alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Selig Lesser, Appellant, *v.*Elkonan Kivowitz, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

November, 1912.)

Municipal Courts — failure of proof — judgment absolute against plaintiff erroneous — actions in Municipal Courts.

Where, in the Municipal Court upon the denial of a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had proved no damages, and also that the property shown to have been in defendant’s possession was not the same property covered by the mortgage under which plaintiff claimed to be the owner of certain chattels, the defendant rests without giving any testimony, *189a judgment absolute against plaintiff and in favor of defendant is erroneous, and will be modified so as to provide that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice to a new action, and. as so modified, affirmed.

Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment in favor of the defendant entered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhattan, first district.

Jacob Stone Freedman, for appellant.

Cohen & Shiverts, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The plaintiff herein claimed ownership of certain chattels and to have obtained his title thereto by virtue of a chattel mortgage upon which the mortgagor defaulted. The pleadings were oral and the answer a general denial. At the close of the plaintiff’s case, the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that plaintiff had failed to prove damages and also that the property shown to have been in the possession of the defendant was not the same property covered by the mortgage. This motion was denied and the defendant thereupon rested without giving any testimony. The court below rendered a judgment absolute against the plaintiff and in favor of the defendant.

A judgment of this character can only be given when it appears from the whole case that the plaintiff cannot recover as a matter of law. Mun. Ct. Act, § 249 ; Sultan v. Misrahi, 47 Misc. Rep. 655. In the case at bar the plaintiff failed in his proof and the judgment should have been without prejudice to a new action. Mun. Ct. Act, § 248.

Judgment modified by providing that the complaint be dismissed, with costs, but without prejudice to a new action, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party.

Present: Seabuby, Guy and Bijub,' JJ.

Judgment modified, and, as modified,- affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1


  CERTIFICATION OF MICHAEL H. MCILVAIN, PRESIDENT, PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
         AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


The undersigned officer of Golden Chief Resources, Inc. hereby certifies that
(a) Golden Chief's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (b information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of Golden Chief.


Date: June 23, 2006                        /s/ MICHAEL H. MCILVAIN
                                           ---------------------
                                           Michael H. McIlvain
                                           President, Principal Executive
                                           Officer, and Chief Financial Officer,
                                           Golden Chief Resources, Inc




A signed original of this written statement has been provided to Golden Chief
Resources, Inc. and will be retained by Golden Chief Resources, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Darryl R. THOMAS.

No. 60770.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 10, 1978.

Bernard E. Fulgham, Jr., Elizabeth W. Cole, Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Brian G. Meissner, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Richard E. Gaetz, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Vitran Corporation Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial
statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision,
to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

d)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the Audit Committee of the registrants Board of Directors:

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date: October 27,
2009



/s/ RICHARD E. GAETZRichard E. Gaetz President and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1

The following certification is provided by the undersigned Chairman of the Board
of Directors and Principal Executive Officer of Merchants and Manufacturers
Bancorporation, Inc. on the basis of such officer's knowledge and belief for the
sole purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Michael J. Murry, Chairman of the Board of Directors and Principal Executive
Officer of Merchants and Manufacturers Bancorporation, Inc., certify, pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.

(1) The Annual Report of Merchants and Manufacturers Bancorporation, Inc. for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, (14 U.S.C. 78m or
78o (d)); and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Merchants and
Manufacturers Bancorporation, Inc.

              /s/ Michael J. Murry
              -------------------------------
              Name: Michael J. Murry
              Title: Chairman of the Board of Directors and Principal
                Executive Officer
              Date: March 15, 2004

                                       45
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Wayne B. Fuquay, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Analytical Surveys, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and the registrants have:



a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under
our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being
prepared;



b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such
evaluation; and



c) Disclosed in this annual report any change
in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.



Date: December 10, 2004



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Wayne B. Fuquay                  
|Wayne B. Fuquay                      
|President and Chief Executive Officer
#### C. De ROMO, Petitioner, v. Robert A. FRAZIER and Bessie Frazier, for the use and benefit of the Millers Mutual Insurance Company of Texas, Respondents.

No. 67-926.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Jan. 24, 1968.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied.
#### Gibson *versus*Cummings.

Where a party sues out a writ of error, and the judgment is affirmed, and the record is remitted to the Court below, where the costs are taxed, he cannot maintain another writ of error to such taxation.

A party can have but one writ of error to the same judgment.

Error to the Common Pleas of *Fayette county.*

The plaintiff in error brought an action of *assumpsit*against the defendant, upon a parol contract, for the sale of a house and lot. The defendant denied the contract, and also set up the statute of frauds and perjuries. Upon the first trial of the cause, the plaintiff, by leave of the Court, filed an additional count,

*232
      *Pwing,*for plaintiff in error.

Kaine, for defendant in error.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Lowrie, J. —

Last year the plaintiff brought this case up on a writ of error, and the judgment was affirmed, and the record remitted. After that the costs were taxed, and now we have a writ of error to,the taxation. This is claiming a right to two writs of error to the same judgment, or two suits for the same cause of action; and, if this can be, why may we not have another ? A case cannot be thus split up. A party must not sue even in error prematurely, if he, wants his whole case reviewed. He ought to see that the costs are taxed before error brought, if he fears that the taxation may need correction here.

Judgment affirmed with costs.
#### Eleanor T. GUARINO v. Milton S. GUARINO

No. 5500.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Aug. 21, 1973.

Salvador Anzelmo, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.

John F. Caraway, Bryan & Caraway, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

Before REDMANN, STOULIG and BAILES, JJ.

REDMANN, Judge.

A now-separated wife appeals the dismissal on exceptions of her petition to annul a $30,865.53 default judgment obtained against her husband by his mother.

The mother’s suit was filed, and judgment obtained, while the separation action was pending.

The wife’s nullity petition alleged the husband’s failure to plead prescription as to part of the debt and, on information and belief, lack of consideration for the notes sued on by the mother.

The trial judge, noting that the judgment of separation is effective retroactively to the date of filing the action, C.C. art. 155,1 orally reasoned that neither service upon nor judgment against the husband in the interim should affect the wife.

This approach to the problem finds some seeming support in Gastauer v. Gastauer, 143 La. 749, 79 So. 326 (1918), where (1) *costs*of the separation action cast against the husband in the judgment, were held not chargeable to the community because of the judgment’s retroactivity, and (2) “In like manner” another judgment against the husband while the separation suit pended was held a “separate” debt. But we are unable to reconcile the trial judge’s approach with Washington v. Palmer, 213 La. 79, 34 So.2d 382 (1948), which held service upon a divorced husband alone in a suit to revive a money judgment (and the judgment reviving it) effective against the divorced wife to divest her (by sale under fi. fa.) of her half interest in the former community property.

We conclude that the wife is not obliged by C.C. art. 155 to await an attempt at execution against community property, but *585may seek to annul, insofar as it might affect herself, the judgment rendered against her husband.

The judgment is reversed and the exceptions overruled.

1

. “The judgment of separation from bed and board carries with it the separation of goods and effects and is retroactive to the date on which the petition for same was filed, but such retroactive effect shall be without prejudice (a) to the liability of the community for the attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by the wife in the action in which the judgment is rendered, or (b) to rights validly acquired in the interim between commencement of the action and rec-ordation of the judgment. * * * ”
257 La. 616

#### ROYAL FURNITURE Company OF BATON ROUGE, Inc. v. Ernest BENTON, Jr., et al.

No. 51119.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 10, 1971.

In re: Ernest Benton, Jr., applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 242 So.2d 69.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 374 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 374

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        March 17, 1994.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
take from the Speaker's table the bill (S. 636) to amend the Public Health 
Service Act to permit individuals to have freedom of access to certain medical 
clinics and facilities, and for other purposes, and to consider the Senate bill 
in the House. All points of order against the Senate bill and against its 
consideration are waived. It shall be in order to move to strike all after the 
enacting clause of the Senate bill and to insert in lieu thereof the provisions 
of H.R. 796 as passed by the House. All points of order against that motion are 
waived. If the motion is adopted and the Senate bill, as amended, is passed, 
then it shall be in order to move that the House insist on its amendments to S. 
636 and request a conference with the Senate thereon.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1043

To extend until January 1, 1998, the existing suspension of duty on certain

bicycle parts, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 27 (legislative day, APRIL 19), 1993

Mr. GLENN (for himself, Mr. FORD, Mr. MCCONNELL, and Mr. LUGAR) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the

Committee on Finance

A BILL

To extend until January 1, 1998, the existing suspension

of duty on certain bicycle parts, 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 EXISTING SUSPENSION OF

4 DUTY ON CERTAIN BICYCLE PARTS.

5 The following headings of the Harmonized Tariff

6 Schedule of the United States are each amended by strik7 ing ‘‘12/31/92’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/97’’:

8 (1) Heading 9902.40.11.

9 (2) Heading 9902.73.12.

10 (3) Heading 9902.73.15.
2

•S 1043 IS

1 (4) Heading 9902.84.79

2 (5) Heading 9902.85.12.

3 (6) Heading 9902.87.14.

4 (7) Heading 9902.87.15.

5 (8) Heading 9902.87.16.

6 SEC. 2. RENEWAL OF EXISTING CUSTOMS EXEMPTION AP7 PLICABLE TO BICYCLE PARTS IN FOREIGN

8 TRADE ZONES.

9 Section 3(b) of the Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly

10 known as the Foreign Trade Zones Act) (19 U.S.C.

11 81c(b)) is amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 1992’’ and

12 inserting ‘‘December 31, 1997’’.

13 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

14 (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection

15 (b), the amendments made by this Act apply with respect

16 to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for con17 sumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the

18 enactment of this Act.

19 (b) RETROACTIVE PROVISION.—Notwithstanding sec20 tion 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision

21 of law to the contrary, upon a request filed with the appro22 priate customs officer before the 195th day after the date

23 of the enactment of this Act, any entry or withdrawal from

24 warehouse for consumption of goods to which any amend25 ment made by this Act applies and that was made—
3

•S 1043 IS

1 (1) after December 31, 1992; and

2 (2) before the 15th day after the date of the en3 actment of this Act;

4 and with respect to which there would have been a lower

5 duty if the amendment made by this Act had applied to

6 such entry or withdrawal, shall be liquidated or

7 reliquidated as though the amendments made by sections

8 1 and 2 applied to such entry or withdrawal.

Æ
#### Thomasine G. FRISCHKORN v. David E. K. FRISCHKORN.

No. 38837.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1969.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 10, 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 223 So.2d 380.
#### Hamp DAVIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-759.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 21, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2021422EN.01000402.xml

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 16 July 2021 — Agenzia delle Entrate v Contship Italia SpA

(Case C-434/21)

(2021/C 422/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Agenzia delle Entrate

Respondent: Contship Italia SpA

Question referred

Do Articles 18 (ex Article 12 TEC) and 49 (ex Article 43 TEC) TFEU preclude national legislation which, like Article 30(1)(5) of legge 23 dicembre 1994, n. 724 (Law No 724 of 23 December 1994), in the version applicable ratione temporis, prior to the amendments introduced by legge 27 dicembre 2006, n. 296 (Law No 296 of 27 December 2006), excludes from the measures to prevent tax avoidance by non-operational companies — based on minimum revenue and income thresholds relative to the value of specific corporate assets, which, if not met, is a sign that the company is non-operational and means that the taxable income must be determined by way of presumption — only companies and entities whose securities are traded on Italian regulated markets and not companies and entities whose securities are traded on foreign regulated markets, as well as the companies that control or are controlled by, even indirectly, those listed companies and entities?

---
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Smart-Tek Solutions
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2012, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
the undersigned, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
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.

Date: August 20, 2012

/s/ Brian
BonarBrian Bonar Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer

---
#### Johnny CARROLL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-293.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 20, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.