alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Elder *v.*The Western & Southern Life Insurance Company, Appellant.

*254Argued April 26, 1934.

Before Tkexler, P. J., Keller, Cunningham, Baldrige, S'tadteeld, Parker and James, JJ.

*D. C. Jennings*for appellant,

*Ben Paul Jubelirer,*for appellee,

July 13, 1934:

Per Curiam,

The Western & Southern Life Insurance Company issued two industrial policies to John D. Elder, the plaintiff. There was a disability provision attached *255to the policies which provided that if the insured shall “lose permanently the sight of both eyes, the company will pay,” etc.

At the time the policies were issued, the plaintiff had lost the sight of one eye and the agent of the company knew that it had been lost. The company contends that the disability following the loss of the second eye was not within the coverage of the policies.

In Humphreys v. Benefit Assn., 139 Pa. 264, 20 A. 1056, the facts were identical and the provision of the policy was substantially the same as in the present case. It provided for “the total and permanent loss of the sight of both eyes.” The Supreme Court held that this was the equivalent of the loss of eyesight and the plaintiff was entitled to recover. That case rules the present.

The appellant tries to draw a distinction between the two cases in that the Humphreys’ case involved a policy of accident insurance only, while the present suit is on policies of life insurance to which certain contingencies were added. We fail to see why this should make any difference in the construction of the words. The Supreme Court having construed what is in all respects a provision identical with the one now in question, it will do no good to indulge in any further comments.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 6- 12 02

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Ro be rt M . Bry
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.
Ci ty of Fro nt en ac, Mi ss ou ri; Jer em y Newto n; James Fo rd ; M at th ew Lov el es s; Bri an W ue rtz ; M at th ew Bru ne ; Ti m ot hy Barn et t; Rex Bau m ga rtn er
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es Meg an Ju li an
Mov an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Nov em

be r 10 , 20 16 Fil ed : No ve m

be r 16 , 20 16 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SM ITH, BOW MAN, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.Ro be rt M. Bry ap pe al s aft er th e Dis tri ct Co ur t gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t to 1 de fen da nt s in hi s 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 act io n

. W e affi rm

. See Gray v. Fed Ex Gro un d Pack ag e Sy s., In c., 79 9 F.3 d 99 5, 99 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ) (“ W e rev ie w gr an ts of su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo , vi ewin g th e fact s in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e no nm ov in g pa rty.”).

Fi rs t, we co nc lu de th at th e Dis tri ct Co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g Bry’ s m ot io ns fo r sa nc ti on s

. See St ru tt on v. Mea de , 66 8 F.3 d 54 9, 55 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (co nc lu di ng th at th e de ci si on no t to im po se sa nc ti on s was no t an ab us e of th e di st ric t co ur t ’s co ns id erab le di sc ret io n whe re th e de st ru ct io n of ev id en ce, whi le in te nt io na l, di d no t ne ces sa ril y refl ect a frau du le nt in te nt to su pp res s th e tru th ), cert

. de ni ed , 13 3 S. Ct

. 12 4 (2 01 2)

. Seco nd , Bry of fers no va li d ba si s fo r ov ert ur ni ng th e well -rea so ne d de te rm in at io n th at th e reco rd sh owe d th at th e de fen da nt po li ce of fic ers ha d at leas t argu ab le pro ba bl e cau se to arre st Bry. See Am rin e v. Broo ks , 52 2 F.3d 82 3, 83 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (“ Offi cers m ay al so be en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed imm un it y if th ey
arre st a su sp ect un de r th e m is ta ke n be li ef th at th ey ha ve pr ob ab le cau se to do so , pr ov id ed th atth e m is ta ke is ob jecti ve ly reaso na bl e.”). Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e 2 jud gm en t of th e Dis tri ct Co ur t, an d we de ny as m oo t ap pe ll ees ’ m ot io n to fil e a su rrep ly to Br y ’s rep ly brie f.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le Ro nn ie L. Whi te , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1 Dis tri ctof M is so ur i. Bry ha s ab an do ne d hi s cl ai m s ag ai ns t th e Ci ty of Fro nt en ac, a s well as hi s 2
co ns pi racy an d st at e-l aw cl ai m s, by no t br ie fin g th is Co ur t on why di sm is sa l of th os e cl ai m s was im

pr op er. See Hess v. Ab le s, 7 14 F.3d 10 48 , 10 51 n.2 (8t h C ir. 2 01 3)

. -2

-
#### CITY OF CORAL GABLES and Bituminous Casualty Corporation, Petitioners, v. John H. McCRAY and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

No. 38032.

Supremo Court of Florida.

March 19, 1969.

On Rehearing Sept. 17, 1969.

Williams & Jabara, Miami, for petitioners.

Joseph Rosenkrantz, Miami Beach, Patrick H. Mears and J. Franklin Garner, Tallahassee, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date October 15, 1968.

We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, subd. e, 32 F.S.A.

Our consideration of the petition, the record and briefs leads us to conclude that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law. The petition is therefore denied.

The petition for attorney’s fees filed by respondent is granted in the amount of $250.00.

DREW, Acting C. J., and THORNAL, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.

ON REHEARING GRANTED

PER CURIAM.

A rehearing having been granted in this cause and the case having been further considered upon the record and upon briefs and argument of attorneys for the respective parties; it is thereupon ordered and adjudged by the Court that the opinion filed March 19, 1969 denying petition for certiorari is hereby adhered to on rehearing.

ERVIN, C. J., and DREW, THORNAL, CARLTON and BOYD, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 99.1

SNODGRASS

Certified Public Accountants and Consultants

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Board of Directors

First West Virginia Bancorp, Inc.

We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of First West Virginia Bancorp, Inc. and its
subsidiary as of March 31, 2006, and the related consolidated statements of income for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2006 and 2005, and the consolidated statement of changes in stockholders equity for the three-month period
ended March 31, 2006 and the consolidated statement of cash flows for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2006 and 2005. These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Companys management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). A review of interim financial information
consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with the standards of
the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the accompanying financial statements for them to be in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

We have previously audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2005, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders equity, and cash flows for the year then ended (not
presented herein); and in our report dated February 18, 2006 we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements.



|                           
|---------------------------
|/S/    S.R. SNODGRASS, A.C.

Wheeling, West Virginia

May 10, 2006

S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.

980 National Road Wheeling, WV 26003-6400 Phone: 304-233-5030 Facsimile: 304-233-3062
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 683

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with respect to the treatment

of certain areas in applying the purchase price requirements applicable

to mortgage revenue bonds.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 27, 1993

Mrs. LOWEY of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with respect

to the treatment of certain areas in applying the purchase price requirements applicable to mortgage revenue

bonds.

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

3 That (a) subsection (e) of section 143 of the Internal Rev4 enue Code of 1986 (relating to purchase price require5 ments) is amended by adding at the end thereof the follow6 ing new paragraph:

7 ‘‘(7) CERTAIN ADJUSTMENTS MADE APPLICA8 BLE.—In determining average area purchase price
2

•HR 683 IH

1 for purposes of paragraph (1), adjustments com2 parable to those provided in the last 2 sentences of

3 section 3(b)(2) of the United States Housing Act of

4 1937 (as added by section 537(d) of the Cranston5 Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act) shall

6 apply. The preceding sentence shall not apply if

7 there is insufficient recent statistical information

8 with respect to the county referred to in such sen9 tences.’’

10 (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall

11 apply to financing provided after the date of the enact12 ment of this Act.

Æ
NUMBER 13

- 12

- 00470

- CR



### COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

JAHIRIEIKONEN ISRAEL

- LOWE , Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee.

On appeal from the 404th District Court of Cameron County, Texas



### ORDER ABATING APPEAL

Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Longoria Per Curiam

Appellant, Jahirieikonen Israel

- Lowe

, filed a notice of appeal with this Court from

his conviction. The record currently before the Court fails to include a certification of

appellant ’ s right to appeal. Based upon information provided by the district clerk ’ s office,

a certification has not yet been entered by the trial court.

Accordingly, this matter is ABATED and REMANDED to the trial court for entry of a2 certification of the appellant ’ s right to appeal. On remand, the trial court shall

immediately issue notice of a hearing and accordingly conduct a hearing addressing the

foregoing matter. We further direct that, after conducting the hearing, the trial co urt

certify whether appellant has the right of appeal. The trial court's certification, and any

orders it enters, shall be included in a supplemental clerk's record. The trial court is

directed to cause the supplemental clerk's record to be filed with the Clerk of this Court

within thirty days of the date of this order. Should the trial court require more time to

comply with the directions of this Court, it shall request an extension prior to the expiration

of this deadline.

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIA M

Do not publish. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b).

D elivered and filed this the 21st day of October , 20 13

.
#### Ray W. VISCHER, Appellant, v. Thomas J. VISCHER, Appellee.

No. 73-314.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 12, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Rina Kerzner, Appellant, v Stuart Kerzner, Respondent.

[726 NYS2d 388]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marjory Fields, J.), entered February 10, 2000, which, *inter alia,*denied plaintiff wife’s motion for an award of interim counsel fees in the amount of $50,0000, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In view of the financial circumstances of the parties as documented before the court, disclosing, *inter alia,*that plaintiff has access to some $2 million from the sale of the former marital residence, the denial of plaintiffs motion for an award of interim counsel fees constituted a proper exercise of discretion *(see, Mastrandrea v Mastrandrea,*268 AD2d 293). Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.
FOR DEFENDANT: IGNACIA S. MORENO Assistant Attorney General

ni ed States Department of Justice Environment &Natural Resources Division Environmental Defense Section P.O. Box 7611 Washington, D.C. 20044 Tel: (202) 305-0851 Fax: (202) 514-8865

Of Counsel for Defendant:

SUSAN STAHLE U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of General Counsel ARN: MC 2344A 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,N.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 Tel: (202) 564-1272 Fax: (202) 564-5603 stahle. susan @epa. gov

DATED: ~ ~ `Y
Exhibit 11

                             FLORIDA ROCK INDUSTRIES, INC.
	              COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

                                THREE MONTHS ENDED       NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                    June 30,                 June 30,
                                 2006        2005        2006         2005


Net income                   $58,317,000  45,878,000  158,142,000 111,105,000

Common shares:

Weighted average shares
 outstanding during the
 period - used for basic
 earnings per share           65,777,785   65,406,856  65,670,996  65,240,358

Shares issuable under
 stock options which are
 potentially dilutive          1,280,607    1,413,866   1,250,482   1,435,446

Shares used for diluted
 earnings per share           67,058,392   66,820,722  66,921,478  66,675,804

Earnings per share:
 Basic                              $.89          .70        2.41        1.70


 Diluted                            $.87          .69        2.36        1.67
NO. 07-04-0275-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TE XAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A JULY 7, 2004

______________________________ SADIE RAYNE WILLIAMS, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLE E

_________________________________ FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF POTTER COUNTY; NO. 105,8 93; HONOR

ABLE PA MELA COOK SIRMON, J UDGE

_______________________________ Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ. MEMORAND UM OPINION After ap pellantSadie Rayne Williams filed a n otice of appeal challenging her conviction, on June 2, 2004, the trial court signed an order granting her motion for new trial. Pending before this Court is appellant’s motion to dismiss he r appeal which is accompanied by a certified copy of the trial court’s order. We grant the motion.2

The granting of

a motion for new trial in a criminal case is governed by R ule 21.9 of the Texas Rules of Appell ate Procedure. The legal effect of granting the motion restores the case to i ts positi on beforethe forme r trial. See S t ate v. Bates, 889 S.W.2d 306, 310 (Tex.Cr.App. 1994); see alsoWaller v. State 931 S.W.2d 640, 643 (Tex.App.–Dallas 1996 , no pet.). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the Clerk of this Court is directed to issue mandate. Don H. Reavis Justice Do not publish.
#### Samuel HAMMEL, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, a Massachusetts corporation, Appellants, v. Marta L. ZORRILLA, a minor, By and Through her mother and next friend, Carmen Zorrilla, and Carmen Zorrilla, Appellees.

No. 73-104.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 9, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection  with the amended Annual Report of MDSI Mobile Data Solutions Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-K/A for the year ended  December  31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I,  Verne D.  Pecho,  the Vice  President  Finance  &  Administration  and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.1350,  as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



     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/ Verne D. Pecho
                                    ------------------------------------------
                                    Verne D. Pecho
                                    Vice President Finance & Administration
                                    and Chief Financial Officer
                                    March 30, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 585 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 585

To amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to provide for State 
disapproval of issuance of permits for the taking of marine mammals in 
                        protected State waters.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 26, 1993

 Mr. Goss (for himself, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Saxton, and Mr. Bilirakis) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                     Merchant Marine and Fisheries

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to provide for State 
disapproval of issuance of permits for the taking of marine mammals in 
                        protected State waters.

    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 ``Marine Mammal Public Display Reform 
Act of 1993''.

SEC. 2. STATE DISAPPROVAL OF ISSUANCE OF PERMITS FOR TAKING OF MARINE 
              MAMMALS IN STATE WATERS.

    Subsection (d) of section 104 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act 
of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1374) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(7)(A) The Secretary may not issue a permit under subsection 
(c)(2) for the taking of any marine mammal from protected State waters 
for the purpose of public display if--
            ``(i) issuance of such a permit would be inconsistent with 
        State law; and
            ``(ii) the Governor of the State in which the taking would 
        occur submits to the Secretary notice of State disapproval of 
        the permit, including an explanation of the reasons for the 
        disapproval, not later than 30 days after the date of 
        publication of notice of application for the permit pursuant to 
        paragraph (2).
    ``(B) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `protected State 
waters' means State waters that--
            ``(i) receive special protection by State law from certain 
        activities; or
            ``(ii) have been designated by State law as having special 
        value.''.

                                 <all>
```
No. 00-846.

#### Johnson *v.*Tele-Cash, Inc., et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.1








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350








The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of Colonial Properties Trust (the “Company”), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge on the date hereof:





(a)     The Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2010 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(b)    Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:February 28, 2011By:/s/ Thomas H. LowderThomas H. LowderChief Executive Officer
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2011 - 0389 Directorate Identifier: 2007NM189AD

A300 - 53 -229, R4 --- 3/30/94 A300 - 53 -229, R3 --- 1/31/91 A300 - 53 - 0211, R06 --- 2/26/03 A300 - 53 - 0211, R5 --- 4/29/99 SRM 53 - 10 -20 --- 3/1/08

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/05/2008
---

|               |             
|-------------- | ------------
|March 28, 2011 | Exhibit 99.9

VIA EDGAR

United States Securities and Exchange Commission

|Re: | Great Basin Gold Ltd. (the
      "Company")
|--- | -------------------------------------------
|    | Annual Report on Form 40-F                 
|    | Consent of Expert                          

This letter is provided in connection with the Company's Form
40-F annual report for the year ended December 31, 2010, and any amendments
thereto, (the Annual Report) to be filed by the Company with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC). The Annual Report
incorporates by reference the Annual Information Form of the Company for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

I hereby consent to the use of my name in connection with
reference to my involvement in the preparation of the following technical
reports (the "Technical Reports"):

- Technical Report Update on the Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve
  Estimates for the Burnstone Gold Mine dated February 8, 2011; and
- Technical Report Update on the Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve
  Estimates for the Hollister Gold Mine dated February 8, 2011

and to references to the Technical Reports, or portions
thereof, in the Annual Report and to the inclusion and incorporation by
reference of the information derived from the Technical Reports in the Annual
Report.

I also consent to the use of my name in connection with
reference to my involvement in the preparation of the Technical Reports and to
references to the Technical Reports, or portions thereof, and to the inclusion
and incorporation by reference of the information derived from the Technical
Reports in the Companys Form F-10 Registration Statement, as amended, filed
with the SEC under File No. 333-163021.

Yours truly,

/s/ J.G.
OelofseJohannes G. Oelofse, FSAIMM Pr. Eng.

---