alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jerald D. ZWAK and Myrna Zwak, his wife, Appellants, v. Ed BROWN aka Bern Brown aka Ed Brown Designers and Builders et al., Appellees.

No. 71-11.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 13, 1971.

David A. Maney, Tampa, for appellants.

Law Office of Samuel Hyman, Tampa, for appellees.

LILES, Judge.

Appellants, Jerald D. Zwak and Myrna Zwak, his wife, contracted with Ed Brown, also referred to as Bern Brown, and also referred to as Ed Brown Designers and Builders, for certain improvements and additions to be made to their home. Zwak, upon Brown advising him that he had completed the contract, refused to pay Brown. Zwak brought suit against Brown and his Sureties, Morrison Assurance Company and American Fire & Casualty Company, claiming that the work was incomplete and the workmanship poor.

The case was tried before the judge without a jury and at the conclusion a judgment in favor of Brown was entered. Subsequently, Brown filed a motion to tax costs. In these costs he asked for attorney’s fees for the defense of Morrison Assurance Company and American Fire & Casualty Company in the sum of $800.00 each. After a hearing on the motion, the trial judge entered its order awarding attorney’s fees as part of the costs.

Appellants urge that it was error for the trial judge to include the Sureties’ attorney’s fees as part of the costs. The trial judge in his order set forth the following :

> “As his costs in this action as a successful party defendant the Court hereby assesses as a Final Judgment in favor of Bern Brown and against plaintiffs, Jerald D. Zwak and Myrna Zwak, his *359wife, the sum of $1,600.00, said sum being composed of the two awards of attorney’s fees hereinabove awarded to the defendant Surety Companies.”

We believe the court was correct in awarding the attorney’s fees as costs. Brown was by his contract obligated to save harmless the Sureties herein and part of saving the Sureties harmless was defending the suit brought by the Zwaks. This was a proper cost incurred by Brown for which he should be reimbursed.

For these reasons the judgment is affirmed.

PIERCE, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
| Area Code/County               | Count |
|--------------------------------|-------|
| 303  Colorado                  | 23018 |
| 719  Colorado                  | 8840  |
| 720  Colorado                  | 9858  |
| 970  Colorado                  | 8507  |
| Adams Colorado                 | 4587  |
| Alamosa Colorado               | 162   |
| Arapahoe Colorado              | 8686  |
| Archuleta Colorado             | 150   |
| Baca Colorado                  | 35    |
| Bent Colorado                  | 37    |
| Boulder Colorado               | 5416  |
| Broomfield Colorado            | 1539  |
| Chaffee Colorado               | 270   |
| Cheyenne Colorado              | 1     |
| Clear Creek Colorado           | 96    |
| Conejos Colorado               | 41    |
| Costilla Colorado              | 8     |
| Crowley Colorado               | 11    |
| Custer Colorado                | 78    |
| Delta Colorado                 | 377   |
| Denver Colorado                | 10654 |
| Dolores Colorado               | 7     |
| Douglas Colorado               | 5842  |
| Eagle Colorado                 | 674   |
| El Paso Colorado               | 9060  |
| Elbert Colorado                | 217   |
| Fremont Colorado               | 461   |
| Garfield Colorado              | 529   |
| Gilpin Colorado                | 66    |
| Grand Colorado                 | 183   |
| Gunnison Colorado              | 314   |
| Hinsdale Colorado              | 1     |
| Huerfano Colorado              | 55    |
| Jackson Colorado               | 6     |
| Jefferson Colorado             | 10090 |
| Kiowa Colorado                 | 11    |
| Kit Carson Colorado            | 38    |
| La Plata Colorado              | 666   |
| Lake Colorado                  | 86    |
| Larimer Colorado               | 6109  |
| Las Animas Colorado            | 78    |
| Lincoln Colorado               | 88    |
| Logan Colorado                 | 95    |
| Mesa Colorado                  | 2390  |
| Mineral Colorado               | 13    |
| Moffat Colorado                | 47    |
| Montezuma Colorado             | 517   |
| Montrose Colorado              | 465   |
| Morgan Colorado                | 425   |
| No Zip Code Reported, Colorado | 702   |
| Otero Colorado                 | 124   |
| Ouray Colorado                 | 108   |
| Park Colorado                  | 276   |
| Phillips Colorado              | 15    |
| Pitkin Colorado                | 496   |
| Prowers Colorado               | 55    |
| Pueblo Colorado                | 1017  |
| Rio Blanco Colorado            | 44    |
| Rio Grande Colorado            | 186   |
| Routt Colorado                 | 386   |
| Saguache Colorado              | 124   |
| San Juan Colorado              | 52    |
| San Miguel Colorado            | 116   |
| Sedgwick Colorado              | 2     |
| Summit Colorado                | 480   |
| Teller Colorado                | 305   |
| Washington Colorado            | 6     |
| Weld Colorado                  | 4168  |
| Yuma Colorado                  | 43    |
#### Daniel *versus*Daniel.

Errors not assigned according to the rules of this Court may he considered as waived.

Error to the Common Pleas of *Lehigh county.*

This was an issue of *devisavit vel*non, in which Samuel Daniel was plaintiff, and Joseph Daniel was defendant, and was directed to try the validity of the will of William Daniel, deceased. The verdict was for the plaintiff.

It was assigned for error, first, *“*The Court erred in rejecting the evidence offered in the first bill of exceptions.” *2. “*The Court erred in rejecting the evidence offered in the second bill of exceptions.” * ' * * * * 7. “ The Court erred in negativing defendant’s *seventh*point.”

*Bridges*and Davis, for plaintiff in error.

*Wright*and *Reeder,*for defendant in error.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Black, O. J.

This was an issue to try the validity of a will assailed on the ground that the testator was incompetent and under undue influence. The result was a verdict, by which the will was pronounced valid.

We have listened to an argument on seven errors which are alleged to have been committed by the Court on the trial. But all these errors are waived, according to the rules of September, 1852, by the manner in which they are assigned on the record. These rules have been in full force for nearly two years. During that time they have been so generally observed as to prove that they are well understood, and easily followed. They are still occasionally disregarded. When they are, we sometimes dispose of the case just as if the rules did not exist. But this I believe has never been done except where some manifest injustice would otherwise have fallen upon the party. Perhaps even this is an indulgence which has done more evil than good. At all events, the time is approaching when it can be expected no longer. But here was a *199simple question of fact, fairly tried and determined according to the weight of evidence, under instructions as favorable to the plaintiff in error as he could ask. All the important evidence, and much that was unimportant, was admitted. All the exceptions but one (and that the argument abandons), are to matters of evidence so remote from the main subject of investigation, that their very remoteness creates the only difficulty about them. On every one of them the ruling of the Court turned on the question of relevancy. We cannot believe that the verdict would have been different if all these points had been decided the other way. When a party desires us to reverse a judgment which seems to be right according to the general aspect of the evidence, in order that he may have the desperate chances of another trial, he must not waive the errors on which he relies.

Judgment affirmed.
DAN WEISS

MANAGING DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL & REGULATORY AFFAIRS

(713) 324-6076

DAN.WEISS@COAIR.COM

March 29, 2011

Esta Rosenberg, Chief

U.S. Carrier Licensing Division

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Notice of Continental and ANA

Docket DOT-OST-2009-0344

Dear Ms. Rosenberg:

Pursuant to the blanket statement of authorization granted to Continental and ANA by 

Notice of Action taken dated January 19, 2010 in the above-referenced docket, Continental 

hereby notifies the Department of the display of ANA’s “NH*” designator code on flights 

operated by Continental between:

 Tokyo, Japan and Houston, Texas; and

 Tokyo, Japan and Newark, New Jersey.

The proposed code-share services are fully consistent with the U.S.-Japan Open Skies 

Agreement. Continental and ANA intend to implement these services on or after May 1, 2011.

 Respectfully submitted,

Dan Weiss

Managing Director, International & 

 Regulatory Affairs

UNITED AIR LINES, INC. AND

 CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC
 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the foregoing document on all 

persons named below by causing a copy to be sent via email:

agoerlich@ggh-airlaw.com

carl.nelson@aa.com

charters@evergreenairlines.com

dvaughan@kelleydrye.com

howard_kass@usairways.com

jhill@dowlohnes.com

mlbenge@zsrlaw.com

mroller@rollerbauer.com

msinick@ssd.com

nssparks@fedex.com

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

slachter@lachter-clements.com

donna.kooperstein@usdoj.gov

dwight.moore@ustranscom.mil

john.allen@faa.gov

Annalei Avanceña 

International Regulatory Advisor

March 29, 2011
**EXHIBIT 32.01**

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief FinancialOfficerFurnished Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of VersantCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended October 31,2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Jochen Witte, as Chief Executive Officer and Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company for the annualperiod covered by the Report.

 

 
| /s/  Jochen Witte                      |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| Jochen Witte                           |
| President and Chief Executive Officer, |
| Chief Financial Officer                |
| January 27, 2006                  |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

----
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 10(i)

STEPHEN E. ROTH
DIRECT LINE: (202) 383-0158
Internet: sroth@sablaw.com



                                  July 5, 2001

VIA EDGAR
---------

Board of Directors
GE Capital Life Assurance
 Company of New York
125 Park Avenue, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10017-5529

          Re:   GE Capital Life Separate Account II
                -----------------------------------

Ladies and Gentlemen:

          We hereby consent to the reference to our name under the caption
"Legal Matters" in the Statement of Additional Information filed as part of
Post-Effective Amendment No. 5 to the Registration Statement on Form N-4 filed
by GE Capital Life Separate Account II for certain flexible premium variable
deferred annuity contracts (File No. 333-39955).  In giving this consent, we do
not admit that we are in the category of persons whose consent is required under
Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933.

                              Very truly yours,

                              SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP



                              By: /s/ Stephen E. Roth
                                  -------------------
                                  Stephen E. Roth
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RICKY ROUSE,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 418 WAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 29th day of March, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

and Motion to File an Amended Petition for Allowance of Appeal or a Motion to Remand

are DENIED

.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Claude WATTS v. Ross MAGGIO, Jr., Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 60112.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 16, 1977.

In re: Claude Watts, applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Writ denied. Based upon the information furnished this Court by the District Attorney to the effect that the minutes of court show all relator’s convictions in the Parish of Iberville to have been with benefit of counsel, the result reached by the district court is correct.

DIXON, J.,

dissents. The trial judge erred in denying an evidentiary hearing to determine whether uncounselled convictions were used to impeach applicant on his trial. Under new provisions and rules, the hearing could have been held without returning the applicant from Angola to Iberville Parish. The factual determination should not have been left to this court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           4,087
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             114
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 5,910
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     43,446
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           8,850
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             8,989
<LOANS>                                        100,594
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,109
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 166,639
<DEPOSITS>                                     144,054
<SHORT-TERM>                                     6,298
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,039
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,286
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,962
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 166,639
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  6,572
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,136
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   367
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 9,228
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,810
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,966
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            5,262
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      179
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   1
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,408
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,266
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,266
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                        1,537
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.22
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.79
<LOANS-NON>                                        372
<LOANS-PAST>                                       356
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,218
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      305
<RECOVERIES>                                        17
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,109
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,109
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             31
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
31.1





CERTIFICATION
ACCOMPANYING PERIODIC REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002





I,
Yi He, certify that:





1.           I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Forlink Software Corporation,
Inc.;





2.      Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement 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 report;





3.      Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this 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 report;





4.      The
registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining 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 material
information 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 report is being prepared;





(b) Evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and
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 over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent 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 of
internal 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’s internal control over financial
reporting.





Date:  March
      26, 2010
                          By:
                          /s/
      Yi HeYi
      HeChief
      Executive
Officer
#### Calvin H. MERKLE, Petitioner, v. RICE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, etc., Respondent.

No. 43275.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 22, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 271 So.2d 220.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, J., dissents.
Edward	F.	Shaughnessy,	III

Attorney	at	Law

206	E.	Locust	

San	Antonio,	Texas	78212

(210)	212-6700

Shaughnessy727@gmail.com

Keith	Hottle,	Clerk	

Cout	of	Appeals

Fourth	Court	of	Appeals	District

Cadena-Reeves	Justice	Center

300	Dolorosa,	Suite	3200

San	Antonio,	Texas	78205

March	4,	2015

Re:	Court	of	Appeals	Number	04-14-00618-CR

						Trial	Court	Number:	14-0698-CR-C

						Thomas	Little	v.	The	State	of	Texas

Dear	Sir,	

On	February	18,	2015	this	court	entered	an	order	in	the	instant	matter	in	which	

it	requested	that	the	State/Appellee	file	a	written	response	to	the	Appellant’s	Motion	to	

Abate	the	for	purposes	of	the	entry	of	Findings	of	Fact	and	Conclusions	of	Law	regarding	

a	statement	of	the	accused	that	was	utilized	during	the	course	of	the	trial.		I	have	

recently	been	made	aware	of	that	order.		Please	be	advised	that	the	State	of	Texas	has	

no	objection	to	this	Court	granting	the	Appellant’s	request	for	an	abatement	of	the	

cause	for	the	limited	purposes	of	the	entry	of	Findings	of	Fact	and	Conclusions	of	Law	

regarding	statements	of	the	appellant	utilized	at	trial.		

Unless	the	Court	enters	an	order	to	the	contrary,	the	undersigned	will	operate	

under	the	assumption	that	the	time	requirement	for	the	filing	of	the	State’s	brief	will	be	

suspended	pending	the	filing	of	the	trial	court’s	findings,	and	the	forwarding	of	those	

findings	to	this	Court.		If	that	is	not	how	this	Court	intends	to	proceed,	please	contact	

me	as	early	as	possible.

Sincerely,	

/s/	Edward	F.	Shaughnessy

Edward	F.	Shaughnessy

Attorney	at	Law

Cc Gregory	Sherwood

ACCEPTED

04-14-00618-CR

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

3/4/2015 5:06:37 PM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 3/4/2015 5:06:37 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
**Docket Number FAA -**  **2012 -**  **0671**
<PAGE>   1
                      ECOMETRY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                                   EXHIBIT 3.3

                              ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
                              AMENDED AND RESTATED
                            ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                        SMITH-GARDNER & ASSOCIATES, INC.

         Pursuant to Section 607.1006 of the Florida Business Corporation Act,
the undersigned President of Smith-Gardner & Associates, Inc., a Florida
corporation (the "Corporation"), hereby executes and submits for filing with the
Department of State, State of Florida these Articles of Amendment to the Amended
and Restated Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation to read as follows:


                                ARTICLE I - NAME

         The name of this corporation is ECOMETRY CORPORATION.

         Except as hereby amended, the Amended and Restated Articles of
Incorporation of the Corporation shall remain the same.

         This Amendment shall be effective upon its filing with the Florida
Department of State.

         The foregoing amendment was adopted by the Board of Directors of the
Corporation at a Board of Directors Meeting held on September 14, 2000 and by a
majority of the Shareholders of the Common Stock of the Corporation at a Special
Meeting of Shareholders held on November 10, 2000. Therefore, the number of
votes cast for the amendment was sufficient for approval.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed these Articles of
Amendment as of this 29th day of November, 2000.

                                          SMITH-GARDNER & ASSOCIATES, INC.




                                          By: /s/ John Marrah
                                             ----------------------------------
                                             John Marrah
                                             President






                                       4
#### Mrs. Ellove Johnson, wife of/and Monroe JOHNSON v. The INSURANCE CO. OF NORTH AMERICA and Schwegmann Bros.

No. 61179.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 11, 1978.

In re: The Insurance Company of North America and Schwegmann Bros, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Orleans. 351 So.2d 190.

Writ granted. It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.