alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### JOSEPH QUIN, Respondent, *v.*THE CITY OF BUFFALO, Appellant.

*Gity*— when *it is liable to a contractor for the failure of the common council to have an assessment levied to pay the amount due to him*— *the fact that the plaintiff has assigned his claim is of no importance, if it has been reassigned to him before the commencement of the action.*

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon the verdict of a jury, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, made upon the minutes of the justice before whom the action was tried.

The action was brought to recover damages for the alleged negligence of the officers of the defendant.

The plaintiff performed labor upon Ferry street in the said city under the direction and employment of the street commissioners, and rendered his account to the street commissioner, who certified the same to be correct in all respects. Subsequently the common council adopted a resolution on the 23d day of December, 1878, audited and liquidated the claim at $94.50, and ordered an assessment to be made upon the property deemed benefited by said work, for the purpose of defraying the expense thereof. Thereupon an assessment was made by the assessors of the city, and the same was duly presented to the common council for its action, and the common council annulled the assessment by a resolution adopted *235May 12, 1879, which was vetoed by the mayor of the city on the 26th day of May, 1879. Thereafter the common council took no action in the premises (except to unsuccessfully attempt to pass the resolution over the veto of the mayor).

The assessment was not confirmed, nor was another ordered by the common council. For such omission and neglect this action was commenced in September, 1879.

The court at General Term said; “ When officers who are agents of a corporation, and not independent bodies, omit a duty, and their negligence causes damages to a party, he may maintain an action against such corporation to recover. *(Conrad*v. *The Trustees of Ithaoa,*16 N. Y., 158.) If they refuse or neglect to put the proper machinery in motion, to raise the - necessaiy funds, or to put the claims presented in proper shape for liquidation and payment, then the law gives the creditor his remedy by action to compel payment. *(Buck*v. *City of*Lochport, 6 Lans., 254, and cases their cited; *Ganson*v. *The City of*Buffalo, 1 Keyes, 454; *Tone*v. Mayor, 70 id., 165 ; *Moore*v. Mayor, 73 id., 238.) Upon the trial evidence was given that the plaintiff had assigned his claim to one Demarest, and in answer thereto the plaintiff proved a reassignment to him before suit brought, and that he was owner of the claim for work and for damages arising from the negligence of the defendant.

“ He was therefore the real party in interest, and the former ownership of Demarest did not stand in the way of a recovery by the plaintiff.” *{Washoe Tool M. Go.*v. *Fire Insurance Compcmy,*7 Hun, 76; Code of Civil Pro., § 449.)

*Giles E. Stilioell,*for the appellant.

*PTawlcins, Plumley dé Gibbs,*for the respondent.

Opinion by

Hardin, J.;

Mullin, P. J., and Smith, J., concurred.

Judgment and order affirmed.
#### § 508.101 Cross-referrence to employee ethical conduct standards and financial disclosure regulations.

Employees of the Federal Maritime Commission (“FMC”) should refer to the executive branch-wide Standards of Ethical Conduct at 5 CFR part 2635, and the executive branch-wide financial disclosure regulation at 5 CFR part 2634.

[60 FR 9787, Feb. 22, 1995. Redesignated at 64 FR 23546, May 3, 1999]
98-2188.

#### State ex rel. Parks v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth.

In Prohibition. *Sua sponte,*cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
#### § 387.4 Applications.

Application forms for conveyance of Surplus Property can be obtained from the Maritime Administration, Division of Ports, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. The applicant shall identify on the application form the requested property, agree to the terms/conditions of the conveyance and shall also submit a Port Facility Redevelopment Plan (PFRP) which details the plan of use for the property and the associated economic development plan.
#### Frazer v. Wyckoff.

*Contract—construction*of— *Sale*— *Commissions.*

Defendant agreed to pay plaintiff $1,500 if he would find a customer who would pay defendant $17,500 for a certain territory of a patent right, or 10 per cent on such less sum as defendant might agree to take. Plaintiff had conversations with reference to the sale with H. and S., but no sale was made. Two years afterward defendants, H. and S. entered into partnership for the sale of. the territory of the patent right and the manufacture of the patented article, it being agreed that the firm should pay defendant $1,500 out of the contingent profits of the business. *Held,*not a sale under the *agreement*between plaintiff and defendant, and that plaintiff was not entitled to commission therefor.

*708Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon the report of a referee.

The action was brought by Jefferson Fraser against Arcalous Wyckoff, to recover for commissions on the sale of territory of a patent right.

E. H. *Benn,*for appellant.

*Erastus P. Hart,*for respondent.

Boardman, J.

The head-note fully states the only point passed upon in the opinion.

*Judgment affirmed.*
Exhibit 32.2

                    MAXUS REAL PROPERTY INVESTORS-FOUR, L.P.

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Maxus Real Property  Investors-Four,
L.P. (the  "Partnership") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending February 28, 2005
as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  I, John W. Alvey,  Vice  President,  Chief  Financial and Accounting
Officer of Maxus Capital Corp.,  General  Partner of the  Partnership,  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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 results of operations of the
Partnership  as of February 28, 2005 (the last date of the period covered by the
Report).


/s/ John W. Alvey
-----------------
John W. Alvey
Vice President, Treasurer and
Chief Financial Officer of
Maxus Capital Corp.,
General Partner of the Partnership
April 12, 2005
#### Thomas Rock, *Respondent, v.*Neal O’Donnell and Hugh O’Donnell, App*ellants*.

Judgment affirmed.
#### § 535.402 Complete and definite agreements.

An agreement filed under the Act must be clear and definite in its terms, must embody the complete, present understanding of the parties, and must set forth the specific authorities and conditions under which the parties to the agreement will conduct their operations and regulate the relationships among the agreement members, unless those details are matters specifically enumerated as exempt from the filing requirements of this part.
§ 35.01-50 Special operating requirements for tank barges carrying certain dangerous bulk cargoes—B/ALL. ( a ) The requirements of this section shall apply to all tank barges carrying those cargoes listed on table 30.25-1, of this chapter, which are defined as: ( 1 ) Flammable liquids having a Reid vapor pressure in excess of 25 pounds per square inch, absolute, in independent tanks (part 32 of this subchapter).
( 2 ) Liquefied flammable gases (part 38 of this subchapter).
( b ) All tank barges constructed or modified in conformance with the requirements of subpart 32.63 of this subchapter are exempt from the provisions of § 35.01-45.
( c ) When it is necessary to operate box or square-end barges as lead barges of tows, the person in charge of the towing vessel shall control the speed to insure protection against diving and swamping of such barges, having due regard to their design and freeboard, and to the operating conditions.
( d ) All barges, while carrying in bulk any of the cargoes described in paragraph (a) of this section, shall be operated in conformance with the provisions of this section. However, the provisions of this section are not applicable to such barges when empty and gas-freed.
( e ) Barges shall not be moved from a loading facility unless all bilges and void spaces (except those used for ballasting) are substantially free of water. Periodic inspections and necessary pumping shall be carried out to insure maintenance of such water-free condition in order to minimize the free surface effects, both in the longitudinal and transverse directions. Except when otherwise considered necessary for inspection or pumping, all hatch covers and other hull closure devices for void spaces and hull compartments other than cargo spaces shall be closed and secured at all times.
( f ) During the time the cargo tanks contain dangerous cargoes described in paragraph (a) of this section in any amount, in the liquid or gaseous state, the barge shall be under constant surveillance. ( 1 ) A strict watch of each unmanned barge in tow shall be maintained from the towing vessel while underway.
( 2 ) A towing vessel engaged in transporting such unmanned barges shall not leave them unattended. When a barge is moored, but not gas free, it shall be under the observation of a watchman who may be a member of the complement of the towing vessel, or a terminal employee, or other person. Such person shall be responsible for the security of the barge and for keeping unauthorized persons off the barge.
( g ) The owner, operator, master, or person in charge of any barge carrying dangerous cargoes described in paragraph (a) of this section shall insure that, while the barge is being towed and during cargo transfer operations, the persons as required by § 31.15-5 of this subchapter and § 35.35-1 are provided.
[CGFR 65-50, 30 FR 16704, Dec. 30, 1965, as amended by CGFR 70-10, 35 FR 3709, Feb. 25, 1970; CGD 73-243, 45 FR 18000, Mar. 20, 1980]
#### § 530.11 [Reserved]
#### The State of Ohio, Appellant, *v.*Marker, Appellee.

[Cite as *State v. Marker*(1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 19.]

(No. 98-71

Submitted October 13, 1998-

Decided November 25, 1998.)

*Paul F. Kutscher, Jr.,*Seneca County Prosecuting Attorney, and *Kenneth H. Egbert, Jr.,*Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.

*Kent D. Nord,*for appellee.

The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of *State v. Cook*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 404, 700 N.E.2d 570.

The cause is remanded to the trial court to conduct a sexual predator classification hearing pursuant to R.C. 2950.09(C)(2).

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**
     Pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) ofSection 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United StatesCode), the undersigned officer of FirstCity FinancialCorporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, tosuch officer’s knowledge, that:
     The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the yearended December 31, 2003 (the “Form 10-K”) of theCompany fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in theForm 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company asof, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-K.
 /s/ J. BRYAN BAKER      *Senior Vice President and Chief Financial    Officer*
Date: March 30, 2004
     The foregoing certification is being furnished asan exhibit to the Form 10-K pursuant toItem 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as partof the Form 10-K for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is notincorporated by reference into any filing of the Company,whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of anygeneral incorporation language in such filing.
<PAGE>   1
                            SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY


         KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned, constitutes and
appoints JOSEPH HINES and CLARENCE J. BAUDHUIN, and each of them, his true and
lawful attorney-in-fact and agent with full power of substitution and
resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, in any and all
capacities, to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
July 31, 1996, for filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission by Zila,
Inc., a Delaware corporation, together with any and all amendments to such Form
10-K, and to file the same with all exhibits thereto, and all documents in
connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting to
such attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power and authority to
do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done
in and about the premises, as fully and to all intents and purposes as he might
or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that such
attorneys-in-fact and agents, or each of them, may lawfully do or cause to be
done by virtue hereof.

         DATED:     October 8   , 1996



                                                       /s/ MICHAEL S. LESSER
                                                       ------------------------
                                                       MICHAEL S. LESSER

STATE OF          ARIZONA           )
                                    )  ss.
County of         Maricopa          )


         On this 8th day of October , 1996, before me, the undersigned Notary
Public, personally appeared MICHAEL S. LESSER, known to me to be the person
whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that he
executed the same for the purposes therein contained.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal.


                                                       /s/ JANICE BACKUS
                                                       ------------------------
                                                       Notary Public

My commission expires:


    October 23, 1997


                                   EXHIBIT 24E
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

VAN JENKINS,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:14-cv-1091

v. Honorable Robert J. Jonker 

TERRY TURNER et al., 

ORDER OF TRANSFER

Defendants.

____________________________________/

This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff presently is incarcerated at the G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility, located in Jackson,

Michigan. Plaintiff sues Terry Turner, Leonitta Turner, and Mark Davison, his former landlords and

their agent. In his pro se complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Americans with

Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12205, by wrongfully taking and retaining a variety of Plaintiff’s

personal property. 

Under the revised venue statute, venue in federal-question cases lies in the district

in which any defendant resides or in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise

to the claim occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The events about which Plaintiff complains occurred

in Ypsilanti, Michigan, which is located in Washtenaw County. Washtenaw County is within the

geographical boundaries of the Eastern District of Michigan. 28 U.S.C. § 102(a). Plaintiff makes

no specific allegations about Defendants’ residency, but he suggests that they are residents of

Washtenaw County or an adjacent county, all of which are located in the Eastern District of

Michigan. Plaintiff’s allegations against these Defendants arose in Washtenaw County, where

2:14-cv-14348-GCS-MJH Doc # 4 Filed 11/12/14 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 80
Defendants allegedly committed the acts giving rise to this case. See Leroy v. Great W. United

Corp., 443 U.S. 173, 185-87 (1979). In these circumstances, venue is proper only in the Eastern

District. Therefore:

IT IS ORDERED that this case be transferred to the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Michigan pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). It is noted that this Court has

not decided Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, nor has the Court reviewed

Plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A, or under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 10, 2014 /s/ Hugh W. Brenneman, Jr.

HUGH W. BRENNEMAN, JR.

United States Magistrate Judge

- 2 -

2:14-cv-14348-GCS-MJH Doc # 4 Filed 11/12/14 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 81
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

#   Board Actions 

## Actions taken during the week ending May 17, 2008

----

PersonnelDivision of Banking Supervision and Regulation  -- appointment of Barbara J. Bouchard and William C. Schneider, Jr., as associate directors, effective May 11, 2008.					-Announced, May 14, 2008 					

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco
Home | Banking information and regulationAccessibility | Contact   usLast update: May 22, 2008
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: 5
Federal Reserve Bank of: Richmond

## Filings received during the week ending April 14, 2007

|Filer                            | Filing Type        | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                         | End of Comment Period                              
|-------------------------------- | ------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------
|COOPERATIVE BANKSHARES, INC.     | * 3A3              | Cooperative Bankshares, Inc., Wilmington, North Carolina, to acquire 100% of Bank of Jefferson, Jefferson, South Carolina.                              | Newspaper:04/25/2007Federal Register:05/11/2007    
|Newspaper:                       | 04/25/2007        
|Federal Register:                | 05/11/2007        
|GATEWAY FINANCIAL HOLDINGS, INC. | * 18C* Branch* 3A3 | Gateway Financial Holdings, Inc., Virginia Beach, Virginia, to acquire 100% of the voting securities of The Bank of Richmond, N.A., Richmond, Virginia. | Newspaper:04/23/2007Federal Register:04/27/2007    
|Newspaper:                       | 04/23/2007        
|Federal Register:                | 04/27/2007        
|NEW PEOPLES BANK, INC.           | * Branch           | New Peoples Bank, Honaker, Virginia, proposes to establish a branch at 155 East Lee Highway, Chilhowie, Virginia.                                       | Newspaper:04/30/2007Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                       | 04/30/2007        
|Federal Register:                | Not applicable    

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

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

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|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
#### § 386.23 Weapons and explosives.

No person shall carry or possess firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons or parts thereof, explosives or items intended to be used to fabricate an explosive or incendiary device, or parts thereof, either openly or concealed, while on Academy property, except for official purposes specifically authorized in writing by the Superintendent or a designee of the Superintendent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                                   0
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                2,220
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               400
<OTHER-SE>                                         (2,620)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             0
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     2,742
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (2,742)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (2,742)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (2,742)
<EPS-BASIC>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0



</TABLE>
#### § 541.9-541.98 [Reserved]