alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Robin HARRIS and James E. Harris, her husband, Appellants, v. William Robert MOSTELLER and Lewis Albert Fritter, Appellees.

No. 72-375.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 5, 1973.

*215Charles Carrere, of Harrison, Greene, Mann, Davenport, Rowe & Stanton, St. Petersburg, for appellants.

No appearance for appellees.

LILES, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellants, Robin Harris and James E. Harris, filed suit against William Robert Mosteller and Lewis Albert Fritter alleging damages for injuries received as a result of a rear-end collision by an automobile operated by William Mosteller and owned by Albert Fritter. Fritter filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted and this appeal followed.

Appellee Fritter denied ownership of the automobile on the date of the accident. He attached to his motion for summary judgment an affidavit by him stating that he sold the automobile to William Mosteller on March 10, 1970; a receipt claiming payment of $35.00 for the automobile; and an affidavit of the purchaser, William Mosteller, that he purchased the automobile.

In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, appellants filed a letter from Florida Division Motor Vehicle stating that no Florida title had ever been issued; Florida license tag registration certificate showing ownership by Fritter; a certified copy of application for Florida certificate of title signed by Mosteller but applying for certificate of title in the name of Lewis Fritter dated June 3, 1969; and a copy of Virginia certificate of title reflecting ownership by Lewis Fritter. The only evidence that Lewis Fritter sold the automobile, exclusive of the affidavits, was a purported receipt signed by Fritter, to-wit: “3-10-70. This is a receipt for the amount of $35.00 for the purchase of a 1958 Chevy. Dated the 10th day of March, 1970. Lewis Fritter.”

We have reviewed the evidence supporting and opposing the affidavits for summary judgment; and, in our opinion, there was a genuine issue of material fact to be proven regarding the ownership of the automobile. Therefore, a summary judgment was improper based upon the evidence before the court.

For these reasons the summary judgment is reversed.

HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
#### Earl T. SANDERS v. HARTFORD LIFE INSURANCE CO.

No. 60982.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 11, 1977.

In re: Earl T. Sanders applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Union. 350 So.2d 945.

Writ denied. Applicant has not applied for rehearing in Court of Appeal. The judgment is final. Rule X, Sec. 4(b).
# 63

:‘* f

l.- 

### ‘735

**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL.OF TEXAS**  **AUSTIN**

Bonorable Jam.a.D8rt cowlty Attorney Kendall County Boerne, Texas **Pear Hr.**  **D8rtr**

been given our carey years or 8ger who of **unmound**mind, mthat t.he judpmnt entered jn Kerr County to Y.Q.

judge her OP being a feeble-minded person, CO!?- ml ttin c her the Austin State School.

**The ~tatutes,mthoriring**  **the appointment**  **ef 8**  pardlant mder which **the** proceedlncs **In** Kerr County **were** Instituted and judpnrent

entered, are for the salient purpose of **horlng** a euardIan appoInted for the nernons named t,herein, rho, in the judgement of tl-e Count.7 Court, ape not. competent to hanrlle their rroyertp.

### ‘7X

Bonorable Jom. 8. Dart - page 2

We have other prorlolon8 in the wtatuter for tbe trial **of** lnmne **persons,** and invirtue **thereof** are ordered ~aopflnedIn the 8tatr ~otltutlonr for perrons ofMmound **mind.** UnquertlmaEl~, the oourt that appoints a guardian for a psraon ofmmound mind **would** aof in thatprOeoeding **h8re autberity**  **to** 

### oommlt **the party**  **to** tbo inatltution ln Texas ?or the lnw~e.

The propormethod of prooedure, therefore, is ta file the oomplalnt In **Kendall** Ceuntr, **and** haTa the trial court determinewhether **ehe** 1snor ot **mah** feebler mind 88 requirea **her** tobe oonflned **in the**  **Au&in** State Sahool, **and** if ao, enter judgmentand proaerclaeoordlngI~~
#### John HINSON v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 50510.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

July 19, 1978.

Sullivan, Smith, Hunt & Vickery, Charles L. Sullivan, Clarksdale, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Pete J. Cajoleas, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and BROOM and LEE, JJ.

PATTERSON, Chief Justice,

for the Court:

John Hinson, the appellant, was convicted of kidnapping and sentenced to ten years *935imprisonment by the Circuit Court of Webster County. The indictment in pertinent part charges:

> • [U]pon their oath present that JOHN HENSON (sic) late of the county, aforesaid, on or about the 30th day of January 1975, in the county and state aforesaid and within the jurisdiction of this Court, did wilfully, unlawfully, felo-niously and forcible (sic) seize and confine and kidnap Charlene Hill, a human being, with the intent to cause Charlene Hill to be secretly confined against her will in violation of Section 97-3-53 of the Mississippi Code of 1972 .

A careful review of the record discloses no evidence, none at all, of secret confinement. Neither is there any credible evidence that Charlene Hill was unlawfully or forcibly restrained by the appellant. The defendant’s motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of the state’s evidence should have been sustained.

REVERSED AND THE APPELLANT DISCHARGED.

SMITH and ROBERTSON, P. JJ., and SUGG, WALKER, BROOM, LEE and COF-ER, JJ., concur.

BOWLING, J., took no part.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report of Sauer-Danfoss Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David J. Anderson,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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 Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
| Dated: March 14, 2005 | /s/ DAVID J. ANDERSON                 |
|----------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                       | David J. Anderson                     |
|                       | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 10.6


                  Financial Services Corporation of the Midwest

                    Directors' and Officers' Liability Policy
                            Summary of Material Terms


Insured:                 Financial  Services  Corporation  of the Midwest and/or
                         THE Rock Island Bank, N.A.

Underwriter:             Cincinnati Insurance Company

Policy Period:           October 18, 1995 to October 18, 1996

Policy Number:           DO-8562235

Limit of Liability:      $5,000,000 Aggregate Each Policy Year

Retentions:              Per Director:                    $0
                         Aggregate:                       $50,000
                         Corporate Reimbursement          $50,000

Endorsements:            IRA Keough Administration Endorsement   
                         12 Month Discovery Clause 
                         Coverage on a Claims-Made Basis
                         Outside Non-Profit Board Extension:  $1,000,000 
                         Trust Department Errors & Omissions    
                              $3,000,000 Limit 
                              $   25,000 Retention
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 117 (Monday, June 18, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 28271]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12959]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, & First-
Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: June 18, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
June 12, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, & First-Class 
Package Service Contract 38 to Competitive Product List. Documents are 
available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2018-172, CP2018-244.

Elizabeth Reed,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2018-12959 Filed 6-15-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### Fred C. Ampfer, Claimant, *v.*State of New York, Defendant. Louis Bartolozzi et al., Claimants, *v.*State of New York, Defendant. Harry Bergstrom et al., Claimants, *v.*State of New York, Defendant. Louis A. Corwin et al., Claimants, *v.*State of New York, Defendant. Christine Eiblmeyer, Claimant, *v.*State of New York, Defendant. Henry Ernst et al., Claimants, *v.*State of New York, Defendant. John Ernst et al., Claimants, *v.*State of New York, Defendant. Theresia Gruner, Claimant, *v.*State of New York, Defendant. John Keifer et al., Claimants, *v.*State of New York, Defendant. Louise R. Lejeune, Claimant, *v.*State of New York, Defendant. Fred Petermann et al., Claimants, *v.*State of New York, Defendant. Frederick Troendle et al., Claimants, *v.*State of New York, Defendant. Roman Catholic Church of Our Lady of the Cenacle, Claimant, *v.*State of New York, Defendant.

(Claim No. 29821.)

(Claim No. 29822.)

(Claim No. 29823.)

(Claim No. 29824.)

(Claim No. 29825.)

(Claim No. 29826.)

(Claim No. 29827.)

(Claim No. 29828.)

(Claim No. 29829.)

(Claim No. 29830.)

(Claim No. 29831.)

(Claim No. 29832.)

(Claim No. 29863.)

Court of Claims,

June 30, 1952.

*94
      *Isidor Bleich*for claimants.

*Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General (Burns F. Barford*of counsel), for defendant.

Sylvester, J.

The State’s motion made during trial to dismiss each of the claims is granted. Damages to abutting owners for changes in grade of streets, as claimed herein, are *damnum absque injuria. (Radcliff’s Executors*v. *Mayor of Brooklyn,*4 N. Y. 195; *Sauer*v. *City of New York,*180 N. Y. 27, affd. 206 U. S. 536.) In the instant situation there may be no recovery against the State in the absence of statutory authorization therefor. *(Sauer*v. *City of New York, supra; Matter of Young*v. *Kracke,*262 App. Div. 67, affd. 287 N. Y. 634; *Burmaster*v. *State of New York,*186 App. Div. 131; *West 158th St. Garage Corp.*v. *State of New York,*256 App. Div. 401; *Miller*v. *State of New York,*229 App. Div. 423.)

The provisions of article XII-B of the Highway Law, relating to State arterial highways passing through cities and under which the work was done, do not sustain the claimants’ contention of statutory liability on the part of the State. *(Jeran Realty Corp.*v. *State of New York,*194 Misc. 492.)

Let judgment be entered accordingly.
V 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7994 

To authorize the President to award the Purple Heart to Anselm ‘‘Jerry’’ 

Cramer for injuries incurred during the Korean War while a member 

of the Marine Corps. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 7, 2020 

Mr. SUOZZI introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To authorize the President to award the Purple Heart to 

Anselm ‘‘Jerry’’ Cramer for injuries incurred during the 

Korean War while a member of the Marine Corps. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD THE PURPLE 

4 HEART TO ANSELM ‘‘JERRY’’ CRAMER FOR IN5 JURIES INCURRED DURING THE KOREAN 

6 WAR WHILE A MEMBER OF THE MARINE 

7 CORPS. 

8 Notwithstanding the criteria in section 1 of in Execu9 tive Order 11016, the President is authorized to award 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7994 IH

1 the Purple Heart to Anselm ‘‘Jerry’’ Cramer for injuries 

2 incurred during the Korean War while a member of the 

3 Marine Corps. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.22

                                   EXHIBIT A
                                   ---------

                                PROMISSORY NOTE

$62,650                                                         December 1, 1997


     For value received, the undersigned promises to pay to Therasense, Inc., a
California corporation (the "Company"), or order, at its principal office the
principal sum of $62,650 without interest. Said principal shall be due on the
earlier of (i) December 1, 2001, or (ii) the undersigned's termination of
employment with or services to the Company.

     Should suit be commenced to collect this Note or any portion thereof, such
sum as the Court may deem reasonable shall be added hereto as attorneys' fees.
The maker waives presentment for payment, protest, notice of protest, and notice
of non-payment of this Note.

     This Note is secured by a pledge of 895,000 shares of Common Stock of the
Company, pursuant to the provisions of the Restricted Common Stock Purchase
Agreement between the Company and the undersigned executed contemporaneously
with this Note.

     The holder of this Note shall have full recourse against the maker, and
shall not be required to proceed against the Shares or other collateral securing
this Note in the event of default.

                                             /s/ W. Mark Lortz
                                             ---------------------------
                                             Mark Lortz
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Henry Taylor, Jr., Appellant

No. 06-13-00078-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 124th District Court of 

Gregg County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 40623-

B). Opinion delivered by Justice Moseley, 

Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Carter

participating. Dissenting Opinion by 

Justice Carter.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We further order that the appellant, Henry Taylor, Jr., pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED DECEMBER 13, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

KPMG
One Biscayne Tower                                       Telephone 305-358-2300
Suite 2800                                               Fax 305-913-2692
2 South Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, FL 33131


                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
SystemOne Technologies Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(No. 333-86757 and No. 333-50401) on Form S-3 and registration statement (No.
333-70379) on Form S-8 of SystemOne Technologies Inc. (the "Company"), of our
report dated March 2, 2001, relating to the balance sheets of SystemOne
Technologies Inc. as of December 31, 2000 and 1999, and the related statements
of operations, stockholders' deficit, and cash flows for the years then ended,
which report appears in the December 31, 2000, annual report on Form 10-KSB/A
of SystemOne Technologies Inc.

Our report dated March 2, 2001, contains an explanatory paragraph that states
that the Company has suffered recurring losses from operations primarily
resulting from the significant expenses incurred in the establishment of its
national direct marketing and distribution organization and has a net capital
deficiency. The Company may also need to raise additional capital that may be
required to pay maturing issues of long-term debt and redeemable convertible
preferred stock. These factors raise substantial doubt about the Company's
ability to continue as a going concern. Management plans to address these
matters, relating principally to a recently executed marketing and distribution
agreement with Safety-Kleen Services, Inc. are also described in note 2. The
financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the
outcome of these uncertainties.



                                                 /s/ KPMG LLP
                                                 -------------------------


April 3, 2001
<PAGE>   1
                                 EXHIBIT 23(a)

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT




The Board of Directors
Oxford Health Plans, Inc.:

    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 33-49738, 33-70908, 333-988, 333-28109, 333-35693, 33-94242, 333-79063,
333-42920 and 333-33226) on Form S-8 of Oxford Health Plans, Inc. of our reports
dated January 26, 2001, relating to the consolidated balance sheet of Oxford
Health Plans, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000 and 1999 and the
related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity (deficit)
and comprehensive earnings (loss) and cash flows for each of the three years in
the period ended December 31, 2000, which report appears in the December 31,
2000 annual report on Form 10-K of Oxford Health Plans, Inc.



                                                Ernst & Young LLP




New York, New York
February 14, 2001








                                       76
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2509

KEITH E. BOOTH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT'S

OFFICE ON AIDS,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA93-3905-PJM)

Submitted: February 24, 1998 Decided: March 18, 1998

Before WIDENER, ERVIN, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith E. Booth, Appellant Pro Se. John Anthony Bielec, COUNTY

ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Booth appeals the district court's order granting summary

judgment to the Defendants and dismissing Booth's action under

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to

2000e-16 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997), for failure to establish a prima

facie case of discrimination. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Booth v. Prince

George's County, No. CA-93-3905-JFM (D. Md. Sept. 19, 1996). We

deny Booth's "Motion Request for Reconsideration." 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
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8188 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8188

 To amend the Investment Company Act of 1940 to provide complaint and 
    burden of proof requirements for certain actions for breach of 
                            fiduciary duty.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 8, 2020

  Mr. Emmer introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on 
   the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Investment Company Act of 1940 to provide complaint and 
    burden of proof requirements for certain actions for breach of 
                            fiduciary duty.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Mutual Fund Litigation Reform Act''.

SEC. 2. COMPLAINT AND BURDEN OF PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN ACTIONS 
              FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY.

    Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-
35(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(7) In any such action brought by a security holder of a 
        registered investment company on behalf of such company--
                    ``(A) the complaint shall state with particularity 
                all facts establishing a breach of fiduciary duty, and, 
                if an allegation of any such facts is based on 
                information and belief, the complaint shall state with 
                particularity all facts on which that belief is formed; 
                and
                    ``(B) such security holder shall have the burden of 
                proving a breach of fiduciary duty by clear and 
                convincing evidence.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
 
                [LETTERHEAD OF LARSSON, WOODYARD & HENSON, LLP]



March 23, 1999


The Board of Directors
Community Financial Corp.
240 East Chestnut
Olney, Illinois 62450



We consent to incorporation by reference in registration statements 
(No. 33-92534 and 333-322) on Form S-8 of Community Financial Corp. of our
report dated February 5, 1999, relating to the consolidated statements of
financial condition of Community Financial Corp and Subsidiary as of December
31, 1998 and 1997 and the related consolidated statements of income,
stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three year
period ended December 31, 1998, which report appears in the December 31, 1998
annual report on Form 10-K of Community Financial Corp.

/s/ Larsson, Woodyard & Henson, LLP

March 23, 1999
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 99.2

                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, Michael T. Vesey, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         1. This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Orleans Homebuilders, Inc.
(the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended; 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:  May 14, 2003



                                                Michael T. Vesey
                                                -----------------------
                                                Michael T. Vesey
                                                President and COO
#### TROPICAL PARK, INC., Petitioner, v. William R. DAWES, as Trustee, Respondent.

No. 73-137.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 9, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari dismissed.