alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In re TRANSITION RULE I.

No. 42980.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 31, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

In order to effect an orderly transition of the courts under the newly adopted judicial amendment to the Constitution of Florida (Article V), it is necessary to promulgate certain temporary rules as an emergency matter. The following Transition Rule 1 is hereby adopted effective immediately. The purpose of this rule is to assist the clerks of the various courts in transferring pending files to the proper courts.

TRANSITION RULE 1, AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY.

In all civil actions, except those seeking equitable relief, pending before a trial court in this State, the parties shall file an amendment to the pleadings on or before December 1, 1972, showing the amount in controversy so as to establish whether proper jurisdiction is vested in the Circuit Court or in the County Court as such jurisdiction is established by Fla.Const., art. V, §§ 20(c)(3), (4), and 20(d)(1), F.S.A., effective January 1, *1973.*If a party fails to file such amendment to pleadings, the dollar amount alleged in the pleadings shall determine the jurisdiction.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, ADKINS, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
[No. 812-1.

Division One—Panel 1.

October 12, 1971.]

#### Richard A. Cassutt, *Appellant,*v. John R. Stout *et al., Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 715447, George H. Freese, J., entered July 14, 1970. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 134 (Thursday, July 12, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 32293]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14931]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than August 6, 2018.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant 
Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. Platte Valley Financial Service Companies, Inc., Scottsbluff, 
Nebraska; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of The American 
Bank of Sidney, Sidney, Nebraska.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 9, 2018.
Ann Misback,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2018-14931 Filed 7-11-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Paul E. SMITH v. 19TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FOR the PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE.

No. 62638.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 15, 1978.

In re: Paul E. Smith, applying for writ of certiorari and mandamus. Parish of East Baton Rouge.

Writ denied. Relator is not entitled to this transcript. If defendant seeks an out of time appeal he must apply for same in district court.

SUMMERS and DENNIS, grant an out of time appeal. JJ., would
263 La. 111

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Earl ANDREWS v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 52897.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 19, 1972.

In re: Earl Andrews applying for writs of habeas corpus, certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

Writs refused. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction or original jurisdiction.
#### PRUDENCE MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, for the Use and Benefit of BREVARD COUNTY; and Robert Lee Dinkins, Appellees.

No. 69-465.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 24, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
No. 00-979.

#### Vandeventer Black *v.*Beaman, Trustee.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Harden L. BRYANT and Auto-Owners Insurance Company, a corporation, Appellants, v. June E. HAARALA, a minor, by her next friend and father, James Haarala, Appellee.

No. N-129.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 18, 1971.

Harrell, Wiltshire, Bozeman, Clark & Stone, and Lewis & Taylor, Pensacola, for appellants.

Levin, Warfield, Graff, Mabie & Rosen-bloum, Pensacola, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants appeal from an adverse final judgment based upon a jury verdict in this automobile accident case. The sole issue *645on appeal is whether or not the trial judge erred in admitting into evidence an un-sworn statement of the clerk of a criminal court which reflected that the driver of the automobile had entered a plea of guilty of reckless driving.

We agree with appellants that the controverted statement was technically insufficient as to form and was therefore erroneously admitted into evidence. However, the testimony and evidence presented to the jury in this cause adduced negligence of such gross character on the part . of appellant that the admission of the cited statement falls within the harmless error doctrine.

The judgment appealed is affirmed.

WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and RAWLS and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-40305 Summary Calendar

CHARLES MELVIN JACKSON, JR., Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSEPH MITCHELL, Etc.; ET AL., Defendants, JOSEPH MITCHELL, Dentist, Coffield Unit, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:01-CV-159

-------------------- December 10, 2002 Before BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Dr. Joseph Mitchell appeals the district court’s denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity. An order denying qualified immunity is immediately appealable if based on conclusions of law rather than the presence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Palmer v. Johnson , 193 F.3d 346, 350 (5th Cir. 1999). However, “if the district court concludes that theNo. 02-40305 -2- summary judgment record raises a genuine issue of material fact with respect to whether the defense of qualified immunity is applicable, then that decision is not immediately appealable.” Id. at 351. We conclude, as did the magistrate judge, that there are genuine issues of material fact as to the existence of a serious dental need that preclude the grant of summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. Consequently, this court does not have jurisdiction over Dr. Mitchell’s interlocutory appeal. See Palmer , 193 F.3d at 351. We decline to exercise our pendent appellate jurisdictionover the magistrate judge’s denial of Dr. Mitchell’s statute-oflimitations defense because it is not “inextricably intertwined” with the denial of qualified immunity. See Thornton v. General Motors Corp. , 136 F.3d 450, 454 (5th Cir. 1998).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
a10307-2020ltipxletterte






  ”FORM OF”        2020 LTIP Award Letter   Last Name, First Name      April 7, 2020   2020 Long Term Incentive Award Letter  Dear First Name,  I am pleased to inform you that you have received a Grant of Units in the amounts set forth below. These  Units entitle you to receive Constellium Shares (or a cash equivalent, at Constellium’s discretion), subject  to the terms and conditions set forth in this Award Letter, in the Constellium 2020 Long Term Incentive  Award Agreement (the “2020 Award Agreement”) and the Constellium SE 2013 Equity Incentive Plan, as  may be amended from time to time (the “Plan”). Capitalized Terms used in this Award Letter, unless so  defined herein, shall have the meanings found in the 2020 Award Agreement or Plan.  Grant Date April 7, 2020  Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) Y,YYY  Vesting Date April 7, 2023  Vesting Period From the Grant Date through the Vesting Date  Please note that the vesting of the RSUs and the delivery of Shares (or a cash equivalent in respect of such  RSUs) are subject to the satisfaction of the Continued Service Condition.   By electronic acceptance of this award, you acknowledge that you have received a copy of, or have online  access to, the 2020 Award Agreement and the Plan, and hereby accept the Units granted, subject to all the  terms and provisions of this Award Letter, the 2020 Award Agreement and the Plan. The Board or the  Committee shall determine whether an event has occurred resulting in the forfeiture of your Units and any  Shares issuable thereunder and all such determinations shall be final and conclusive. You also  acknowledge that this award and similar awards are made on a selective basis and are, therefore, to be  kept confidential.   Very truly yours,              Ryan Jurkovic  Senior Vice President  Chief Human Resources Officer
#### Wayne Earl SMITH and David Teague, Petitioners, v. The Honorable Theron A. YAWN, Jr., Circuit Judge in and for the Eighth Judicial Circuit in and for Union County, Florida, Respondent.

No. JJ-350.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 30, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 9, 1978.

William B. Salmon and June Rice, Asst. Public Defenders, Gainesville, for petitioners.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of prohibition, having been considered on the merits, is DENIED.

SMITH, Acting C. J., and ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Robert L. SHEVIN, as Attorney General, and State of Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, a component agency of the State of Florida, Appellants, v. RAMSEY STOCK FARMS, INC., a Florida corporation, and V. E. Whitehurst & Sons, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees.

No. Q-407.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 27, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 21, 1972.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Herbert T. Schwartz, Asst. Atty. Gen., and M. Stephen Turner, Tallahassee, for appellants.

Parks M. Carmichael and John F. Ros-cow, III, of Scruggs, Carmichael, Tomlin-son, Roscow & Pridgeon, and Sam T. Dell, of Dell, Graham, Willcox, Barber, Rap-penecker & Ryals, Gainesville, for appel-lees.

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 appellants having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court appealed from herein is affirmed. See Hill v. McDuffie, 196 So.2d 790 (Fla.App.1967), cert. den. 203 So.2d 325 (Fla.1967).

SPECTOR, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT
      32.1








Certification
      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




The
      following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany the Annual
      Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 of Hub Group, Inc.
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)
      and
      shall not be deemed filed pursuant to any provision of the Exchange Act of
      1934
      or any other securities law .




Each
      of
      the undersigned certifies that the foregoing Report on Form 10-K fully complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
      (15 U.S.C. 78m) and that the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of Hub Group, Inc.






/s/
                David P.Yeager
            /s/
                Thomas M. WhiteName:
                David P. Yeager
            Name:
                Thomas M. WhiteTitle:
                Vice Chairman and Chief
            Title:
                Senior Vice President -Executive
                Officer
            Chief
                Financial Officer andTreasurer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,119,372
<SECURITIES>                                10,463,213
<RECEIVABLES>                               15,421,814
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (995,843)
<INVENTORY>                                 15,819,757
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            43,741,556
<PP&E>                                      16,128,733
<DEPRECIATION>                             (5,753,867)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              54,530,293
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,964,752
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    30,211,693
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,655,348
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                54,530,293
<SALES>                                     57,048,825
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            57,048,825
<CGS>                                       35,685,130
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,362,338
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,061
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               172,601
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,445,388
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,074,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,371,188
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,371,188
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .32
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
23.1





Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm.








CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





The Board
of Directors


Earth
Search Sciences, Inc.


Lakeside,
Montana





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form
S-8 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2003 (File No.
333-106630) of our opinion, relating to the consolidated financial statements
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Earth Search Sciences, Inc. for
the year ended March 31, 2007.








/s/
Malone & Bailey, PC


Houston,
Texas


www.malone-bailey.com


April
23 , 2008
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 24
- 0054 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. THOMAS CURRAN

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including June 7 , 202 4 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 1 2024

05/01/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0054
# L_2013249EN.01S00301.xml

| 19.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 249/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 249/s3

---

NOTICE TO READERS

Council Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 of 7 March 2013 on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union

In accordance with Council Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 of 7 March 2013 on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L 69, 13.3.2013, p. 1), as of 1 July 2013, only the electronic edition of the Official Journal shall be considered authentic and shall have legal effect.

Official Journal of the European Union

Where it is not possible to publish the electronic edition of the Official Journal due to unforeseen and exceptional circumstances, the printed edition shall be authentic and shall have legal effect in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 216/2013.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 586 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 586

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                   November 29, 1994.  
    Resolved, That Members of the House express their profound thanks and 
appreciation to the Honorable Thomas S. Foley, Speaker of the House of 
Representatives for the very fair and impartial manner with which he has 
presided over our deliberations and performed the arduous duties of the chair 
during his tenure as Speaker.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Abatement Order filed October 22, 2019

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 19

- 00727

- CV

____________ AMERICAN WORKERS INS URANCE SERVICES, INC ., ASSOCIATION

HEALTH CARE MANAGEME NT, INC. , Appellant s

V. INSURETY CAPITAL, LL C, Appellee

On Appeal from the 215th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2019

- 53545



### ABATEMENT ORDER

Notice was filed on October 15, 2019 that appellant is in bankruptcy. Tex. R. App. P. 8.1. According to the notice, on October 14, 2019
, appellants American Workers Insurance Services, Inc. and Association Health Care Management, Inc. petitioned for voluntary bankruptcy protection in the Uni ted States Bankruptcy
Court for the Northern District of Texas under case number 19

- 44208

- mxm11 . A bankruptcy suspends the appeal from the date when the bankruptcy petition is fileduntil the appellate court reinstates the appeal in accordance with federal law. Tex. R.

App. P. 8.2. Accordingly, we ORDER the appeal abated.
When a case has been suspended by a bankruptcy filing, a party may move the appellate court to reinstate the appeal if permitted by federal law or the bankruptcy court. Tex. R. App. P. 8. 3. If the bankruptcy court has lifted or terminated the stay, a certified copy of the order must be attached to the motion. Id. A party filing a motion to reinstate shall specify what further action, if any, is required from this court when the appeal is r einstated. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.1(a).
For administrative purposes only, and without surrendering jurisdiction, the appeal is abated and treated as a closed case until further order of this court.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Wise and Hassan.
#### NAVIGAZIONE GENERALE ITALIANA v. UNITED STATES.

No. 241.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

March 8, 1937.

*609Lamar Hardy, U. S. Atty., of New York City (Charles J. Nager, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Rye, N. Y., of counsel), for the United States.

Kirlin, Campbell, Hickox, Keating & McGrann and Gaspare M. Cusumano, all of New York City (Delbert M. Tibbetts, of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.

Before L. HAND, SWAN, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.

L. HAND, Circuit Judge.

This is an action to recover a fine imposed for unlawfully bringing into the country an alien suffering from gonorrhoea. The examining surgeon certified that the alien’s condition could have been detected on embarkation, but on his examination the alien swore that he had no symptoms of the disease until after he left Genoa, the place of embarkation. This would have been enough to excúse the carrier, except for a memorandum of the chief examining officer at Ellis Island which declared that there was no reasonable doubt that the alien had been suffering from the disease for some time; that he had stated on his examination that the discharge which betrays the disease had existed on the day of sailing; and that the examining physician at that time had failed to detect it. Thus the alien upon this examination by the medical officers appears to have contradicted what he said before the Board of Special Inquiry. The Secretary chose to accept the statement of his own examining doctor, whom it does not appear that the plaintiff requested an opportunity to examine as to the sources of his information. So far as we can see, it was not unfair to impose the fine.

Judgment reversed.
#### Edward L. LINES, Petitioner, v. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, Respondent.

No. 69-730.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 26, 1970.

Certiorari dismissed.
# C_2021297EN.01001503.xml

| 26.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/15

---

Appeal brought on 2 March 2021 by Production Christian Gallimard against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2020 in Case T-863/19, Production Christian Gallimard v EUIPO — Éditions Gallimard

(Case C-143/21 P)

(2021/C 297/17)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Production Christian Gallimard (represented by: L. Dreyfuss-Bechmann, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Éditions Gallimard la nouvelle revue française éditions de la nouvelle revue française SA

By order of 5 May 2021 the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal is not allowed to proceed and that Production Christian Gallimard shall bear its own costs.

---