alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

REVIEW AND VACATUR OF LOCAL 

ORPHANS’ COURT RULES

:

:

:

:

NO. 771

SUPREME COURT RULES DOCKET 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 1

st day of June, 2018, upon the recommendation of the Orphans' 

Court Procedural Rules Committee:

It is Ordered pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania 

that:

1) The continued necessity of existing local orphans’ court rules governing 

guardianship proceedings as of June 1, 2019 shall be reviewed by the President 

Judge or his or her designee in light of the Order of this Court, see No. 770 

Supreme Court Rules Docket (June 1, 2018), rescinding and replacing Rules 

14.1 through 14.5 and forms G-01 through G-04, and amending Rules 1.5 and 

5.10 through 5.12, and Index to Appendix of the Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court 

Rules. 

2) A local orphans’ court rule deemed necessary shall be submitted to the Orphans’ 

Court Procedural Rules Committee no later than December 1, 2018 for review in 

accordance with Pa. O.C. Rule 1.5 and Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(d).

3) A local orphans’ court rule governing guardianship proceedings not adopted in 

accordance with Pa. O.C. Rule 1.5 and Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(d) shall be vacated 

effective June 1, 2019. 

This Order shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b) and shall 

be effective immediately.
#### Roy YOUNG et ux. v. Richard J. CLEMENT, M.D., et al.

No. 6475.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

May 24, 1978.

Rehearing Denied July 5, 1978.

Reuven N. Rougeau, Lake Charles, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Stockwell, Sievert, Viccellio, Clements & Shaddock, Robert W. Clements, Lake Charles, Raggio, Parrar, Cappel & Chozen, *1071R. W. Farrar, Jr., Lake Charles, Charles S. King, Lake Charles, for defendant-appellee.

Tommy Rutledge, DeQuincy, for curator absentee-defendant.

Before CULPEPPER, DOMENGEAUX and WATSON, JJ.

WATSON, Judge.

In this malpractice action, the dispositive issues are: (1) whether plaintiffs’ claims have prescribed; and (2) whether the trial judge erred in failing to grant a new trial.

The prescription issue was resolved on the basis of factual determinations by the trial court against the plaintiffs. There is a reasonable evidentiary basis in the record for the findings of the trial court and, therefore, there is no manifest error.

As to the denial of the motion for new trial, plaintiffs contend that the trial judge erred in failing to grant a new trial on the basis of three affidavits from persons who would give testimony tending to impeach the testimony of Dr. Richard J. Clement, one of the defendants. The trial judge in his reasons for denying the motion noted that not only did he entertain doubt that the evidence could not have been discovered either before or during trial, but also he thought that the “newly discovered” testimony was not relevant or material.

The rule is that a new trial will not be granted for newly discovered evidence which is not material to the issues of the case and only has a tendency to discredit or impeach a witness. *Martin*v. *Authement,*28 So.2d 469 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1947). The trial court did not err in denying the motion for new trial.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs on appeal are taxed against plaintiffs.

AFFIRMED.
**R-404**

June 10, 1947

Hon. C. H. Carnese Opinion Ho. V-241 State Aad.itor Austin, Texas Re: Payment~to **psmokm** dfsohrr64d **or parohd**  

### rrom**oortafn** Strte correotiotial

lnstitutfons;,

Arttfole **514Sb)** section 1; V.C.Sd
Dear Sir: We refer to your letter of recent date acknowl- &ged by the Attorney General on May 16, 1947,which9 in rabatance, readsas follows:

seOtiOn 1 Or &Ots 1445 s 49th hub, k$. 9 Ch, 106,H. BU 105, recorded as Article 5143b, Sec. 1,VsC.SO, prorfdes: “Seation 1, Upon the dischargeor parole of any persoa **committed** to theOatesville State School for Boys or the @afnesrflle State School for Girls, the Superintendent of ,the Instftutfon fromwhfeh such person fs dfscharged or paroled shall prosfde themwith a complete suit of suftab.le cloth-, and Five Dollars (I)s)

fn ra04e~~'

and prooure trenapox%+ tfon for them to their hbmes, if residen%al? this State, cir:

to the oounty inwhich they III&$ have been collvfotcd o~;to~auch other plaou fn tlw State.

at which twfd dfschsrged’orparoled personmay have procured employment or to a placewhere a suitable home has been found for such personA" The question has arfs.@n(atthe Gatesvflle State School for Boys) :gsto whether the )5,00 in money and transportationcost oap, be pai‘& .morethan owe to or for.the same boy who has been paroled and tfldnsubsequently readmitted as a paroleViolator, or possfbl,y taken fn again under a new eohrfe%?&qOHon. Co El.Cavness,Page 2

The provisions of Seetfon 1 of Article 5143b are clear and unambiguous. Said statute requires that the superintendentat the institutionsnamed therein shall provide any person upon his or her discharge or parole therefromwith a complete suit of suitable clothing and $5,OQ, and shall secure transportation for said 'person to some place,wPthfnthe State as generally deslgnated in the,Act,

Where a statute, civil or criminal, is expressed in plain and.unambiguous language, and its meanfq is clear and abvious, there is no room for construction. Gaddg v. First WatfonalBank of Beaumont, 283 S,W, 472; ,Spa.rks

v0 State, 174 SoWo‘~51,
We think that the' provisions of thisAot are susceptible of but.one fnterpretation;,thatwhenever and as often as any person is discharged or paroled from one of these Institutions,'he or she is entitled to the benefits afforded by the specific provisions of this law. StiRY
Persons discharged'orparoled from the State borrectional institutionsdesignated in Article 5143b, Section 1, V,C.S., are entitled to the benefits afforded in saidAct whenever and as often as they are discharged or paroled the'refrom, Very trul$ yours ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

,ByUTChester E, Ollfson Bssistant

'APPROVEDJUNE 10, 1947

z.L ah?& ATTORNEY GENERAL CEO!djm*
Exhibit 32.1



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 on Form 10-QSB ("Form 10-QSB") of Smart-tek

Solutions, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended September 30,2006 as filed with

the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Perry Law, Chief Executive

Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant

to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)   The Form 10-QSB 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 Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all

material respects, the financial condition and results of operations

of the Company.



/s/ Perry Law

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

Perry Law

Chief Executive Officer

November 13, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          14,098
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           9,151
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    169,337
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         175,938
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           173,829
<LOANS>                                        619,488
<ALLOWANCE>                                      7,386
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,005,416
<DEPOSITS>                                     637,029
<SHORT-TERM>                                   161,800
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              8,890
<LONG-TERM>                                     96,041
<COMMON>                                            53
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      98,009
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,005,416
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 35,586
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               16,617
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   200
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                52,403
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              18,988
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,377
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           23,026
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      405
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 14,790<F1>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,090
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       9,090
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,824
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.12
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.33
<LOANS-NON>                                      5,108
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 7,127
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      293
<RECOVERIES>                                       147
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                7,386
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             7,386
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
<FN>
<F1>"EXPENSE - OTHER" includes a federally-mandated "SAIF" re-capitalization charge
of $2.1 million.  The after-tax effect on income of this one-time charge was
$0.24 per share.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS OF THE COMPANY'S 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000754591
<NAME> RAY ELLISON MORTGAGE ACCEPTANCE CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          51,880
<SECURITIES>                               412,772,058
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,581,960
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             434,009,322
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,530,552
<BONDS>                                    418,427,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,776,483
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               434,009,322
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            33,515,293
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               32,753,751
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          30,186,780
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                761,542
<INCOME-TAX>                                   342,970
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            418,572
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   418,572
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    41.85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    41.85
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES v. Albert Julian LINDHOLM et al.

No. 8493.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

March 22, 1937.

Peirson M. Hall, U. S. Atty., of Los Angeles, Cal.

James H. O’Neill, of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellees.

Before GARRECHT and HANEY, Circuit Judges, and NETERER, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Upon stipulation of counsel for respective parties, ordered appeal dismissed; that a judgment of dismissal he filed and entered accordingly; mandate issued forthwith.
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-4 (No. 333-143243), in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-147154 and No. 333-147153) and in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-145741,
No. 333-138839, No. 333-96967, No. 333-55082, No. 333-48226, No. 333-31120, No. 333-69381, No. 333-37371, No. 333-37369 and No. 33-58991) of Exar Corporation of our report dated June 13, 2008
relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.



|                                 
|---------------------------------
|/s/    PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
|                                 
|San Jose, California             
|June 13, 2008
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350 (adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned Executive Vice President, Finance and
Chief Financial Officer of California Steel Industries, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ending December 31, 2008 (the Report), fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; as amended, and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|               |  |     |  |                                                              
|-------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------
|March 13, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ RICARDO BERNARDES                                        
|               |  |     |  | Ricardo Bernardes                                            
|               |  |     |  | Executive Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial
Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                               OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                 SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                            3,382
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                       3,579
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  7,997
<PP&E>                                          105,213
<DEPRECIATION>                                   30,612
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   84,932
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            14,450
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                             56
<OTHER-SE>                                       58,542
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     84,932
<SALES>                                         110,049
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                110,049
<CGS>                                            28,605
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    99,469
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    111
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1,731
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   8,738
<INCOME-TAX>                                      3,420
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               5,318
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                      5,318
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      1.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      1.04
        

</TABLE>
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 19

- 00627

- CV
In re Fraudulent Hospital Lien Litigation

On Appeal from the 444th District Court of Cameron County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. MDL

- 15

- 0360

- H

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed

. The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant. We further order this decision certified below for observance. March 5, 2020
# C_2022171EN.01003901.xml

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/39

---

Order of the General Court of 14 February 2022 — Lagardére, unité médico-sociale v Commission

(Case T-503/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Regulation (EU) 2021/953 - EU Digital Covid-19 Certificate - Freedom of movement for persons - Restrictions - Incorrect designation of the defendant - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 171/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Lagardère, unité médico-sociale (Ghlin, Belgium) (represented by: P. Vanlangendonck, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Montaguti, agent)

Re:

By its action, expressly directed against the European Commission and based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Regulation (EU) 2021/953 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2021 on a framework for the issuance, verification and acceptance of interoperable COVID-19 vaccination, test and recovery certificates (EU Digital COVID Certificate) to facilitate free movement during the COVID-19 pandemic (OJ 2021 L 211, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene submitted by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene submitted by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.

| 3. | Lagardère, unité médico-sociale, shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Lagardère, unité médico-sociale, shall pay the costs.

| 4. | The Parliament and the Council are to bear their own costs relating to their application to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Parliament and the Council are to bear their own costs relating to their application to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.

---
#### American International Group, Inc., et al., Respondents, v Patrick J. Sullivan et al., Defendants, and Lance Barnett, Appellant.

[655 NYS2d 939]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered September 12, 1995, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiffs’ cross motion dismissing defendant-appellant Barnett’s third affirmative defense and first and second counterclaims against plaintiffs, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant-appellant is not required to plead, as an affirmative defense, that he is innocent of wrongdoing or that plaintiffs had knowledge of the fraudulent acts of. the codefendants. The first counterclaim seeks indemnification by plaintiffs for defendant-appellant’s liability, if any, to plaintiffs. If plaintiffs are the actual wrongdoers, and defendant-appellant is innocent, as he claims, then he breached no duty owed to plaintiffs and will not be liable to them in the first instance. Defendant-appellant does not articulate what cause of action the allegations of his second counterclaim are intended to represent, and no recognized, valid cause of action can be gleaned therefrom, no matter how generously they are read.

We have considered defendant-appellant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.
# C_2022340EN.01003801.xml

| 5.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2022 — HB v Commission

(Case T-408/21) (1)

(Public service contracts - Provision of technical assistance services to the High Judicial Council and to the Ukrainian authorities - Irregularities in the contract award procedures - Recovery of sums wrongly paid - Enforceable decisions - Article 299 TFEU - Competence of the author of the act - Non-contractual liability of the Union)

(2022/C 340/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: HB (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Araujo Arce, J. Estrada de Solà and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action, the applicant seeks, first, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of Commission Decision C(2021) 3339 final of 5 May 2021 relating to the recovery of a debt in the amount of EUR 4 241 507,00 payable by the applicant under the contract with reference TACIS/2006/101-510, and of Commission Decision C(2021) 3340 final of 5 May 2021 relating to the recovery of a debt in the amount of EUR 1 197 055,86 payable by the applicant under the contract with reference CARDS/2008/166-429; and, secondly, on the basis of Article 268 TFEU, the reimbursement of any amounts recovered by the European Commission on the basis of those decisions, together with late-payment interest at the rate applied by the European Central Bank (ECB) plus seven points, and the payment of symbolic damages of EUR 1, subject to increase, for the non-material damage which she claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2021) 3339 final of 5 May 2021 relating to the recovery of a debt of EUR 4 241 507 payable by HB and Commission Decision C(2021) 3340 final of 5 May 2021 relating to the recovery of a debt of EUR 1 197 055,86 payable by HB; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2021) 3339 final of 5 May 2021 relating to the recovery of a debt of EUR 4 241 507 payable by HB and Commission Decision C(2021) 3340 final of 5 May 2021 relating to the recovery of a debt of EUR 1 197 055,86 payable by HB;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders HB and the European Commission each to bear their own costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders HB and the European Commission each to bear their own costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 338, 23.8.2021.

---