alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Rodell, Appellant, *v.*Adams.

*Negligence*— Master *and servant*— Emery *wheel*— Defective appliance— *Pleading.*

1. In an action by an employee against his employer to recover damages for personal injuries from the breaking of an emery wheel, where the only negligence alleged is that the arbor or spindle on which the wheel ran was too light, a nonsuit is properly entered if it appears from the plaintiff’s own testimony that he had had twenty years experience in the use of emery wheels, that he had selected the wheel in question himself from the stock in the factory and had placed it on the machine, that he had told his employer that it was difficult to grind tools on the wheel, but that he had not spoken of its being dangerous, and that he did not believe that it was dangerous.

2. In an action for negligence it is not enough that a cause of action be shown, it must be the cause alleged.

*285Argued Jan. 23, 1911.

April 10, 1911:

Appeal, No. 272, Jan. T., 1910, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1906, No. 3,032, refusing to take off nonsuit in case of Harry A. Rodell v. Daniel Adams.

Before Fell, C. J., Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Stewart and Moschzisker, JJ.

Affirmed.

Trespass to cover damages for personal injuries. Before Davis, J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.

*Error assigned*was order refusing to take off nonsuit.

*Myles Higgins,*for appellant.

*Paxson Deeter,*with him *E. Clinton Rhoads*and *John C. Bell,*for appellees.

Per Curiam,

The plaintiff was injured by the breaking of an emery wheel on which he was grinding tools. He was a skilled workman, with some twenty years’ experience in the use of emery wheels. He had selected the wheel from the stock in the factory and placed it on the machine on which it was operated. The negligence alleged in the plaintiff’s statement of claim was that the wheel was defective and known by the defendant to be so. The only testimony in support of this allegation was that the arbor was too light for the wheel. The only effect of this was that the wheel vibrated and made the grinding of tools more difficult. It did not make the use of the wheel unsafe. The plaintiff, who used the wheel daily, testified that he had told his employer that it was difficult to grind tools on the wheel, but that he had not spoken of its being dangerous, and that he did not believe it was dangerous. His only objection was on the ground of inconvenience, not of danger. The plaintiff’s testimony made an end of his case. If he, a skilled workman, did not consider the wheel dangerous, *286his employer had no reason to believe it dangerous. Moreover, there was no evidence that the wheel was dangerous or that the accident resulted from the use of a light arbor. There was an attempt at the trial to set up other grounds of negligence, not alleged in the statement. This could not be done. It is not enough that a cause of action be shown; it must be the cause alleged.

The judgment is affirmed.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Scott Meyer Complainant 

v. 

FAA Docket No. 16-12-14 

City of Cincinnati, Ohio 

Respondent. 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for FederallyAssisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CPR, Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CPR, 

Part 16, subpart B, the date by which the Director's Determination will be issued in this 

matter is hereby extended to September 15,2014. 

An extension of time is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination 

in this case. 

Randall S. Fiertz 

Director, Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis 

Date r- , 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 30, 2014, I caused to be placed in the United States 

mail (first class mail, postage paid), a true copy of the Notice of Extension of Time addressed 

to: 

Scott Meyer 

7107 Overton Way 

Mainesville, OH 45039 

Complainant 

JohnP. Curp 

Andrew W. Garth 

Terrance A. Nestor 

Office of the City Solicitor 

801 Plum Street, Suite 234 

Cincinnati, OH 45202 

W. Eric Pilsk 

Peter J. Kirsh 

Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell, LLP 

1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20036 

Counsel for Respondent 

Hand Delivered to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

FAA Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-1 00 

~~ .vI 'ALao eTOrgerso'!1'ft~ Office of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis
**Exhibit 31**

Sarbanes Oxley Act Section 302 Certification 

I, Andrew D. Widner, certifythat: 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the periodcovered by this report on Form 10-K of National City Credit Card Master Trust and National City Credit Card Master Note Trust (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodicreports; 

4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and thecompliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations underthe servicing agreement 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 on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB andExchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliatedparties: The Bank of New York Mellon, successor to The Bank of New York and BNY Mellon Trust of Delaware, formerly known as BNYM (Delaware). 

[Signature Page to Follow] 

March 27, 2012/s/ Andrew D. Widner
Andrew D. Widner

Vice President of PNC Bank, National Association,

successor to National City Bank, as Servicer
Order entered May 16, 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 16
- 00130
- CV SUSAN ASHTON, Appellant

V. KOONSFULLER, P.C., Appellee On Appeal from the 95th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause N o. DC
- 12
- 05346



### O RDER
We GRANT appellant’s May 12, 2016 unopposed second motion for an extension of
time to file a brief and extend the time to MAY 23, 2016 . We caution appellant that no further extension will be granted absent extenuating circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

December 21, 2009 

p1214 

Order 

 

December 21, 2009 

138623 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138623 

 COA: 281385 

Oakland CC: 2007-213264-FH 

MICKEY ALLEN HICKS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 17, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-14-00088-CR

Kurt Conrad MILLER,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of 

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR8700

Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 5, 2014

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

The trial court imposed sentence in the underlying cause on August 16, 2013. Appellant 

filed a timely notice of appeal on September 5, 2013; however, this court dismissed the appeal 

because the underlying cause was a plea-bargain case, and the trial court’s certification showed 

the appellant did not have the right to appeal. See Miller v. State, No. 04-13-00603-CR, 2013 WL 

5575469 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Oct. 9, 2013, no pet.). 

After this court’s mandate issued on December 11, 2013, the appellant filed a second notice 

of appeal on January 29, 2014, stating an intent to appeal a sentence imposed on January 15, 2014. 
04-14-00088-CR

As previously noted, however, sentence was imposed in the underlying cause on August 16, 2013, 

and appellant’s timely appeal of the trial court’s judgment was dismissed. 

On February 10, 2014, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing why this appeal 

should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1996) (court of appeals’ jurisdiction invoked only by timely notice of appeal). 

Appellant filed a written response stating his desire to “repeal [his] signing of the plea bargain 

agreement.” Appellant states he would like his plea bargain agreement changed from two years 

of community supervision to two years of incarceration. This court has no jurisdiction to consider 

any issues relating to the trial court’s judgment and sentence in the absence of a timely notice of 

appeal. Because appellant did not have the right to appeal, his prior timely appeal was dismissed;

and because appellant’s second notice of appeal was not timely filed, this appeal is dismissed for 

lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

- 2 -
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           4,572
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           4,658
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 4,004
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     65,299
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          11,312
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            11,273
<LOANS>                                        113,762
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,239
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 208,049
<DEPOSITS>                                     173,145
<SHORT-TERM>                                    16,171
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,443
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,543
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,747
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 208,049
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  7,351
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,123
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   506
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                10,980
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               4,759
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,191
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            5,789
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      295
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  23
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,636
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,511
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,511
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,748
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.16
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.28
<LOANS-NON>                                        276
<LOANS-PAST>                                       128
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,148
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      230
<RECOVERIES>                                        26
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,239
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,239
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
##### 



BancWest Corporation and Subsidiaries 
EXHIBITS AND REPORTS ON FORM 8-K(Continued) Exhibit      32 Section 1350 Certification 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 BancWest Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Douglas C. Grigsby, Chief Financial Officer 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 based on my knowledge:  3.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and4.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company. Date: May 13, 2004./s/ Douglas C. GrigsbyDouglas C. GrigsbyChief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

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

 

 
| Date: November 14,  2008 | Jeffrey P. Orleans      |
|-------------------------------|-------------------------|
|                          | Jeffrey P. Orleans      |
|                          | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 99.1








December 10, 2012Analyst Contact:T.D. Eureste918-588-7167Media Contact:Megan Lewis918-561-5325








ONEOK to Participate in Morgan Stanley


Global Commodities Conference





TULSA, Okla. - Dec. 10, 2012 - ONEOK, Inc. (NYSE: OKE) will participate in the Morgan Stanley Global Commodities Conference on Wednesday, Dec. 12, 2012, in Miami, Fla.





Pierce H. Norton II, ONEOK executive vice president and chief operating officer, will conduct a series of one-on-one meetings with investment-community representatives at the conference.





The materials utilized at the conference will be accessible on the ONEOK, Inc. website, www.oneok.com , on Wednesday, Dec. 12, 2012, beginning at 8 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (7 a.m. Central Standard Time).








ONEOK, Inc . (pronounced ONE - OAK) (NYSE: OKE) is a diversified energy company . We are the general partner and own 43 . 4 percent of ONEOK Partners , L.P. (NYSE: OKS), one of the largest publicly traded master limited partnerships , which is a leader in the gathering , processing , storage and transportation of natural gas in the U.S . and owns one of the nation's premier natural gas liquids (NGL) systems , connecting NGL supply in the Mid-Continent and Rocky Mountain regions with key market centers.  ONEOK is among the largest natural gas distributors in the United States , serving more than two million customers in Oklahoma , Kansas and Texas.  Our energy services operation focuses primarily on marketing natural gas and related services throughout the U.S.  ONEOK is a FORTUNE 500 company and is included in Standard & Poor's (S&P) 5 00 Stock Index .





For information about ONEOK, Inc ., visit the website: www . oneok . com .





For the latest news about ONEOK, follow us on Twitter @ONEOKNews .





# # #
James Huenergardt

Reel Inspirations, Inc.

238 Wind River Drive

Chehalis, WA 98532

March 6, 2016

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave.

SE Washington, DC 20590

Subject: Request for amendment to prior exemption number 14317, regulator docket number FAA-2015-4658.

Amendment Details:

Reel Inspirations would like to add the DJI Phanom 4 UAS and DJI Inspire 1 UAS to our exemption.

We would also like to add the following types of non-closed set filming to our exemption.

Aerial imaging, photography, videography, and cinematography for corporate, education, nonprofit productions as 

well as videography and photography for film and TV production including surveying, commercial aerial photography in connection with homeowner and private-property insurance inspections. 

Sincerely,

James Huenergardt

President/Director – Reel Inspirations
#### GREYHOUND RENT-A-CAR, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Harry J. AUSTIN, Appellee.

No. 72-469.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 29, 1973.

Rehearing Denied March 5, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>            5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SEC
Form 10-Q for the period ended January 29, 2000 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>            1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-28-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-29-2000
<CASH>                                             937
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   38,833
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,298
<INVENTORY>                                     51,134
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                96,083
<PP&E>                                          71,818
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,029
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 282,456
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           45,941
<BONDS>                                        162,004
<COMMON>                                           198
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      71,367
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   282,456
<SALES>                                         75,073
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                75,073
<CGS>                                           53,762
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   53,762
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,300
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,702
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,637
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,065
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,065
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.24


</TABLE>
No. 10089.

#### Ellsperman *v.*The State, ex rel. Stonesipher et al.

Decided March 10, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Muskingum county.

*Mr. Harry C. Shepherd*and' *Mr. E. F. O’Neal,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. John R. Stonesipher; Mr. John J. Adams; Mr. H. E. Buker*and *John H. Whartenby,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Si-iauck, C. J., Price and Davis, JJ., concur.
#### Carlos Luis PINTO, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 43472.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 20, 1973.

Certiorari dismissed. 273 So.2d 408.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. David ROME.

No. 60129.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 20, 1977.

In re: David Rome applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and for stay order.

Granted.

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a writ of certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Thomas McGee, Judge Ad Hoc, 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson, to transmit to the Supreme Court of. Louisiana, on or before the 4th day of October, 1977, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel shall show cause, in this *876Court, on a date to be fixed by this Court why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 08, 2015.

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, April 08, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15I0153. IN THE INTEREST OF: M. S., A CHILD.

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

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

JUV141034
#### STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA, an agency of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. John J. ENDLER et al., Appellees.

No. 69-380.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 3, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.