alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jean George LOGNION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 3989.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Oct. 27, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 6, 1972.

Writ Refused Jan. 16, 1973.

Edwards, Stefanski & Barousse by Homer E. Barousse, Jr., Crowley, for plaintiff-appellant.

Plauché, Smith & Hebert by Reid K. Hebert, Lake Charles, for defendant-appel-lee.

Before FRUGÉ, CULPEPPER and DOMENGEAUX, JJ.

FRUGÉ, Judge.

Plaintiff Lognion seeks damages for personal injuries and property damages sustained when he drove from a private driveway directly into the path of the vehicle of Roy Stutes, who was driving easterly on Louisiana Highway 384 within the legal speed limit. Stutes was at the time of the accident within the course and scope of his employment with United Gas Distribution Company, defendant Continental’s insured.

This appeal presents only a question of fact. We have carefully studied the evidence and conclude that the District Judge’s findings that Mr. Stutes was free from negligence is eminently correct. Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed. All costs of this appeal are assessed to the plaintiff-appellant.

Affirmed.
0 0

07 12 201112FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCEWASHINGTON, D.C. 20580 

CASE NAME FILE/DOCKET NUMBER 

Universal Computers and Electronics, Inc., et al. D09347 

07 201107 12 2007 12 2007 12 2007 1 2 2007 1 2 2007 12 200 12  2007 1 2 2007 12 2007 12 2007 12 2007 12 2007 12 2007 12 2007 12 2007 12 2007 12 2007 12 2007 12 2007 12 2007 12 2007 12 2007 12 2007 12 2007 12 2007 12 2007 12 2007 12 2007 12 2007 12 2007 12 2007 12 2007 12 2007 12 2007 12 2007 12 2007 12 2007 12 2007 12 2007 12 2007 12 2007 12 2007 12 20 

�Pursuant to Section 4.1 of the Commission's Rule of Practice, enter in the above proceedingthe appearance of 

counsel or representative for the respondent (Complete items 1, 2, 4, and 5 below) 

counsel supporting the complaint (Complete items 1, 3, 4, and 5 below) 

1. COUNSEL OR REPRESENTATIVE	 2. RESPONDENTS Include name, address and telephone of each 

Richard Neubarth Attorney Law Office 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007 646-263-1948 

3. ASSOCIATE/ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 

Include address and telephone numbers of all persons, partnerships, corporations, or associations 

Manuel Santos Universal Computers and Electronics, Inc 210 Stanton Street, Apt 616 New York, NY 10002 646-476-3118 

4. SIGNATURE OF SENIOR COUNSEL 5. DATE SIGNED 

(Richard S. Neubarth) 7/12/2011 

Return this form to:	 H-135 Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, D.C. 20580 

FTC Form 232 (rev. 1/07)
#### T. Paul HODGE, Appellant, v. William Clayton JOHNSON, Appellee.

No. 72-664.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 9, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7834
MICHAEL F. DEHONEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusWILLIAM D. CATOE, Deputy Commissioner, individually and/or in their official capacities; MICHAEL MOORE, Director, Defendants - Appellees, and SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; PARKER EVATT, Commissioner, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-1903-21BE) Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: August 5, 1998 Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.* The order also denied Dehoney’s motion to amend and motion to stay the proceedings pending discovery. 2 Michael F. Dehoney, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Crouch Coleman, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Michael F. Dehoney appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. * We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Dehoney v. Catoe , No. CA-94-1903-21BE (D.S.C. Nov. 19, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.1

RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC.    CERTIFICATION

In connection with the periodic report of Restoration Hardware, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended
January 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Gary G. Friedman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely
for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

This
Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date:
April 12, 2004

|    |  |                                                              |  | 
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 
|By: |  | /s/ Gary G. FriedmanGary G. Friedman Chief Executive Officer |  | 

---

QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                             468
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          74,343
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,454
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  65,054
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         39,877
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,314
<OTHER-SE>                                         834
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    65,054
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,473
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,551
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   209
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    713
<INCOME-TAX>                                         3
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                710
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       710
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .46
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                                CONSENT OF KPMG LLP

The Board of Directors
Sauer-Danfoss Inc.:

    We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements No.
33-53927 and No. 333-93745 on Form S-8 of Sauer-Danfoss Inc. of our reports
dated February 14, 2001 relating to the consolidated balance sheet of
Sauer-Danfoss Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000, and the related
consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity and comprehensive income
and cash flows for the year then ended, and the related 2000 financial statement
schedules, which reports appear in the December 31, 2000 annual report on Form
10-K of Sauer-Danfoss Inc.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Des Moines, Iowa

March 27, 2001

                                       60
#### In the Matter of William P. Bell et al., Respondents, v Village of Poland, Appellant.

[722 NYS2d 194]

—Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and new trial granted. Memorandum: Respondent, Village of Poland, appeals from a judgment of Supreme Court in this condemnation proceeding that awarded compensation to petitioners, William P. Bell and James P. Bell, in the amount of $38,500. The court rejected the appraisals of both parties, and arrived at its determination of value using what it described as a “hybrid-type” approach. The court, however, wholly failed to explain the basis for its determination, nor is its determination supported by evidence in the record *(see, Matter of City of New York,*55 NY2d 885, 886; *Matter of County of Suffolk v Kalimnios,*275 AD2d 455, 456-457). We cannot make our own findings upon this record because the appraisals submitted by the parties are defective. Petitioners’ appraiser concluded that the highest and best use of the property is as a gravel mine. In determining the value of the property, however, he erred in multiplying the amount of gravel appropriated or rendered unmineable by the unit price per cubic yard. It is improper to value the property by “multiplying the estimated quantity by a given price unit” *(Sparks v State of New York,*39 AD2d 822); the proper measure of damages is the “value of the land as enhanced by the mineral deposit” *(Wheatfield Props. Co. v State of New York,*55 AD2d 1040).

The appraisals submitted by respondent are also flawed. With respect to the first and second appraisals, respondent’s appraiser failed to make necessary adjustments to account for differences between the comparable sales of property upon *879which he relied and the subject property (see, *Geffen Motors v State of New York,*33 AD2d 980). The first appraisal is flawed for the further reason that respondent’s appraiser failed to include “the necessary facts, figures and calculations to account for [those] adjustments” that he did make *(Matter of County of Dutchess,*186 AD2d 891, 892). Because both appraisals were flawed and there is no competent proof from which we can determine the value of the property, a new trial must be held *(see, Yaphank Dev. Co. v County of Suffolk,*203 AD2d 280, 282). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Herkimer County, Kirk, J. — Eminent Domain Law.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Hayes, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.
Case l:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1360-1 Filed 07/28/22 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

SOUTHERN DIVISION

In re SANCTUARY BELIZE LITIGATION No: 18-CV-3309-PJM

[PIlQPOaED] ORDER REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REDRESS PLAN

On January 21, 2021, Plaintiff the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") submitted a

proposed redress plan. See ECF No. 1117 (motion) and ECF No. 1117-1 (the "Redress Plan").

On July 27,2022, the Court held a status conference, in which it discussed the implementation of

the Redress Plan with counsel for the FTC, counsel for the Receiver, the Receiver, and

Defendants' counsel. At this status conference, the Court orally ordered that the Receiver is

authorized to begin implementing the Redress Plan. Being duly advised, and for good cause

shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

A. The FTC's motion is PARTIALLY GRANTED.

B. The effective date of the Redress Plan is September 12, 2022.

C. The Receiver shall then engage with consumers to implement the first 150 days of the

Redress Plan, which are specified in Section II - Section III. A. of ECF No. 1117-1,

pursuant to the definitions contained in Section I of the Redress Plan.

D. After undertaking the foregoing, the Receiver shall not take any further steps to

implement the Redress Plan without further order of the Court.

E. Within 180 days of the September 12, 2022 effective date of the Redress Plan, the

Receiver shall submit a separate report to the Court concerning the status of

implementation of the Redress Plan.

SO ORDERED, this /^day of Aul , 2022.

TATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-03309-PJM Document 1373 Filed 08/18/22 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

 

The undersigned, Stephen M. Hosmer, Co-President, Co-Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Royale Energy, Inc., a California corporation (the "Company"), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certifies that:

 

(1) the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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:  March 27, 2009 | By:    | */s/ Stephen M. Hosmer***                                                               |
|-----------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                  |   | Stephen M. Hosmer, Co-President, Co-Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer |
**Exhibit
      32.1**




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906




OF
      THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies
      that
      this periodic report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
      in
      the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of the issuer.




Date: May
          8, 2006

      
            Jeffrey
              P. OrleansJeffrey P. OrleansChief Executive
              Officer




1

---
_______________________________________ __ 

### Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



## October 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice



## 136427 Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. 

## PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

## Plaintiff-Appellee, J ustices



## v SC: 136427 COA: 283651 Wayne CC: 89-014735-FY MACK TIGGART, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the April 9, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).

p1020 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 27, 2008

Clerk
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 01, 2024. 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, August 01, 2024 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A24D0401. QUAVERIS MIMS v. THE STATE.
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 20CG0344
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name of                                            Jurisdiction of
Subsidiary                                         Incorporation
----------                                         ---------------
<S>                                                <C>
Actar Airforce, Inc.                               Canada

Breas Medical AB                                   Sweden

Marquest Medical Products, Inc.                    Colorado

Sleep Services of America, Inc.                    Pennsylvania
   (formerly, National Sleep Technologies, Inc.)

Stelex--The Validation Group, Inc.                 Pennsylvania
   (formerly, The Validation Group, Inc.)

Thomas Medical Products, Inc.                      Pennsylvania

Vital Pharma, Inc.                                 Florida

Vital Signs California, Inc.                       California

Vital Signs Limited                                United Kingdom

Vital Signs MN, Inc.                               Minnesota

Vital Signs Export, Inc.                           Barbados
</TABLE>
United States


Securities and Exchange Commission


Washington, D.C. 20549





FORM 8-K








CURRENT REPORT


Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the


Securities Exchange Act of 1934





Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): April 2, 2019














DIAMOND HILL INVESTMENT GROUP, INC.


(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)





Ohio000-2449865-0190407(State or other jurisdiction ofincorporation)(Commission File Number)(I.R.S. EmployerIdentification No.)


325 John H. McConnell Blvd., Suite 200, Columbus, Ohio43215(Address of Principal Executive Offices)(Zip Code)





Registrant's Telephone Number, Including Area Code:   (614) 255-3333








Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:





 ̈ Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)





 ̈ Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)





 ̈ Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))





 ̈ Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))


Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an emerging growth company as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act of 1933 (§230.405 of this chapter) or Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (§240.12b-2 of this chapter).


Emerging growth company ☐





If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐








---







Item 8.01   Other Events





The following is a summary of assets under management as of March 31, 2019 of Diamond Hill Capital Management, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Diamond Hill Investment Group, Inc. (in millions):





By Investment VehicleProprietary funds$14,623Sub-advised funds1,601Institutional accounts4,656Total$20,880





By Investment StrategySmall Cap$954Small-Mid Cap3,025Mid Cap249Large Cap10,686All Cap Select477Long-Short3,959Global/International21Short Duration Fixed Income621Core Fixed Income58Long Duration Fixed Income54Corporate Credit874High Yield76(Less: Investments in affiliated funds)(174)Total$20,880








SIGNATURES





Pursuant to the  requirements  of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant  has duly  caused  this  report  to be  signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.





DIAMOND HILL INVESTMENT GROUP, INC.Date:April 2, 2019By:/s/ Thomas E. LineThomas E. Line, Chief Financial Officer
IronEagleopenswaterrecycling 

facility toserveoil andgas industry

Announcing Iron Eagle of Sherrodsville

We accept and process most types of 

oilfield waste and process streams

Iron Eagle Enterprises is pleased 

to announce the opening of its 

water recycling terminal in 

Sherrodsville, OH, to serve oil 

and gas drillers operating in 

the area. 

The Iron Eagle facility already 

complies in advance with pending 

Ohio legistration pertaining to 

the proper disposal of oilfield 

wastewater.

The treatment operations will be 

managed by RETTEW Flowback 

Inc. (RFI), an engineering firm 

with offices in Canton that also provided site design 

and facility permitting.

The wastewater will be treated first and then filtered to remove 

contaminants. The recycled water will be hauled back to the 

producers to continue the cycle of drilling and stimulating wells 

(shale or conventional).

Features and benefits of 

the water recycling plant:

• 24/7 service; trucking needs 

provided

• Accepting all types of water

• Processes 14,000 barrels of 

water per day

• Automated tanker rinse-out

• Saves money by reducing the amount 

of fresh water drillers must purchase

• Eliminates disposal fees at 

injection wells

• This is a load-in and load-out facility, 

reducing transportation costs

• On-site laboratory services

• Top rated safety companies

• Certified “down hole” analysis

20 Church Street • Sherrodsville, OH 44675

Phone 1-866-967-2760 • Fax 330-759-0086 • www.ironeagleent.com

We renew the most valuable resource: water
#### Willey Eugene SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-66.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 3, 1973.

James A. Gardner, Public Defender, and W. Daniel Kearney, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard C. Booth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

*388PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Raines v. State, 1900, 42 Fla. 141, 28 So. 57; and Collins v. State, Fla.App.1972, 271 So.2d 156.

MANN, C. J., and LILES and HOB-SON, JJ., concur.
259 La. 812

#### Emma COMEAUX v. Walter J. NOEL.

No. 51720.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 15, 1971.

In re: Emma Comeaux, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Vermilion. 251 So.2d 94.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, the result is correct.

SUMMERS, J., takes no part.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T M A RI A PA N TA LEO N - FLO RES, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 10- 71174 A ge nc yN o. A 095- 638- 340 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d A pr i l 20, 2011 ** B efo re: R Y M E R , T H O M A S , an dP A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M ar i aP ant a l e on- F l or e s , ana t i ve and c i t i z e n, pe t i t i ons pr o s e f orr e vi e w of the de c i s i on of

the B oar d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s de ny i ng, a s unt i m e l y , P ant a l e onF l ores ’ s s ec on d m ot i on t o reopen and re consi der the un derl yi ng deni alof her 

# FI LED MA Y03 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 71174 2 appl i c a t i on f

orc anc e l l a t i on of

r e m ova l , ba s e d on he rf a i l ur e t o e s t abl i s h the r e qui s i t e har ds hi p t o he rqua l i f y i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s c i t i z e n c hi l dr e n. P ant a l e on- F l or e s ha s w a i ve d anyc ha l l e nge t o the B I A ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng he rm ot i on t o r e ope n and r e c ons i de rbyf a i l i ng t o r a i s e anyar gum e nt s r e l a t e d t o the B IA ’ s d i sp o si t i v e d et erm i n at i o n th atth e m o t i o n w as u n t i m el y. See M a rt i n ezSe rra n o v . I

NS , 94 F . 3d 12 56 , 12 59 -60 (9th C i r. 19 96 ). PETI TI O N FO R R EVI EW D EN I ED .