alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-19-00483-CV

Joseph J. Estapa Jr.

v.

Jose Luis Ramos

On Appeal from the

93rd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Cause No. C-1777-19-B

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellant, Joseph J. Estapa Jr.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

November 14, 2019
Searched for **https://www.wlci.gov/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **https://www.wlci.gov/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
33794.

#### AVIATION ELECTRONICS, INC. v. U. S. ENERGY CONSERVATION SYSTEMS, INC.

Argued July 12, 1978

Decided September 5, 1978

Rehearing denied September 26, 1978.

*Roland P. Smith, R. P. Smith, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Heyman & Sizemore,*W. *Dan Greer, Terry P. McKenna,*for appellee.

Undercofler, Presiding Justice.

This appeal is from a judgment granting appellee a temporary injunction and denying Aviation Electronics, Inc.’s motion to dismiss and motion for partial summary judgment.

This record presents twenty enumerations of error which can only be resolved by reference to the evidence, referred to in the order complained of, which was admitted at a hearing held in the trial court on January 31, 1978. No transcript of this evidence was forwarded with this record and none was ordered filed by appellant in its notice of appeal.

"The appellants had a choice as to whether or not they would file a transcript of the evidence, and the failure to file such a transcript will not result in a dismissal of the appeal, but no questions can be decided which require a consideration of the evidence.” *Steadham v. State of Ga.,*224 Ga. 78, 80 (1) (159 SE2d 397) (1968).

We must presume the rulings of the trial court are supported by the evidence. *Pennsylvania Poorboy, Inc. v. Robbins Restaurant, Inc.,*238 Ga. 539 (233 SE2d 791) (1977).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
No. 45252.

#### Protests 16706-K, etc., of Half Moon Mfg. & Trading Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

It was,stipulated that the merchandise consists of peat moss of the same character as that passed upon in *Peat Import Corp.*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 181, C. D. 319). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1685 was therefore sustained.
No. 6320.

#### DR. LAMBERT E. PORREE vs. CO-OPERATOR’S FRATERNAL BENEVOLENT MUTUAL AID ASSOCIATION.

Syllabus.

In considering whether a petition discloses a cause of action all the allegations of the petition must be taken as true.

*244Appeal from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans,, Division “C,” No. 109,658. Honorable E. K. Skinner, Judge.

A. A. ’Colonge-, A. J. Peters, for plaintiff and appellant.

J. M. Yance, for defendant and appellee.

His Honor, JOHN ST. PAUL,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

Plaintiff alleges that he was duly elected physician of the defendant .association to serve for the term of one year .at á salary of $169 per annum.

That before the expiration of his said term, and during his absence, without a trial, without notice to him, and even without charges preferred against him, the president of said association without formality of any kind and without right whatsoever, declared his office vacant and proceeded to name his successor.

Wherefore he prays that a mandamus issue to the defendant corporation, directing it to reinstate him as its physician to serve out the remainder of his term of office.

The trial Judge thought that the mandamus would not lie; that the petition disclosed a mere breach of contract for which the proper remedy was an action for damages.

That a mandamus will lie to reinstate an officer in a private corporation, improperly excluded from the exercising his functions, is not an open question.

Prieur vs. Commercial Bank, 7 La., 509; State ex rel. Weingart vs. Board, of Officers, 129 North Western Reporter, p. 630; People vs. Albany Medical College, 62 Howard (N. Y.) Practice Report, 220; also Decennial Digest, Verbo Mandamus, Section 128.

*245Opinion and decree, February 17th, 1915.

Rehearing refused, March 15th, 1915.

The trial Judge thought, however, that a “physician employed by the year by a corporation * * * is not such an officer .as would entitle him to a mandamus reinstating him. ’ ’

But in consideration whether this petition discloses a cause of action the allegations that plaintiff holds an “office” in the defendant corporation, should be taken as true.

Of course, in a trial on the merits, this declaration unsupported by evidence, would not suffice. But if it were shown that the position is one created by the by-laws of the association, and reserved to a member thereof; that the method of election, term and compensation have been fixed in such by-laws and not by agreement with plaintiff, it might go far to show an ‘ ‘ office, ’ ’ rather than a contract of employment.

But as to this, of course we express no opinion, mentioning it merely by way of illustrating the reason why the case should be tried on the merits and evidence heard as to the character of plaintiff’s position in the corporation.

It is, therefore, ordered that the judgment appealed from be reversed, that the exceptions herein be overruled, ■and that the case be remanded for a trial on the merits and according to law; defendant to pay the costs of this appeal, and the costs of the Court below to await the final judgment.
#### Susan WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, v. CITY OF PLANO, TEXAS, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant.

No. 97-40947

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 6, 1998.

*212Nancy Louise DeLeon, Eloise V. Vellucci, Robles & Associates, Dallas, TX, for Wilson.

Ernest E. Figari, Jr., Monica L. Luebker, Figari & Davenport, Dallas, TX, for City of Plano, Texas.

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Susan Wilson appeals from the summary judgment dismissing her Title VII sexual harassment (hostile work environment) claim against her former employer, the City of Plano, Texas. Wilson contends that there is a material fact issue as to whether the City had actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged harassment and failed to take prompt remedial action; and, alternatively, that there is a material fact issue as to whether the harassing supervisor was an agent of the City and whether his knowledge of the harassment can be imputed to the City. Pursuant to our requisite *de novo*review of the summary judgment record, we AFFIRM essentially for the reasons stated by the district court. *Wilson v. City of Plano, TX,*No. 4:96-CV-190 (E.D.Tex. 7 July 1997) (unpublished).

The City cross-appeals the district court’s order requiring it, the prevailing party, to bear its own costs. Pursuant to Fed. R.CrvP. 54(d), except when provided otherwise by statute or rule, “costs other than attorneys’ fees shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs”. Although the district court has broad discretion in determining whether to award costs to a prevailing party, Rule 54(d) creates “a strong presumption that the prevailing party will be awarded costs”. *Schwarz v. Folloder,*767 F.2d 125, 131 (5th Cir.1985). Our court has held that, when a district court declines to award costs to a *213prevailing party, it should state its reasons for doing so. *Id.*at 131-32. *See also Hall v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.,*937 F.2d 210, 216-17 (5th Cir.1991); *Walters v. Roadway Express, Inc.,*557 F.2d 521, 526-27 (5th Cir.1977). Because the district court did not state reasons for requiring the City to bear its own costs, we REMAND the question of costs to the district court for reconsideration of its decision. If the district court determines that the City is not entitled to costs, it should state its reasons for that decision.

*SUMMARY JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; REMANDED FOR RECONSIDERATION AS TO COSTS AWARD.*
# C_2013026EN.01002603.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/26

---

Action brought on 6 November 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-500/12)

2013/C 26/52

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux and H. Støvlbæk, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure compliance with Commission Directive 2011/18/EU of 1 March 2011 amending Annexes II, V and VI to Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community, (1) and in any event by failing to inform the Commission of those provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure compliance with Commission Directive 2011/18/EU of 1 March 2011 amending Annexes II, V and VI to Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community, (1) and in any event by failing to inform the Commission of those provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;

1

| — | order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which Directive 2011/18/EU had to be transposed expired on 31 December 2011.

---

(1)  OJ 2011 L 57, p. 21.

1

---
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I, Anthony Sfarra, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports onForm 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this reporton Form 10-K of the Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Trust 2016-C34 (the"Exchange Act periodic reports");

 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, takenas a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing andother information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the periodcovered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statementsrequired in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except asdisclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilledtheir obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicingcriteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports onassessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securitiesrequired to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 ofRegulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as anexhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Anymaterial instances of noncompliance described in such reports have beendisclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied oninformation provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

 

LNR Partners, LLC, as Special Servicer, Wilmington Trust, NationalAssociation, as Trustee, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Operating Advisor,CoreLogic Solutions, LLC, as Servicing Function Participant, ComputershareTrust Company, National Association, as Servicing Function Participant for theCertificate Administrator on and after November 1, 2021, ComputershareTrust Company, National Association, as Servicing Function Participant for theCustodian on and after November 1, 2021, Greystone Servicing Company LLC(as successor to C-III Asset Management LLC), as Special Servicer for theMarriott Monterey Mortgage Loan, Wilmington Trust, National Association, asTrustee for the Marriott Monterey Mortgage Loan, Citibank, N.A., as Custodianfor the Marriott Monterey Mortgage Loan, Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, asOperating Advisor for the Marriott Monterey Mortgage Loan, and CoreLogicSolutions, LLC, as Servicing Function Participant for the Marriott MontereyMortgage Loan.

 

 

 

Dated:March8, 2022

 

 

/s/ Anthony Sfarra

Anthony Sfarra

President

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
```

[Federal Register: January 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 19)]
[Notices]               
[Page 4794-4795]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29ja10-44]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

 
National Assessment Governing Board; Meeting

AGENCY: Department of Education, National Assessment Governing Board.

ACTION: Cancellation of public hearing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The National Assessment Governing Board published a document 
in the Federal Register of January 15, 2010, FR DOCID: fr15ja10-47, 
Volume 75, Number 10 [pages 2529-2530] announcing a public hearing on 
January 28, 2010 to obtain comment on the draft Technological Literacy 
Assessment Framework for the National Assessment of Educational 
Progress. The public hearing is hereby cancelled.
    Written testimony may be sent by mail, fax or e-mail for receipt at 
the following address, no later than January 28, 2010.

National Assessment Governing Board, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.--
Suite

[[Page 4795]]

825, Washington, DC 20002. Attention: Tessa Regis. FAX: (202) 357-6945. 
E-mail: tessa.regis@ed.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Munira Mwalimu at (202) 357-6906.
    Electronic Access to This Document: You may view this document, as 
well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal 
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the 
Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister/index.html.
    To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available 
free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. 
Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free at 1-888-293-6498; or in 
the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.

    Note: The official version of this document is the document 
published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the 
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal 
Regulations is available on GPO Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.


    Dated: January 25, 2010.
Munira Mwalimu,
Operations Officer, U. S. Department of Education, National Assessment 
Governing Board.
[FR Doc. 2010-1798 Filed 1-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
```
99-0656 (La. 4/23/99)

#### U. Wayne KERSHAW v. Clarence VIDRINE, Roger Richard, and Cameron Parish School Board.

No. 99-C-0656.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1999.

IN RE: Kershaw, U. Wayne; — Plaintiffs); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review; Parish of Cameron 38th Judicial District Court Number 10-14412; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Number CA98-1159

Denied.

VICTORY, J. not on panel.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT KYLE J. WILLIAMS , Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee . No s . 4D 20 - 312, 4D 20 - 314, 4D 20 - 315, 4D 20 - 316, 4D 20 - 317, 4D 20 - 318 and 4D 20 - 319 [ January 21, 2021 ] Consolidated a ppeal s from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Caroline C. Shepherd , Judge; L.T. Case No s . 50 - 20 18 - CF - 012254 - AXXX - MB , 50 - 2018 - CF - 0 12309 - AXXX - MB , 50 - 2019 - CF - 000 169 - AXXX - MB , 50 - 2019 - CF - 000 780 - AXXX - MB , 50 - 2019 - CF - 00 1438 - AXXX - MB , 50 - 2019 - CF - 00 1466 - AXXX - MB and 50 - 2019 - CF 006205 - AXXX - MB . Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Mara C. Herbert, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant. No appearance for appellee . P ER C URIAM . Affirmed. L EVINE , C.J., M AY and D AMOORGIAN , JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1594 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1594

  To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to require the Secretary of 
    Agriculture to carry out a conservation program under which the 
 Secretary shall make payments to assist owners and operators of muck 
land to conserve and improve the soil, water, and wildlife resources of 
                               the land.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 21, 2011

Mrs. Gillibrand introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to require the Secretary of 
    Agriculture to carry out a conservation program under which the 
 Secretary shall make payments to assist owners and operators of muck 
land to conserve and improve the soil, water, and wildlife resources of 
                               the land.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. MUCK SOILS CONSERVATION.

    Chapter 5 of subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security Act of 
1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839bb et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:

``SEC. 1240S. MUCK SOILS CONSERVATION.

    ``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall carry out a conservation 
program (referred to in this section as the `program') under which the 
Secretary shall make payments to assist owners and operators of 
eligible land specified in subsection (b) to conserve and improve the 
soil, water, and wildlife resources of the land.
    ``(b) Eligible Land.--To be eligible for inclusion in the program, 
the land shall--
            ``(1) be comprised of soil that qualifies as muck, as 
        determined by the Secretary;
            ``(2) be used for production of an agricultural crop;
            ``(3) have a spring cover crop planted in conjunction with 
        the primary agricultural crop referred to in paragraph (2);
            ``(4) have a winter crop planted; and
            ``(5) have ditch banks seeded with grass that is maintained 
        on a year-round basis.
    ``(c) Payment Amounts.--The Secretary may provide payments of not 
less than $300, but not more than $500, per acre per year under the 
program.
    ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary to carry out the program $50,000,000 for 
each of fiscal years 2012 and 2013.''.
                                 <all>
```
Before the First Division,

December 7, 1945

No. 50749.

#### Protest 66025-K of China Man Way Fur Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise consist of goatskins similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Winograd Bros., Inc.*(32 C. C. P. A. 153, C. A. D. 302). In accordance therewith the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MBT Financial Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Eugene
D. Greutman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as enacted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

         (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
Company.

/s/ Eugene D. Greutman
----------------------
Eugene D. Greutman
Chief Financial Officer
November 14, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          12,114
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,869
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        898
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,166
<PP&E>                                           2,374
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  26,151
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,980
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        120
<COMMON>                                           180
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,777
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    26,151
<SALES>                                          9,738
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,738
<CGS>                                            7,558
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,892
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (7,069)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (7,069)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (7,069)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.37)


</TABLE>
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, March 25, 2020.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, March 25, 2020

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A20D0314. VERNON BRET PADGETT v. MICHELLE STEELE CONNER.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

19CV01917