alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
256 La. 847

#### C. Bickham DICKSON, Jr. et al. v. J. E. SANDEFUR et al.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 30, 1970.

In re: Norman D. Stewart applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Caddo. 235 So.2d 579.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue ; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
# Official Journal C 166/2017

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 166 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6024 May 2017 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 166

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6024 May 2017

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| 2017/C 166/01 | Statement of revenue and expenditure of the Fusion For Energy Joint Undertaking (F4E) for the financial year 2017 | 1 |
| 2017/C 166/02 | Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) for the financial year 2017 — amending budget No 1 | 8 |
| 2017/C 166/03 | Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology for the financial year 2017 — amending budget No 1 | 11 |
| 2017/C 166/04 | Statement of revenue and expenditure of the Single Resolution Board for the financial year 2017 — amending budget No 1 | 15 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

2017/C 166/01

Statement of revenue and expenditure of the Fusion For Energy Joint Undertaking (F4E) for the financial year 2017

1

2017/C 166/02

Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) for the financial year 2017 — amending budget No 1

8

2017/C 166/03

Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology for the financial year 2017 — amending budget No 1

11

2017/C 166/04

Statement of revenue and expenditure of the Single Resolution Board for the financial year 2017 — amending budget No 1

15

---

All amounts in this budget document are expressed in euro unless otherwise indicated.

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Edward COUSIN v. Frank BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 61701.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 28, 1978.

In re: Edward Cousin, applying for remedial writs. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied.
Exhibit 32









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 annual report on Form 10-Q of Florida Public Utilities Company (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form 10-Q"), we, John T. English, Chief Executive Officer and George M. Bachman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of our knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)

The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/John T. English

John T. English

Chief Executive Officer

August 14, 2008





/s/George M. Bachman

George M. Bachman

Chief Financial Officer

August 14, 2008
**Exhibit 10.4****EXECUTIVE EMPLOYEE AGREEMENT**     This EXECUTIVE EMPLOYEE AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into as of October1, 2000, by and between Sutura, Inc., a Delaware corporation, with its principal offices at 17080Newhope Street, Fountain Valley, California (“Company”), and Anthony A. Nobles, an individual(''Executive’’).**RECITALS**     A. The Company is in the business of developing and manufacturing vessel closure devicesprimarily for use in the fields of cardiology and radiology.     B. Executive has been serving as Chief Executive Officer and Vice President ofResearch and Development of the Company, and the Company desires to continue its relationshipwith Executive as its Chief Executive Officer and Vice President of Research and Development ofthe Company, and Executive desires to provide his services to the Company on all of the terms andconditions herein set forth.     C. The Company desires to provide Executive with a compensation plan m recognition ofExecutive’s valuable skills and services.     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions herein contained, theparties hereto agree as follows:**ARTICLE I. EMPLOYMENT**     1.1 Employment. The Company hereby employs Executive as its Chief Executive Officerand Vice President of Research and Development, and Executive hereby accepts such engagementswith the Company, in accordance with and subject to all of the terms, conditions and covenantsset forth in this Agreement.     1.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be deemed to have commenced on June 19,1998 (the “Effective Date”). Unless earlier terminated in accordance with the terms of Article 4hereof, the term of this Agreement shall be five (5) years from the Effective Date (“InitialTerm”), and thereafter shall automatically be renewed for successive one (1) year terms(“Subsequent Term”) on the same terms and conditions as applied during the Initial Term hereof,unless either party provides written notice of its intention to terminate this Agreement at leastninety (90) calendar days prior to the expiration of the Initial Term or any Subsequent Term, orearlier terminated in accordance with the provisions of Article 4.**ARTICLE II. DUTIES OF EXECUTIVE**     2.1 Scope of Duties. Executive shall perform the duties of the Chief ExecutiveOfficer and Vice President of Research and Development of the Company, reporting to the Board ofDirectors of the Company (''Board’’) and shall have a seat on the Board, and such other oradditional executive offices or positions with the Company as the Board shall determine from
No. 00-891.

#### Hicks *v.*Leroy’s Jewelers, Inc., et al.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[GRAPHIC OMITTED]


                          Mobile Self Storage, Inc.

                                                          CUSIP NO.  60740Y 10 4

                      AUTHORIZED STOCK: 50,000,000 SHARES
                           PAR VALUE: $.001 PER SHARE

THIS CERTIFIES THAT

IS THE RECORD HOLDER OF

             SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK OF Mobile Self Storage, Inc.
transferable  on the books of the  Corporation  in person or by duly  authorized
attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed.  This Certificate
in not valid until  countersigned  by the Transfer  Agent and  registered by the
Registrar.

     Witness the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile  signatures
of its duly appointed officers.


                               [GRAPHIC OMITTED]
                                (Corporate Seal)

/s/                                                             /s/
----------------                                                ----------------
   Secretary                                                       President
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1700/2006

of 16 November 2006         

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the export of common wheat issued in Regulation (EC) No 936/2006

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 10 to 16 November 2006 in response to the invitation to tender for the refund for the export of common wheat issued in Regulation (EC) No 936/2006.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 17 November 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 16 November 2006.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

----

(1)OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

(2)OJ L 172, 24.6.2006, p. 6.

(3)OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last modified by Regulation (EC) No 777/2004 (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 50).

----
#### Marvin KLEIN v. DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD DISTRICT of Florida.

No. 38855.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1969.

Mandamus denied without opinion.
#### ISAAC W. MARINER, Adm’r. of MARY MARINER, dec’d., a. d. b. vs. JOHN M. COLLINS, resp’t. p. b.

As between near relations, the law does not imply a promise to pay board, &c., while on a visit.

This was an action of assumpsit by Collins, for board and attendance of his wife’s mother, during sickness. Pleas, non assumpsit; no assets, &e.

The plaintiff below proved that Mrs. Mary Mariner, his wife’s mother, who usually resided with another child, was taken sick whilst on a visit to his house, and was furnished with board and attendance for about four or five weeks. She died-soon after her return to her son’s. She had property.

*Mr. Cullen*

insisted, that as between near relations, the law raised no implied assumpsit for board or attendance on the one side, or for work and labor on the other; but that a specific contract must be proved. *(Addison on Cont.,*737 ; *Chitty on Cont.,*575, *note F.)*

*By the*Court.

Wherever a person is under a legal liability to pay money or discharge a duty, the law implies a promise to do it. But no promise can be implied from that which is a mere gratuity.

If a person invite a stranger to his house, he cannot turn round and make him a debtor lor food, attendance or necessaries furnished him. If the defendant was the plaintiff’s wife’s mother, living usually at a son’s ; but occasionally visiting among her children ; and being on a visit to the son-in-law’s house, she was taken sick, he could not make her liable for the food, attendance and ne*291cessaries furnished her in her sickness; nor recover the same from her estate. If he meant to charge her, he ought to have given her notice.

Cullen, for appellant.

But if she went to Collins’ without invitation, or from other facts the jury are satisfied that such was the understanding of the parties, she would be liable for food, attendance and necessaries.

Verdict, for appellant.
#### Carl F. WHITE, Appellant, v. Donald G. ALLEN, J. Richard Graves, Jr., George W. Elston, Jr., and Ira McAlpin, Jr., Appellees.

Nos. 2585, 2610, 69-74.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 11, 1970.

Certified as Question of Great Public Interest April 7, 1970.

William S. Blalock and Herbert A. Lang-ston, Jr., Orlando, for appellant.

Gordon B. Johnston, of Mitchell, Sharp & Johnston, and Michael O’Haire, of Smith, Heath, Smith & O’Haire, Vero Beach, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm and in so doing hold that the term “business” as used in the exceptions to F.S.1967, Section 542.12, F.S.A., which prohibits contracts in restraint of trade, also includes a profession or trade. Thus, the various contracts in restraint of trade allowed under the exceptions to F.S.1967, Section 542.12, F.S.A., are also permissible when used in professions or trades.

The basis of our reasoning is the same as that found in Judge Mann’s dissenting opinion in Akey v. Murphy, Fla.App.1969, 229 So.2d 276. We find support of our opinion in the interpretation given the term “business” as used in F.S.1967, Section 48.181, F.S.A., in the case of DeVaney v. Rumsch, Fla.1969, 228 So.2d 904.

We are aware that this decision conflicts with Akey v. Murphy, Fla.App.1969, 229 So.2d 276; and Bergh v. Stephens, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 787, and are willing *767to certify it on proper application as a decision passing on a question of great public interest.

Affirmed.

WALDEN, REED and OWEN, JJ., concur.
#### WILLIAM T. TALLEY *vs.*JOSEPH MOORE.

A will sustained on an issue of devisavit vel non, though one of the witnesses denied his signature, and ignored the execution.

This was an issue from the Register of devisavit vel non, to try the will of Andrew McCoy.

*58The will was dated January 5,1830; was in the handwriting of Isaac Grubb; attested by him and Benjamin Lenderman, by his mark; signed by the testator by his mark; and bequeathed all the property to William Talley and Herman H. Talley.

Isaac Grubb testified that he wrote the will and wrote the testator’s name, he being unable to write. Neither of the witnesses could write, and Grubb wrote their names also. The will, signatures and all, were in his handwriting. The legatees were his nephews. He proved that the testator was perfectly sane; that he made no suggestions to him whatever, and that he had no known relatives.

Benjamin P. Lenderman,

one of the witnesses to the will, positively denied that he had ever signed it by his mark, or had ever attested any will of McCoy’s. He remembered the time Grubb and Talley were at McCoy’s;—Grubb was up in McCoy’s room; that he went for Talley at McCoy’s request, and Talley went for Grubb. He saw no paper like a will, and hear,d nothing about it.

The will was shown to this witness, with his name and mark to it.

Witness.—That is not my mark. I never saw that paper. I never put my mark to any paper in- the presence of Andrew McCoy or Isaac Grubb.

Elihu Talley,

the executor of the will and father of the devisees, proved that Benjamin Lenderman came after him to go to Andrew McCoy’s. He went, and McCoy asked him to write his will. He declined because he did not know how; but offered to go for any one. McCoy would name. He mentioned Isaac Grubb, and then witness went for him. Grubb read the will to McCoy,’ and asked him if it was right. He said yes. There was some talk about *the*witnesses. McCoy made his mark in the presence of Lenderman and this witness and Grubb, and Lenderman also made his mark in their presence. The will was sealed up and delivered to this witness by McCoy’s orders. This was seventeen or eighteen years before the testator’s death.

The case was submitted without argument, and the jury found in favor of the will.
|     | At                    |   |
|----------|-----------------------|--------|
|     | June      30, 2009(a) |   | December      31, 2008 |   | June      30,2008 |   |
|     |                  |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Managed  |                  | 2.78   | % |   |   | 2.17 | % |   |   | 1.48 | % |   |
| Off-book |                  | 2.20   |   |   |   | 1.20 |   |   |   | 0.72 |   |   |
| On-book  |                  | 2.88   |   |   |   | 2.34 |   |   |   | 1.63 |   |   |

|     | At                   |   |
|----------|----------------------|--------|
|     | June      30,2009(a) |   | December      31,2008 |   | June      30,2008 |   |
|     |                 |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Managed  |                 | 8.73   | % |   |   | 7.43 | % |   |   | 5.91 | % |   |
| U.S.     |                 | 6.99   |   |   |   | 7.14 |   |   |   | 5.55 |   |   |
| Non-U.S. |                 | 9.45   |   |   |   | 7.57 |   |   |   | 6.05 |   |   |
| Off-book |                 | 6.41   |   |   |   | 8.24 |   |   |   | 6.45 |   |   |
| U.S.     |                 | 6.41   |   |   |   | 8.24 |   |   |   | 6.45 |   |   |
| Non-U.S. |                 | (b)    |   |   |   | (b) |   |   |   | (b) |   |   |
| On-book  |                 | 9.08   |   |   |   | 7.31 |   |   |   | 5.85 |   |   |
| U.S.     |                 | 7.45   |   |   |   | 6.39 |   |   |   | 4.93 |   |   |
| Non-U.S. |                 | 9.45   |   |   |   | 7.57 |   |   |   | 6.05 |   |   |
|     |                 |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |

| (a) | Subject      to update. |
|-----|-------------------------|
| (b) | Not      applicable.    |

----

----
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580 

Statement of Commissioners Noah Joshua Phillips 

and Christine S. Wilson 

ALG-Health 

Matter No. 222 3044

August 9, 2022 

We believe that the Commission exceeded its statutory authority in promulgating a Made in the 

USA (MUSA) rule that extended beyond regulating “labels on products” to include regulation of 

advertising claims appearing in catalogs and online.1 Accordingly, we voted against both the 

notice of proposed rulemaking and the final rule, each of which exceeded the agency’s statutory 

authority. 

The complaint in ALG-Health alleges that defendants violated the MUSA rule with respect to 

products that were not made in the U.S.A. by both (1) placing labels on products and (2) 

including “Made in the USA” images in online advertising on their website and social media 

platforms. We believe that the allegations in the first category fall squarely within our 

congressionally delegated authority, while the allegations in the second category exceed it. 

Because the complaint alleges conduct regarding physical “labels on products”, conduct within 

the proper scope of our statutory authority with respect to MUSA labeling, we vote in favor of 

this complaint and settlement. 

1 See Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Noah Joshua Phillips, Made in the USA Labeling Rule – Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, Matter No. P074204 (June 22, 2020), 

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1577103/p074204musaphillipsstatementrev.pdf; 

Statement of Commission Christine S. Wilson Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking related to Made in U.S.A. Claims (June 22, 2020), 

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1577099/p074204musawilsonstatementrev.pdf 

(dissenting specifically as to the proposal to include online labeling within the scope of the proposed rule but voting 

yes to seek comment on a proposed MUSA rule); Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Christine S. Wilson 

Regarding Final Rule Related to Made in U.S.A. Labeling Claims, Matter No. P074204 (July 1, 2021), 

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1591494/2021-07-

01_commissioner_wilson_statement_musa_final_rule.pdf.
Ginnie Mae Issuer Cut-off Dates File Layout -- As of 12/31/2013

Version 1.0 12/31/2013 1 

Ginnie Mae Issuer Cut-off Dates File Layout

As of 12/31/2013 

Document Version History

Version 1.0 Initial Version

Issuer Cut-off Dates Record

All Active Issuers -- One Record per Issuer ID; Records are fixed length.

Item Data Item Begin End Type Length Remarks

1 Issuer ID 1 4 Numeric 4 9(4)

2 Issuer Name 5 64 Character 60 X(60)

3 Issuer Cut-Off Date Code Description 65 105 Character 41 X(41)

4 Data File As-Of Date (YYYYMMDD) 106 113 Numeric 8 9(8)

Length of Record 113
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 18

- 1836 Filed May 15, 2019

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ALEXIS LANEIS BUMANN AND CORY BUMANN Upon the Petition of ALEXIS LANEIS BUMANN , n/k/a ALEXIS LANEIS ANDERSON Petitioner

- Appell ee , And Concerning CORY BUMANN , Respondent

- Appell ant

.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Ida County, Jeffrey L. Poulson , Judge.

A f ather appeals the district court’s modification of the physical

- care provisions of a dissolution

- of

- marriage decree

. AFFIRMED.

Amanda Van Wyhe of Van Wyhe Law Firm & Mediation Center, PLC , Sioux City , for appellant. T. Cody Farrens of Farrens Law Firm, P.L.L.C. , Sioux City , for appellee.

Considered by Doyle, P.J. , Mullins, J., and Scott, S.J. * *Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2019).2

MULLINS , Judge
. The marriage of Alexis Anderson, formerly Alexis Bumann, and Cory Bumann was dissolved in November 2016. By stipulation, approved by the district court, the parties were awarded joint legal custody and shared physical care of their child, M.B., born in 2014

. Alexis has another daughter, born in 2013, from another relationshi p prior to the marriage. In September 2017, Alexis remarried

. She and her husband are in the military. In December, Alexis’s husband was involuntarily transferred to Kentucky. In January 2018, Alexis petitioned for modification o f the decree , seeking s ole legal custody and physical care and citing her plans to move out of the state as a substantial change in circumsta n ces . Cory contested modification and alternatively counterclaimed for physical care of M.B

. The matter proceeded to trial. In Septembe r 2018, the district court entered its modification ruling, in which it ordered joint legal custody of M.B. and awarded Alexis physical care , with visitation to Cory. Cory filed a motion to reconsider, enlarge, or amend pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2), which was largely denied by the court. Cory appeals, alleging the court erred in not awarding
him physical care of M.B. and in placing too much emphasi s on the value of M.B. ’s sibling relationship with Alexis’s other daughter. We have reviewed the record de novo

. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.907; In re Marriage of Hoffman , 867 N.W.2d 26, 32 (Iowa 2015 ). The issues involve only the application of well

- settled rules of law; disposition on appeal is clearly controlled by prior appellate rulings; t he written decision of the district court considered all the issues presented in this appeal and we approve of the findings, analysis , and conclusions it reached ; and a full opinion of this court would not augment or clarify3

existing law . We affirm by memorandum opinion pursuant to Iowa Court Rule
21.26 (1) (a), (c), (d), and (e). We deny each party’s request for appellate attorney fees. Costs on appeal are assessed to Cory.
AFFIRMED.
#### INTERCOASTAL DRYDOCK, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT, an Agency of the State of Florida, Appellee.

No. 66-1028.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Oct. 3, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 3, 1967.

*20J. E. Ludick, North Miami, for appellant.

P. A. Pacyna, Tallahassee, and Louis S. St. Laurent, Bradenton, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.

CHARLES CARROLL, Chief Judge.

The appellant, one of the defendants in a case of eminent domain, held a lease on a parcel of land owned by the defendant Elmore Daniels. The lease was made in 1961 and was for a period of ten years. The appellant had operated a business thereon from inception of the lease.

On trial the jury made an award of $197,705 for the property taken, plus moving expense of $3,602.50 to the owner, and found no special or “business damages” for the lessee. On this appeal, the lessee, contending it was entitled to receive damages to its business, assigned as error certain rulings on evidence relating to its income or profit from its business. Those assignments and the arguments presented thereon are without merit. This is so because, as averred in the appellant’s answer and stated in appellant’s brief, all of the leased premises on which its business was located were taken on condemnation. Under the applicable law (§ 73.071(3) (b) Fla.Stat., F.S.A.) business damages are recoverable by an owner (or a lessee) only for a business (of more than five years’ standing) “located upon adjoining lands owned or held by such party.” See State Road Department v. Bramlett, Fla.1966, 189 So.2d 481, 483; Guarria v. State Road Department of Florida, Fla.App.1960, 117 So.2d 5, 6. In such circumstance the lessee is relegated to receiving from the jury’s award the value of his leasehold interest to be determined and apportioned by the trial judge, as provided for in § 73.101 Fla.Stat., F.S.A. See Carter v. State Road Department, Fla.1966, 189 So.2d 793.

Affirmed.