alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James WHITE, Jr., et al., Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-457.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 13, 1972.

C. Michael Duncan, of Duncan, Ford, Schubert & Tally, Tavares, for appellants.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and David Luther Woodward, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

MANN, Judge.

The original notice of appeal was filed within thirty days of the filing of an order denying a post-trial “Motion to Dis*361charge.” That motion was based on a claimed denial of speedy trial, repeated a motion made and denied orally at the outset of trial, and was a proper motion in the nature of a petition for rehearing. F.A.R. 1.3, 32 F.S.A., provides that “Where there has been filed in the lower court a timely and proper motion or petition for a new trial, for a rehearing, or other timely post-trial motion or petition permitted by the Rules, the decision, judgment, order or decree shall not be deemed rendered until such motion or petition is disposed of.” Thus at the time of filing the notice of appeal purporting to seek review of the order denying the motion to discharge the defendants, the entire case was reviewable because the final judgment, by then well over thirty days old, had been “rendered” within thirty days. F.A.R. 6.2, referring specifically to criminal appeals, requires appeal within thirty days after the judgment is “entered,” but entry seems understandably to have been treated as the equivalent of “rendition,” the word used in F.A.R. 3.2. See State ex rel. Faircloth v. Cross, Fla.1970, 238 So.2d 81 (per Adkins, J.).

The question now becomes whether the amended notice of appeal, which sought to review the final judgment, is valid. It is. F.A.R. 3.2(c) provides that “Deficiencies in form or substance in the notice of appeal shall not be jurisdictional and shall not be ground for dismissal of the appeal unless it be clearly shown that the complaining party was misled or prejudiced by such deficiencies.” The State does not claim prejudice, and none appears. Allowing the amended notice to stand is in harmony with State ex rel. Poe v. Allen, Fla.1967, 196 So.2d 745 at 746, in which Mr. Justice Drew’s opinion quotes approvingly 3 Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1302.1:

> “ ‘Where the appeal is erroneously taken from the order denying the motion, rather than from the judgment, the sound course undoubtedly is to treat this technical error as harmless, and to consider

> the appeal as if it were from the judgment.’ ”

See also 6A Moore, Federal Practice § 59.-15.

An appellant in a criminal proceeding is no less entitled to the interpretation which will result in the just consideration of his claims.

Motion denied.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and Mc-NULTY, J., concur.
________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

 The application for writ of certiorari filed on April 

21, 2016 by Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee, State of Hawaii, is 

hereby accepted and will be scheduled for oral argument. The 

parties will be notified by the appellate clerk regarding 

scheduling. 

 

Justin Kollar and 

Tracy Murakami 

for petitioner 

 /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald 

 /s/ Paula A. Nakayama 

 

 /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

 /s/ Richard W. Pollack 

 /s/ Michael D. Wilson 

 

 

 

Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCWC-13-0003039 

01-JUN-2016 

11:08 AM 

SCWC-13-0003039 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII 

STATE OF HAWAII, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs. 

VICENTE KOTEKAPIKA HILARIO, Respondent/Defendant-Appellant 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS 

(CAAP-13-0003039; CR. NO. 11-1-0023) 

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.) 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, June 1, 2016. 

Keith S. Shigetomi 

for respondent
JAY BARRINGER

,

Petitioner,

v.

JULIE L. JONES, SECRETARY,

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 4031

Opinion filed October 7 , 2016.

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

-- Original Jurisdiction

.

Jay Barringer, pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Res pondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed as unauthorized. See Baker

v. State , 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004).

B.L. THOMAS, RAY, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000948976
<NAME> CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT BANCORP
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      20,090,471
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             8,900,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 64,687,804
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       9,344,340
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         9,689,171
<LOANS>                                    176,250,250
<ALLOWANCE>                                  6,566,694
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             289,594,198
<DEPOSITS>                                 263,444,945
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,427,388
<LONG-TERM>                                     40,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    15,563,846
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,118,019
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             289,594,198
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              4,711,336
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              922,218
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               205,593
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             5,839,147
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,051,521
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,054,933
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        3,784,214
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  550,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               4,250
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              3,596,296
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                767,511
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     767,511
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   488,261
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.25
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    6.76
<LOANS-NON>                                  5,532,900
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               341,000
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                             14,855,531
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             6,024,111
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  233,660
<RECOVERIES>                                   226,243
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              550,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           550,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### Garnet G. MORRIS v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS.

No. 53504.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 11, 1973.

In re: Garnet G. Morris applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Civil Service Commission, State of Louisiana. 274 So.2d 924.

Application denied — no error of law in the Court of Appeal’s opinion.
#### Colleen W. ANDERSON, Appellant, v. Eugene R. ANDERSON, Jr., Appellee.

No. 69-695.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Jan. 12, 1970.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Lawrence Dale GREENWOOD, Petitioner, v. Dave S. STARR, Sheriff, Orange County, Florida and Ray Almond, Jail Supervisor, Orange County, Florida, Respondents.

No. 70-470.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 25, 1970.

ORDER

STATE OF FLORIDA

TO: HONORABLE RICHARD H. COOPER, as Judge of the Circuit Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Florida;

GREETINGS:

Ordered upon petition for writ of habeas corpus you, Richard H. Cooper, Circuit Judge, Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Florida, immediately direct Dave S. Starr, Sheriff of Orange County, Florida, to discharge Lawrence Dale Greenwood, petitioner herein, from custody under your contempt order bearing date November 26, 1969, and that you, Richard H. Cooper, certify to this court by 2 *514P.M. on Tuesday, June 30, 1970, compliance herewith.

WITNESS the Honorable Spencer C. Cross, Chief Judge of the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District, at West Palm Beach, the Headquarters of the court on this 25th day of June 1970.
#### SOUTHEASTERN HOME MORTGAGE COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY and First National Bank in Fort Lauderdale, Appellees.

No. 69-610.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 23, 1970.

Patrick McGrotty, Miami, for appellant.

John T. Allen, Jr., of Harrison, Greene, Mann, Davenport, Rowe & Stanton, St. Petersburg, for appellee Old Republic Ins. Co.

Clayton R. Wilkes, of Law Office of John B. Gregory, Jr., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee First Nat. Bank.

PIERCE, Judge.

This is a companion case to the case of Old Republic Insurance Company v. Von Onweller Construction Company, Inc. et al., 239 So.2d 503, opinion filed this day reversing the judgment in favor of the plaintiff Von Onweller, etc., in the main cause.

The defendants Old Republic Insurance Company and First National Bank in Fort Lauderdale filed third party complaints in the lower Court against Southeastern Home Mortgage Company. The lower Court entered its order granting Old Republic Insurance Company’s motions for summary judgment against cross-defendant, First National Bank in Fort Lauderdale and third party defendant Southeastern Home Mortgage Company, and First National Bank in Fort Lauderdale’s motion for summary judgment against Southeastern Home Mortgage Company. After judgment in *506the main cause was rendered, the lower Court entered its final judgment in favor of Old Republic and against Southeastern and First National in the sum of $1,116.10, and a judgment in favor of First National against Southeastern in the sum of $1,115.-80, from which Southeastern appealed.

Since the third party is bound by the adjudication of the primary case, reversal of the judgment in favor of the plaintiff is an automatic reversal of the judgments giving the defendants the right of recovery against the third party. See Thomas Bate & Sons v. Kennedy, C.A.5th *1948, 165*F.2d 435; Tejas Development Co. v. McGough, C.A.5th, 167 F.2d 268.

This case is therefore reversed and remanded for such further proceedings as the Court may deem proper, not inconsistent herewith.

Reversed and remanded.

LILES, Acting C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
#### Eugene GOLSBY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2453.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 28, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Michael Lewis, Appellant, v Metroplex Long Island Corporation, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. W & K Management Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

[736 NYS2d 247]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), entered June 28, 2000, as, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendant third-party plaintiff, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

After trial the jury found that the defendant third-party plaintiff, Metroplex Long Island Corporation, was negligent, but that its negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The finding of a jury that a party was negligent but that the negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident is inconsistent and against the weight of the evidence only when the issues are “so inextricably interwoven as to make it logically impossible to find negligence without also finding proximate cause” *(Rubin v Pecoraro,*141 AD2d 525, 527; *see, Hernandez v Baron,*248 AD2d 440; *Schaefer v Guddemi,*182 AD2d 808, 809). Under the circumstances of this case, the finding of proximate cause did not inevitably flow from the finding of culpable conduct.

The plaintiff’s remaining contention is unpréserved for appellate review. Santucci, J.P., Smith, Crane and Cozier, JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 Certification of Chief Financial Officer
of Citizens, Inc. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 I, Mark A. Oliver, certify that: In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Citizens, Inc. (the Company) for the
period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Mark A. Oliver, President and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §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, as amended; and2.
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ Mark A. OliverName: Mark A. OliverTitle: President and Treasurer(Chief Financial Officer)Date: March 30, 2005
 112
Page No. * 4 Af ee Inquiries numbered 7, 16, and 17 are not to be asked in respect to infants. Inquiries numbered 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are to be answered (ifvat al)? >
' merely by an affirmative mark, as /.

SCHEDULE i —Inhabitants i es Chet hash, A (EF EBL 2d — 3 mine County of _¢ // }/

of CLL hk y he , enumerated by me on the LA 4 day of _ / LLL
Post Office: _( BDL y; 74¢ : ) Yo .y3 | WD / aa

, Ass’t Marshal.

CONSTITUTIONAL.
RELATIONS.

R
VALUE op Ret ESTATE SP STER,

If
ths
|

mon
3

In fractions, thus, Ys

Whether deaf
and dumb,

_ | blind, insane,

or idiotic.

S. of 21

The name of every person whose
place of abode on the first day of
June, 1870, was in this family.

Profeasion, Occupation,
or Trade of each person,
male or female.

Place of Birth, naming State
| or Territory of U. S.; or the
Country, if of foreign birth.

Color.—W bite (W.), Black
1 @& (B.), Mulatto (M.), Chi-
nese (C.), Indian (I.)

of visitation,
ht to vote is |

the order of visitation.
Families, numbered in the order

Males (M].),
Females (F.)

Dwelling-houses, numbered In
21 years of age and up-

warca,

Male Citizens of U.
other grounds than re-

Age at last birth-day.
month (Jan., Feb., &c.)
month (Jan., Feb., &c.)

denied or abridged on

bellion or other crime.

under 1 year, give

whose ric

—

Attended school within the year.
Cannot read.
Cannot wriie

Father of foreign birth.

Mother of foreign birth

If born within the year, state
If married within the year, state

Male Citizens of U.S. of
yeurs ofage and upwards, |

Value of Real Estate,

Tare
|

€ | Value of Personal Estate.

on Sex.—

_"
Ww
pm
="
oon
pany
te
a
w
—
theo
2
or
pet
~)

|

IN
~N\
SS
~

TEL, 22 bh. poet }
(j

/ ; ai j
CEL ESS L£ZIA sf
/

Ww. wv

Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau.

Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here.

ty
fi 2 fi

iv

if 4 ths adh
Mldtele ea
LY),

Dyer tuesel
ee eS,
9 PY,

= Neh LL.
Lely (les mF, hihi

Le ADIAD DACA 4,

/

Me ff/ Ay / fy Lil? of

f

eo 8 @ BB BD GD

A

4 Fate
ssf SLEL SS, De el ae

“

fi 4
/; te Dn Lille Mf.

t/
Decokes. lia llecsss

i) LES Vi F2 carl
{ - a f
‘ | ee (7

f

,

raw 2 Lit yet St.
725 ou,

sf)
/) air Lia :

La Leeredezt he rf
Laypit, ( Yh £4
CM ssdas Drv

‘eault» tol. ee

_ Misa

Be // 7

| LF Mt 8

~

pay Lies Gis

4 toh

/

fy Vin, lh: Lil: hi ths

if

/

Jf Jf yi
F y

—
—

‘ a
A

No..of dwellings, No. of white females, / /

No. of males; foreign born, /
‘ CG
“« “ families, “ © colored males, _ “ “ females, “ ¥A 7

“ « white males, / 1 “females, “ « Dlind,

ee ee —- —
- Pages from 1970a_oh1-01
- Pages from 1970a_oh1-03
## IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS District of St. Croix
Government of the Virgin Islands Office of Collective Bargaining, Plaintiff v. American Federation of Teachers Local 1826 (AFT), Defendant. Case Number:SX-2023-CV-00341 Action: Preliminary Injunction



## NOTICE of ENTRY

of Order To : Zuleyma Marie Chapman, Esq. Ryan Christopher Stutzman, Esq.

Please take notice that on November 22, 2023 a(n) Memorandum Opinion and Order

dated November 22, 2023 was/were entered by the Clerk in the above-titled matter. Dated : November 22, 2023 Tamara Charles Clerk of the Court By:

Brianna Primus

Court Clerk II
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>    5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF GIGA INFORMATION GROUP, INC. FOR THE THREE
MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRITY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                                     <C>                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999           DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1999           JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-1999           MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       15,789                 8,692
<SECURITIES>                                  4,371                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 9,703                14,432
<ALLOWANCES>                                    407                   471
<INVENTORY>                                       0                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             38,694                34,069
<PP&E>                                        8,165                10,061
<DEPRECIATION>                                3,995                 4,095
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               43,194                40,508
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        36,236                47,773
<BONDS>                                           0                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0                     0
<PREFERRED>                                       0                     0
<COMMON>                                         10                    10
<OTHER-SE>                                    6,461                (7,735)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 43,194                40,508
<SALES>                                      11,940                16,839
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             11,940                16,839
<CGS>                                         6,152                 7,296
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                15,473                18,951
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                244                   463
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (217)                  (84)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               3,560                (2,491)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     42                   (27)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (3,602)               (2,464)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0                     0
<CHANGES>                                         0                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (3,602)               (2,464)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (0.36)                (0.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (0.36)                (0.24)



</TABLE>
: 7 , Page No. /éX.
SCHEDULE 1.—Free Inhabitants in. LMbrl bette of Lyne) in, the County of —— Cxex: State
enumerated vs me, on the 0 “aay of —Mise 1860, 0444. C22eu)_ Ase't Marshal.

mn)

/

Vatve or Estate Ownen.
Whether deaf and

in the
“ar.

order of visitation.

The name of every person whose usual — .- ; Profession, Occupation, or Trade of | : Place of Birth,

place of abode on the first day of June, ) each person, male and female, over Value of Value of Naming the State, Territory,

1860, was in this family. ~ - . Real Estate. Personal | - or Country.
) : . , | Estate.

mb, blind, insane,

du
| idiotic, pauper, or
convict.

ee

ear.

in the ‘order of
Married within the

visitation,

a
.

numberrd
Families numbered
Attended School _

ye
| Persons over 90 y’rs of age

4
$8 | who cannot

uke
|
ie “|

~ - - < = ° _
~_— »- _ — —_ re ee ee - Ce ee

Dwelling-houses—
| within the

(=|
ic
rx

—— — ee eee
.

es nf * 82 A * h6hH]CUW

‘
a -

Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau.

Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here.

= , a
- - - soe on —— 2 - -
» >
> 7 .' =a = bk Oe wa . . 4
Cs ow 2 wea ( Se - °
a < sad . . < a > on -4 7%. =
*t> @ Meee. te eee — ——_t =

7 ?.
- = - - .
: " x ~ ae 4
— nt te er ee ge Ae ee ee ete ~
= dad : — ~
7

Sa Tay -t are HE

3

_—_- o_—-.——_TM-- i 2 e+e
a
zy. = ee Se ee <a ¥ <

— _

Pll. cr +

—- eo oo ee ee TM
- he é : > =
‘ 8 : : ‘
*