alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Rio Grande Western Railway Company, Appellant, v. Whitson, Appellee.

Constitutional Law.

The railroad stock-killing act is unconstitutional.

*Appeal from the County Court of Mesa County.*

*427Mr. C. F. Caswell, and Messrs. Bennett, Marshall & Bradley, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

Bissell, P. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Whitson brought suit against the railroad company to recover double the value of an animal which had been killed by one of the company’s trains. At the trial, the plaintiff showed the killing, his subsequent appointment of an appraiser under the statute, and the taking of such steps as are prescribed by the stock-killing act, the value of the animal, and what was a reasonable attorney’s fee for the prosecution of the suit. The court then entered judgment for twice the value, and fifty dollars for attorney’s fees, making the judgment one hundred and fifty dollars. On the trial, the company objected to the proof and the entry of judgment, rested and reserved the question of the unconstitutionality of the act. This matter was settled by the case of the *Denver & Rio Grande Railway Co. v. Outcalt,*2 Colo. App. 395. This case was followed by a later one in the supreme court of the state. *Wadsworth v. The U. P. Railway Co.,*18 Colo. 600.

These two adjudications set the question at rest. The plaintiff had no cause of action which entitled him to the judgment entered.

The cause will.be reversed and remanded.

*Reversed.*
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Naegele, Appellant.

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

(No. 98-467

Submitted October 13, 1998

Decided November 25, 1998.)

*Christian Erhardt, Jr.,*for appellant.

*20The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of *State v. Cook*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 404, 700 N.E.2d 570.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
#### Walter T. L. Sanders, *as Trustee, etc., Appellant, v.*Helen D. Bullard and another, *Administrator, etc., Respondents.*

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Learned, P. J.;

Board-man, J., not acting.
§ 56.01-3 Power boilers, external piping, and appurtenances (Replaces 100.1.1, 100.1.2, 122.1, 132 and 133). ( a ) Power boiler external piping and components must meet the requirements of this part and §§ 52.01-105, 52.01-110, 52.01-115, and 52.01-120 of this subchapter.
( b ) Specific requirements for external piping and appurtenances of power boilers, as defined in Secs. 100.1.1 and 100.1.2, appearing in the various paragraphs of ASME B31.1 (incorporated by reference; see § 56.01-2), are not adopted unless specifically indicated elsewhere in this part.
[CGD 77-140, 54 FR 40602, Oct. 2, 1989; 55 FR 39968, Oct. 1, 1990; USCG-2003-16630, 73 FR 65174, Oct. 31, 2008]
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                                  <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    JUN-30-1992             JUN-30-1992
<PERIOD-START>                       JUL-01-1991             JAN-01-1992
<PERIOD-END>                         MAR-31-1992             MAR-31-1992
<CASH>                                         0                       0
<SECURITIES>                                   0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                    0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0                       0
<PP&E>                                         0                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     10,820                  10,820
<BONDS>                                        0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                    0                       0
<COMMON>                                  16,278                  16,278
<OTHER-SE>                               (27,098)                (27,098)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0                       0
<SALES>                                        0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0                       0
<CGS>                                          0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          10,820                   5,410
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (10,820)                 (5,410)
<DISCONTINUED>                        (7,441,089)             (7,495,040)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0                       0
<CHANGES>                                      0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                          (7,451,909)             (7,500,040)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (0.51)                  (0.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (0.51)                  (0.46)



</TABLE>
#### THOMAS T. AHRENBERG and Others, Respondents, *v.*JAMES A. WRIGHT and Others, Appellants.

*Charter party*— guaranty *as to the condition of the vessel*— *to what time the guaranty relates.*

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, entered upon a verdict directed by the court, 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 court at General Term said: “ The charter party on which this action was brought was executed in London on the 7th of January, 1879. It contained the following words: ‘Guaranteed *76to class A *1\*in Am. Lloyds.’ The ship was then at Trieste, or had already left that port for New York.

“ The main question of the case is as to the meaning of the clause just quoted. On the part of the defense it is claimed that the words £ guaranteed to class A in Am. Lloyds ’ means that the vessel is of the class stated at the time of the execution of the charter party, while on the part of the plaintiff it is insisted that those words mean that she shall be of that class at the time she is ready to enter upon the performance of the charter party.

“The court below ruled in favor of the plaintiff’s contention. We think that ruling is correct. The vessel was in a foreign port or on the sea in the course of a voyage from a foreign port to New York. Her exact condition was not known, and it cannot’ be assumed to have been the intention that the defendants should accept her under the charter party, if when she reached New York she proved to be in a condition which would require her class to be rated differently than that guaranteed in the charter party.

“ The description in a charter party of a ship as A 1 warrants that she is so at the time of making the charter party, not that she will continue to remain so. This point was determined in *Hurst*v. *Cóbora*(36 Eng. Law and Eq., 299). In that case the vessel was described as rated A 1 at the time of entering into the charter party, but being then on a voyage she met with disaster after that date. The court held that it was sufficient to satisfy the charter that she was in fact A 1 at the time of making it, and that there was no guaranty that she would continue to remain in that condition. But the language in this case is quite different, for the £ Solide ’ is not described as being A 1£, but she is guaranteed to class A 1£ in Am. Lloyds, which we think must be held to signify that she shall be in that condition and class when tendered upon the charter party at her port of destination.” * * *

*J. E.*Parsons, for the‘ appellants.

*W. W.*Goodrich, for the respondents.

Opinion by

Davis, P. J.;

Daniels, J., concurred.

Present — Davis, P. J., and Daniels, J.

Judgment affirmed.
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: 2
Federal Reserve Bank of: New York

## Filings received during the week ending November 14, 2009

|Filer                                                                      | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                   | End of Comment Period                                  
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------
|CITIBANK, N.A.                                                             | Investment     | Citibank, N.A., Las Vegas, Nevada and Citibank Overseas Investment Corporation, New Castle, Delaware, pursuant to Section 211.9(f) of Regulation K, to make an additional investment in Citibank Espana S.A., Madrid, Spain.      | Newspaper:Not applicableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                                                                 | Not applicable
|Federal Register:                                                          | Not applicable
|COOPERATIEVE CENTRALE RAIFFEISEN-BOERENLEENBANK B.A., "RABOBANK NEDERLAND" | FBSEA          | Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A. ("Rabobank Nederland"), Utrecht, The Netherlands, requests Board approval to establish an agency in St. Louis, Missouri pursuant Section 211.24(a)(1)(i)(A) of Regulation K. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not applicable 
|Newspaper:                                                                 | Not available 
|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       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

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
#### § 58.25-30 Automatic restart.

Each control system for main and auxiliary steering gear and each power actuating system must restart automatically when electrical power is restored after it has failed.
#### The People of the State of New York, *Plaintiff, v.*The Mutual Endowment and Accident Association of Bath, N. Y., *Defendant*.

Judgment for defendant to be settled by Bockes, J. Opinion by

Bockes, J., and by Learned. P. J., for dismissal.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7372

CORNELIUS TUCKER, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GARY DIXON; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; LYNN PHILLIPS; MICHAEL

EASLEY,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District

Judge. (CA-94-108-5-F)

Submitted: January 30, 1996 Decided: July 26, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cornelius Tucker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. Although we note

that the district court did not specifically address Appellant's

claim that his probation revocation was based on perjured testimony, it was not an abuse of discretion to dismiss this allegation

of a "vague, conclusory or palpably incredible nature" without a

hearing. See Raines v. United States, 423 F.2d 526, 531 (4th Cir.

1970) (quoting Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487, 495

(1962)). With regard to the three remaining claims, we have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable

cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

district court. Tucker v. Dixon, No. CA-94-108-5-F (E.D.N.C. Aug.

29, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
         THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE SHEET OF EAT AT JOES, LTD AND  SUBSIDIARIES  AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND
THE RELATED  STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE YEAR THEN ENDED AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  10
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    46
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               135
<PP&E>                                         3139
<DEPRECIATION>                                 548
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2952
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1803
<BONDS>                                        1383
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       4
<OTHER-SE>                                     (239)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2952
<SALES>                                        3461
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3461
<CGS>                                          1465
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1465
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3890
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             199
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6449)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   3
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6452)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.24)



</TABLE>
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, March 28, 1995 (51), Para 51.33 Reports of Committees on Public Bills and Resolutions]
[Pages 510-511]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.51.33  reports of committees on public bills and resolutions

  Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to 
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows:

       Mr. McCOLLUM: Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 1240. A bill 
     to combat crime by enhancing the penalties for certain sexual 
     crimes against children; with an amendment (Rept. No. 104-
     90). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
     State of the Union.

[[Page 511]]

       Mr. CANADY: Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 660. A bill to 
     amend the Fair Housing Act to modify the exemption from 
     certain familial status discrimination prohibitions granted 
     to housing for older persons; with an amendment (Rept. No. 
     104-91). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
     State of the Union.
```
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 20, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 34031]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-3011]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1705-DR]


Iowa; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Iowa (FEMA-1705-DR), dated May 25, 2007, and related 
determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 8, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, 
(202) 646-2705.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Iowa is hereby amended to include the following area 
among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the 
catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of May 25, 2007.

Dallas County for Individual Assistance

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management 
Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, 
Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050, 
Individuals and Households Program--Other Needs; 97.036, Public 
Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 07-3011 Filed 6-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN ARNOLD INDUSTRIES, INC.'S FORM 10-Q
FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                      29,032,204
<SECURITIES>                                12,685,061
<RECEIVABLES>                               38,746,842
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,415,817
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            90,505,686
<PP&E>                                     332,809,292
<DEPRECIATION>                             132,612,485
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             310,083,408
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       53,617,637
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    29,942,628
<OTHER-SE>                                 178,097,325
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               310,083,408
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           187,879,966
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              161,281,032
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               630,386
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             651,199
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             26,492,063
<INCOME-TAX>                                 9,660,658
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         16,831,405
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                16,831,405
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .64
        

</TABLE>
89–008

107TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 107–113

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO

SUSPEND THE RULES

JUNE 26, 2001.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, from the Committee on Rules,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. Res. 179]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House

Resolution 179, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides that the following measures may be considered under suspension of the rules at any time on the legislative

day of Wednesday, June 27, 2001:

(1) the resolution (H. Res. 172) honoring John J. Downing,

Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, who lost their lives in the course

of duty as firefighters;

(2) the bill (H.R. 2133) to establish a commission for the purpose of encouraging and providing for the commemoration of

the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Brown

v. Board of Education;

(3) the bill (S. 757) to designate the Federal building and

United States courthouse located at 504 West Hamilton Street

in Allentown, Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘Edward N. Cahn Federal

Building and United States Courthouse’’; and

(4) the bill (H.R. 691) to extend the authorization of funding

for child passenger protection education grants through fiscal

year 2003.

Æ
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT
PAUL M. HARRIS, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-1923 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ________________________________ ) Opinion filed April 5, 2019. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County; William Sites, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. LaROSE, C.J., and KHOUZAM and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
#### § 35.30-10 Cargo tank hatches, ullage holes, and Butterworth plates—TB/ALL.

No cargo tank hatches, ullage holes, or Butterworth plates shall be opened or shall remain open without flame screens, except under the supervision of the senior members of the crew on duty, unless the tank opened is gas free.
Exhibit 23

/Letterhead/          Schvaneveldt & Company
                   Certified Public Accountant
                 275 East South Temple, Suite 300
                    Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
                           801-521-2392


Darrell T Schvaneveldt, C.P.A.


               Consent of Darrell T. Schvaneveldt 
                       Independent Auditor




     I consent to the use, in this Form 10-KSB, of our report
dated April 28, 1997, on the financial statements of
Exhibitronix, Inc., dated December 31, 1996, included herein. 



/S/ Schvaneveldt & Company
Salt Lake City, Utah 
June 17, 1997




                               E-1<PAGE>