alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Francis E. WRIGHT, Petitioner, v. STERLING DRUGS, INC., etc., Respondent.

No. 73-656.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 14, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 21, 1974.

William F. Blews, St. Petersburg, and Edward B. Rood, of Rood & Charlton, Tampa, for petitioner.

Robert F. Nunez, St. Petersburg, for respondent.

John R. Bush, Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly, Tampa, for amicus curiae.

GRIMES, Judge.

This is a Petition for Writ of Certiorari seeking review of an order setting aside a final judgment entered after default.

Common law certiorari lies only in exceptional cases such as those where the lower court acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction or where an interlocutory order does not conform to essential requirements of law and may reasonably cause material injury throughout the subsequent proceedings for which the remedy by appeal would be inadequate. Kauffman v. King, Fla.1956, 89 So.2d 24; Flagler Federl Savings and Loan Ass’n v. Whiting, Fla.App.1963, 148 So.2d 555.

The incurring of the expense of a trial on the merits has been held not to constitute material or irreparable injury. R. J. Brown, Inc. v. Seminerio, Fla.App.1971, 246 So.2d 629. Were it not so, many interlocutory orders entered in cases formerly *377cognizable at law would be subject to review by certiorari. This would result in an unseemly intrusion into the progress of the case in the trial court.

While the order vacating the final judgment and default could have been reviewed by interlocutory appeal,1 this court is powerless to consider a petition for writ of certiorari as an appeal. See Norman v. Pinellas County, Fla.App.1971, 250 So.2d 279.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied without prejudice to the right of petitioner to seek review of the matters contained therein by way of appeal from the final judgment.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and JOHNSON, W. CLAYTON, Associate Judge, concur.

1

. Bland v. Mitchell, Fla.1970, 245 So.2d 47.
1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court No. DA-22-0389

__________________________________________________________________

KELLY DEAN WORTHAN

 Petitioner and Appellant, 

vs.

STATE OF MONTANA, 

 Respondent and Appellee. 

__________________________________________________________________

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

__________________________________________________________________

Upon consideration of Appellant Kelly Dean Worthan’s, Motion to 

Consolidate, with no objection from the State of Montana and good cause 

appearing therefore, Appellant’s motion is GRANTED and Cause Nos. DA-22-

0389 and DA-22-0390 are hereby consolidated under Cause No. DA-22-0389 and 

henceforth captioned as above. 

Electronically signed below: 

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 19 2022

09/19/2022
Table 7.  Homeownership Rates by Age of Householder:  Third Quarter 1999 and 1998


                              Third      Third    Standard   Standard
Age of householder           Quarter    Quarter   error on   error on
                                 1999       1998  1999 rate difference

United States..............      67.0       66.8        0.2        0.2

    Less than 25 years.....      20.4       18.1        0.6        0.9
    25 to 29 years.........      36.9       35.8        0.6        0.9
    30 to 34 years.........      54.2       54.6        0.6        0.8
    35 to 39 years.........      65.1       64.6        0.5        0.7
    40 to 44 years.........      69.6       71.0        0.5        0.7
    45 to 49 years.........      75.1       74.7        0.5        0.7
    50 to 54 years.........      77.8       78.3        0.5        0.7
    55 to 59 years.........      80.1       79.9        0.6        0.8
    60 to 64 years.........      81.3       82.4        0.6        0.8
    65 to 69 years.........      82.9       82.1        0.6        0.8
    70 to 74 years.........      83.2       82.1        0.6        0.8
    75 years and over......      78.2       77.1        0.5        0.7

      Less than 35 years...      40.1       39.5        0.4        0.5
      35 to 44 years.......      67.4       67.8        0.4        0.5
      45 to 54 years.......      76.3       76.3        0.4        0.5
      55 to 64 years.......      80.7       81.1        0.4        0.6
      65 years and over....      80.8       79.7        0.3        0.5
254 La. 137

#### INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY COMPANY OF LOUISIANA, Inc. v. TRANSAMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 49837.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 9, 1969.

In re: Transamerica Insurance Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Calcasieu. 220 So.2d 126.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal the result is correct.
No. 11308.

#### Lebow et al., Partners, v. Harding et al.

Decided November 23, 1909.

Error to Superior Court of Cincinnati.

*Mr. G. S. Hawke,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Mr. M. Muller*and *Mr. George W. Harding,*for defendants in error.

Judg*521ment affirmed

Crew, C. J., Summers, Spear, Davis, Shauck and'Price, JJ., concur.
AMENDMENT NO. 1

                                    TO THE

                           CON EDISON SUPPLEMENTAL

                            RETIREMENT INCOME PLAN

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

                        Effective as of January 1, 1997



<PAGE>






      Pursuant to resolutions  adopted by the Board of Trustees of  Consolidated
Edison Company of New York,  Inc. on November 26, 1996, the  undersigned  hereby
approves the amendments to The Con Edison  Supplemental  Retirement  Income Plan
set forth below, effective as of January 1, 1997.

      1. Paragraph B of ARTICLE FOUR shall be designated as Paragraph B (1), and
the following new provision shall be added and designated as Paragraph B (2):

"(2)  Notwithstanding subdivision (1) above, for purposes of determining the
      benefits payable under this Plan for any Participant in the Company's
      Executive Incentive Plan ("EIP") whose termination of employment with
      the Company occurs on or after January 1, 1997, in calculating the
      Participant's Final Average Salary under the Final Average Salary
      Formula in the Basic Plan there shall be added to the portion of such
      Participant's Annual Basic Straight-Time Compensation allocable to a
      calendar year the amount of the Participant's Incentive Award
      (including the Mandatory Deferral Portion unless such Portion is
      forfeited as provided in the EIP) granted under the EIP in such
      calendar year; provided, however, that not more than five Incentive
      Awards shall be included in calculating the Participant's Final Average
      Salary."


      IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the undersigned has executed this instrument this 21
day of March, 1997.



                                          RICHARD P.COWIE
                                          Richard P. Cowie
                                    Vice President-Employee Relations
                                        Consolidated Edison Company
                                          of New York, Inc.
Exhibit 4.1


 











SolarJuice Co., Ltd. NUMBER  CERT.9999 INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS $0.00001 PAR VALUE ORDINARY SHARES SHARES *******9,000,000,000*******  CUSIP G82619100 ORDINARY  SHARES THIS CERTIFIES THAT * SPECIMEN  * * NINE BILLION AND 00/100 * Is The Owner  of FULLY PAID AND  NON - ASSESSABLE SHARES OF ORDINARY SHARES  OF SolarJuice Co., Ltd. Transferable on the books of the Corporation in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this  Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by  the  Registrar. Dated: JANUARY 01, 2009 COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED: VSTOCK TRANSFER,  LLC Transfer Agent and Registrar Chairman By: AUTHORIZED  SIGNATURE



    	 



    	 



    



The following abbreviations,  wh e n used in the inscription on the face of thi s certificate, shall be construed as though  they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations. UNfF GIFT MIN ACT......................... Custodian...................... . (Minor) TEN COM  TEN ENT  JT TEN (Cust)  Act... ............... .. ................................. .. (State) - as tenants in common - as tenants by the entireties - as joint tenants with the right of survivorship and not as tenants  in common Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. For value received, hereby sell, assign and transfer unto PLEAS E I N SER T S OC I AL S ECURITY OR O TH E R ID E NT I FY I NG NUMBER OF AS S I G NEE : (PLEAS E PRlNT OR TYPEWRIT E NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE) shares ofthe capital stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and  appoint '' Attorney  to transfer the said stock on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated x _ TH E S IGNAT URE TO THIS A SS I G NM E NT M UST COR RE SPO ND WI T l · I TH E NAME AS WRI TTE N U P O N TH E FA CE O F THI S CE RTIFI C A TE . THE S I G NAT UR E ( S ) M UST BE G UARANTEED BY A N ELIGIB LE GU AR A NT O R IN ST IT U TI ON (Ban ks . S t o ck bro kers . S a v in g s and L o an Ass oc iation s and C r ed it U n i o n s ) . S IGNATURE GUARANTEED: TRANSFER FEE WILL APPLY
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         2,834,443
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                      124,545,111
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                        125,883,401
<EQUITIES>                                   2,017,631
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                             129,397,185
<CASH>                                      24,250,164
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                           6,973,765
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                       9,913,396
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             249,117,480
<POLICY-LOSSES>                             93,485,546
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                         43,733,705
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        86,498
<OTHER-SE>                                  98,017,995
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               249,117,480
<PREMIUMS>                                  63,797,509
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                          5,940,090
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                   0
<OTHER-INCOME>                              11,958,810
<BENEFITS>                                  31,192,602
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                  (849,407)
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                        42,594,504
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              7,909,303
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,530,220
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,379,083
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,379,083
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.70
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
No. 11068.

#### Smedes *v.*The Cincinnati Interterminal Railroad Co.

Decided November 23, 1909.

Error to Superior Court of Cincinnati.

*Messrs. Stephens, Lincoln & Stephens,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Galvin & Galvin,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Summers, Davis and Price, JJ., concur.
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS**

**/ AUSTIN**  **j GROVLR** 

**SLLLII1*** **ATIO ”**  ***m ”** 

**G.IIC ”**  **AL**

BonoraI@e Chae.‘A.Tomb, Oounty Auditor Records Building Dallas, Texas

-. Dear Ibr.

Tosohr

tion with the State Highway

h has been **reoeived,**

ssionerLyqn Lamther to cppeer ProductionBoard in Tashingt2e interest of the couple- .~ i?hrray Eio. 183, which is ale North Ft. Forth Eoad. This been held up **by** the Tar Proafter the contract m20 let by the State Rightiey Conmission-- and oonalderableamount of gork had alreadyBean dono. "1 would like an opinion Prom your department as to whether or not the expense ,ofthis trip can be paid by’ Liallas County,, and **if** eo, out of which fund.”/

.

:

e

~ Honorable Chas. A. Tosoh - page 2
. .

ebuthorizes

Article 6875 of the Revised Civil Statutes the StateBighway Commissionof Texas to take over and nainta$ the various Statehighways in TeX89. The first serjtenoe of said Artlole reads:
aThe dommiseionis authorizedto take owe and maintain the various State highrays 3.n

Texas, and the countiesthrou@~ mh.lch said highway passes shallbe free from any aoet;, suoh highways.*

expense or supervision of

In Iversonvi Dallas County, 110 s. w. 12) 235, .theoourt inconatrulng the above Article and ~theother statutes relativeto the powers end organizakion~ol’ the State Bighway ConmrLsslon, held that when the State~Blghway Departmenttook over the control,managementand maintenanoe of a State hLghv3y, the county lost control thereof inso.far as'

Its main~enemceand upkeep are concerned. It appears froy,yourletter that the State Highway Co~!&esioa

has taken charge of the road project **in** queetion,.end

has let the oontract,for ths building there-, '~, of.~, tee presume.thatsaidhl~hway i.3 fioa a partof the State highwey system. If ne are correct'inthie essumption, then the maintenanceand upkeep 'the~reof 13 not county business.

Based upon the above assumption,itis our optiIon that the expensesof the County Judge and County Corn-~ missioner ingoing to F;ashJ.ngLon for the purposenamed cmnot be paid out of the Road and Bridge Fund, or emy other fund, of Dallas county.

SInme Dallas County Is not required to build or maintain the road in queetlon, the proposed trip to Cash-, ington rould not be in furtheranceof county road husinees.
pry truly'yours

Geo. I?.

Bsroue AsBi8ta.nt
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                         274,269
<SECURITIES>                                   621,135
<RECEIVABLES>                                  341,513
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (36,318)
<INVENTORY>                                      3,753
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,335,616
<PP&E>                                         690,359
<DEPRECIATION>                               (343,347)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,942,319
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          439,632
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,659
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,459,582
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,942,319
<SALES>                                      1,272,820
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,272,820
<CGS>                                          286,021
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  286,021
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               763,747
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                243,836
<INCOME-TAX>                                    53,089
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            190,747
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   190,747
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .55


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.2**


**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION 906 OF THE**
 **SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 
 I, Wayne F. Irmiter, Vice President and Controller of Salton Sea Funding Corporation (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:
 
 (1)

the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and(2)

the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. 
 
 Date:  November 12, 2004
 
 
 /s/ Wayne F. Irmiter
 Wayne F. Irmiter
 Vice President and Controller
 (chief accounting officer)
No. 11699.

#### Jackson et al. *v.*Dershem, Guardian, et al.

Decided October 5, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Darke county.

*Mr. M. B. Trainor,*for plaintiff in error.

*-Mr. D. W. Bozvman*and *Mr. W. Y. Stubbs,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Crew, C. J., Spear and Shauck JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99(b)



                            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 of CheckFree Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, David E. Mangum, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial 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 Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

                  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Company.



                               /s/ David E. Mangum
                          -----------------------------------------------------
                          David E. Mangum, Executive Vice President and Chief
                          Financial Officer of CheckFree Corporation
                          November 14, 2002
#### Andrew C. TAYLOR, Appellant, v. The Honorable Arthur HUTTOE, Judge, Circuit Court In and For Dade County, Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-356.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 17, 1972.

Robert M. Bader, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Richard E. Gerstein, State’s Atty., and Richard R. Snyder, Asst. State’s Atty., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was set for oral argument and the appellee filed through his attorney of record a confession of error and consent for the entry of an order reversing the con*374viction of the appellant, Andrew C. Taylor. The court has examined the record and brief. This cause is removed from the argument calendar in accordance with the motion of the appellee. The judgment appealed finding Andrew C. Taylor guilty of contempt and the sentence thereon are reversed with directions to discharge the appellant.
1The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-3047

___________

Martin Robert Czeck, *

 *

Appellant, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * District of Minnesota

United States of America, *

 * (UNPUBLISHED)

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: February 12, 1999 

 Filed: March 29, 1999

___________

Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

Martin Robert Czeck appeals from the final judgment entered in the District

Court1 for the District of Minnesota denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, in which

Czeck argued that the admission of his prior-felony-conviction record substantially

prejudiced his criminal trial. Upon careful review of the record and the parties’ briefs,

we conclude the denial was proper because any error in admitting the conviction
-2-

record was harmless given the ample evidence of guilt. Accordingly, we affirm. See

8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Hugh S. TEN EYCK, Appellant, v. CAPTAIN’S TABLE OF EVERGLADES CITY, INC., et al., Appellees.

No. 72-247.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 20, 1972.

C. Parkhill Mays, Jr., Hume F. Coleman, of Holland & Knight, Lakeland, for appellant.

Friedman, Britton & Stettin, Miami, for •David Hughes, Trustee in Bankruptcy; and Scott P. Crampton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Meyer Rothwacks, Crombie J. D. Garrett, and Michael Andolina, Attys., Tax Div., Washington, D. C. for appellee United States of America; Martin Yelen, of Yelen & Yelen, Coral Gables, for appellee Baring Industries, Inc.; Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Daniel W. Meserve and Harold Purnell, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tallahassee, for Dept, of Revenue, State of Florida.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal concerns whether or not appellant had a valid security interest in personal property located on the premises subject to a mortgage. From an examination of the record, it is clear that there never was a valid security interest obtained. None was signed and from the testimony none was intended.

No error having been made to appear, the judgment is therefore affirmed.

PIERCE, C. J., and LILES and MANN, JJ., concur.