alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### JOHN WILSON, by his guar. JOHN WILSON *vs.*JACOB VANDYKE.

An infant cannot sue by guardian, unless a guardian has been actually appointed by the Orphans’ Court.

But an infant may sue by *next*friend, and in that case the admission to sue thus ought to be averred in the narr.

A guardian need not aver a special admission to sue.

On the general issue pleaded, the appointment of plaintiff as guardian must be proved.

Action on the case in the nature of waste. Narr; plea not guilty. The defendant was tenant from year to year, of land belonging to John Wilson a minor, and committed waste by cutting large quantities of wood, &c.

The case was proved; but—

*Rodney*for defendant

moved a nonsuit, on the ground that there was no proof of the guardianship, and in fact there was no guardian. Unless a person be lawfully appointed guardian, he can have no authority over the minors property, nor sue as guardian for injuries to the same. I admit that a person may sue as the next friend of a minor who has no guardian, but that is not the case here, for the plaintiff has sued as guardian, and he is bound to prove the appointment. 2. It is no where averred in the narr that the plaintiff has been admitted by the court to sue for the infant, which must be done in all suits by guardian or next friend. 2 *Saund. Rep.*117 ; 1 *Levinz*224; *Dig.*424, *sec.*11, 8 *vol. Del. L.*43.

*30*Rogers.*

The objections, if valid, are too late; they should have been made by plea in abatement. By pleading, the defendant admits the character of the party plaintiff. Nor is it necessary either to obtain or to state a special admission by the court to the guardian to sue.

*Rodney.*

The guardianship is a fact necessary to be shown by the plaintiff in the proof to entitle him to a verdict, otherwise he must fail. The defect in the narr is available at any time before judgment* and only not after, because of our act of assembly.

*Rogers*for plaintiff.

*Rodney*for defendant.

*By the Court.*

It is not necessary for a guardian- to be specially admitted to sue or defend, nor need such admission to be averred. Nor could the court admit any one to sue as guardian, who whs not the guardian; though it may admit a person to *defend*as such. Where there is no guardian, the suit ought to be by next friend ; in which case the special admission to sue as such ought to be averred in the narr. There are many cases where the character of the party is not put in issue by the pleadings, and in which it would be too late after plea to object to the character; but by our law no person can have authority to act as a guardian, w7ho has not been appointed by the Orphans’ Coui’t. Now this plea of not guilty, puts in issue every thing material, and the character of the plaintiff as guardian is material ; for if a recovery was had by a person not the guardian, it would be no bar to a suit by the lawful guai'dian.

The mode of declaring in the case of suit brought by a guardian, is A. B. by C. D., the lawfully appointed guardian of the said A. B., &c.

Judgment of nonsuit.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1116 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1116

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to equalize the exclusion 
from gross income of parking and transportation fringe benefits and to 
provide for a common cost-of-living adjustment, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 7, 2013

  Mr. Schumer (for himself, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Carper, Mr. Menendez, Mr. 
 Coons, and Mrs. Gillibrand) introduced the following bill; which was 
          read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to equalize the exclusion 
from gross income of parking and transportation fringe benefits and to 
provide for a common cost-of-living adjustment, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Commuter Benefits Equity Act of 
2013''.

SEC. 2. UNIFORM DOLLAR LIMITATION FOR ALL TYPES OF TRANSPORTATION 
              FRINGE BENEFITS.

    (a) In General.--Section 132(f)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended--
            (1) by striking ``$100'' in subparagraph (A) and inserting 
        ``$245'',
            (2) by striking ``$175'' in subparagraph (B) and inserting 
        ``$245'', and
            (3) by striking the last sentence.
    (b) Inflation Adjustment Conforming Amendments.--Subparagraph (A) 
of section 132(f)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
            (1) by striking the last sentence,
            (2) by striking ``1999'' and inserting ``2013'', and
            (3) by striking ``1998'' and inserting ``2012''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2013.

SEC. 3. CLARIFICATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEE BENEFITS.

    Section 7905 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)--
                    (A) in paragraph (2)(C) by inserting ``and'' after 
                the semicolon;
                    (B) in paragraph (3) by striking ``; and'' and 
                inserting a period; and
                    (C) by striking paragraph (4); and
            (2) in subsection (b)(2)(A) by amending subparagraph (A) to 
        read as follows:
                    ``(A) a qualified transportation fringe as defined 
                in section 132(f)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
                1986;''.
                                 <all>
```
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-23-00282-CR

ROBERT ELLIOT HOPKINS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 213th District 

Court

of Tarrant County (1722063)

May 30, 2024

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice 

Sudderth

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

 Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC'nON AGENCY 

REGION IX 

75 Hawthome Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 

DEC {l 2009 

~r. Jack Broadbent 

Air Pollution Control Officer 

Bay Area AQ~D

939 Ellis Street . 

San Francisco, CA 94109-7799 

Re: Guidance on Appendix S Non-Attainment NSR Permitting for P~2.5 Sources During 

P~2.5 Transition Period 

De~cnt: Thank you for your letter dated October 28, 2009, following our meeting on September 

10, 2009. Your letter requests my office to provide written concurrence with the approach the 

Bay Area Air Quality ~anagement District intends to follow during the transition period until it 

has a rule regulating non-attainment permitting for major sources of P~25 approved into the 

State Implementation Plan. We have reviewed the approach laid out in detail in your October 

28th letter and concur that your approach is adequate to implement the requirements set forth in 

40 CFR Part 51, Appendix S during the transition period. 

Please call me or Gerardo Rios ofmy staff at (415) 972-3974 if you have any further 

questions. 

Sincerely, 

Director, Air Division 

Printed on Recycled Paper
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,156
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           3,133
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     48,709
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                         81,099
<ALLOWANCE>                                        317
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 140,202
<DEPOSITS>                                      85,263
<SHORT-TERM>                                    26,300
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,511
<LONG-TERM>                                     15,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,116
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 140,202
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  1,638
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  845
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    65
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 2,548
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 962
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,552
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                              977
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       19
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    695
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    516
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         516
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       335
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .47
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.45
<LOANS-NON>                                        126
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    381
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   304
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        6
<RECOVERIES>                                        19
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  317
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               270
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             47


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

August 20, 2009 

l0818 

Order 

 

August 20, 2009 

139263 

& (44) 

 

WESLEY GANSON and 

WANDA GANSON, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v SC: 139263 

 COA: 284720 

Wayne CC: 07-704805-CH 

WELLS FARGO BANK OF 

MINNESOTA, NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION SOLELY IN ITS 

CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE, et al, 

 Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the June 2, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is 

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented 

should be reviewed by this Court.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 29, 2020

a0420 

# Order

Clerk April 29, 2020

160142(33)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 160142

COA: 347625

Oakland CC: 1998

- 161396

- FC

RAND WALTER GOULD,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of thi s Court’s January 2,

2020 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that

reconsideration of our previous order is warranted. MCR 7.311(G).
Exhibit 12

                     GE GLOBAL INSURANCE HOLDING CORPORATION
                                AND SUBSIDIARIES

                Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

                        Three months ended March 30, 2002

                                   (Unaudited)



(In millions)

Earnings:
   Earnings before income taxes                                      $111
   Fixed charges:
     Minority interest in net earnings of
       consolidated subsidiaries (1)                                   22
     Interest expense (2)                                              33
                                                                     ----
                                                                     $166
                                                                     ====
Fixed charges:
   Minority interest in net earnings of
     consolidated subsidiaries (3)                                   $ 29
   Interest expense (2)                                                33
                                                                     ----
                                                                     $ 62
                                                                     ====

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                                   2.68
                                                                     ====


(1)  Minority  interest  in net earnings of  consolidated  subsidiaries includes
     earnings from purchased affiliates and dividends on subsidiary's  preferred
     stock.

(2)  Interest  expense   includes  an   amount  for  one-third  of  the   rental
     expense,  which the Company  believes is a reasonable  approximation of the
     interest factor for such rentals.

(3)  The  fixed  charges  amount  for  minority  interest  in  net  earnings  of
     consolidated  subsidiaries  represents  the pre-tax  earnings  amount which
     would be required to cover such fixed charges as calculated below:

                      Earnings From Purchased Affiliates or
                Subsidiary's Preferred Stock Dividend Requirement
                -------------------------------------------------
                             100% - Income Tax Rate

     The  income  tax rate is based on the  relationship  of the  provision  for
     income taxes to earnings before income taxes for the respective period.


                                       9
Order entered October 27, 2022 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-01127-CV 

No. 05-22-01128-CV 

No. 05-22-01129-CV 

No. 05-22-01130-CV 

No. 05-22-01131-CV 

IN RE KENZIE NELSON, Relator 

Original Proceedings from the Criminal District Court No. 5 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause Nos. F1133360, F1133384, F1133385, F1133386, & 

F1133387 

ORDER 

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Partida-Kipness, and Justice Smith 

Based on the Court’s opinion of today’s date, we DISMISS relator’s petition 

for want of jurisdiction to the extent the petition seeks relief against the Dallas 

County District Clerk Felicia Pitre, Dallas County District Attorney John Creuzot, 

and the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office. 
We DENY relator’s petition to the extent the petition seeks a writ of 

mandamus against the trial court. 

/s/ CRAIG SMITH 

 JUSTICE
Submitted on record and appellant’s brief November 5,

reversed and remanded with directions November 21, 1969

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*J. D. DUNNING, *Appellant.*

461 P. 2d 833

Donald F. Bach, Eugene, filed the brief for appellant. With him on the brief were Porter *&*Bach, Eugene.

No appearance for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant was convicted on December 27, 1968, of violating ORS 167.210 (contributing to the delinquency of a minor) and filed a timely appeal on the ground, *inter alia,*that the statute is unconstitutionally vague. On July 24, 1969, the Oregon Supreme Court so held. *State v. Hodges,*254 Or 21, 457 P2d 491.

*259This cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to discharge the defendant in this proceeding and for reference to the grand jury in the event that the prosecution deems it proper to proceed under another statute.

Eeversed and remanded with directions.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ramon Quinones, Appellant.

[654 NYS2d 747]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Felice Shea, J.), rendered December 10, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree (two counts) and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 17 years to life, 6 years to life, 6 years to life, and 3 to 9 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claims that the court erroneously instructed the jury to consider whether defendant acted as an accomplice with an unapprehended participant in the crime or improperly amended the indictment regarding the theory of accessorial liability are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review them, we would find *127defendant’s arguments to be without merit since a defendant may be properly convicted as an accomplice where the indictment accuses him only as a principal, or where it makes no mention of the participant whose conduct forms the basis of accomplice liability *(People v Rivera,*84 NY2d 766; *People v Guidice,*83 NY2d 630, 636-637).

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Tom and Andrias, JJ.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Doris RUSH.

No. 60124.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 16, 1977.

DeWitt T. Methvin, Jr., Gist, Methvin & Trimble, Alexandria, for defendant-relator.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Alfred R. Ryder, Dist. Atty., Terry J. Johnson, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted of simple criminal damage to property, La.R.S. 14:56. Finding no evidence of criminal damage to property, we conclude that the trial judge erred in denying defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal.

Accordingly, the conviction and sentence are reversed and the defendant discharged.

SUMMERS, J.,

dissents.

In my view there is “some” evidence to sustain the conviction — the only issue before this court. Accordingly, the conviction should be sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1256 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1256

 To amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to examine the status of 
        the human rights of people with disabilities worldwide.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 16 (legislative day, June 30), 1993

 Mr. Dole (for himself, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Helms, Mr. McCain, Mr. Leahy, 
 Mr. Simon, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Durenberger, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Inouye, Mr. 
 Lugar, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Hatfield, Mrs. Kassebaum, Mr. 
Moynihan, and Mr. Hatch) introduced the following bill; which was read 
        twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to examine the status of 
        the human rights of people with disabilities worldwide.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Disability Rights in American 
Foreign Policy Act of 1993''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

    (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
            (1) at least 500 million people throughout the world have a 
        disability, most of whom live in developing countries;
            (2) legal and other forms of discrimination against people 
        with disabilities are pervasive worldwide;
            (3) such discrimination involves not only active exclusion, 
        but a lack of accommodations and accessibility that would allow 
        participation by people with disabilities;
            (4) discrimination against people with disabilities is a 
        violation of their human rights; and
            (5) discrimination against people with disabilities has not 
        historically been addressed by existing standards of human 
        rights employed in American foreign policy.
    (b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to promote recognition 
of the human rights of people with disabilities and to promote the 
elimination of discrimination against such people.

SEC. 3. DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES INCLUDED IN 
              ANNUAL REPORT ON HUMAN RIGHTS.

    (a) Section 116(d) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 
2151n(d)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2);
            (2) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
            ``(3) an examination of discrimination toward people with 
        disabilities; and''.
    (b) Section 502B(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 
U.S.C. 2304) is amended by inserting ``disability,'' after 
``language,''.

                                 <all>
```