alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 11026.

#### The Cincinnati Traction Co. *v.*Nellis.

Decided December 21, 1909.

Error to Superior Court of Cincinnati.

*Messrs. Kinkead, Rogers & Ellis,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Guido Gores; Mr. Charles. M. Cist; Mr. A. W. Goldsmith*and *Messrs. Colston, Goldsmith & Hoadly,*for defendant in error.

Judgment reversed.

Grounds stated in journal entry.

This court is of opinion that the trial court committed error in giving in charge to the jury plaintiff’s request No. 8, to be found on page 246 of the printed record.

*536The court is further of opinion that while the general 'charge to the jury appears to be a clear statement of the law applicable to the case, yet much of the substance of plaintiff’s requests numbered 1, 3, 5 and 7 are repeated in the general charge, a practice which tends to give undue importance to those features, and is open to objection, especially in a case where the sympathies of the triers are naturally with the'injured party.

It is therefore considered and adjudged that the judgment of the superior court in general term be reversed for affirming the judgment of the said court at special term; that the judgment of the superior court at special term be reversed and the case be remanded to that court for further proceedings according to law.

Crew, C. J., Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.
fails to demonstrate that his plea was involuntarily or unknowingly 

entered. See Hargrove v. State, 100 Nev. 498, 502-03, 686 P.2d 222, 225 

(1984) (explaining that bare and naked claims are insufficient to 

demonstrate that a petitioner is entitled to relief). Therefore, we conclude 

that the district court did not err in denying this claim. 

Second, Martinez claimed that his due process rights were 

violated when the district court failed to adequately advise him of the 

consequences of his plea. Martinez fails to identify any consequences for 

which he was inadequately advised, and his bare and naked claim fails to 

demonstrate that his guilty plea was involuntarily or unknowingly 

entered. See id. Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err 

in denying this claim. 

Third, Martinez claimed that his due process rights were 

violated when his appellate counsel failed to provide him with his case file. 

This claim was outside the scope permissible in a postconviction petition 

challenging a guilty plea because the claim did not challenge the 

voluntariness of the guilty plea or the effective assistance of counsel in 

relation to the plea. See NRS 34.810(1)(a). Furthermore, this claim is 

belied by the record, as appellate counsel certified that he had provided 

Martinez with all of the documents in his possession. Therefore, we 

conclude that the district court did not err in denying this claim. 

Fourth, Martinez claimed that his due process rights were 

violated when the prosecutor improperly sought habitual criminal 

adjudication. This claim was outside the scope permissible in a 

postconviction petition challenging a guilty plea. See id. Therefore, we 

conclude that the district court did not err in denying this claim. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 194Th e 

2 
Finally, Martinez claimed that he was denied due process and 

the effective assistance of counsel due to multiple errors that occurred 

before and during sentencing. He identifies no such errors but instead 

relies on his claim that his appellate counsel failed to provide him with his 

case file. Because Martinez alleged no facts that would demonstrate that 

his plea was invalid, we conclude that the district court did not err in 

denying this claim. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

, C.J. 

Hardesty 

J. 

Douglas 

cc: Hon. Douglas Smith, District Judge 

Daniel Martinez 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

3 

(0) 1947A
* 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. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 97-50775 Summary Calendar

_____________________ MARGARET COLE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus
KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

(SA-96-CV-1164)

_________________________________________________________________ July 7, 1998 Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Margaret Cole appeals the judgment affirming the decision of

the Commissioner of Social Security denying her claim for Supplemental Security Income. She contends that the Commissioner failed to apply the correct legal standards and that his decision was not supported by substantial evidence.

The Commissioner’s decision reflects that the Commissioner applied the proper legal standards in denying benefits to Cole.- 2 -

Se e 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (1995); L eggett v. Chater , 67 F.3d 558,

563 n.2 (5th Cir. 1995). Further, a review of the record reflects substantial evidence supporting the Commissioner’s decision. See Ripley v. Chater , 67 F.3d 552, 555 (5th Cir. 1995). Based on our
review of the record and the br iefs of the parties, we find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we A FFIRM the judgment for
essentially the reasons stated by the district court. S ee Cole v.
Callahan , No. SA-96-CA-1164 (W.D. Tex. July 24, 1997).

AFFIRMED
#### Linwood CABOT, as Trustee, Byron F. Snyder and S. P. Snyder & Son, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellants, v. BANKERS LIFE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, an Illinois corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, Appellee.

No. 79.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Feb. 10, 1967.

B. F. Paty, Jr., of Paty, Downey, Lewis & Daves, West Palm Beach, for appellants.

William A. Lord, of Winters, Brackett, Lord & Potter, West Palm Beach; Lloyd Herold, Lake Park, and Guy E. Ward, Beverly Hills, Cal., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Linwood Cabot, as Trustee, et al., defendants, appeal a final decree requiring them to specifically perform a contract by conveying title to real property to the *41plaintiff, Bankers Life and Casualty Company.

The court has carefully considered the record on appeal, the briefs and oral argument of the counsel for the parties. From such consideration we find the trial court properly entered the final decree.

Affirmed.

WALDEN. C. J., ANDREWS, J., and SAMPLE, WALLACE, Associate Judge, concur.
EXHIBIT 11.2
CPI CORP. COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE--BASIC FISCAL YEARS ENDED
   FEBRUARY 2, 2002, FEBRUARY 3, 2001
AND FEBRUARY 5, 2000 (in thousands except per share amounts)
						2001	        2000	  1999
					   ---------	---------	---------
Common shares outstanding
 at beginning of fiscal period     17,886         17,791      17,730
Shares issued during
 the period - weighted average        195             37          50
Less:  Treasury stock -
weighted average                  (10,240)        (9,967)     (8,111)
					   ---------	---------	---------
Weighted average number
 of common and common
equivalent shares                   7,841          7,861       9,669
					   =========	=========	=========
Net earnings (loss)
 applicable to common shares:
	From continuing operations $  6,152	      $ 15,064	$  3,197
	From discontinued
	 operations		                -	        (4,110)	  (6,429)
					   ---------	---------	---------
	Net earnings (loss)	   $  6,152	      $ 10,954	$ (3,232)
					   =========	=========	=========
Earnings (loss) per common
 share:
	From continuing operations $   0.78	      $   1.92	$   0.33
	From discontinued
	 operations		                -	         (0.53)	   (0.66)
					   ---------	---------	---------
      Net earnings (loss)	   $   0.78	      $   1.39	$  (0.33)
					   =========	=========	=========
**EXHIBIT 10.5****Cash Bonus Plan for****Executive Officers of****Qualstar Corporation****For the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2006**     Executive Officers of Qualstar Corporation are entitled toreceive cash bonuses if the Company achieves stated levels ofconsolidated revenue and pre-tax profits for the fiscal yearending June 30, 2006, excluding the effects ofacquisitions, if any, made during the fiscal year. TheCompany’s Board of Directors reserves the right to modifythis bonus plan from time to time, if appropriate, in the eventof extraordinary circumstances.     For all executive officers other than the Vice President ofSales, the potential cash bonuses will be as follows:(1) from 0% of base salary if consolidated revenue is lessthan $25 million for the fiscal year ending June 30,2006, to a maximum of 20% of base salary if consolidated revenueis more than $50 million for the fiscal year endingJune 30, 2006; plus (2) an additional bonus rangingfrom 0% of base salary if the Company is not profitable for thefiscal year ending June 30, 2006, to a maximum of 20% ofbase salary if consolidated pre-tax profits are more than 19% ofconsolidated revenue for the fiscal year ending June 30,2006. Bonuses will be paid during the first fiscal quarterfollowing completion of the fiscal year based on the actualrevenue and pre-tax profit levels achieved for that year andprovided that the executive is still employed by the Company asof the date of payment.     For the Vice President of Sales, the potential cash bonuses willbe as follows: (1) from $3,000 if consolidated revenue,excluding revenue from sales of power supplies, is$21 million, to a maximum of $100,000 if consolidatedrevenue, excluding revenue from sales of power supplies, is morethan $39 million; plus (2) an additional bonus rangingfrom 0% of base salary if consolidated pre-tax profits,including profits from sales of power supplies, are less than 5%of consolidated revenue for the fiscal year ending June 30,2006, to a maximum of 15% of base salary if consolidated pre-taxprofits, including profits from sales of power supplies, aremore than 19% of consolidated revenue for the fiscal year endingJune 30, 2006. His bonus will be computed quarterly basedon an estimate of full year revenues and pre-tax profits andpaid during the following quarter provided that he is stillemployed by the Company as of the date of payment. Aftercompletion of the fiscal year, his bonus will be calculatedbased on the actual revenue and pre-tax profit levels achievedfor that year, and any adjustments to the estimated bonuspayments will be made at that time.
Document

EXHIBIT 10.2 
Amendment to Executive Change of Control Agreement


WHEREAS, Ellen Johnson (the “Executive”) and The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. (“Interpublic,” Interpublic and its subsidiaries being referred to herein as the “Company”) are parties to an Executive Change of Control Agreement dated as of May 27, 2010, as amended (the “Agreement”); 


WHEREAS, Section 5.1 of the Agreement states that the Agreement will expire as of September 30, 2022; 


WHEREAS, the Executive and the Company wish to extend the Agreement and make an administrative update; and


NOW, THEREFORE, the Agreement is hereby amended, effective immediately, as follows:


1.Incorporation by Reference. All provisions of the Agreement are hereby incorporated herein by reference and shall remain in full force and effect except to the extent that such provisions are expressly modified by the provisions of this Amendment. Words and phrases used in this Amendment shall have the meaning set forth in the Agreement unless the context clearly indicates that a different meaning is intended.


2.Extension. Section 5.1(a)(i) of the Agreement is amended by replacing “September 30, 2022” with “October 31, 2025”.


3.Notices.  Section 5.9 of the Agreement is amended by replacing “, 1114 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10036, Attention:” with “at the then current address for Interpublic headquarters with Attention to the”.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Interpublic, by its duly authorized officer, and Executive have caused this Amendment to the Agreement to be executed.


									
	The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc.
		Executive
	By: /s/ Andrew Bonzani
		By: /s/ Ellen Johnson

	Andrew Bonzani		Ellen Johnson
	EVP, General Counsel		
	Date: October 26, 2022
		Date: October 26, 2022
260 La. 1117

#### TEXAS EASTERN TRANSMISSION CORPORATION v. Claude CAHANIN et al.

No. 52155.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 3, 1972.

In re: Amatile Lacombe, et al. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Acadia. 256 So.2d 147.

Application denied. For the purpose of our review we do not treat the judgment as being final. All rights reserved.

TATE, J.,

concurs in denial. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is final as to the issues adjudicated, as to which there is no error; The Per Curiam properly notes also that as to issues not decided and the allocation of costs, review is available after the trial court determination.

DIXON, J., concurs in the denial.
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases 2010 Census
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB11-CN.56 **Contact:**  Public Information Office
301-763-3030
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  MONDAY, FEB. 28, 2011 Media Advisory — Census Bureau Ships Local 2010 Census Data to Nebraska http://www2.census.gov/census_2010/01-Redistricting_File--PL_94-171/ http://factfinder2.census.gov The data will include summaries of population totals, as well as data on race, Hispanic origin and voting age for multiple geographies within the state, such as census blocks, tracts, voting districts, cities, counties and school districts. According to Public Law 94-171, the Census Bureau must provide redistricting data to the 50 states no later than April 1 of the year following the census. As a result, the Census Bureau is delivering the data state-by-state on a flow basis in February and March. All states will receive their data by April 1, 2011.
  https://www.census.gov/rdo http://2010.census.gov/news/press-kits/redistricting.html Please visit <http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/> for an interactive map showcasing county-level population change from 1960 to 2010, as well as state-level data on race and Hispanic or Latino origin for 2010. The widget will be updated as states are released and can be embedded on your website. Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, Flickr and YouTube (/uscensusbureau).
  CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
#### Anne C. ROBINSON, a/k/a Anna K. Robinson, Anne K. Robinson and Anna Mulligan Robinson, Appellant, v. Lillian H. ROBINSON, as Administratrix of the Estate of Francis J. Robinson, deceased, Appellee.

No. 70-226.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 6, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Order filed January 05, 2022

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

 

 

 

NO. 14-21-00709-CV

IN THE MATTER OF K.P., Appellant

On Appeal from the 315th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2019-02799J

O R D E R

The clerk’s record was filed December 10, 2021. Our review has determined

that a relevant item has been omitted from the clerk's record. See Tex. R. App. P.

34.5(c). The record does not contain the order signed on November 4, 2021, which

commits appellant, K.P., to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to complete

the remainder of his sentence.

The Harris County District Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s

record on or before January 18, 2022, containing the order signed on November 4,

2021, which commits appellant, K.P., to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice

to complete the remainder of his sentence.
If the omitted item is not part of the case file, the district clerk is directed to

file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certified statement that the omitted

item is not a part of the case file.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, Poissant.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed April 19, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-258

Lower Tribunal No. 21-12068 SP

________________

United Automobile Insurance Company,

Appellant,

vs.

Path Medical, LLC, a/a/o Cesar Silva,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Luis PerezMedina, Judge.

Michael J. Neimand, for appellant.

Flaxman Law Group, and Charles Flaxman (Hollywood), for appellee.

Before EMAS, SCALES and HENDON, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Affirmed. See Travieso v. Travieso, 474 So. 2d 1184, 1186 (Fla. 1985) 

(“We hold that pursuant to section 92.231, expert witness fees, at the 

discretion of the trial court, may be taxed as costs for a lawyer who testifies 

as an expert as to reasonable attorney's fees”); United Auto. Ins. Co. v. 

Feijoo, 356 So. 3d 304 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023); Bystrom v. Florida Rock Ind., 

Inc., 513 So. 2d 742, 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (reaffirming that “a trial judge 

has discretion to determine reasonable expert witness fees and tax these 

fees as costs”). See also Albanese Popkin Hughes Cove, Inc. v. Scharlin, 

141 So. 3d 743, 745 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“A trial court's award of costs is 

reviewed by appellate courts for an abuse of discretion.”)
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Sara Lee Corporation (the Company) for the fiscal year ended June 28, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Brenda C. Barnes, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|Dated: August 27, 2008              
|                                    
|/s/ Brenda C. Barnes,               
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
#### Porter W. HOMER, as County Manager, Tax Assessor and Tax Collector of Dade County, Florida, et al., Appellants, v. PALM CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 70-469.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 9, 1971.

Thomas C. Britton, County Atty., and Gary S. Brooks, Asst. County Atty., for appellants.

Pallot, Silver, Pallot, Stern, Proby & Adkins, Miami, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, BARK-DULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The Dade County taxing authorities appeal from an adverse final judgment which reduced the tax assessment on real property from $1,337,990 to $925,000.

In reducing the assessment the trial judge found that the method used by the appraiser for the property owners was a “more logical and fast method” than the one used by the county tax assessor.

Assessments made by a tax assessor are prima facie correct and such assessments must be overcome by appropriate and sufficient allegations and proof which exclude every reasonable hypothesis of a legal assessment. Homer v. Dadeland Shopping Center, Inc., Fla.1970, 229 So.2d 834. The fact that a method used by the appraiser for the property owner was “more logical and fast” than the method *642used by the county tax assessor does not satisfy the requirement that the assessment must be overcome by sufficient proof to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of a legal assessment. See Keith Investments, Inc. v. James, Fla.App.1969, 220 So.2d 695. The final judgment reducing the tax assessment is, therefore, reversed.

Having determined that reversal is warranted on one of the points raised by the appellant taxing authorities there is no reason to discuss the other points argued by it for reversal. The final judgment is reversed and remanded with instructions to the trial court to reinstate the assessment used by the Dade County Tax Assessor.

It is so ordered.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN RE: R.C.A., JR.

PETITION OF: R.C.A., JR.

:

:

:

:

:

No. 114 MAL 2024

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 24th day of July, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
EXHIBIT 31.1
       (a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;(b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;(c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures, and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and(d)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: August 6, 2010
    /s/ PETER J. UNGAROPeter J. UngaroPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) 37
# Hist_tab15
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, March 12, 2018.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, March 12, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A18D0336. PAULINE C. COUNCIL v. JAMES F. COUNCIL, JR..

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2017CVD842
#### CARIB CORPORATION v. MAIN LINE RECORD SERVICE, DIVISION OF MAIN LINE CLEVELAND, Ohio, et al.

No. 38633.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 221 So.2d 467.