alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### LCR CORPORATION v. Raymond C. JOHNSON, d/b/a R. C. Johnson Construction Company.

No. 11683.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Dec. 28, 1977.

William L. McLeod, Jr., Lake Charles, of counsel, for plaintiff-appellee, LCR Corp.

Doris Gates Rankin, Baton Rouge, of counsel, for defendant-appellant, Raymond C. Johnson, etc.

Before BLANCHE, COVINGTON and CHIASSON, JJ.

*1047COVINGTON, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the trial court in favor of LCR Corporation and against the defendant, Raymond C. Johnson, d/b/a R. C. Johnson Construction Company, in the amount of $3,201.76, but subject to a credit of $850.77, owed on an open account. We affirm.

The plaintiff, a building supply dealer, allegedly sold certain building supplies to defendant through his agent, Dennis R. Devrow. When defendant failed to pay the balance owed for the materials, the plaintiff instituted this suit on an open account. The defendant answered, denying that the materials were sold or delivered to him.

After hearing the testimony of the witnesses, the trial court determined that the debt, subject to certain credit, was owed by the defendant. In reaching this determination, the trial judge remarked:

> “The principal issue in this case boils down to credibility bearing on the question of whether there was express authorization given by Johnson to LCR’s representative to permit Devrow to incur charges on the account. The Court believes that there was. While the power of attorney was confected after this credit application was acted upon by Capone (plaintiff’s credit manager), it rather confirms the fact that Devrow had Johnson’s confidence and Johnson intended for Dev-row to act to consummate his business transactions in the Lake Charles area. Further, on his first visit to the witness stand, the Court had the distinct impression that Johnson did not wish to deny the first telephone call from Capone, although his memory may have been somewhat hazy. With this finding, the Court concludes that Devrow and his employees were authorized to make the purchases described by Arndt (plaintiff’s sales representative) and that to the extent of the total of the purchases the balance of the account is correct.”

After reviewing the record, we believe that the trial judge correctly stated the facts and applied the law in making his decision. The credible evidence in the record reasonably supports his findings of fact. See *Hoover v. Beatty,*323 So.2d 490 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1975). The absence of some invoices is of no consequence. Without them, there is ample evidence to support the conclusion of the trial judge.

The court disallowed plaintiff-appellee’s demand for an additional small sum representing a “service charge” of 12% annually on past due balances, as set forth in the credit application. The plaintiff has neither appealed nor answered the appeal; therefore, we need not consider that facet of the case.

We affirm the judgment at the appellant’s cost.

AFFIRMED.
Towhom 

### it mayconcern:

# ~~:~\~11f~~:!:in We are the people of Miles City Montana. Our population is around 8,000. We are close

### to~th'i~**B~kke'ri'**

# "' , _ _,, ·. Oil Field but there is no drilling in our county. We are seeing growth. If I were to write**v,qu:aP;9 ~t** **p~r** 

# 3

# 3 history and our problems, Iwould write a book. So, Iwill make this short. 

### ;_uu ,,; " ' ··· When Iwas a child, Amtrak came through Miles City and I would ride itwith my family to Chicago, When they had to cut costs, they decided on a Northern route that did not include Miles City. A few years ago we had avery wet spring and a government agency came in and told us our dike is not certified and over 70% ofourtown is in aflood zone so we all haveto pay for flood insurance. Or, a new dike which should run around 30 million. Then, the government passed a few new laws and we need to upgrade our sewer system for around 8**million~** One ofour grade schools did notget the government grant they applied for and did not get a new boiler. So, our children had to wear their coats in school. Then the ACLU came in and closed ourjail, which will cost around 5 million. Now we have to transport our prisoners' 170+ miles away, even ifthey are innocent. Another agency took away the Tounge River Railroad, which we have been hoping for, for almost 40 years. It got right down to the end and they decided on another route that does not include Miles City. Then another government agency decided thatthe busses that run through ourtownwere not safe, so they tookthat away. Then there is the post office thatwants to cut costs. Now, they say not enough people ride our airplane so they wantto take that away. I have used our airportto send my children to theirfathers in Bozeman orto their grandmothers in Billings. Itried to use itfor business once but missed my connecting in Billings because Iwas there a half hour early but Delta had closed their desk for boarding. Just this week, a friend ofours had to fly to Billings for a procedure because there were no busses running. Please help us. Don't take it p.way. Thank you for your consideration, Roxanna Brush Miles City Councilperson
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 136 (Monday, July 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32850-32851]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15124]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP18-963-000.
    Applicants: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company.

[[Page 32851]]

    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Tariff Revisions to GT&C 6.14 
Procedures for Allocating Available Firm Capacity to be effective 8/6/
2018.
    Filed Date: 7/6/18.
    Accession Number: 20180706-5156.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/18/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-964-000.
    Applicants: EQT Production Company, EQT Energy, LLC.
    Description: Joint Petition of EQT Production Co., et al., for 
Limited Waiver of Capacity Release Regulations and Tariff Provisions.
    Filed Date: 7/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20180709-5133.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/23/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-940-002.
    Applicants: Empire Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Errata No. 2 Empire Rate Case--June 
2018 to be effective 8/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/10/18.
    Accession Number: 20180710-5028.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/16/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-965-000.
    Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Neg Rate Agmt 
(BP37-28) to be effective 7/11/2018.
    Filed Date: 7/10/18.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/23/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by 
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be 
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the 
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: July 10, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-15124 Filed 7-13-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
EXHIBIT 11 - STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS.

EARNINGS (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE: Basic EPS excludes dilution and is computed
by dividing income  available to common stockholders by the weighted-average
number of common shares outstanding for the period. Diluted EPS reflects
the potential dilution that could occur if securities or other contracts to 
issue common stock were exercised or converted into common stock or resulted in
the issuance of common stock that then shared in the earnings of the entity.
The primary weighted average number of common shares outstanding was 
5,521,283, 5,478,558 and 5,433,174, for the years ended December 31, 1997,
1996, and 1995 respectively.

                                         For the Year Ended 1997
                               -------------------------------------------
                               Income             Share           Per-Share
                              (Numerator)     (Denominator)         Amount
                               -------------------------------------------
  Basic EPS
  Income available to common
   stockholders                $166,201         5,521,283          $0.03
                               ========         =========          =====

  Diluted EPS
  Income available to common
   stockholders+assumed 
   conversions                 $166,201         5,543,667          $0.03
                               ========         =========          =====
IV

House Calendar No. 234

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 555

[Report No. 103–766]

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the

bill (H.R. 4299) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1995 for

intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence

Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 29, 1994

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

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to

accompany the bill (H.R. 4299) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1995 for intelligence and intelligencerelated activities of the United States Government, the

Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and

for other purposes.

1 Resolved, That all points of order against the con2 ference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4299) to au-
2

HRES 555 RH

1 thorize appropriations for fiscal year 1995 for intelligence

2 and intelligence-related activities of the United States

3 Government, the Community Management Account, and

4 the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability

5 System, and for other purposes, and against its consider6 ation are waived.

House Calendar No. 234

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 555

[Report No. 103–766]

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference refor other purposes. Agency Retirement and Disability System, and agement Account, and the Central Intelligence United States Government, the Community Man- telligence and intelligence-related activities of the thorize appropriations for fiscal year 1995 for in- port to accompany the bill (H.R. 4299) to auSEPTEMBER 29, 1994

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           3,274
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,943
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      8,177
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,345
<PP&E>                                       1,073,106
<DEPRECIATION>                                 720,976
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 383,477
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           40,093
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   383,477
<SALES>                                        252,653
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               252,653
<CGS>                                           71,560
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   72,605
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,361
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  76
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                179,129
<INCOME-TAX>                                   127,715
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             51,414
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    51,414
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 315 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 315

 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that previously 
 authorized construction to improve medical facilities administered by 
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs should not be delayed by the national 
                       health care reform debate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 18, 1993

Mrs. Vucanovich submitted the following resolution; which was referred 
                 to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that previously 
 authorized construction to improve medical facilities administered by 
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs should not be delayed by the national 
                       health care reform debate.

Whereas 27,000,000 veterans under the jurisdiction of the Department of Veterans 
        Affairs reside in the United States and need quality health care;
Whereas medical facilities administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs in 
        the United States are limited and include only 171 medical centers, 128 
        nursing home care units, and 276 outpatient clinics;
Whereas many of the facilities are currently maintained in substandard 
        condition;
Whereas doors to some patients' rooms are not large enough to permit evacuation 
        of patients in their beds in the event of fire or other emergency, some 
        facilities lack sprinkler systems or air conditioning, and some 
        facilities contain asbestos hazards;
Whereas the Secretary of Veterans Affairs has decided not to begin construction 
        on several projects that are intended to improve medical facilities 
        under the Secretary's jurisdiction;
Whereas the projects have already been authorized by the Congress;
Whereas the Secretary plans to continue this delay until the Secretary 
        determines the effects of the President's health care reform proposal on 
        the Department of Veterans Affairs; and
Whereas the debate on national health care reform is expected to be a lengthy 
        and tedious process: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
construction on projects to build, renovate, or otherwise improve 
medical facilities that are administered by the Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs should not be delayed by the current national health care 
reform debate if the projects have already been authorized by the 
Congress.

                                 <all>
```
#### Adolph Salomon, Respondent, *v.*Josiaii M. Fiske, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

December, 1912.)

Trial — right to open and close the case — negotiable instruments.

Where the answer in an action on promissory notes merely alleges that plaintiff accepted certain shares of stock in payment of the notes, which plaintiff claimed were received conditionally, subject to investigation, and the only witnesses to the transaction were the parties to the suit, defendant has the right to open and close the case.

Appeal from a judgment of the Oity Court of the city of New York entered in favor of the plaintiff upon the verdict of a jury.

Moos, Prince & Nathan (Alfred B. Nathan, of counsel), for appellant.

William S. Evans, for respondent.

Page, J.

The action was brought to recover on three promissory notes. The answer does not deny any allegation of the complaint, hut alleges an affirmative defense that the plaintiff accepted two hundred shares of stock in a certain corporation in payment. The only witnesses to the transactions were the plaintiff and the defendant. There was no dispute that the matter was discussed between the parties and that the stock was transferred to the name of the plaintiff at his suggestion and was retained by him for about four months, when he proposed to allow five dollars a share and requested a note from defendant for the balance. Defendant contended- that the plaintiff agreed to accept the stock in payment of the notes, while plaintiff claimed that he received them conditionally, subject to investigation.

The defendant claimed the right to open and close the *407ease, which was clearly his right, as on the pleadings the plaintiff would havo been entitled to judgment without offering evidence. Payment being an affirmative defense, the burden rested upon the defendant. The denial of his demand to open and close the case constitutes reversible error, unless we can say that it was clearly not prejudicial. Conselyea v. Smith, 103 N. Y. 604; Lake Ontario N. Bank v. Judson, 122 id. 284; Heilbronn v. Herzog, 165 id. 98, 101.

The issue was sharply drawn; both parties were interested ; and the circumstances and documentary evidence must be relied upon for corroboration. Under such circumstances the attorney who makes the answering argument to the jury has a decided advantage, and this was a right of the defendant of which he cannot be deprived.

Lehmaet, J., concurs; Hotchkiss, J., taking no part.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to . appellant to abide event.
Design

Choice 

situation sq.status sq.time sq.cost alt1.status alt1.time alt1.cost alt2.status alt2.time alt2.cost Block

1 2 0 0 4 25 40 4 15 120 12

2 2 0 0 4 25 75 7 50 200 3

3 2 0 0 4 25 120 4 15 275 1

4 2 0 0 4 25 75 7 25 350 8

5 2 0 0 4 15 200 4 25 120 4

6 2 0 0 4 25 200 4 50 40 11

7 2 0 0 7 15 275 4 15 75 6

8 2 0 0 4 50 120 7 50 350 4

9 2 0 0 7 50 120 4 15 40 6

10 2 0 0 7 25 40 7 15 275 4

11 2 0 0 7 50 200 4 50 40 2

12 2 0 0 4 50 40 4 15 350 2

13 2 0 0 7 15 350 4 25 200 6

14 2 0 0 4 50 40 7 15 275 10

15 2 0 0 7 50 275 4 15 120 3

16 2 0 0 4 25 275 4 50 120 5

17 2 0 0 4 15 350 7 50 40 7

18 2 0 0 7 50 120 4 25 40 11

19 2 0 0 4 50 75 7 50 120 1

20 2 0 0 4 25 200 4 15 275 8

21 2 0 0 4 50 75 4 25 350 9

22 2 0 0 4 50 40 7 50 350 10

23 2 0 0 7 15 350 4 50 75 7

24 2 0 0 4 50 40 4 25 75 5

25 2 0 0 4 15 275 4 50 200 1

26 2 0 0 7 25 120 4 50 75 10

27 2 0 0 7 15 350 7 50 200 5

28 2 0 0 7 15 200 4 50 120 7

29 2 0 0 7 25 120 7 15 200 9

30 2 0 0 4 15 200 4 50 40 12

31 2 0 0 7 15 75 4 15 40 2

32 2 0 0 7 15 350 4 15 75 12

33 2 0 0 7 50 275 4 25 275 11

34 2 0 0 7 15 275 4 25 40 3

35 2 0 0 4 25 350 7 50 350 8

36 2 0 0 4 50 75 7 25 275 9
#### J. William BRADLEY and Robert E. Baker, Appellants, v. Clyde M. BANKS d/b/a Banks Companies, Appellee.

No. 71-985.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 4, 1972.

Turner, Hendrick, Guilford, Goldstein & McDonald and S. Alan Stanley, Coral Gables, for appellants.

Shutts & Bowen and Robert C. Sommer-ville, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment entered after rendition of summary judgment for the defendant on counts 1, 2 and 3 of plaintiffs’ complaint and dismissal of count 4 as insufficient. We affirm.

The appellee was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claim for a portion of a real estate commission because there was no genuine issue of material fact concerning the proposition that plaintiff-appellant Bradley was not registered as a real estate broker or salesman “at the time the act or service was performed.” Fla.Stat. § 475.41, F.S.A.1

Appellant Bradley claimed a portion of a real estate commission and it appears that appellee Banks agreed to pay that portion to appellant for appellant’s services in securing a listing. Appellee Banks subsequently received a large commission because of the listing. Appellant Bradley was not registered as a real estate broker or salesman at the time he procured the listing. He was not so registered at the time he submitted the listing to Banks. He was not so registered at the time Banks agreed to pay him a portion of the commission. Therefore, it is immaterial that appellant Bradley was rein*257stated as a registered salesman before the actual contract to purchase was delivered. We think that the contract to pay a portion of the commission was entirely void as a matter of public policy based upon legislative enactment. Harris v. McKay, Fla.App. 1965, 176 So.2d 572; cf. Wegmann v. Mannino, 253 F.2d 627 (5th Cir. 1958).

The contract being void as a matter of public policy, the services rendered in connection therewith cannot be made the basis for a quantum meruit claim as appellants suggest in their fourth count.

Affirmed.

1

. The entire text of Fla.Stat. § 475.41, F.S.A., is as follows :

> “475.41 Contracts of unregistered person for commissions invalid. — No contract for a commission or compensation for any act or service enumerated in subsection (2) of § 475.01 shall he valid unless the broker or salesman shall have complied with this chapter in regard to registration and renewal of the certificate at the time the act or service was performed.”
#### Stella Xenakis et al., Respondents, v Waldbaum, Inc., Appellant.

[655 NYS2d 960]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant, Waldbaum, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.), dated May 9, 1996, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

We agree with the defendant that the Supreme Court erred in denying its motion for summary judgment. In response to the defendant’s prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851), the injured plaintiff failed to come forward with any evidence indicating that the defendant either created the alleged defective condition or had actual or constructive notice of its existence *(see, e.g., Piacquadio v Recine Realty Corp.,*84 NY2d 967; *Kraemer v K-Mart Corp.,*226 AD2d 590; *Rotunno v Pathmark,*220 AD2d 570; *Moss v JNK Capital,*211 AD2d 769, *affd*85 NY2d 1005). Assuming the truth of the injured plaintiff’s belated claim regarding the presence of swirl marks and bubbles in the substance she purportedly slipped on, these allegations, advanced for the first time in opposition to the defendant’s motion, failed to raise a genuine triable issue of fact. The injured plaintiff’s argument that these previously undisclosed allegations demonstrated that the defendant’s employees improperly attempted to clean up the purported spill is based upon speculation and surmise and is insufficient to defeat the defendant’s motion.

We have considered the injured plaintiff’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.