alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Hugo Schaefer, Respondent, *v.*Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York, Appellant.

Supreme *Court,*Appellate Term, Second Department,

April 9, 1953.

*John S. Thorp, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Robert L. Horn*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

This is an action against a liability insurance company brought pursuant to paragraph (b) of subdivision 1 of section 167 of the Insurance Law, following recovery by plaintiff of a judgment for personal injury and property damage against defendant’s insured which has been unsatisfied because of disclaimed liability where defendant interposed the single defense of cancellation of the insured’s policy prior to the acci*634dent. At the trial, defendant produced a witness amply qualified to render competent by her testimony, as records and writings made in the regular course of defendant’s business, a copy of the cancellation notice claimed by defendant to have been mailed to the insured before the accident and a “ mail list ” which purported to prove the mailing of said notice. The policy provided that the mailing of the cancellation notice by defendant concluded all rights of the insured, under the terms of the policy. The trial court excluded some of the testimony of defendant’s witness and both of the exhibits on the sole ground that such testimony and such exhibits were not binding upon the plaintiff. The court was in error because section 374-a of the Civil Practice Act provides specifically for receiving hearsay testimony and the exhibits in question as proof of an act or an occurrence. The exclusions by the court removed from his consideration important evidence in deciding the case, in fact, the only proof offered by defendant. The incorrect ruling was prejudicial and requires a new trial.

The judgment should be unanimously reversed upon the law and a new trial ordered, with $30 costs to defendant to abide the event.

Walsh, Cuff and Ughetta, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>      5
<CIK>          0000700892
<NAME>         LASER MASTER INTERNATIONAL INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                         9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                  DEC-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    AUG-31-1999
<CASH>                                                69070
<SECURITIES>                                         497946
<RECEIVABLES>                                       3535322
<ALLOWANCES>                                         404500
<INVENTORY>                                         1567356
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    5287444
<PP&E>                                             16158863
<DEPRECIATION>                                      6463599
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     15667848
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               3450669
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                             106154
<OTHER-SE>                                          5424412
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       15667848
<SALES>                                             4220214
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    4220214
<CGS>                                               3017777
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       3017777
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     875855
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   148027
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      186588
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                         186588
<EPS-BASIC>                                           .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           .02



</TABLE>
AMERICAN AIRLINES 

November 1, 2011 

Esta Rosenberg 

Chief, U.S. Carrier Division 

Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

 Re: American Airlines, Codeshare Authorization 

with Pluna (DOT-OST-2011-0196)____________ 

Dear Ms. Rosenberg: 

 We have completed our poll of the carrier parties 

served with the captioned application on October 27, 2011. 

There are no objections. Accordingly, we request favorable 

action on an expedited basis. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 

 ____________________________ 

 CARL B. NELSON 

 Associate General Counsel 

 American Airlines, Inc. 

 1101 17th Street, N.W. 

 Suite 600 

 Washington, D.C. 20590 

 (202) 496-5647 

 carl.nelson@aa.com 

cc: Docket Branch 

 Paul Gretch 

 Service list 
I here

docume

 

Novemb

by certi

nt by em

ber 1, 20

C

ify that 

mail on t

sascha.

thomas.

howard.

jyoung@

 

gbleopa

 

anita.m

rpommer

kevin.m

matwood

jrichar

mlbenge

dpdean@

urskr@s

william

john.al

dwight.

 __

 CA

11 

CERTIFICA

I have t

the follo

vanderbe

bolling@

kass@usa

@yklaw.co

ard@fedex

mosner@hk

r@atlasai

montgomer

d@cozen.c

rdson@joh

e@zsrlaw.

@jamhoff.

state.gov

m.stallin

llen@faa.

moore@us

_________

ARL B. NE

ATE OF SE

this day 

owing per

ellen@del

@united.c

airways.c

om 

x.com 

klaw.com

ir.com 

ry@polara

com 

hnlrichar

com 

com 

v

ngs@usdoj

gov 

stranscom

_________

ELSON 

ERVICE 

served t

rsons: 

lta.com 

com 

com 

aircargo.

rdson.com

j.gov 

m.mil 

_________

the foreg

.com 

m

_______ 

going
----

|   |                                                                                                                                                                   |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | 1.      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                     |
|   |                                                                                                                                                                   |
|   | 2.      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |

| /s/      Jose I. Ortega      |   |
|------------------------------|--------|
| Jose      I. Ortega          |   |
| Chief      Financial Officer |   |
|                         |   |
| June      29, 2009           |   |
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                        SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                           State or Other
                                          Jurisdiction of    Percentage
                                           Incorporation      Ownership
                                           -------------      ---------
Parent
------
<S>                                       <C>                <C>
Community Financial Corp.                      Illinois


Subsidiary (1)
----------

Community Bank & Trust, N.A.                 United States       100%

American Bancshares, Inc.                      Illinois          100%

The Egyptian State Bank                        Illinois          100%

Saline County State Bank                       Illinois          100%

MidAmerica Bank of St. Clair County            Illinois          100%

Subsidiary of American Bancshares, Inc.
---------------------------------------

American Bank of Illinois in Highland          Illinois          100%
</TABLE>

-------------------------
(1)  The assets, liabilities and operations of the subsidiaries are included in
     the consolidated financial statements contained in the Annual Report to
     Stockholders attached hereto as an exhibit.
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):

                                 June 1, 2005

                       Diamond Hill Investment Group, Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

                                      Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 (State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation)

             000-24498                              65-0190407
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      (Commission File Number)         (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

      375 North Front Street, Suite 300, Columbus, Ohio              43215
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      (Address of Principal Executive Offices)                    (Zip Code)

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


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          (Former Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)

<PAGE>

Item 8.01.     Other Events
- -------   --------------------------------------------

          As of May 31, 2005, preliminary assets under management totaled
$738.0 million.  Following is a summary of assets under management as of
May 31, 2005 (in millions):

				Equity	Fixed Income	   Total
Individually Managed Accounts	$181.1	      $128.3      $309.4
Mutual Funds			 287.4	        71.7       359.1
Private Investment Partnership    69.5	         0.0        69.5
                                ------        ------      ------
Total				 538.0	       200.0       738.0


                                    SIGNATURE
                                    ---------

     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: June 1, 2005  	                     By: /s/ James F. Laird
                                            -------------------------------
                                            James F. Laird, Chief Financial
                                             Officer and Secretary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE J.R. ESPINOZA,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

D. DIAZ, Correctional Counselor I at

California City Correctional Facility; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 17

- 17002

D.C. No. 1:17

- cv

- 00338

- SAB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Stanley Albert Boone, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 16, 2018 **

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Jose J.R. Espinoza appeals pro se from the

magistrate judge’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

constitutional claims arising from information in Espinoza’s classification file. W e

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether the

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

* * The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JAN 19 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 17002

magistrate judge validly entered judgment on behalf of the district court. Allen v.

Meyer , 755 F.3d 866, 867

- 68 (9th Cir. 2014). We vacate and remand.

Espinoza consented to procee d before the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(c). The magistrate judge then screened and dismissed Espinoza ’s action

before the named defendants had been served

. See 28 U.S.C. § § 1915A,

1915(e)(2)(B) . Because all parties, including unserved defendants, must consent to

proceed before the magistrate judge for jurisdiction to vest, Williams v. King

, 875

F.3d 500 , 503

- 04 (9th Cir. 2017), we vacate the magistrate judge’s order and

remand for further proce edings.

VACATED and REMANDED.
|Exhibit 31(d)                                                                                      
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification                                                             
|I, Moray P. Dewhurst, Chief Financial Officer of Florida Power & Light Company (FPL), certify that:
|1.                                                                                                 
|2.                                                                                                 
|3.                                                                                                 
|4.                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                   
|5.                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                   
|Date:   August 7, 2003                                                                             
|                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                   
|
#### R. H. BUBIER, Individually and as City Manager of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, et al., Appellants, v. Gerald SMITH and Jacqueline Benoit, now Jacqueline Smith, Appellees.

No. 72-693.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 31, 1973.

Rehearing Denied March 5, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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:       May 12, 2008

 
|   |   | Michael T. Vesey        |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |   | Michael T. Vesey        |
|   |   | President and           |
|   |   | Chief Operating Officer |

 

----
#### Charles W. RABORN d/b/a Sam’s Hill and Lee Ethel Waters d/b/a Lee’s Country Club, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BIENVILLE PARISH POLICE JURY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 13409.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Dec. 5, 1977.

En Banc. Rehearing Denied Jan. 16, 1978.

Writ Refused Feb. 24, 1978.

Baker, Culpepper & Brunson by Herman A. Castete, Jonesboro, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Leon H. Whitten, Dist. Atty., Jonesboro, for defendant-appellee.

Before BOLIN, HALL and JONES, JJ.

BOLIN, Judge.

Plaintiffs are liquor licensees seeking to nullify a local option election and to enjoin the local governing body from passing an ordinance prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages. From a judgment rejecting *1103plaintiffs’ demands they appeal. We affirm.

The issue is whether a local option election is rendered invalid because the proposition as set forth in the ordinance calling the election varies substantially from the wording contained in both the electors’ petition seeking the election and the ballot submitted to the voters.

In the election petition signed by more than twenty-five percent of the voters of a ward in Bienville Parish, and on the subsequent printed ballot, Proposition One contained the following language:

> Shall the sale of beverages of low alcohol content containing more than three and two-tenths percent alcohol by weight, and not more than six percent alcohol by volume, be permitted?

However, the corresponding proposition in the ordinance calling the election provided:

> Shall the sale of beverages of low alcoholic content containing more than three and two-tenths percent alcohol by volume be permitted?

The Louisiana local option statute provides that registered voters may sue to set aside an election if there has not been substantial compliance with statutory requirements in the petition, call, or conduct of the election. Louisiana Revised Statutes 26:590. Since the wording on the ballot submitted to the voters complied exactly with the requirements of La.R.S. 26:587 and reflected the wishes of those who sought the election, and since the voters were not misled by the intervening error in the ordinance calling the election, this error was harmless under the circumstances. There was substantial compliance with the standards of the local option statute. See *McGee v. Police Jury of Caddo Parish,*66 So.2d 408 (La.App. 2d Cir., 1953), *aff’d*225 La. 471, 73 So.2d 424 (1954).

The judgment is affirmed at appellants’ cost.
#### METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Doris MORRISON and St. Luke Center, Appellees.

No. 73-1396.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 20, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 122 (Monday, June 25, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 29582]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13479]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express 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 25, 2018.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[reg] hereby 
gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on June 
19, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request 
to Add Priority Mail Express Contract 63 to Competitive Product List. 
Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2018-181, CP2018-
255.

Elizabeth Reed,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2018-13479 Filed 6-22-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Exhibit 31.1RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)CERTIFICATIONSI, Virginia C. Herring, certify that:

1.I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of 1st Franklin Financial Corporation; and

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.Date:December 31, 2020
/s/ Virginia C. Herring
Virginia C. Herring, President and
Chief Executive Officer
259 La. 698

#### The JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE OF the LEGISLATURE of the State of Louisiana Created by Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 31 as Amended by Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 76 of the Louisiana Legislature of 1970 v. James R. STRAIN.

No. 51605.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 21, 1971.

In re: James R. Strain applying for writs of certiorari or review and prohibition.

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 Elven E. Ponder, Judge of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 21st day of February, 1972, 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 court, on the date aforesaid, at 11 o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.
262 La. 303

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Willie ALLEN v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 52564.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 20, 1972.

In re: Willie Allen applying for writ of habeas corpus, certiorari, and mandamus.

Writ denied. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of this Court’s supervisory or original jurisdiction.

BARHAM, J.,

is of the opinion the evi-dentiary rehearing discloses that the plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made. Counsel never discussed the facts of the case with relator and could not advise as to the applicable law nor as to the merits of relator’s defenses.