alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Theodore R. AWBREY, Relator, v. The Honorable Emery NEWELL, Judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, in and for Palm Beach County, Respondent.

No. 71-629.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 7, 1972.

*282Harry W. Spisak, Miami, for relator.

No appearance for respondent.

Sally Weintraub, Perrine, for intervenor Sammie Jean Awbrey (Tyson).

PER CURIAM.

This is an original action filed herein by Theodore R. Awbrey as relator for a writ of prohibition against The Honorable Emery Newell, Judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court for Palm Beach County, Florida. From the suggestion filed by relator it appears that Judge Newell entered an order directing him to pay Sammie Jean Awbrey (Tyson) accrued child support in the amount of $10,920.00. By subsequent proceedings, Sammie Jean Awbrey (Tyson) secured a writ of garnishment from the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court on 15 April 1971 directed to Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company. Following the issuance of the writ, Judge Newell entered a final judgment in garnishment on 28 June 1971. The final judgment recites that Southern Bell owed Theodore R. Awbrey $30,000.00 and directed Southern Bell to pay the amount of the support arrearages to Sammie Jean Awbrey (Tyson) who has been permitted by this court to intervene in these proceedings. On the basis of the suggestion we entered a Rule Nisi to which no response has been filed.

The issue is whether or not the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court for Palm Beach County had jurisdiction to issue a writ of garnishment. The controlling statute with respect to jurisdiction in this matter is Chapter 65-707, Laws of Florida, 1965, and specifically subsections (3) and (4) of Section 9 of that statute.* We have carefully considered those provisions. In our opinion they do not authorize the issuance of a writ of garnishment. We base our conclusion on the language of the aforesaid sections as construed in conjunction with the provisions of the general law relating to garnishment, to-wit, Section 77.01 et seq., F.S.1969, F.S.A., and particularly Section 77.08 thereof.

For the foregoing reasons a writ of prohibition shall issue from this court prohibiting enforcement by the respondent of the aforesaid final judgment in garnishment.

REED, C. J., WALDEN, J., and MORROW, RUSSELL O., Associate Judge, concur.

*

 The intervenor has cited to the court a general statute dealing with jurisdiction, Ch. 19597, Laws of Florida, 1939.. In our opinion this statute has been superseded by Ch. 65-707, Laws of Florida, 1965, insofar as the former relates to jurisdiction of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Palm Beach County. See specifically Section 6 of Ch. 65-707.
#### In re ESTATE of R. L. B., Deceased.

No. 42204.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 24, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 259 So.2d 206.

ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ROBERTS, C. J., and BOYD and Mc-CAIN, JJ., dissent.
Zing Technologies, Inc. and Subsidiaries

           Exhibit 11 - Statement Re Computation of Per Share Earnings

                                                         1995     1996     1997
                                                        ------   ------   ------
                                                             (000's omitted,
                                                         Except Per Share Data)

Average shares outstanding .........................     2,597    2,610    2,500
Net effect of dilutive stock options and warrants       
  based on the treasury stock method ...............        74       19        2
                                                        ------   ------   ------
Shares used for computation ........................     2,671    2,629    2,502
                                                        ======   ======   ======
Net income used for computation ....................    $2,517   $4,413   $1,608

Per share amount:                                       
Net income .........................................    $  .94   $ 1.68      .64


                                       39
256 La. 622

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Jerry Lee GOLDEN v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 50728.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 15, 1970.

In re: Jerry Lee Golden applying for writs of certiorari and habeas corpus.

Writ refused. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our original or supervisory jurisdiction.
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 38314

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JONATHAN MICHAEL PAGE,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 325

Filed: January 19, 2012

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Darla S. Williamson, District Judge. 

Order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Erik R. Lehtinen, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and GUTIERREZ, Judge

PER CURIAM

Jonathan Michael Page was convicted of possession of methamphetamine, Idaho Code 

§ 37-2732(c). The district court imposed a unified seven-year sentence with a two-year 

determinate term, suspended the sentence and placed Page on supervised probation. A report of 

probation violation was filed and Page admitted to violating several terms of his probation. The 

district court revoked probation, ordered execution of the original sentence, and retained 

jurisdiction. At the conclusion of the retained jurisdiction program, the district court again 

placed Page on supervised probation. A second report of probation violation was filed and Page 

subsequently admitted to violating probation. The district court revoked probation and ordered a 

second period of retained jurisdiction. Upon Page’s completion of this second period of retained 
2

jurisdiction, the district court relinquished jurisdiction and ordered execution of Page’s sentence. 

Page filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion which was denied. Page appeals the district court’s 

decision to relinquish jurisdiction.

The decision as to whether to place a defendant on probation or, instead, to relinquish 

jurisdiction is committed to the discretion of the sentencing court. State v. Lee, 117 Idaho 203, 

205-06, 786 P.2d 594, 596-97 (Ct. App. 1990). It follows that a decision to relinquish 

jurisdiction will not be disturbed on appeal except for an abuse of discretion. State v. Chapman, 

120 Idaho 466, 472, 816 P.2d 1023, 1029 (Ct. App. 1991). Idaho Code § 19-2521 sets out the 

criteria a court must consider when deciding whether to grant probation or impose imprisonment. 

A decision to deny probation will not be held to represent an abuse of discretion if the decision is 

consistent with the Section 19-2521 standards. State v. Merwin, 131 Idaho 642, 962 P.2d 1026 

(1998). The record in this case shows that the district court properly considered the information 

before it and determined that probation was not appropriate. Therefore, we hold that the district 

court did not abuse its discretion. 

The order relinquishing jurisdiction is affirmed.
#### WILLIAMS *v.*WARDEN OF MARYLAND PENITENTIARY

[App. No. 2,

September Term, 1962 (Adv.).]

*Decided May 18, 1962.*

Before Bruñe, C. J., and Hammond, Prescott, Horney, Marbury and SybErt, JJ.

PER Curiam.

For the reasons stated by Judge J. DeWeese Carter for dismissing the petition, the application for leave to appeal is denied.

*Application denied.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE SECOND
QUARTER 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                          1,000
<CURRENCY>                       US DOLLARS 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                           1
<CASH>                                3,050
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                    0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                     11,129
<TRADING-ASSETS>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>         127,121
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>               15,979
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                 16,014
<LOANS>                             508,357
<ALLOWANCE>                           1,198
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      683,830
<DEPOSITS>                          414,831
<SHORT-TERM>                         94,721
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                   9,526
<LONG-TERM>                          25,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                                104
<OTHER-SE>                          139,648
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>      683,830
<INTEREST-LOAN>                      19,473
<INTEREST-INVEST>                     5,061
<INTEREST-OTHER>                        478
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                     25,012
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                   10,297
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   13,714
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                11,298
<LOAN-LOSSES>                           270
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                        2
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                       5,046
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       6,196
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>            4,394
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                          4,394
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          0.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0.45
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                         3.36
<LOANS-NON>                             678
<LOANS-PAST>                              0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                          9
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                           0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                        928
<CHARGE-OFFS>                             0
<RECOVERIES>                              0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                     1,198
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                      0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                       0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>               1,198
        


</TABLE>
252 La. 163

#### Cleveland GUILLOTTE et ux. v. FIREMEN’S INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEWARK, NEW JERSEY.

No. 49217.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 17, 1968.

In re: Cleveland Guillotte and Beulah Mae Guillotte applying for certiorari or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Acadia. 207 So.2d 783.

Application is not considered. It was not timely filed. See Art. VII, Sec. 11, La. Constitution.
#### Nilsa E. Badillo, Plaintiff, and Bonnie Riegler et al., Appellants, v International Business Machines Corporation et al., Respondents.

[655 NYS2d 990]

In an action sounding in negligence and strict liability to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs Bonnie Riegler and Michael Riegler appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (D’Emilio, J.), entered January 12, 1996, which granted the separate motions of the defendants to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted by them as time-barred.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court correctly dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted by the appellants as time-barred, since the injured appellant’s symptoms of repetitive stress injury occurred more than three years previous to the commencement of this action *(see,*CPLR 214 [5]; *Hayes v International Bus. Machs. Corp.,*237 AD2d 254]). Sullivan, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.
#### Allen SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-489.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 2, 1972.

Rehearing Denied July 26, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### In the Matter of SIOUX BUILDING CORP., Debtor.

No. 6079.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Dec. 14, 1936.

George W. Dammann, of Chicago, 111., for appellants.

Don Kenneth Jones, of Chicago, 111., for appellee.

Before EVANS and SPARKS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Now this day come the parties by their counsel and present and file a stipulation to dismiss this appeal, which said stipulation is in the words and figures following, to wit:

“It is' hereby stipulated and agreed, by and between George R. Call, as Executor of the Estate of George C. Call, deceased, Call Bond and Mortgage Company, a corporation, Appellants, .and Sioux Building Corporation, Appellee, by their respective counsel, that the above entitled cause be dismissed without costs to any party. On consideration whereof it is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this court that this appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed without costs to any party, pursuant to the foregoing stipulation.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Daniel R. BYNOG v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary,

No. 53261.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 1, 1973.

In re: Daniel R. Bynog applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Writ refused. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our supervisory or original jurisdiction.
251 La. 733

#### COLLECTOR OF REVENUE of State of Louisiana v. PIONEER BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Ben Beckham, Jr.

No. 49019.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 5, 1968.

In re: Ben Beckham, Jr., applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Caddo. 204 So.2d 133.

Writ refused. There is no error of law in the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 14

- 00894

- CR

Adam Paul EANNARINO

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR8490

Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE ANGELINI , AND JUSTICE PULLIAM

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED November 10, 2015.

_____________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

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

No. 00-40283 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus TONY RAY MCDOWELL, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-99-CR-177-2

- - - - - - - - - - April 12, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel for Tony Ray McDowell has requested leave to withdraw as counsel and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). McDowell filed a response. Our independent review of the brief, McDowell’s response, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the appeal is DISMISSED.
# C_2023155EN.01004802.xml

| 2.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/48

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 March 2023 — Bulgaria v Commission

(Case T-235/21) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Bulgaria - Promotional activities - OLAF investigation report - Conformity clearance - Obligation to state reasons)

(2023/C 155/61)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Bulgaria (represented by: T. Mitova and L. Zaharieva, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Koleva, J. Aquilina and A. Sauka, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the Republic of Bulgaria seeks annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/261, of 17 February 2021, excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it concerns certain expenditure that the Republic of Bulgaria incurred.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 263, 5.7.2021.

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-19-00699-CV

ORION DRILLING COMPANY, LLC,

Appellant

v.

TX ENERGY SERVICES, LLC,

Appellee

From the County Court, Jim Wells County, Texas

Trial Court No. 19-07-59662-CV

Honorable Michael Ventura Garcia, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 27, 2019

DISMISSED

Appellant has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss this appeal. To the extent appellant 

seeks dismissal of this appeal, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.1(a)(1) (authorizing appellate courts to dismiss an appeal on an appellant’s motion). However, 

appellant’s motion does not show that the parties have reached an agreement as to costs. Therefore, 

costs of appeal are taxed against appellant. See id. 42.1(d) (stating costs must be taxed against an 

appellant absent agreement of the parties). 

PER CURIAM
#### Oscar Pablo DURAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-488.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 13, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

LEWIS CAMPBELL, III,

Petitioner

v.

CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY OF

PENNSYLVANIA AND DR. KAREN
HJERPE,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 267 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 15th day of November, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
JAN-19-2011 04:69 PH AICS 19078742576 P. 02 

ves 

P.<X Box 1231 . ;ia3 Church SirccL 

Wnuigci!. Alftslui 9^)929 

VH.mrm^^^y S * Fax (907)H7'^2576 

www.akics.orfl; 

";\R[MENTOF 

.•J^;PORTATION 

::'i OPERATIONS 

January 19,20 U 

The Honorable RAy LaHood 

Secretary 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 Now Jeney Avenue. S.fi. 

Washington. D.C. 20950 

Re: Continuation of Alaska Airlines* EasentiBl Air Service at Coivlovj), Oustavus, Petersburg, Wrangell, and 

Yakutai Alaska, Docket OST-1998-4899 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

This letter is to express the support of Alaska Island Community Services (AICS) for Alaska 

Airlines to continue providing essential air service to SoiUheast Alaska. AICS is a community-beised 

Community Healtti Center located in Wrungcll Alaska that provider a comprehensive, inlegrftUsd omiy of 

primary care, dental, pharmaceutical, sodal and behavioral health flervlces to six rural island communities in 

Southeast Alaska- AICS utilizes the essential air service provided hy Alaska Airlines in a number of ways. 

For example, the Tiddino primary care clinic utilizes the lervice for transportinfi tests to outside IsbonUoriee 

and bringing vifiiting phymoian specialists into the community and over 225 Alaskan children dealing with 

mental health Is^es a year use this service to travel to AICS's CrofuringR Wilderness Expeditions program. 

Hie essential air service prnvidaH by Alnska Airlin^u is crudul to the succesfiAil daily operations of 

AICS and our continued ability to support the health and well"bciag of conununities in Southeast AlasloL 

As such, AICS respectfully urges the Department of Transportation to continue providing essential air 

services to Southeast Alaska through Alaska Airlines. 

Thank you tor your oonsideration« 

Marie Walker 

Executive Director 

Alaska Island Community Services
NO. 07-11-0187-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

MARCH 12, 2012

_____________________________

TERRY BLANKENSHIP,  

	Appellant 

v.

BRAD LIVINGSTON; RICK THALER; THE STATE OF TEXAS, THE TEXAS BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES; THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE; CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION DIVISION; POTTER COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK, CAROLINE WOODBURN,  

	Appellees

_____________________________

FROM THE 108TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

NO. 98,395-E; HONORABLE DOUGLAS R. WOODBURN, PRESIDING

_____________________________

Memorandum Opinion

_____________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK, and PIRTLE, JJ.	

	Terry Blankenship, a Texas inmate, (Blankenship) appeals an order dismissing his suit with prejudice under chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.  We reverse the order of dismissal.[footnoteRef:1] [1: We note that none of the appellees favored us with a brief.  ] 

	Among the several defendants sued was Caroline Woodburn, Potter County District Clerk.  Ms. Woodburn is married to Douglas R. Woodburn, district judge for the 108th Judicial District.  Furthermore, the order dismissing Blankenship’s suit against Ms. Woodburn and others was signed by Judge Woodburn.  Given that Judge Woodburn was related to one of the parties within the third degree of affinity, he was disqualified from presiding over the lawsuit.  TEX. CONST. ANN*.* art. V, § 11 (Vernon  2007) (stating that no judge shall sit in any case wherein a party may be connected to him within the third degree of affinity); TEX. R. CIV. P*.*18b(1)(c) (stating the same).  Thus, Judge Woodburn had no jurisdiction to execute the order he did. *Gulf Marine Warehouse Co. v. Towers*, 858 S.W.2d 556, 559 (Tex. App.–Beaumont 1993, writ denied).  And, that this situation was first broached on appeal matters not given the jurisdictional nature of the error.  *Id.* at 560 (stating that disqualification may be raised at any time).

	Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order of dismissal and remand the cause.

							Brian Quinn

							Chief Justice

2
# C_2022051EN.01003201.xml

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 1 December 2021 — Jalkh v Parliament

(Case T-230/21) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - Member of the European Parliament - Privileges and immunities - Decision to waive parliamentary immunity - Articles 8 and 9 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union - Procedure for waiving immunity - Manifest error of assessment)

(2022/C 51/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jean-François Jalkh (Gretz-Armainvilliers, France) (represented by: F. Wagner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz and A.-M. Dumbrăvan, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of European Parliament decision P9_TA(2021)0092 of 25 March 2021 on the request for waiver of the immunity of the applicant (2020/2110(IMM)).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Jean-François Jalkh to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Jean-François Jalkh to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 242, 21.6.2021.

---