alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
131143 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 131143 COA: 258149 Gratiot CC: 03-004633-FC DANIEL CLARE RADEMACHER, 03-004634-FC Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the March 21, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t1023 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2006

Clerk
House Calendar No. 58

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 206

[Report No. 103–151]

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2150)

purposes.for the United States Coast Guard, and for otherto authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1994

JUNE 23, 1993

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
IV

House Calendar No. 58

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 206

[Report No. 103–151]

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2150) to authorize appropriations

for fiscal year 1994 for the United States Coast Guard, and for other

purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 23, 1993

Mr. MOAKLEY, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2150) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1994 for the United

States Coast Guard, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this

2 resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of

3 rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee

4 of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consider5 ation of the bill (H.R. 2150) to authorize appropriations

6 for fiscal year 1994 for the United States Coast Guard,

7 and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall
2

HRES 206 RH

1 be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the

2 bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and con3 trolled by the chairman and ranking minority member of

4 the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. After

5 general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment

6 under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider

7 as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under

8 the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a sub9 stitute recommended by the Committee on Merchant Ma10 rine and Fisheries now printed in the bill. The committee

11 amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be consid12 ered by title rather than by section. Each title shall be

13 considered as read. Points of order against the committee

14 amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure to

15 comply with clause 5(a) of rule XXI are waived. At the

16 conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the

17 Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with

18 such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member

19 may demand a separate vote in the House on any amend20 ment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill

21 or to the committee amendment in the nature of a sub22 stitute. The previous question shall be considered as or23 dered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage

24 without intervening motion except one motion to recommit

25 with or without instructions.
#### SHERWOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and Ribault Hills, Inc., Appellants, v. FLORIDA CROWN UTILITY SERVICES, INC., Appellee.

No. Q-366.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 27, 1972.

Hugh M. Davenport, of Greene, Greene, Smith & Davenport, Jacksonville, for appellants.

John Paul Howard, of Towers, Howard, Cowart & Bolling, Jacksonville, for appel-lee.

JOHNSON, Judge.

This is an appeal from a final judgment dismissing, with prejudice, the appellants’ second amended complaint.

The complaints, as amended, sought money damages for breach of an oral agreement, which was a modification of a prior written agreement, to provide water and sewer connections for certain additional property. The trial court dismissed the complaints for the reason that the agreement fell within the provisions of the statute of frauds as being an agreement not to be performed within the space of one year from the making thereof. Appellants attempt herein, as they did below, to bring the facts of this case within the holding of Yates v. Ball, 132 Fla. 132, 181 So. 341, 344 (1937), wherein it was stated:

> “When, ... no definite time was fixed by the parties for the performance of their agreement, and there is nothing in its terms to show that it could not be performed within a year according to its intent and the understanding of the par*120ties, it should not be construed as being within the statute of frauds.”

However, the Yates case, supra, goes on to state as follows:

> “The general rule so stated is subject to the qualifying rule that when no time is agreed on for the complete performance of the contract, if from the object to be accomplished by it and the surrounding circumstances, it clearly appears that the parties intended that it should extend for a longer period than a year, it is within the statute of frauds, though it cannot be said that there is any impossibility preventing its performance within a year.”

We agree with the lower court’s judgment dismissing the complaint and we quote with approval his explanatory ruling thereon.

> “It is apparent from the factual situation disclosed by the complaint that under the surrounding circumstances it is clear that the parties intended that the agreement would extend for a longer period than a year. This is borne out by the fact that, although the alleged agreement was entered into in 1966, it was not until 1971 that the plaintiffs erected structures on the lots in question, requiring the sewer and water connections. In short, it is apparent that plaintiffs intended the agreement to be indefinite as to the time of performance, depending upon when they should decide to commence construction, so it is apparent from the surrounding circumstances and the actual facts that the parties intended the agreement to stand for a longer period than a year.”

For the reasons stated above, the final judgment dismissing the appellants’ second amended complaint with prejudice is affirmed.

Affirmed.

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON, J., concur.
Exhibit 99.4



                            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 Quarterly Report of Avery Communications,  Inc. Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Thomas C. Ratchford,  Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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/ Thomas C. Ratchford
-----------------------
Thomas C. Ratchford
Chief Financial Officer
December 16, 2002

<PAGE>
#### Darnell MACK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-325.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 29, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We have issued our report dated August 29, 1997, accompanying the 
consolidated financial statements included in the Annual Report of Citadel 
Computer Systems, Incorporated on Form 10-KSB as of February 28, 1997. We 
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the 
Registration Statements of Citadel Computer Systems, Incorporated (formerly 
LoneStar Hospitality Corporation) on Form S-8 (File No. 33-65189, No. 
333-03291, and No. 333-15665 effective December 20, 1995, May 8, 1996, and 
November 6, 1996, respectively).

GRANT THORNTON LLP

Dallas, Texas
October 17, 1997
# C_2022222EN.01002901.xml

| 7.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/29

---

Order of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Scania CV v EUIPO (V8)

(Case T-327/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 222/48)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Scania CV AB (Södertälje, Sweden) (represented by: C. Langenius, P. Sundin and S. Falkner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Bosse and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2021 (Case R 1868/2020-1), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign V8 as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Scania CV AB. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Scania CV AB.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 26.7.2021.

---
Exhibit 23.1
 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, 2010 and 2009.
 
 
 /s/ MaloneBailey, LLP
 Houston, Texas
 www.malone-bailey.com
 July 13, 2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SUMMIT MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. DATED MARCH
31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       8,580,164
<SECURITIES>                                31,762,314
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,455,206
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            41,816,645
<PP&E>                                       2,589,305
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              46,019,533
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,419,882
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        34,492
<OTHER-SE>                                  41,565,159
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                46,019,533
<SALES>                                      1,423,887
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,423,887
<CGS>                                          892,516
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  713,499
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                397,218
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            397,218
<DISCONTINUED>                              (4,895,265)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (4,498,047)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (1.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.28)


</TABLE>
#### John W. DAWSON and Nellie Dawson, his wife, Appellants, v. AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY, a Connecticut corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-774.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 14, 1970.

Rehearing Denied May 4, 1970.

*861Alfred D. Bieley, Miami, for appellants.

Kates & Ress, and Leonard A. Carson, North Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Aetna Casualty & Surety Company originally brought a declaratory decree action against the appellant and others for the purpose of determining whether or not there was a workmen’s compensation insurance policy in force and effect at the time when one Grady Jackson was injured in an industrial accident. At the time of the injury, Jackson was employed either by the appellant or by another, Horton, who had acquired the business employing Jackson.

After being served with the complaint, the appellants Dawson thereafter filed a motion to dismiss together with an answer and counterclaim, the counterclaim requesting attorney’s fees and costs. Thereafter, the trial judge entered an order of dismissal, finding that the matter of workmen’s compensation coverage was presently pending before the Florida Industrial Commission for determination, and moreover, finding that the appellant’s counterclaim was premature in view of those pending proceedings.

The appellee argues that § 627.0127 Fla. Stat., F.S.A. is not applicable to the case at bar, in that the trial judge’s disposition in this case was not “ * * * against an insurer in favor of an insured or the named beneficiary under a policy or contract executed by the insurer.” We do not agree. The insurance company is seeking, by this action, a determination that it is not liable for the damages incurred by Jackson and, consequently, that his recovery must be from the appellants and/or Horton. The dismissal of the insurance company’s action, therefore, in our opinion is the “ * * rendition of a judgment * * * against an insurer in favor of an insured.” See James Furniture Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Maryland Cas. Co., Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 722. Moreover, the fact that the appellants raised the issue by way of a counterclaim, rather than the usual procedure of filing a motion for attorney’s fees, should not disqualify them from the statutory benefits bestowed by § 627.0127, supra.

Therefore, the dismissal of the appellant’s counterclaim is hereby reversed.
#### In the Interest of T. J. S., a minor.

No. 73-737.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 10, 1973.

Appeal from Juvenile Court, Broward County; Frank A. Orlando, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### S. W. CRAFT v. SMITH COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.

No. 50194.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 29, 1978.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Smith County; George B. Grubbs, Judge.

Before ROBERTSON, P. J., and SUGG and WALKER, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
#### KASH ’N KARRY WHOLESALE SUPERMARKETS, INC. v. GARCIA.

No. 38738.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 221 So.2d 786.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          13,720
<SECURITIES>                                   140,843
<RECEIVABLES>                                   49,756
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,375
<INVENTORY>                                     19,193
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               232,481
<PP&E>                                         139,410
<DEPRECIATION>                                  83,533
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 313,112
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           55,393
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           215
<OTHER-SE>                                     232,798
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   313,112
<SALES>                                        157,119
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               263,835
<CGS>                                           64,065
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  133,640
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               150,234
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,975
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (14,696)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (7,642)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (7,054)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     95
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (6,959)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.32)



</TABLE>
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 2- 21 96

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ St ep ha n A. Fl em in g ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt
v. Mi ch ael J. As tru e, Co m

m is si on er o f th e So ci al Secu rit y Adm in is tra ti on ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ctof Ne br as ka- Lin co ln

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Jan ua ry

4, 2 01 3 Fi le d: Jan ua ry

11 , 20 13

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re BYE, GRUENDER, andBENTON, Circu itJu dg es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM. St ep ha n A. Fl em in g ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r di sm is si ng hi s ap pe al fo r 1 la ck ofjuri sd ic ti on . Upo n de no vo rev ie w, se e Cl ari nd a Hom e Heal th v. Sh al al a, 10 0 F
. 3 d 5 26 , 52 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ), we ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at th ere was no The Hon or ab le Jo hn M. Gerra rd , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1 of Nebr as ka
.co ns tru ct iv e or de fact o reo pe ni ng of Fl em in g’s earl ie r ap pl ic at io n, an d th us th at

subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on was la ck in g, se e Kin g v. Ch at er, 90 F.3 d 32 3, 32 5 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ). The d is tri ctco ur t i s af firm ed
.

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

-2
-
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1073

To extend until December 31, 1994, the deadline for the State of Pennsylvania to submit certain provisions of a Clean Air Act implementation

plan applicable to the Liberty Borough PM–10 Nonattainment Area,

and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 28 (legislative day, APRIL 19), 1993

Mr. SPECTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

A BILL

To extend until December 31, 1994, the deadline for the

State of Pennsylvania to submit certain provisions of

a Clean Air Act implementation plan applicable to the

Liberty Borough PM–10 Nonattainment Area, and for

other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR PLAN SUBMIS4 SION

5 In recognition of the unique and distinctive geo6 graphical and meteorological characteristics of the Liberty

7 Borough PM–10 Nonattainment Area in Western Penn-
2

•S 1073 IS

1 sylvania (encompassing Clairton, Glassport, Port Vue,

2 Liberty Borough, and Lincoln), the deadline applicable to

3 that area under section 189(a)(2)(B) of the Clean Air Act

4 (42 U.S.C. 7513a(a)(2)(B)) (relating to the date for im5 plementation plan submissions for PM–10 Moderate Non6 attainment Areas) shall be extended until December 31,

7 1994.

Æ
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration National

Airport System

Plan 1978 -1987

EXHIBIT

106
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The 1978 National Airport System Plan (NASP) provides, in accordance with Section 12 of the Airport and

Airway Development Act of 1970, as amended, a compilation of development needs for the Nation's civil airports

in the decade ahead. The NASP, although published periodically, represents a continuous planning process and is

constantly being updated. It is a traditional "needs" study and, as such, does not consider alternative levels of

service related to different investment commitments. The generation of such assessments will require the

development of performance measures and an appropriate data base. Future publications will reflect this type of

analysis.

The NASP identifies airport development projects in which there is a potential Federal interest and on which

Federal funds may be spent under the Airport Development Aid Program (ADAP). The inclusion in the NASP of

airport development does not represent Federal approval for that development, nor does it commit the Federal

Government in any way to participate in the cost of that development. Such aid may be granted, subject to the

availability of funds, only upon the request of an eligible sponsor and upon fulfillment of various requirements,

including a more thorough study and analysis, meeting the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act

of 1969, and the environmental review provisions of the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1910, as

amended.

Aviation as well as other forms of transportation must compete for limited resources at the state and local levels

and must be reconciled with other, sometimes conflicting, priorities such as environmental and energy

considerations. For these reasons, the data on airport development costs should be regarded only as estimates of

future needs. Whether the recommended development will actually be achieved will depend on decisions made at

Federal, state, and local levels with respect to policy, priorities, and availability of funds.

The number of airport locations in the 1978 NASP and the estimated cost of development are shown below.

Service Level

1918--1987NATIONAL AIRPORT SYSTEM PLAN

System Composition and Development Costs

Total costs in 1916 dollars

Locations

Existing 10 Yr. Projection

620

133

147

2,237

3,137

635

193

204

2,571

3,603

Costs ($Billions)

0-10 Yr.

$6.49

0.37

0.91

2.85

$10.62

Air Carrier

Commuter Service

Reliever

General Aviation

Total

Of the $10.62 billion in airport development over the next decade, $7.46 billion is in the first five years (1978-

1982), and $3.17 billion is in the second five years (1983-1981). The estimates include total costs of only those

airport items that are eligible for Federal aid but are not limited by the amount of money that may actually be

iii