alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Walsh et ux., Appellants, *v.*Philadelphia Suburban Water Company.

Argued April 29, 1969.

Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ.

*Stephen A. Cozen,*with him *Sydney C. Orlofsky, Harold W. Spencer,*and *Orlofsky and Cozen,*and *Wright, Speneer, Manning & Sagendorph,*for appellants.

*Stephen G. Yusem,*with him *Victor J. Roberts,*and *High, Swartz, Roberts & Seidel,*for appellee.

*632June 27, 1969:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Judgment affirmed.
No. 41876.

#### Protest 978684-G of Bicnenfeld Glass Works, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

It was not shown how the error occurred, what the-intent of the importer was, or that the error was made by one upon whom no duty devolved to exercise original thought or judgment. The protest was therefore overruled. *Yamada*v. *United States*(26 C. C. P. A. 89, T. D. 49628) and *McQuillan*v. *United States*(18 id. 215, T. D. 44401) followed.
No. 55352.

#### J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. of Phila. *v.*United States,

protest 154912-K (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
No. 53657.

protests 123504-K, etc. (New York).

#### Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Larry Harold Forward, * From the 238th District

 Court of Midland County,

 Trial Court No. CR37755.

Vs. No. 11-11-00060-CR * March 28, 2013

The State of Texas, * Opinion by Wright, C.J.

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 McCall, J., and Willson, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no error in 

the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the judgment of the 

trial court is in all things affirmed.
#### Central Cab Company *v.*Morrison.

In Banc.

Dec. 31, 1948.

(38 So. (2d) 93)

*772H. K. Murray, for appellant.

Voller, Teller & Biedenharn, for appellee.

Griffith, O. J.

On the issue of liability, the verdict is not so plainly against the great or overwhelming weight of the evidence as to justify our interference with it, but we have entertained some concern on the complaint of excessiveness in the amount awarded, which was $3,500.00.

The principal injury to the plaintiff, a business man of mature age, was a fracture of the humerus bone of the right arm. The physician denominated it as “a severe fracture—what is called a comminuted impacted fracture.” The physician was not called on to explain the quoted term, but the import of his entire testimony would reasonably lead to the conclusion that such an injury would tend to shorten the arm; and towards the latter part of his testimony, when being asked that direct question, he answered ‘ ‘I never measured that arm but I would assume from the X-ray that it is a little shorter. ’ ’

All this brings into consideration the fact that four X-ray photographs were introduced in evidence and were presented to the jury, and yet not one of them has been brought here as a part of this record. What effect they produced in the deliberations of the jury, we cannot know. We have often heretofore called attention to the difficulty of reviewing verdicts when maps and diagrams used in the trial are missing from the record. Some of these cases *773are Hume v. Inglis, 154 Miss. 481, 488, 122 So. 535; Fortenberry v. Pittman, 158 Miss. 148, 151, 130 So. 293; Johnson v. Lake, 162 Miss. 227, 233, 139 So. 455, 88 A. L. R. 262; Seward v. West, 168 Miss. 376, 386,150 So. 364.

 There is equal reason, and in some cases a stronger reason, for bringing along with the record, and as a part of it, the photographs, including X-ray photographs, in a case such as this—which were used as a part of the evidence in the trial. It may be that the jury in examining these photographs was convinced thereby that as a probability the arm was made shorter by the injury, and if so, when added to the other damages proved, would sustain the award made by the jury,-—with the further result that we could not safely undertake to order a remittitur.

Affirmed.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-1440

___________________________

Dale E. Bryant

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Nurse Denham, Correct Care Solutions Pill Nurse

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Arkansas - Hot Springs

____________

Submitted: November 27, 2018

Filed: December 11, 2018

[Unpublished]

____________

Before KELLY, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
Arkansas inmate Dale Bryant appeals the district court’s adverse grant of 1

summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against prison nurse Jonathan

Denham, in which he alleged Denham was deliberately indifferent to his serious

medical needs by delaying administration of injectable anti-nausea and pain

medication. After careful de novo review, construing the record in the light most

favorable to Bryant and drawing all reasonable inferences therefrom in his favor, see

Cullor v. Baldwin, 830 F.3d 830, 836 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review), we agree

with the district court that Bryant did not show Denham was deliberately indifferent

to his serious medical needs, see Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 499

(8th Cir. 2008) (deliberate indifference is akin to criminal recklessness and demands

more than even gross negligence). 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United States DistrictJudge for the Western 1

District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendation ofthe HonorableBarry

A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

-2-
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                             Accountant's Consent


The Board of Directors
Go2Pharmacy, Inc.
Largo, Florida

We consent to the use of our report dated May 30, 2001 on the financial
Statements as described in the Table of Contents to the Go2Pharmacy, Inc. and
Subsidiaries Form-10KSB as of and for the years ended March 31, 2000 and 2001
included herein and to the reference to our firm under the heading "Experts".


/s/ BRIMMER, BUREK & KEELAN LLP
BRIMMER, BUREK & KEELAN LLP
Tampa, Florida
June 26, 2000
Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 

Consultation Related Documents
#### Peter A. Wolak et al., Appellants, v Power Authority of the State of New York, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[635 NYS2d 547]

—Order and judgment unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion denied and complaint reinstated. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment. There are triable issues of fact whether defendant breached a duty of care to motorists by failing to install a stop sign or traffic light and whether the absence of those devices was a proximate cause of the accident *(see, Alexander v Eldred,*63 NY2d 460). (Appeal from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Mintz, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Wesley, Callahan and Davis, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, *Respondents, v.*James D. Buckley, *Appellant.*

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted.
#### Lemuel L. Crocker, *Appellant, v.*Emmet Fairbanks, *Respondent.*

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Haight, J.
Exhibit 31.2
**CERTIFICATION**
I, David Ross Seaton, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Marshall Edwards, Inc.; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e) ) for the registrant and have:
 (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within the entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared:  (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in the report our conclusions about the effectiveness of this disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this report that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5.  The Company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors:
 (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: February 9, 2005 /s/ David Seaton   David R. Seaton        Chief Financial Officer
~cl'lll"'l~ Mo~~~• 

~ 

GAlli. ~i.liTil!'~~:~< 

A:i~ll~rdJ 

CITY OF NB1TLE10N 

R. V" ADAMS 

(, 

r.:
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.10.6

January 22, 2001

Mr. Daniel D. Richard Jr.
SVP - Public Affairs
PG&E Corporation
One Market, Spear Tower, Suite 2400
San Francisco, CA  94105

Dear Dan:

You are an essential member of our senior executive team and I view your
contribution as vital to getting the Corporation through its current challenges,
achieving the Corporation's objectives, and providing strong returns to
shareholders.

The Board of Directors recently approved a Senior Executive Retention program
which includes you.  Under this program, you will receive a grant of phantom
PG&E Corporation restricted stock units granted under the PG&E Corporation Long-
Term Incentive Plan.  The amount of your grant is $1,250,000 and it translates
into 128,205 units calculated at the closing price of PG&E Corporation common
stock on January 22, 2001, of $9.75 per share.  An extremely small number of
individuals are included in this arrangement.  For this reason, it is absolutely
necessary for you to restrict any conversation on this subject to me or Brent
Stanley.

Your grant of phantom PG&E Corporation restricted stock units is effective
January 22, 2001, and will vest on December 31, 2004, subject to either one of
the following conditions:

  -  50 percent will automatically vest on December 31, 2004. The remaining 50
     percent will vest on December 31, 2004 only if the Corporation's
     performance, as measured by relative Total Shareholder Return (TSR) on a
     cumulative basis over four years, is at or above the 55th percentile of its
     comparator group; or

  -  if, at the end of the third year of the grant, December 31, 2003, the
     Corporation's performance as measured by relative TSR on a cumulative
     basis, is at or above the 75th percentile of its comparator group, the
     entire grant will vest.

You may elect to defer your actual award payments under the PG&E Corporation
Supplemental Retirement Savings Plan prior to the award cliff-vesting.  Such
deferrals will be made in PG&E Corporation phantom stock units on the first
business day of January of the year following vesting.  Awards not deferred will
be paid either entirely in PG&E Corporation stock or half in PG&E Corporation
stock and half in cash in January of the year following vesting.

Dan, I look forward to your continued strong contributions to PG&E Corporation's
success.

Sincerely,

ROBERT D. GLYNN, JR.
#### FLETCHER, etc. et al *v.*THE NATIONAL BREWING COMPANY

[No. 109,

September Term, 1969.]

*Decided November 11, 1969.*

The cause was argued before Hammond, C. J., and Barnes, Finan, Singley, and Smith, JJ.

*Frank B. Cohn, II,*with whom were *Pollack, Cohn & Rosenthal*on the brief, for appellants.

*James R. Eyler,*with whom was *Benjamin C. Howard*on the brief, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

The claims in this case were grounded both on breach of warranty and on negligence. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the warranty counts and the plaintiffs appealed. The appellee moved to dismiss the appeal as taken from an interlocutory judgment. The situation is just like that in *Harkins v. August,*251 Md. 108, 112 where the premature appeal was dismissed.

*Appeal dismissed with costs.*
MORGAN STANLEY DEAN WITTER
CREDIT CORPORATION

January 7, 2000

As of and for the year ended  December  31,  1999,  Morgan  Stanley  Dean Witter
Credit  Corporation  (the "Company") has complied in all material  respects with
the minimum servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of
America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers. As of and for
this same period, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., the Company's parent, had in
effect a fidelity  bond in excess of $25  million  and an errors  and  omissions
policy in excess of $25 million under which the Company was covered.


Nancy S. Donovan
President

Leroy Hodo
Vice President and Controller
#### Charles B. Goodrich, *Respondent, v.*The Pennsylvania and New York Canal and Railroad Company, *Appellant.*

—Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned hereby certifies that,
to his or her knowledge, (i) the Form 10-Q filed by New Century Bancorp, Inc. (the Issuer) for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in that report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer on the dates and for the periods presented therein.



|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                                                     
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 13, 2007 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Lisa F. Campbell                                
|                      |  |  |  |     |  | Lisa F. Campbell                                    
|                      |  |  |  |     |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
No. 49276.

#### Protest 103657-K of M. Pressner & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was found that the evidence fully supported the claim made and that the dime banks are similar in all material respects to those involved in Abstract 42749, which record was incorporated herein. In accordance therewith the claim at -40 percent under paragraph 339 was sustained.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v. FRANCIS M. BONGIORNI, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

6 USCMA 165, 19 CMR 291

No. 6738

Decided July 8, 1955

*Captain Daniel B. Hunter*was on the brief for the Appellant, Accused.

*Commander Lewis N. Evans*was on the brief for the Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER Curiam:

The accused Marine was found guilty, following trial before a general court-martial, of desertion terminated by apprehension, in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 85, 50 USC § 679. We are concerned here only with the sufficiency of the finding of apprehension, which rested solely upon two Government exhibits. These documents — Bongiorni’s service record book and the Formal Report of Absen*166tees and Deserters — both recited that he had been apprehended at 5:00 p.m. on January 12, 1955, in Chattanooga, Tennessee, by civilian law enforcement agents and surrendered to military authorities the following morning.

The entries concerning apprehension were made pursuant to official duties imposed by directives of the Marine Corps. See United States v. Bennett, 4 USCMA 309, 15 CMR 309. They sufficed — absent any sort of challenge to the correctness of the facts recited' — to sustain the court’s finding that the accused had been apprehended. United States v. Simone, 6 USCMA 146, 19 CMR 272; United States v. Lugo, 6 USCMA 151, 19 CMR 277.

Accordingly, we must affirm the findings and sentence as approved by intermediate reviewing authorities.
#### Origen Bingham v. Elon G. Parsons and Another.

Where a motion is made to reinstate a canse at a term following its dismissal for want of prosecution, the party making the motion should show himself in position to proceed at once to the hearing if the motion is granted.

*Heard January 10th.*

*Decided January 11th.*

Motion to reinstate an appeal in Chancery which had been dismissed at the last term of this court for want of prosecution by the defendants, who were appellants. Affidavits were presented to excuse the default, but the party did not show that he was prepared to proceed to a hearing at this time.

*J. JB. Clarice,*for the motion.

*T. M. Cooley,*contra.

The Court

held the default at the former term not sufficiently excused. They also held that where a party moves to reinstate a cause which was dismissed at a former term for want of prosecution, he should show himself prepared to proceed at once to a hearing, in case his motion should be granted.
#### Lyman H. Granger, *Appellant,*v. Henry H. Craig and others, *Respondents.*

— Judgment modified by increasing the amounts due on the notes and mortgage in the sum of sixty-eight dollars and eighty cents, and as so modified affirmed, with costs of this appeal to the respondents. Opinion by Haight, J.
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 04-0141

ENGINEER: Hall / AMO PV (kg/yr):
SUBMITTER:

USE:

OTHER USES:

MSDS: Label:

General Eqp.: Respirator:
Health Effects: TLV/PEL (PMN or raw materials):

CRSS (12/08/2003): Chemical Category:

VP: <1E-06 torr @25 E C
S-H 2 O: Dispersible
MW: 422.6 Phys State:

Consumer Use:

SAT (12/09/2003): Related cases: None Listed
Ground Water: Slow to Moderate Health: 2; Dermal and Inhalation, XB Testing not required Eco: 2; All releases to water, XB Testing desired
PBT: P1B1T1

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 2-3
ASSUMPTIONS:

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS:INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 04-0141

Site/Location: Days/yr:

Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES (Eqpt. cleaning, container residue, etc.):

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE Tot. # of workers: Days/yr:

Inhalation: Basis:

Dermal:

Basis:
APPENDIX J
No. 48582.

#### Protest 99093-K of New York Merchandise Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The uncontradicted evidence disclosed that certain ■of the tape measures in question are similar to those involved in Abstract 43372. The claim at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was therefore sustained.
November 21, 1951

No. 56060.

Suit 4697.

#### United States *v.*Racine Woolen Manufacturing Company.

(Appeal dismissed September 28, 1951.)
<PAGE>

Exhibit 10.40

NASDAQ AMEX/0/

Douglas I) McKenney CFA
Associate Director
Listing Qualifications
The American Stock Exchange


Via Facsimile and Airborne Express Mail

October 1, 1999

Mr. Lowell Farkas
President and Chief Executive Officer
Carnegie International Corporation
1I35O McCormick Road
Executive Plaza 3 -Suite 1001
Hunt Valley, MD 21031

Dear Mr. Farkas:

As we recently discussed, Carnegie International Corporation (the "Company') has
fallen below certain of the Exchange's continued listing guidelines and as a
result we are reviewing its listing eligibility. This review process allows a
company to meet with us to present information in support of continued listing
and we look forward to our meeting which has been scheduled for October 13,
1999, at 1:00PM in our offices at the address below.

The Exchange has adopted certain guidelines and procedures which assist in dais
process and these are set forth in Part 10 of our Company Guide. The guidelines
which are most relevant m this situation am found in Sections 132, 1002, 1003
and 1101 (see enclosure).

Specifically, the Company has not complied with the Exchange's rules in that it
has failed to file its March 31, 1999 and June 30, 1999 Fprms l0-Q with the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). In addition, the Company recently
disclosed in a Form 8-K filed on September 28, 1999, that its independent
auditor, Grant Thornton, LLP ("Grant Thornton"), has withdrawn its opinion on
the Company's December 31, 1998, year end financial statements. Thus, the
Company is also delinquent in filing its Form 10-K for fiscal 1998. In its
letter to the Company dated September 24, 1999, Grant Thornton states that
"there is considerable uncertainty as to when, if ever, the restated financial
statements will be issued."

In an additional letter to the Company dated September24, 1999, Grant Thornton
further stated, among other things, it had "concluded that it could not rely
upon the representations of Carnegie's current management and that in its
professional judgment, the scope of its audit had been limited by the Company."
The Exchange is significantly concerned by these statements.

The Exchange relied upon the Company's December 31, 1998 Form 10-K in
determining that the Company qualified for original listing. In view of the
withdrawn auditor's opinion and Company's filing delinquencies, it is unclear
whether the Company satisfied our numerical guidelines for original listing or
today satisfies our guidelines for continued listing.

If you would like to provide a written submission, please submit five copies to
Mark Abramovitz in advance of the meeting. Please feel free to call me or Mr.
Ahramovitz at (301) 978-8013 if you have any questions.


Very truly yours,

/s/