alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Hillsborough,

Dec., 1895.

#### Rounsevel *v.*Osgood.

A promise to pay for medical attendance upon those to whom, the promisor ..has given a bond for support is not within the statute of frauds.

Assumpsit,- to recover for services as a physician. Pacts 'found by the court. In consideration of certain real estate conveyed to her by her father and mother, the defendant gave them a bond for support during their lives. While this agreement was in force, the plaintiff attended the parents, made his charges to the mother, and was told by her to present his bill to the defendant, who would pay. After the services were rendered, the defendant told the plaintiff that if he would send his bill to her, she would .pay him. This he did, but the bill was not paid. The services were necessary, the charges were reasonable and payable by the defendant under the agreement for support. The plaintiff first learned that the defendant had given a bond for the support of her parents after the services were rendered.

*Wason Jackson,*for the plaintiff.

*H. 8. $ H. A. Cutter,*for the defendant.

Clark, J.

Under the defendant’s agreement to support her parents during their lives, the plaintiff’s bill for necessary services was her debt-. The parents conveyed property to the de*419fendant as a fund for their support, and the defendant by accepting it upon that condition promised to pay the bills for their support. *Allen*v. Thompson, 10 N. H. 32; *Warren*v. *Batchelder,*16 N. H. 580; *Arnold*v. Lyman, 17 Mass. 400; *Hall*v. *Marston,*17 Mass. 575; *Mellen*v. *Whipple,*1 Gray 317, 322; *Keyes*v. *Allen,*65 Vt. 667; Bro. St. Fr., *s.*187. The parents were authorized, as agents of the defendant, to employ the plaintiff to attend them. It is immaterial that the plaintiff did not learn of the defendant’s liability until after the services were rendered. She had assumed the liability in consideration of the conveyance to her, and the debt was her own as it accrued. If the services were necessary and the charges reasonable, the defendant was bound to pay; and her promise to pay if the plaintiff would send his bill was a waiver of any objection to the character of the claim. It was a promise to pay her own debt, and not within the statute of frauds.

*Judgment for the plaintiff.*

"Wallace, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 610 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 610

Honoring Chief Charles Moose of the Montgomery County, Maryland, Police 
  Department, and the local and Federal law enforcement officers who 
       worked tirelessly to bring an end to the sniper shootings.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 13, 2002

 Mr. Hastings of Florida submitted the following resolution; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Honoring Chief Charles Moose of the Montgomery County, Maryland, Police 
  Department, and the local and Federal law enforcement officers who 
       worked tirelessly to bring an end to the sniper shootings.

Whereas on October 2, 2002, a series of shootings began in the suburbs around 
        Washington, D.C., in which 10 people were killed and 3 people were 
        wounded;
Whereas these heinous acts of violence unleashed one of the largest manhunts in 
        United States history, spanning over 6 counties in 2 States, and the 
        District of Columbia, with more than 1,300 local and Federal law 
        enforcement officers participating in the investigation;
Whereas 7 of the 10 killings occurred in Montgomery County, Maryland;
Whereas Chief Charles Moose of the Montgomery County Police Department led the 
        investigation into the shootings;
Whereas these shootings presented a unique and ominous threat, victimizing 
        people who were simply going about their daily routine and targeting 
        people regardless of age, race, sex, and national origin; and
Whereas due to the dedication of local and Federal law enforcement officers, on 
        October 24, 2002, arrests were made, bringing an end to the shooting 
        spree: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes and honors the outstanding work of local and 
        Federal law enforcement officers who worked tirelessly to bring 
        an end to the sniper shootings;
            (2) acknowledges the exceptional leadership and unwavering 
        commitment to duty demonstrated by Chief Charles Moose of the 
        Montgomery County, Maryland, Police Department, who led the 
        investigation; and
            (3) expresses its condolences to the families of those 
        killed or injured during the shootings.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION**

 

I, William W. Krippaehne, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of Fisher Communications, Inc., certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Fisher Communications, Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 14, 2003
#### Byron De Wolf and others, Respondents, v. The *643Metropolitan Trust Company and others, Appellants.

Judgment overruling demurrer to plaintiff's complaint affirmed, with costs on opinion of ¡Special Term.

Cullen, J., dissenting.
List of Documents Submitted by the State of Ohio

 December 27, 2012, Letter from Scott Nally, Director, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency to Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 5, Chicago, Illinois. Certification of Ohio’s Infrastructure State Implementation Plan for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS.  Ohio’s Air Monitoring Network  Ohio EPA Fee Chart  Report on Ohio’s Air Quality for 2011  Ohio EPA, Interoffice Memo, Excess Emissions Reports  Ohio EPA, Infrastructure State Implementation Plan for 2008 Ozone NAAQS, Public Hearing Notice.  Transcript of Ohio EPA Public Hearing for Infrastucture SIP.
#### Sarah E. Ferris v. Benjamin G. Disbrow, Executor, etc.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
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 filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of South Jersey
Gas Company (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Edward J. Graham, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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 Section 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 Company.
 
 
 /s/
Edward J. Graham
 Name:  Edward
J. Graham
 Title:  Chief
Executive Officer
 November
6, 2009
Figure 5-1. Risk characterization.






Figure C-1. Conceptual moder for logging
Exhibit 24



                        POWER OF ATTORNEY

                 COLUMBUS SOUTHERN POWER COMPANY
      ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 1O-K FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED
      __________________DECEMBER_31,_1995_________________


     The undersigned directors of COLUMBUS SOUTHERN POWER COMPANY,
an Ohio corporation (the "Company"), do hereby constitute and
appoint E. LINN DRAPER, JR., G. P. MALONEY and P. J. DeMARIA, and
each of them, their attorneys-in-fact and agents, to execute for
them, and in their names, and in any and all of their capacities,
the Annual Report of the Company on Form lO-K, pursuant to Section
13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 1995, and any and all amendments thereto, and to
file the same, with all exhibits thereto and other documents in
connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them,
full power and authority to do and perform every act and thing
required or necessary to be done, as fully to all intents and
purposes as the undersigned might or could do in person, hereby
ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and
agents, or any of them, may lawfully do or cause to be done by
virtue hereof.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have signed these presents
this 28th day of February, 1996.



_/s/_P._J._DeMaria____________     _/s/_G._P._Maloney____________
P. J. DeMaria                      G. P. Maloney


_/s/_E._Linn_Draper,_Jr.______     _/s/_James_J._Markowsky_______
E. Linn Draper, Jr.                James J. Markowsky


_/s/_Henry_W._Fayne___________     _/s/_J._H._Vipperman__________
Henry W. Fayne                     J. H. Vipperman


_/s/_Wm._J._Lhota_____________
Wm. J. Lhota


[ANNUAL\103.96C]<PAGE>
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 429 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 429

      Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that a 
  commemorative postage stamp should be issued each year in honor of 
                             Veterans Day.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 22, 2002

Mr. Bonilla (for himself, Mr. Stenholm, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. 
 Edwards, Mr. Gekas, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota, Mr. Murtha, 
  Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Pickering, Mr. Thune, Mr. Watts of Oklahoma, and Mr. 
Smith of Texas) submitted the following resolution; which was referred 
                 to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
      Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that a 
  commemorative postage stamp should be issued each year in honor of 
                             Veterans Day.

Whereas, from the American Revolution's Minutemen to today's modern soldiers, 
        sailors, airmen, and marines, American men and women have dedicated 
        themselves to the preservation of liberty and democracy;
Whereas 42,000,000 service members served during times of war, and 25,000,000 
        veterans who served during World War I, World War II, the Korean 
        conflict, the Vietnam war era, and the Persian Gulf war stand as a 
        living testament to the strength of the American spirit;
Whereas our Nation owes an immeasurable debt of gratitude to the brave veterans 
        who put themselves in harm's way to defend the United States and its 
        values;
Whereas future generations of veterans and their families must know that 
        honorable military service is the highest form of national service; and
Whereas honoring our Nation's veterans with the annual issuance of a postage 
        stamp commemorating their service is a fitting tribute to those brave 
        men and women: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives 
that--
            (1) a commemorative postage stamp should be issued by the 
        United States Postal Service each year in honor of Veterans 
        Day; and
            (2) the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee should recommend 
        to the Postmaster General that such a stamp be so issued.
                                 <all>
```
#### STEVEN A. PLEET, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. WILLIAM KATCHEN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Submitted October term, 1932

Decided April 28, 1933.

Before Justices Teenchaed, Case and Beogan.

For the plaintiff-respondent, *A. Leslie Price.*

For the defendant-appellant, *Abraham Gurney (James M. Reilly,*of counsel).

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from the First Judicial District Court of Essex county where the judge, sitting without a jury, rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the sum of $200. The action was to recover for money loaned.

There are four determinations specified as grounds of appeal. The first is that the court erred in refusing to direct a verdict in favor of the defendant, and the second is that the court erred in finding for the plaintiff in that no competent proof of the loan to the defendant was offered. Both of these specifications amount to the same thing, namely, a charge that there is no evidence to sustain a verdict. The following testimony, which appears in the state of facts settled by the judge, negatives the grounds just mentioned:

“Plaintiff was duly sworn and testified that on February 24th, 1931, the defendant requested the loan of $200, stating that he needed the money and would return it in a reasonable time. Plaintiff together with the defendant drove to the bank *342and withdrew the $200 from his account in the bank and gave it to the defendant.”

That supplies the proof, believing which the court was justified in making the award. The fact that the testimony was contradicted by the defense is immaterial on these points.

The third specification is that “the court erred in not entering judgment for the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence,” and the fourth is that “the court erred in finding for .the plaintiff on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of evidence.” These points are not well taken on an appeal. *Catterall*v. *Otis Co.,*103 *N. J. L.*381; 135 *Atl. Rep.*865.

The judgment below will he affirmed.
PROMISSORY NOTE





Amount Owed:
Up to $3,000,000
Dated:  April 8, 2011Duration of Note:
On Demand





FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, SENESCO TECHNOLOGIES, INC. residing at 303 George Street, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 promises to pay to J.P. Morgan Clearing Corp. at 383 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10179 the principal sum of up to ($3,000,000.00) or such lesser amount of unpaid principal under the note (as set forth on the monthly brokerage statement of JMP Securities LLC) together with interest at Base Lending Rate as established by J.P. Morgan Clearing Corp. from time to time plus 2% percent per annum.





The principal of this Note and any unpaid interest shall be payable on demand. Interest shall be charged and accrued monthly on the unpaid portion of the principal amount and be payable at maturity.  This Note shall be deemed satisfied in full upon receipt of the required payments (subject to collection).





The undersigned shall have the right to prepay this Note or any interest thereon, in whole or in part, at any time, without notice or penalty.





Presentment, notice of dishonor, protest and all other notices or demands (other than a demand for payment) in connection with the delivery, acceptance, performance, default, or endorsement of this Note are hereby waived.  This Note may not be changed or terminated orally.





If any action or proceeding be commenced to collect this Note, the undersigned agrees to pay all costs and expenses of such action or proceeding, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.  New York law shall govern the execution, performance and construction of this Note.  The undersigned and J.P. Morgan Clearing Corp. hereby submit to arbitration before the facilities of the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. for purposes of any action on or related to this Note, the liabilities, or the enforcement of either or all of the same.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Note as of the day and year first above written.





/s/ Joel BrooksAuthorized Signatory





STATE OF                      _____________________)


ss:


COUNTY OF                  _____________________)





On the __________________day of _______________, before me personally appeared _______ _______________to me known and known to me to be the person executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same.





Notary Public
#### Mary F. Murtfeldt and others, Appellants, v. The New York, West Shore and Buffalo Railroad Company, Respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Dykman, J.;

Barnard, P. J., not sitting.
From: Brent Brehm [mailto:BBrehm@kantorlaw.net] 

Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 2:24 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB39 

It has come to my attention that there is discussion about delaying the effective date of the DOL’s ERISA 

claims regulations. As a lawyer working in the ERISA disability field, I am very much opposed to any 

action that would delay the January 1, 2018 effective date. 

It is my understanding the DOL already assessed and took into consideration the potential increase in 

cost of the regulations – so I do not view this as a legitimate basis for any further delay. Considering I 

have litigated over 250 ERISA disability cases over the past decade, I can attest that the new regulations 

will reduce litigation and reduce the costs of the cases that do end up being litigated. This is because the 

regulations put in place common sense rules that facilitate a productive, full, and fair “administrative” 

process during the claim submission and appeal period. As it currently stands, many ERISA claims 

administrators shirk their fiduciary responsibilities (perhaps motivated by the financial conflict of 

interest all too common for claims administrators who are usually for-profit insurance companies 

obligated to make a profit for their shareholders). 

Considering “ERISA imposes higher-than-marketplace quality standards” on claims administrators, the 

regulations set to go into effect January 1, 2018 simply bring more clarity to the standards that need to 

be met to fulfill an already existing responsibility. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105, 115 

(2008). If this causes costs or litigation to rise (which it should not), it is simply evidence that, prior to 

the new regulations, claims administrators were not abiding by the law already in place. 

Brent Dorian Brehm 

Kantor & Kantor,LLP

19839 Nordhoff St.

Northridge, Ca. 91324

818-886-2525 (phone)

818-350-6259 (fax)
#### William Allan, Assignee, etc., Appellant, v. Richard H. Forestal, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed. Opinion by

Daniels, J.
EXHIBIT 23
                                                                      ----------


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


As independent registered public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation of our report dated March 31, 2007, except for Note 2, as the date
is November 24, 2008, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Spire
Corporation and subsidiaries, for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006,
included in this Form 10-K/A, into the Company's previously filed Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-22223, 333-128611 and 333-143517) and
Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File No. 333-133776 and 333-150272).



VITALE, CATURANO & COMPANY, LTD.


November 24, 2008
Boston, Massachusetts
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 165 (Monday, August 28, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 58580]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18428]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ADVISORY BOARD


Notice of Request for Comment on an Exposure Draft Titled Omnibus 
Amendments: Amending Statements of Federal Financial Accounting 
Standards 38, 49, and Technical Bulletin 2011-1

AGENCY: Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Federal Accounting Standards 
Advisory Board (FASAB) has released an exposure draft titled Omnibus 
Amendments: Amending Statements of Federal Financial Accounting 
Standards 38, 49, and Technical Bulletin 2011-1. Respondents are 
encouraged to comment on any part of the exposure draft.

DATES: Written comments are requested by September 21, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2a4c4b594b486a4c4b594b48044d455c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b8ded9cbd9daf8ded9cbd9da96dfd7ce">[email protected]</span></a> or Monica 
R. Valentine, Executive Director, Federal Accounting Standards Advisory 
Board, 441 G Street NW, Suite 1155, Washington, DC 20548. The exposure 
draft is available on the FASAB website at https://www.fasab.gov/documents-for-comment/. Copies can be obtained by contacting FASAB at 
(202) 512-7350.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Monica R. Valentine, Executive 
Director, 441 G Street NW, Suite 1155, Washington, DC 20548, or call 
(202) 512-7350.

(Authority: 31 U.S.C. 3511(d); Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 
U.S.C. 1001-1014)

    Dated: August 22, 2023.
Monica R. Valentine,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2023-18428 Filed 8-25-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1610-02-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>