alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Phila. Rapid Transit Co. *v.*King, Appellant.

*476Argued October 11, 1933.

Before Trexler, P. J., Keller, Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadteeld, Parker and James, JJ.

*J. Webster Jones,*for appellant.

*Harpur M. Tobin,*and with him *Bernard J. O’Connell,*for appellee.

November 23, 1933:

Opinion bt

Keller, J.,

The plaintiff is justly subject to criticism for the form and content of its statement of cause of action. Instead of complying with the directions of the Practice Act of 1915' (P. L. 483), which call for “a-statement in a concise and summary form of the material facts on which......[it] relies for its claim,” it filed a form of statement which was apparently designed to cover in one pleading all the general grounds of negligence which the ingenuity of the pleader could *477think of, with the result that it presented no more concise and definite a cause of action than an old declaration in the common counts.

The evidence produced by its leading witness on the trial showed that, while its trolley car was proceeding northbound on Frankford Avenue, just above Bhawn Street, the defendant’s truck which was traveling alongside of the trolley car, and to its right, suddenly swerved or cut in front of the car causing a collision which damaged the car. The statement should have concisely averred those facts as the material ones upon which it based its claim. Instead of doing so, it filed a sort of omnium gatherum, averring a collision between defendant’s truck and its trolley car, due to the negligence of the defendant, (1) in operating his vehicle at a high and dangerous speed under the circumstances; (2) in failing to have same under proper control; (3) in violating various, [but unidentified] ordinances of the City of Philadelphia, pertaining to the speed and control of automobiles at crossings; (4) in violating the statutes of the State of Pennsylvania pertaining to the speed and control of automobiles at crossings — without designating them; and (5) in otherwise failing to regard the rights of the plaintiff and others lawfully using the highway at the point aforesaid.

The defendant can scarcely be blamed for objecting that the statement had failed to set forth concisely the negligence of which he was charged as ground for the plaintiff’s action, and that the evidence did not closely substantiate the acts of negligence averred. By a liberal construction it may be included under the fifth specification of negligence, and as defendant’s driver, in his evidence, substantially corroborated the plaintiff’s motorman, no real harm was done him.

The practice of declaring upon such a general catalogue of averments of negligence in a statement of *478claim, instead of a concise and summary recital of tlie material facts relied on, as directed by tbe Practice Act, is to be condemned, and may result seriously to the pleader in different circumstances.

The assignments of error, — which are directed entirely to the refusal (1) of the trial judge to give binding instructions for the defendant and (2) of the court to enter judgment in his favor, are overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.
1

**Subject:** Samsung Testing Results **Date:** January

3, 2013 , 1 1:00 to 11:40 AM **Re:** Samsung Semiconductor Testing Results for Point o f Use (POU) Abatement Sy stems and Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) for Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases (F - GHGs) **Background:** Samsung requested a phone call with EPA to discuss the results of tests conducted in 2012 to measure the DRE of point of use abatement sy stems. These results are relevant to the recentl y proposed rule , “ Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: Propo sed Amendments and Confidentiality Determinations for Subpart I ” [77 FR 63538, October 16, 2012]. EPA is documenting the phone call for docket number EPA - HQ - OAR - 2011 - 0028. **Attendees:** EPA

–Anhar Karimjee, Deborah Ottinger, Jennifer Bohman Samsung

– Tim Jones S emiconductor Industry A ssociation (SIA) Consultant - John Holmes Eastern Research Group

– Brian Palmer , EPA contractor **Summary :**  Samsung reported that they tested the F - GHG DRE of the POU abatement sy stems on 24 units at their US semiconductor manufacturing facility . These abatement s ys tems are manufactured by CSK and are controlling emissi ons from etch processes. The abatement s ystems are not d esigned or intended to control F - GHG emissions. Instead, they are primarily intended to control ammonia and fluorine gas emis sions. Samsung reported that their facil ity in South Korea has the same CSK abatement s ys tems in place, but also has an additional sy stem that is designed specificall y to control F - GHG emissions. The DRE was measured using the EPA’s DRE protocol that is incorporated by reference into subpart I. The testing was performed b y a testing contractor (URS Corporation) that is experienced with this method and the source category . The CSK sy stems at the US facility were able to achieve substantial emission reductions of some of the F - GHG s that were measured . However, the measured DRE of perfluoromethane (CF 4 ) was substantially

below the default DRE value of 60 percent that is included in the present 40 CFR part 98 subpart I and that is included in the proposed amendments as a default DRE for CF 4 . Samsung reported that the sy st ems have no manufacturer- claimed DRE for CF 4 . However, Samsung is working with the manufacturer to see whether the sy stems’ performance can be improved to achieve a 60 percent DRE for CF 4 . Samsung stated that they assumed no DRE for2

the abatement s ys tems when calculating the F - GHG emissions included in their 2011 annual report. Samsung and SIA stated that they will submit c omment s on how the final rule should consi der these testing results. SIA also stated that they would only include data from sy stems designed to control F - GHG s in any data submitted to EPA in support of the proposed default DRE values in proposed Table I - 16 of the proposed amendments. EPA noted that the comment period for the proposed amendments will close on January 16, 2013 . EPA encouraged Samsung and SIA to submit any data that are available as soon as possible so that other commenters can consider the data before the end of the comm ent period.
**Exhibit 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos. 333-88442, 333-32869,33-46735 and 33-46734 of Terra Industries Inc. and subsidiaries on Forms S-8 and RegistrationStatements Nos. 333-68766, 333-119756, 333-1211835, 333-121837 and 333-123403 of Terra IndustriesInc. and subsidiaries on Forms S-3 of our reports dated March 8, 2006, relating to the financialstatements and financial statement schedule of Terra Industries Inc. and subsidiaries andmanagement’s report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing inthis Annual Report on Form 10-K of Terra Industries Inc. and subsidiaries.DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 159 (Monday, August 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 44028]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21800]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act (SBREFA)

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act (SBREFA) 
will hold a public meeting on Thursday, August 21, 1997, at the SBA 
District Office Business Enterprise Center at 1:30 p.m., at 1200 Sixth 
Avenue, Suite 1700, Seattle, Washington 98101. To inform the small 
business community of the existence of a regulatory enforcement 
oversight process and of SBA's desire to collect information regarding 
businesses' experience with regulatory enforcement actions and to 
discuss such matters as may be presented by members, staff of the U.S. 
Small Business Administration, or others present.
    For further information, please call Sharon L. Mathison at (206) 
553-5676 or Gary P. Peele at (312) 353-0880.
Eugene Carlson,
Associate Administrator, Office of Communications and Public Liaison.
[FR Doc. 97-21800 Filed 8-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Exhibit 99.2

                            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 Quarterly Report of Lawrence Financial Holdings,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission(the "report), I, Jack Blair,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1.   The report fully complies with the requirement of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities and 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/ Jack L. Blair
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                                      Jack L. Blair
                                                    November 13, 2002
#### Mary Ellen Sheehan PEREZ v. Chalin O. PEREZ and Whitney National Bank.

No. 61418.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 18, 1978.

In re: Chalin 0. Perez applying for remedial writ of review and stay order. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied.
No. 00-6842.

#### Sass *v.*California.

Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied.
#### CUDAHY FOODS CO. v. RICH PLAN OF BATON ROUGE, INC., et al.

No. 60704.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 4, 1977.

In re: Thomas Earl Denson and Mrs. Evelyn Denson applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 349 So.2d 894.

Writ denied.

SANDERS, C. J., and SUMMERS and DENNIS, JJ., would grant the writ.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

# **CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We have issued our report dated July 16,2004, (except for Note 4, as to which the date is July 21, 2004 and Note1, as to which the date is August 8, 2005) accompanying the consolidatedfinancial statements and schedule of Ault Incorporated and subsidiarieswhich are included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1to Form 10-K) for the year ended May 30, 2004.  We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference of said report in the Registration Statements of Ault Incorporatedand subsidiaries on Form S-3, File No. 333-100409 (effective October 8, 2002) and on FormsS-8, File No. 333-112103 (effective January 22, 2004), No. 333-51458(effective December 7, 2000), No. 333-91389 (effective November 22,1999), No. 333-08992 (effective October 22, 1997), No. 333-38455(effective October 22, 1997), No. 333-04609 (effective May 28,1996), No. 033-53988 (effective November 2, 1992), No. 033-33566(effective February 20, 1990), No. 033-19662 (effective January 15,1988), and No. 002-87376 (effective November 14, 1983).

 

 
| /s/ Grant Thornton LLP |   |
|------------------------|--------|
|                   |
|                   |
| Minneapolis, Minnesota |
| October 5, 2005   |

 

1

----
Mapping Customer Training

Email this event to me @

Invalid Email Address!Invalid Email Address!

Start Date/Time:

Monday, October 7, 2024 1:30 PM(UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)

End Date/Time:

Monday, October 7, 2024 2:30 PM(UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)

Recurring Event:

One time event

Importance:

Normal Priority

Category:

DLA Aviation Mapping

Description:

Enter event description

Enrolled Users:

                - Return
                - 
                - Export
#### William B. Otoway, Appellant vs. James O. Devall, Appellee.

1. The Supreme Court has no authority to entertain an appeal from a judgment rendered in a Justice’s Court.

BuPONT, J.

This is an Appeal from a judgment rendered in a Justice’s Court,%r the sum of forty-six (dollars and t eighteen cents.

The question of jurisdiction, which was adjudicated in the case of Henderson vs. Brown, decided at the present term of this Court, is the only one that can arise in this pase, and is authoritatively settled by that adjudication.

In that case it was decided that the restriction imposed by the statute, prohibits the Supreme Court [from taking or exercising jurisdiction of causes, in which the matter in controversy does not exceed the amount or value of fifty dollars.

*303In addition to the views set forth in the opinion delivered in that ease, it may be further remarked, that even if the *restriction*did not exist, this Court could not, in the present State of the law, entertain an appeal from a Justice’s Court, for there is no statute providing for the taking or prosecuting of such, to the Supreme Court. The constitution, it is true, secures to a party in a Justice’s Court, the right of appeal, and the General Assembly have amply provided for the exercise of that right, by giving the party an appeal to the Circuit Court.

Let the appeal be dismissed with costs;
Consent of Independent Auditors


                             The Board of Directors
                              SJNB Financial Corp.

We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the registration  statements on
Form S-8 (Nos.  33-31392 and  333-89013) of SJNB  Financial  Corp. of our report
dated  January 17, 2001,  relating to the  consolidated  balance  sheets of SJNB
Financial Corp. and subsidiary as of December 31, 2000 and 1999, and the related
consolidated  statements  of  income,  shareholders'  equity  and  comprehensive
income,  and cash  flows for each of the years in the  three-year  period  ended
December 31, 2000, which report appears in the December 31, 2000,  annual report
on Form 10-K of SJNB Financial Corp.


                                  /s/ KPMG LLP



                           San Francisco, California
                               February 28, 2001
Exhibit 10.1.6
 AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE
TERRA INDUSTRIES INC.
SUPPLEMENTAL DEFERRED
COMPENSATION PLAN
    1.
    
    Discontinuance of Active Participation. Effective as of January 1,
2005, each Participant in the Plan as of that date will continue as a
Participant in the Plan, subject to the terms and conditions of the Plan,
as modified by this Amendment No. 4. However, notwithstanding any
provision of the Plan to the contrary, employees of the Company who
were not Participants in the Plan on December 31, 2004 shall not be
eligible to become Participants after that date.
 2.
    
    Discontinuance of Participant Deferrals. Effective for plan
years beginning after December 31, 2004, no additional Participant deferrals
will be made to the Plan. However, Participants account balances
under the Plan shall continue to be credited with interest and earnings
in accordance with Section 5.02 of the Plan.
 3.
    
    Vesting of Employer Matching Contributions. Any Employer Matching
Contributions credited to a Participant on or before December 31,
2004, shall continue to vest in accordance with Section 5.04 of the
Plan.
 4.
    
    Trust Agreement. This Amendment No. 4 shall not affect the terms
and conditions of the Trust Agreement under Terra Industries Inc.
Deferred Compensation Plan(s) with The Security National Bank of
Sioux City, Iowa, made effective as of January 1, 1995.




---



##### 



,
 TERRA INDUSTRIES INC./s/ Francis G. MeyerBy Francis G. Meyer Its Senior Vice President
#### CENTRAL RIVER INDUSTRIES, INC., d/b/a Central River Terminal v. JOSEPH T. RYERSON & SONS, INC.

No. 50220.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 5, 1978.

Ramsey, Bodron, Thames & Robinson, Dean Andrews, Jr., Vicksburg, for appellant.

Dabney & Dabney, Lucien B. Dabney, Jr., Vicksburg, for appellee.

Before SMITH, P. J., and LEE, BOWLING and COFER, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.2



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 Quarterly Report of Big Sky Industries V, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004  as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ramon Chimelis, Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted 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.



Dated: February 13, 2009



/s/ Ramon Chimelis

Ramon Chimelis, Treasurer

Big Sky Industries V, Inc.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 161 (Wednesday, August 20, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 44270]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21992]



[[Page 44270]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. IS97-26-000]


Phillips Alaska Pipeline Corporation; Notice Rejecting Protest

August 14, 1997.
    On August 12, 1997, the State of Alaska filed a motion for leave to 
file a protest out of time in the above-docketed proceeding. Under 18 
CFR 343.3(a), protests in this proceeding were due on or before July 
15, 1997. Pursuant to 18 CFR 375.302(g), the late-filed protest is 
rejected.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-21992 Filed 8-19-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Lorenzo J. LEEKS, Palm Beach Chemical Company and Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Donna Lynn DOLLING, joined by her husband, Sam L. Dolling, Appellees.

No. 76-2253.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 26, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 6, 1977.

*11Marjorie D. Gadarian of Jones, Paine & Foster, West Palm Beach, for appellants.

Hubert R. Lindsey of Farish & Farish, West Palm Beach, for appellees.

DOWNEY, Judge.

The last record activity in this case in the trial court took place thirteen months prior to appellants’ motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. Rule 1.420(e). The defense to said motion was that the parties had been involved in settlement negotiations during the interim, which negotiations progressed to the point of actually reaching an apparent settlement. But obviously the negotiations never reached fruition.

The trial court denied the motion to dismiss because of the settlement negotiations.

This court held in *Laug v. Murphy,*205 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968), that settlement negotiations are not sufficient to toll the running of the time period contained in Rule 1.420(e). The Third District Court of Appeal ruled similarly in *Steisel v. Birnholz,*313 So.2d 125 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).

Accordingly, we are compelled to reverse the order of the trial court and remand the cause with directions to dismiss the cause under Rule 1.420(e).

REVERSED AND REMANDED, with directions.

MAGER, C. J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur.
Exhibit 32.1


  Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

                            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 Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB of Big Sky Industries I,
Inc.  (the  "Company")  for the quarter  ended June 30, 2004,  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Ramon
Chimelis, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted  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.


    Date: August 20, 2007                           /s/Ramon Chimelis
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    Ramon Chimelis
                                                    Chief Executive Officer
#### S. T. RICKMAN, alias v. STATE.

6 Div. 540.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

July 25, 1978.

AFFIRMED on mandate of the Supreme Court of Alabama, 361 So.2d 28. No opinion.

All the Judges concur.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-18-00154-CR

____________________

JUAN PARRA-GALLAGA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 17-322090

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Juan Parra-Gallaga filed a motion to dismiss his appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 

42.2. Parra-Gallaga signed the request, which his counsel joined. The Court has not 

issued an opinion in the appeal. The motion is granted, and the Court dismisses the 

appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

 ________________________________

 HOLLIS HORTON

 Justice
2

 

Submitted on August 14, 2018

Opinion Delivered August 15, 2018

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2



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 Quarterly Report of Big Sky Industries IV, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ramon Chimelis, Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted 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.



Dated: February 4, 2009



/s/ Ramon Chimelis

Ramon Chimelis, Treasurer

Big Sky Industries IV, Inc.