo review of the magistrate judge’s findings is therefore not required. See Fed.R.Civ.P.

72(b)(3). The Court has reviewed the file and the Report, and finds that the magistrate

2:15-cv-10612-SJM-SDD Doc # 18 Filed 03/11/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 600
judge’s analysis is proper. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report’s findings and

conclusions and will enter an appropriate judgment.

ORDER

WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation (document no. 17) is ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

(document no. 13) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

(document no. 16) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case be remanded to the Commissioner of

Social Security for further proceedings. 

SO ORDERED.

s/Stephen J. Murphy, III 

STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

United States District Judge

Dated: March 11, 2016

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or

counsel of record on March 11, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol Cohron 

Case Manager

2

2:15-cv-10612-SJM-SDD Doc # 18 Filed 03/11/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 601
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

JADRANKA SAMONA, 

Plaintiff, 

CASE NO. 2:15-CV-11713 

JUDGE MARK A. GOLDSMITH 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE ANTHONY P. PATTI 

 v. 

COMMISSIONER OF 

SOCIAL SECURITY, 

Defendant. 

 / 

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SUPPLEMENT HER MAY 13, 2015 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT 

PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS (DE 2) 

On May 13, 2015, Jadranka Samona filed this lawsuit. DE 1. On the same 

day, she also filed an application (DE 2) to proceed in district court without 

prepaying fees or costs. 

This case has been referred to the undersigned for pretrial matters. DE 5. 

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (DE 2), the 

Court concludes that it is not in a position to rule at this time. The form application 

(AO 240) is devoid of answers to Question Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8. See DE 2 at 2. 

Therefore, the application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees 

or costs (DE 2) is HELD IN ABEYANCE. Within ten (10) days of the date of this 

2:15-cv-11713-MAG-APP Doc # 6 Filed 06/26/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 28
order, Plaintiff SHALL file a supplemental application which fully answers 

Question Nos. 5-8, preferably with the assistance of her counsel. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 26, 2015 s/Anthony P. Patti 

ANTHONY P. PATTI 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record on June 

26, 2015, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. 

 s/Michael Williams 

 Case Manager for the 

Honorable Anthony P. Patti 

(313) 234-5200 

2:15-cv-11713-MAG-APP Doc # 6 Filed 06/26/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 29
#### JAMES FERRANDO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. CONTINENTAL PAPER COMPANY, A CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Submitted October term, 1928

Decided March 11, 1929.

Before Justices Teenchakd, Kalisch and Lloyd.

For the appellant, *Kimmel & Kimrnel.*

For the respondent, *George 0. Felter, Jr.*

Pee Cukiam.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment in favor of the defendant in the Second District Court of Bergen county. The plaintiff’s claim was to recover $183.42, with interest from June 18th, 1921, being a balance which the plaintiff at that time paid to the Erie Railroad Company representing freight and storage charges on certain waste paper shipped to the defendant. The claim was based on the following facts:

On October 19th, 1916, the defendant purchased from the plaintiff two cars of waste paper to be shipped to it at Bogota, in this state. This paper was immediately forwarded, but on arrival one of the cars was rejected by the defendant, and the *236railroad stored the paper at Undercliff. As a result of this the freight and storage charges were made.

In 1919 the present plaintiff brought suit against the defendant to recover damages for breach of the contract caused by the rejection of the paper, and on January 13th, 1920, obtained a verdict and judgment. This judgment was satisfied. In 1921 the railroad insisted upon the payment of the balance due it for the freight and storage charges, and after being threatened with suit, the plaintiff paid the amount on June 18th, 1921. Pour years later the present action was started to- recover this amount from the defendant. The trial judge entered judgment for the defendant, holding that the action was barred by the statute of limitations and also that the case was *res ad judicata,*and we think properly. *E. O. Painter Co.*v. *Kiltone Co.,*6 *N. J. Adv. R.*1548.

The plaintiff’s rights, whatever they were as against the defendant, existed by virtue of, and arose out of, the sale in 1916. The action in the Hudson Circuit Court established the plaintiff’s right to recover under that contract. When he sued for its breach he was obliged to bring in all of the elements of damage that arose out of the breach of contract by the defendants. At that time if the present claim against the plaintiff and for which he is now suing was a liability arising out of the refusal of the defendant to take the carload of paper, it was a liability recoverable at that time. He was therefore obliged to include in his first action all of the damages to which he was entitled. If the law were otherwise, litigation of this sort would become intolerable. The same principle applies respecting the statute of limitations. Plaintiff was obliged to bring his action for all of his damages within six years of the breach of contract.

The judgment is affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


    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 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Quarterly Report of ComBanc, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period
ending September 30, 2002 (the "Report"), I, Paul G. Wreede, President and Chief
Executive 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, 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/ Paul G. Wreede
------------------------------------
Paul G. Wreede, President and Chief Executive Officer

November 12, 2002




                                       20
# C_2013079EN.01000202.xml

| 16.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/2

---

Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 January 2013 — Annunziata Del Prete v Giorgio Armani SpA, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-261/12 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Likelihood of confusion - Reputation - Figurative sign ‘AJ AMICI JUNIOR’ - Opposition by the holder of the earlier national figurative mark AJ ARMANI JEANS and of the earlier national word mark ARMANI JUNIOR)

2013/C 79/03

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Annunziata Del Prete (represented by: R. Bocchini, avvocato)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Giorgio Armani SpA (represented by: M. Rapisardi, avvocato), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock and F. Mattina, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 27 March 2012 in Case T-420/10 Armani v OHIM, by which the General Court annulled the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 July 2010 concerning opposition proceedings between Giorgio Armani SpA and Annunziata Del Prete (Case R 1360/2009-2) — Likelihood of confusion — Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)

Armani

OHIM

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed;

| 2. | Annunziata Del Prete shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annunziata Del Prete shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.

1

---
Exhibit 10.1

DISCRETIONARY BONUS FOR CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

The following is a description of a discretionary bonus to be paid to the Chief Executive Officer of ITEX Corporation in accordance with his compensation agreement.  This description is provided pursuant to Paragraph 10(ii) to Item 601 of Regulation S-B, requiring a written description of a compensatory arrangement when no formal document contains the compensation information.

Under his current compensation agreement, Mr. White is entitled to an annual base salary of $124,800 for serving as Chief Executive Officer.  Mr. White currently is not compensated for his services as ITEX’s interim CFO.  Mr. White has declined at this time increases to his base salary, electing performance-based incentives tied to the business interests and achievement of strategic goals of the Company.  The Compensation Committee, in its discretion, may periodically award cash or stock bonuses on a recurring or nonrecurring basis in amounts that are determined by the Compensation Committee, taking into account factors used to determine the CEO’s base compensation, the achievement of performance goals to be determined by the Compensation Committee, and any other factors the Compensation Committee determines to be relevant.  Mr. White is also eligible to participate in any benefit programs applicable to eligible employees
generally that are adopted by the Board of Directors.

On January 27, 2005, the Compensation Committee awarded Steven White a discretionary cash bonus of $50,000.  This bonus was in recognition of Mr. White’s direct involvement in ITEX achieving and maintaining profitable operations, strengthening its financial condition and improving its business model and strategic plan.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>      5
<CIK>          0001071119
<NAME>         EVERCEL, INC
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
<CURRENCY>     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                           1
<CASH>                                9,596
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                            49
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                             598
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     10,649
<PP&E>                                4,563
<DEPRECIATION>                        1,350
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       19,173
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 2,467
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               3
<COMMON>                                 71
<OTHER-SE>                           16,517
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         19,173
<SALES>                                  94
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         94
<CGS>                                   286
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         8,428
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      (7,422)
<INCOME-TAX>                             88
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  (7,510)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                         (7,510)
<EPS-BASIC>                           (1.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (1.22)



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's condensed consolidated balance sheet and statement of operations as of
and for the year ended December 31, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                      80,035,000
<SECURITIES>                                31,774,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               29,886,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,586,000
<INVENTORY>                                    194,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           144,237,000
<PP&E>                                      13,494,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,012,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             161,276,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       26,948,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       523,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 133,805,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               161,276,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           101,030,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,354,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            84,482,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,121,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              7,194,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                (7,507,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,444,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,444,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.24



</TABLE>
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 1
Federal Reserve Bank of: Boston

## Filings received during the week ending February 24, 2007

|Filer                 | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            | End of Comment Period                                
|--------------------- | ------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------
|BUTLER BANCORP, MHC   | * 3A5* 3A3    | Butler Bancorp, MHC and Butler Bancorp, Inc., both of Lowell, Massachusetts, to acquire Marlborough Bancorp, MHC and its subsidiary bank, Marlborough Co-operative Bank, both of Marlborough, Massachusetts, pursuant to sections 3(a)(3) and 3(a)(5) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not available
|Newspaper:            | Not available
|Federal Register:     | Not available
|MERRIMACK BANCORP MHC | * 3A3         | Merrimack Bancorp, MHC, Concord, New Hampshire to acquire 100% of the voting shares of Bow Mills Bank, Bow, New Hampshire pursuant to section 3(a)(3) of the BHC Act.                                                                                                                                      | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:02/12/2007   
|Newspaper:            | Not available
|Federal Register:     | 02/12/2007   

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for Second Quarter of 2007 (April 1, 2007 - June 30, 2007)

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us