alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Mary Ann COTTON, a Minor, by Daisy Bell Barnes, Mother and Next Friend v. John L. QUINN, d/b/a Palace Cab Company, et al.

No. 46161.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 15, 1971.

*594Mullins & Smith, Natchez, for appellant.

Brandon, Handy, O’Beirne & Benoist, Natchez, for appellee.

ETHRIDGE, Chief Justice:

This is a suit for personal injuries to a ten-year-old girl, Mary Ann Cotton (plaintiff-appellant), who was injured by a taxicab driven by defendant Norman Jones and owned by defendant John L. Quinn, doing business as Palace Cab Company. The case was tried before a jury, which found for defendants, and upon that verdict the Circuit Court of Adams County entered judgment. On conflicting evidence the jury was amply warranted in finding that Jones was driving his cab at not over fifteen miles per hour when the child suddenly and unexpectedly ran from behind an embankment partly concealing a narrow intersecting street, and that he did everything reasonably possible to avoid the accident. *Cf.*Smith v. Alford (Miss.1971), 245 So.2d 188.

Defendants obtained an unavoidable accident instruction which did not adequately define a situation “where there is no negligence.” However, considering all of the instructions for both parties and the evidence, we do not think that the granting of this instruction was reversible error. Upon proof sufficient to make at least a prima facie case that the casualty in question was the result of an unavoidable accident, the court may instruct the jury upon the law under such circumstances. IOC Blashfield,. Cyclopedia of Automobile Law and Practice § 6698 (1957); Annot., 65 A.L.R.2d 12 (1959). Whether such an instruction is appropriate depends upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case. In some it has been held to be proper. McCollum v. Randolph, 220 So.2d 310 (Miss.1969); Johnson v. Foster, 202 So.2d 520 (Miss.1967) ; Murchison v. Sykes, 223 Miss. 754, 78 So.2d 888 (1955). In other cases an unavoidable accident instruction under the facts was improperly given. Pope v. Sanders, 217 So.2d 1 (Miss.1968); Jones v. Richards, 254 Miss. 617, 181 So.2d 923 (1966); McMinn v. Lilly, 215 Miss. 193, 60 So.2d 603 (1952).

Affirmed.

BRADY, INZER, ROBERTSON, and HARPER, JJ., concur.
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 353

Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House for expenses

of investigations and studies by the Committee on Government Operations in the second session of the One Hundred Third Congress.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 8, 1994

Mr. CONYERS submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on House Administration

RESOLUTION

Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House

for expenses of investigations and studies by the Committee on Government Operations in the second session of

the One Hundred Third Congress.

1 Resolved, That (a) for expenses of investigations and

2 studies by the Committee on Government Operations

3 (hereinafter in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘Commit4 tee’’), including expenses for—

5 (1) procurement of consultant services under

6 section 202(i) of the Legislative Reorganization Act

7 of 1946; and
2

HRES 353 IH

1 (2) provision of assistance for members of pro2 fessional staff in obtaining specialized training under

3 section 202(j) of such Act;

4 there shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the House

5 not more than $3,282,875.

6 (b) Not more than $10,000 of the amount specified

7 in subsection (a) may be used for consultant services re8 ferred to in paragraph (1) of such subsection and not more

9 than $2,000 of such amount may be used for specialized

10 training referred to in paragraph (2) of such subsection.

11 SEC. 2. Payments under this resolution shall be made

12 on vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the

13 chairman of the Committee, and approved by the Commit14 tee on House Administration.

15 SEC. 3. Amounts shall be available under this resolu16 tion for investigations and studies carried out during the

17 period beginning at noon January 3, 1994, and ending

18 immediately before noon on January 3, 1995.

19 SEC. 4. Amounts made available under this resolution

20 shall be expended in accordance with regulations pre21 scribed by the Committee on House Administration.

Æ
# Abstract of Offers

                - Title:  Abstract of Offers 
                - Form #:         GSA3471      
                - Current Revision Date:  10/1985
                - Authority or Regulation:  APD 2800.12B

PDF versions of forms use Adobe      ReaderTM.      Download Adobe ReaderTM

Search for another form

Print PageEmail Page

Top
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 31250]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14324]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #15578 and #15579; HAWAII Disaster Number HI-
00045]


Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for the State of 
Hawaii

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major 
disaster for the State of Hawaii (FEMA--4365--DR), dated 06/27/2018.
    Incident: Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and Mudslides.
    Incident Period: 04/13/2018 through 04/16/2018.

DATES: Issued on 06/27/2018.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 08/27/2018.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 03/27/2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the President's major disaster declaration on 06/27/2018, applications 
for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other 
locally announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Areas (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans): The City and 
County of Honolulu and Kaua'i County
Contiguous Areas (Economic Injury Loans Only): None.

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
  Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere.................      3.625
  Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere..............      1.813
  Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere.................      7.160
  Businesses Without Credit Available Elsewhere..............      3.580
  Non-Profit Organizations With Credit Available Elsewhere...      2.500
  Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere      2.500
For Economic Injury:
  Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit      3.580
   Available Elsewhere.......................................
  Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere      2.500
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 155786 
and for economic injury is 155790.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

James Rivera,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2018-14324 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### ISAAC H. REGISTER *vs.*THOMAS LAYMAN, Jr. and STEPHEN TOWNSEND.

After the affirmance of judgment on certiorari, a scire facias may issue in this courq on the recognizance to prosecute.

Scire Facias on a recognizance entered into on taking out a writ of certiorari to a justice’s judgment. The pleas were performance and payment.

*Mr. Giuthrie*gave in evidence the recognizance, and the decision of the court affirming the judgment on certiorari. -

*Mr. Rogers*made the question whether a scire facias could issue in such a case as this. There has been no practice such as this; no case in which the question has been made.

The writ of scire facias usually issues by virtue of an act of assembly. It must issue upon an entire record; and out of the court in which the record remains. Hence it is usually provided in case of a judgment in an appellate court that the record shall remain, in order to give that court jurisdiction for such a proceeding as this, as in the case of an appeal from a justice’s judgment.

On a certiorari the judgment of this court is one of affirmance, and the record is remanded. What is the further remedy in this court ? The party might as well take out an execution here, as to sue out a scire facias here to show cause why an execution should not issue. The remedy is by an action of debt on the recognizance.

*Guthrie,*for plaintiff.

*Rogers,*for defendant.

*Mr.*Giuthrie.

The scire facias is on the recognizance, and not on the judgment of affirmance. That is only evidence of the breach of the condition of the recognizance. The recognizance is a record of this court. *(Digest,*217, 358.)

*Mr.*Rogers.

The only judgment to be executed in this court, is a judgment for costs; the rest remands the record to the justice for execution of the debt.

*The Court*

held the scire facias to be a legal and proper remedy in the case. It is founded on a recognizance taken in this court, which is a record of this court, and the act of assembly, *(Dig.*217,) gives this form of remedy to execute recognizances generally.

Verdict for plaintiff.
#### Felix DESHOTEL v. AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY.

No. 53137.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 1, 1973.

In re: Aetna Casualty & Surety Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Acadia. 269 So.2d 850.

Application denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law.
#### Mildred CROTEAU and Arthur Croteau, her husband, Petitioners, v. H. S. ARNOLD et al., Respondents.

No. 42607.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 15, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 267 So.2d 707.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
The Honorable JoeMax Shelton

Grayson County Attorney Third Floor, Courthouse Sherman, Texas 75090 Opinion No. H-918
Re: Whether theFire and Police Employee Relations Act, article 5154c-1, V.T.C.S., applies to sheriffs' departments.
DearMr. Shelton:
You have requested our opinion regarding the applicability of article 5154c-1,V.T.C.S., the Fire and Police Employee Relations Act, to sheriffs' departments. Article 5154c-1 authorizes "firefighters and policemen" to engage in collective bargaining with their employers. "Policeman" is defined aseach sworn certified full-time paid

employee, whether male or female,who regularly serves in aprofessional law enforcement capacity in thepolice department of any city, town, or other political subdivision within the state, with the sole exception of the chief of the department. Section 3(2). Article 5154c-1 excludes the "chief of the department" from the coverage of the statute. It isunclear whether "chief" is employed here as a term of art referring to the common designation of thehead of a city police department, orwhether it is intended in amore general sense. It is clear, however, that a sheriff isnot ordinarily denominated a "chief." Itwould appear, therefore, that had the Legislature intended to include sheriffs' departments within the terms of the statute, itwould havewritten its exception specifically to exclude the sheriff from coverage.

P. 3849The Honorable Joe Max Shelton -page 2 (H-918)

Article 6869d creates in certain counties a "county police force" of not less than sixpatrolmen, tobe appointed by the sheriff and approved by the commissioners court. If every deputy sheriff, byvirtue of that position, already occupies the status of "police officer," article 6869dwould be of no effect.
Inour opinion, then, article 5154c-1 isnot applicable tomost law enforcement officers within a sheriff's department. Those persons designated as county police officers pursuant to article 6869d, however, are embraced within the statute's coverage. Cf. Hartshorn v. 915 (Pa.SuP.1975). - County ofAllegheny, 333A.2d 914,

SUMMARY With the exception of those persons designated "county police officers" under article 6869d,V.T.C.S., article 5154c-1, theFire and Police Employee Relations Act, isnot applicable to law enforcement officers employed by a sheriff's department.

APPROVED: !(ery,Frulyyours, ,,/+Eg d?yJ&i.; .!JOHNL. HILL L..,.' Attorney General of Texas

DAVID 

# / M&d , /
,I C. ROBERT HEAm, Chairman Opinion Committee jwb P. 3850
#### Mrs. Elva MURO, wife of and Emile J. CARON v. Osway SMITH, and New Orleans Public Service, Inc.

No. 5603.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Feb. 6, 1974.

George J. Kambur, New Orleans, for plaintiffs-appellees.

A. R. Christovich, Jr., C. B. Ogden, II, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

Before BAILES, FLEMING and BRADLEY, JJ. Pro Tem.

C. WILLIAM BRADLEY, Judge Pro Tem.

For the reasons assigned in Ruby Cusi-mano, Wife of/and Jules J. Armant v. Os-way Smith et al., La.App., 290 So.2d 342 on the docket of this Court, decided this day, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.
#### Jackie Ecker WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-793.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 2, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
# C_2020255EN.01003102.xml

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/31

---

Action brought on 12 June 2020. — 1031023 B.C. v EUIPO — Bodegas San Valero (Representation of a round element similar to a brushstroke)

(Case T-366/20)

(2020/C 255/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: 1031023 B.C. Ltd (Richmond, British Columbia, Canada) (represented by: M. González Gordon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bodegas San Valero, S. Coop. (Cariñena, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark (Representation of a round element similar to a brushstroke) — Application for registration No 17 890 405

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2020 in Case R 2142/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | admit the application and the documents attached thereto and consider the appeal to have been lodged in due time and form against the contested decision and, after completing the appropriate procedural steps, give judgment upholding the applicant’s claims and granting EU trade mark application No 17 890 405. |
| --- | --- |

—

admit the application and the documents attached thereto and consider the appeal to have been lodged in due time and form against the contested decision and, after completing the appropriate procedural steps, give judgment upholding the applicant’s claims and granting EU trade mark application No 17 890 405.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

                             CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
                TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

                                     BY THE
               CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

         In connection with the Annual Report of LION, Inc., a Washington
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),
each of Randall D. Miles, Chief Executive Officer, and Steve Thomson, Chief
Financial Officer, of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbaines-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.1350), that to his knowledge:

(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.




CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER                    CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


/s/ Randall D. Miles                       /s/ Steve Thomson
-------------------------------------      -------------------------------------
Randall D. Miles                           Steve Thomson

March 31, 2005                             March 31, 2005
-------------------------------------      -------------------------------------

                                       1
# Found Property Tag

                - Title:  Found Property Tag 
                - Form #:         GSA252      
                - Current Revision Date:  01/1977
                - Authority or Regulation: 

PDF versions of forms use Adobe      ReaderTM.      Download Adobe ReaderTM

Search for another form

Print PageEmail Page

Top
SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT (2) SCHEDULE UNDER REVIEW PENDING RECEIPT OF INFO

STP AIA DC AMENDMENT SAFETY REVIEW COMPLETED

RULEMAKING SCHEDULED

TOSHIBA DC RENEWAL NOT SCHEDU

RULEMAKING 

GE-HITACHI DC RENEWAL NOT SCHE

RULEMAKING 

03/08/11

ABWR DESIGN CENTER REVIEW

ABWR DESIGN CERTIFICATION RENEWAL

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

New Reactor Licensing Applications

Schedules By Calendar Year

1 OF 3 
ISSUED

DC AMENDMENT SAFETY REVIEW COMPLETED

RULEMAKING SCHEDULED

UTHERN - VOGTLE ESP ISSUED

SOUTHERN - VOGTLE (GA) (2) SCHEDULED

SOUTH CAROLINA E&G - SUMMER (2) SCHEDULED

PROGRESS ENERGY - LEVY COUNTY (FL) (2) SCHEDULED

FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT - TURKEY POINT (2) SCHEDULE UNDER REVIEW

DUKE - LEE STATION (SC) (2) SCHEDULED

PROGRESS ENERGY - HARRIS (NC) (2) SCHEDULED

TVA - BELLEFONTE (AL) (2) REVIEW SUSPENDED 9/29/2010

DESIGN CERTIFICATION - EPR SCHEDULED

RULEMAKING SCHEDULED

UNISTAR - CALVERT CLIFFS (MD) (1) SCHEDULED

AMERENUE - CALLAWAY (1) REVIEW SUSPENDED 6/23/2009

PPL GENERATION - BELL BEND (1) SCHEDULE UNDER REVIEW PENDING RECE

UNISTAR - NINE MILE PT (NY) (1) REVIEW SUSPENDED 12/01/2009

ATION - ESBWR SAFETY REVIEW COMPLETED

RULEMAKING SCHEDULED

ISSUED

DOMINION - NORTH ANNA (VA) (1) APPLICANT CHANGED TECHNOLOGY 6/30/10

ISSUED

ENTERGY - GRAND GULF (MS) (1) REVIEW SUSPENDED 01/09/09

ENTERGY - RIVER BEND (LA) (1) REVIEW SUSPENDED 01/09/09

DTE - FERMI (MI) (1) SCHEDULED

DESIGN CERTIFICATION - USAPWR SCHEDULED

RULEMAKING SCHEDULED

LUMINANT - COMANCHE PEAK (TX) (2) SCHEDULED

DOMINION - NORTH ANNA (VA) (1) SCHEDULED

03/08/11

AP1000 DESIGN CENTER REVIEW

EPR DESIGN CENTER REVIEW

ESBWR DESIGN CENTER REVIEW

USAPWR DESIGN CENTER REVIEW

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

New Reactor Licensing Applications

Schedules By Calendar Year

2 OF 3 
DESIGN CERTIFICATION - KEPCO 

RULEM

ISSUED

SOUTHERN - GREENFIELD SITE NO

UNNAMED SCOL NOT S

PSEG ESP SCHEDULED

BLUE CASTLE PROJECT (UT) (1) NOT SCHEDULED

EXELON - VICTORIA CTY (TX) (2) SCHEDULED

CALLAWAY (MO) (1) NOT SCHEDULE

NuScale DC NO

RULEMAKING 

B&W mPower DC 

RULEMAKING 

TVA Clinch River Construction Permit Application NOT SCH

TVA Clinch River Operating License Application

NGNP Prototype COL 

03/08/11

UNANNOUNCED TECHNOLOGY

KEPCO DESIGN CENTER REVIEW

ADVANCED REACTORS

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 

New Reactor Licensing Applications

Schedules By Calendar Year

3 OF 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          17,067
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,613,491
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,000
<INVENTORY>                                  3,142,825
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,248,477
<PP&E>                                         679,609
<DEPRECIATION>                                 334,475
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,057,044
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,990,081
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        691
<COMMON>                                        16,025
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,397,825
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,057,044
<SALES>                                     71,567,799
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            71,567,799
<CGS>                                       68,722,606
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               68,722,606
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,646,422
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,007,884
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,790,301)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,790,301)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,632,568)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.23)


</TABLE>
# Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP) System Service Confirmation for Service Vendors

                - Title:  Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP) System Service Confirmation for Service Vendors 
                - Form #:         SF318      
                - Current Revision Date:  09/2010
                - Authority or Regulation:  5 U.S.C. 301 and 44 U.S.C. 3101

PDF versions of forms use Adobe      ReaderTM.      Download Adobe ReaderTM

Search for another form

Print PageEmail Page

Top
#### LaNorris HOBBS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. N-92.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 11, 1972.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court appealed from herein is affirmed,

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.