alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BAY LINCOLN-MERCURY-DODGE, INC., Appellant, v. TRANSOUTH MORTGAGE CORPORATION OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

No. 87-2071.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 4, 1988.

Julie K. Hilton, of Hilton, Hilton, Kolk & Laing, P.A., Panama City, for appellant.

Russell R. Stewart, Panama City, for ap-pellee.

JOANOS, Judge.

Bay Lincoln-Mercury-Dodge, Inc. (BLMD) appeals the final judgment awarding damages and attorney’s fees to Tran-south Mortgage Corporation of Florida (Transouth). The issues raised concern (1) the trial court’s interpretation of a general clause in the assignment provisions of a retail installment contract, and (2) the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees to Tran-south, the prevailing party in the suit on the repurchase agreement. We affirm the trial court’s ruling with respect to the first issue, and reverse with respect to the second issue.

Under established principles of contract construction, attorney’s fee provisions must be strictly construed, and each claim which purportedly gives rise to a fee should be assessed individually. *Keys Lobster v. Ocean Divers,*468 So.2d 360, 363 (Fla. 3d DCA), *review denied,*480 So.2d 1295 (Fla.1985). *See also Salisbury v. Spiekogel,*451 So.2d 974, 975 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). In *Bowman v. Kingsland De*
      *1028
      *velopment, Inc.,*432 So.2d 660, 664 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), the court noted:

> The right to attorney’s fees under any contractual provision is limited by the terms of such provision. Attorney’s fees are not necessarily recoverable as to any and all litigation relating to a contract that provides for attorney’s fees.

The contract in this case provides for attorney’s fees in two separate instances. Attorney’s fees are recoverable by Tran-south from the buyer, in the event it incurs attorney’s fees due to the buyer’s default. Attorney’s fees are also recoverable by Transouth under the assignment portion of the contract, in the event Transouth suffered any loss by virtue of a claim the buyer could legitimately raise against the seller which shifted to Transouth as assign-ee. However, there is no provision for attorney’s fees under the repurchase portion of the contract. Therefore, in awarding an attorney’s fee to Transouth in this instance, the trial court apparently extended the attorney’s fee provision of the retail installment portion of the contract to provide an attorney’s fee under the assignment-repurchase portion of the contract. Since the repurchase agreement does not include a provision for attorney’s fees, the trial court’s application of the retail installment attorney’s fee provision to the seller’s repurchase obligation was improper.

Accordingly, the award of attorney’s fees to Transouth is reversed. In all other respects, the final judgment appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

WIGGINTON and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
#### MILTON CARPENTER INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Appellant, v. Francisco MERCADO and Gloria Mercado, his wife, and Paul Kornya, Appellees.

No. 4-86-0483.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 14, 1987.

Larry Klein and Julie Pressly of Klein & Beranek, P.A., and Albury *&*Heuer, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

David C. Wiitala of Ingalsbe, McManus, Wiitala & Contóle, P.A., North Palm Beach, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

We treat this as a petition for writ of certiorari and it is hereby denied.

LETTS and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

GLICKSTEIN, J., concurs specially with opinion.

GLICKSTEIN, Judge,

concurring specialty-

I write to explain what we have done. This proceeding began as a non-final appeal by the defendant from a “[p]artial summary judgment determining liability in favor of a party seeking affirmative relief.” The trial court said:

> This holding is limited to a determination that the corporate defendant is legally *352liable to Plaintiffs for such acts of its officer, PAUL KORNYA, as are alleged in Counts IV, VI, VIII and IX, if a jury should determine that KORNYA in fact committed these acts.

Appellant’s sole point on appeal was as follows:

> An insurance agency whose officer-employee embezzles a premium, unbeknownst to the agency, is not liable for punitive damages or other penalties, because the act was outside the scope of employment.

We have concluded as the majority has indicated.
#### Ingrid WETJEN, Appellant, v. SARASOTA COUNTY PUBLIC HOSPITAL BOARD, Appellee.

No. 86-2567.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 1, 1987.

Robert J. Elkins, Sarasota, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

DANAHY, Chief Judge.

The appellant appeals a final judgment against her and her husband for medical expenses due the appellee for medical ser*98vices rendered to the appellant’s husband. We reverse.

At the time the expenses were incurred, the appellant refused to sign a guarantee of payment making her personally responsible to the appellee for her husband’s bills. Nevertheless, the appellee sued both the appellant and her husband for the outstanding balance due it. The trial judge ruled that both the appellant and her husband were responsible for the debt due the appellee based on the decision of this court in *Manatee Convalescent Center, Inc. v. McDonald,*392 So.2d 1356 (Fla.2d DCA 1980).

Following the appellant’s filing of her notice of appeal in this court, the Florida Supreme Court issued its opinion in *Shands Teaching Hospital & Clinics, Inc. v. Smith,*497 So.2d 644 (Fla.1986). In that case, the supreme court disapproved our decision in *Manatee Convalescent Center*and affirmed the holding of the First District Court of Appeal in that case that a wife was not responsible for the unpaid balance of her husband’s hospital bill in the absence of an agreement in writing by her to pay for services provided her husband.

Accordingly, we reverse on the authority of the supreme court’s decision in *Shands Teaching Hospital.*

SCHOONOVER and SANDERLIN, JJ., concur.
CERTIFICATIONS
        OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 UNDER
        SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  In
        connection with the filing by Lixte Biotechnology Holdings, Inc. (the
“Registrant”) of its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
        ended September 30, 2008 (the “Quarterly Report”) with the Securities and
        Exchange Commission, I, John S. Kovach, 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
        Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
        respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
        Registrant.
  A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to
        the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the
        Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
  Date:
                  November 12, 2008
              By:
              /s/
                  JOHN S. KOVACHJohn
                  S. KovachChief
                  Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer(Principal
                  Executive Officer and Principal Financial
                  Officer)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-40713

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JESUS EDUARDO ESPRIELLA-VERA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:19-CR-235-1

Before CLEMENT, GRAVES, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jesus Eduardo 

Espriella-Vera has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Espriella-Vera has not filed a response. 

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 17, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-40713 Document: 00515348572 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/17/2020
No. 19-40713

2

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 19-40713 Document: 00515348572 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/17/2020
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Humphreys and Senior Judge Overton 

EL PASO COAL CORPORATION/ 

 COASTAL COAL COMPANY, LLC AND 

 UNDERWRITERS SAFETY & CLAIMS 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* 

v. Record No. 0235-04-3 PER CURIAM 

 JUNE 15, 2004 

DONALD L. CLARK, SR. 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (John A. Martin; Kari Lou Frank; PennStuart, on briefs), for 

appellants. 

 (D. Allison Mullins; Lee & Phipps, P.C., on brief), for appellee. 

 El Paso Coal Corporation/Coastal Coal Company, LLC and Underwriters Safety & 

Claims (hereinafter referred to as “employer”) appeal a decision of the Workers’ Compensation 

Commission awarding benefits to Donald L. Clark, Sr. for permanent partial disability pursuant 

to Code § 65.2-504. Employer contends the commission violated its procedural due process 

rights by awarding benefits to Clark for coal worker’s pneumoconiosis based on interpretations 

of an x-ray taken of his chest on July 31, 2003 at the National Institute for Occupational Safety 

& Health (NIOSH), where the original of that x-ray was unavailable to employer. 

 We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find no reversible error. 

We specifically note that the record neither indicates that employer ever requested that the 

original NIOSH x-ray be made available to the three physicians, who were B readers engaged by 

employer, for examination at ALOSH as provided under 42 C.F.R. § 37.80 (2003), nor 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 
 - 2 - 

establishes that the B readers engaged by employer were ever actually denied access to the 

original x-ray. Accordingly, we affirm the commission’s finding that Moore proved by a 

preponderance of the evidence that he suffered Stage 3 coal worker’s pneumoconiosis, see Clark 

v. El Paso Coal, VWC File No. 212-63-00 (Dec. 31, 2003), and we also affirm the commission’s 

denial of the employer’s motion for reconsideration. We dispense with oral argument and 

summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code 

§ 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

Affirmed.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-19-00290-CR

Frank Anthony CASTILLO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR3014

Honorable Steve Hilbig, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

SIGNED June 5, 2019.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Stock Purchase/Option Plan Amendment


    Exhibit
      10(b)

    


    AMENDMENT
      NUMBER FIVE TO THE WALGREEN CO. STOCK PURCHASE/OPTION PLAN (Share
      Walgreens)

    


    


    Effective
      October 11, 2006, Section 4.3 of the Plan is amended in its entirety to read
      as
      follows:

    


    "4.3 Changes
      in Capitalization.
      In the
      event of any change (increase or decrease) in the outstanding shares of the
      Company by reason of a stock dividend, recapitalization, merger, consolidation,
      stock split, split up, spin off, combination or exchange of shares,
      reorganization, liquidation, or other change in corporate capitalization, the
      aggregate number and class of Shares that may be purchased or delivered under
      this Plan, the number, class and/or price of outstanding Plan Shares, the number
      and class of Shares subject to each outstanding Option, and the Option prices
      shall be appropriately and proportionately adjusted by the Committee to prevent
      dilution or enlargement of rights and preserve the value of outstanding awards;
      provided that fractional Shares shall be rounded to the nearest whole Share.
      The
      Committee’s determination shall be final and
      conclusive."
Wednesday 24th 

 July, 1996. 

American Furniture Company, Inc., Appellant, 

 against Record No. 0605-95-3 

 Claim No. 167-22-61 

Patricia M. Foster, Appellee. 

Upon a Rehearing 

Before Judges Benton, Willis and Bray 

It appears to the Court that the decisions of the Supreme 

Court of Virginia in the cases of The Steinrich Group, et al. v. 

Claudia H. Jemmott, Record No. 950829, Perdue Farms, Inc. v. Linda Kay 

Martin, Record No. 951050, and Wampler-Longacre Chicken, Inc., et al., 

Record No. 951072 (March 1, 1996), control the instant case and that, 

thus, the award appealed from is erroneous. 

Accordingly, the opinion previously rendered on February 27, 

1996 is withdrawn, the award of the Virginia Workers' Compensation 

Commission is reversed and the claim is dismissed. 

This order shall be certified to the Virginia Workers' 

Compensation Commission. 

 A Copy, 

 Teste: 

 Clerk
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT KEITH JUDD; e t a l., Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts, v. B AR AC K OB A M A, in his c a

pa c ity a s a c andida t e on the ba llot for the US Pre side nt in 2012 e le c tion; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-57177 D.C . No. 8:12-c v-01888-DOC -AN M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Dav id O. C arte r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 13, 2014 ** B e fore : SC HR O EDER , THOM AS, and HUR W ITZ, C i rc uit Judge s . Appe lla nts a ppe a l from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r striking the ir c om p l a int a nd te rm inating the ir a c tion a lle ging fra u d in the2012 pre side ntia l e le c t ion. W e have



# F IL ED AUG 20 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w for an a buse of disc re tion. Ghazali v . Moran , 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th C ir. 1995) (pe r c uriam ). W e a ffirm . Afte r c are ful e xam ination of there c ord, we c o nc l ude tha t the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion. W e re j e c t a s m e ritle s s a

ppe l la nts’ c onte ntions of judic ia l bia s a

nd tha t the distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l viola te d the ir c onstitutiona

l rights. AFFIRM E D.

2 1 2 - 5 7 1 7 7
P. 1


# OAR Box 1147 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 130 ) IV-E- 3 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 4/22/2008 2:42:54

PM Sheet 130 of 242^ t0$r %

%«** ? P. 2

\ UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y \ ^\@-J

AN N ARBOR . MICHIGA N 4810 5 4* mfTa 

### SE P 

### I I !98 7 OFFIC E O F AI R AN D RADIATIO N

MEMORANDU

M SUBJECT : Telephon e conversatio n wit h Husk y Regarding In-Us e Dispensing Rat e Limi t Corporatio n
FROM : TO : THRU : Kathlee n A . Steilen , Chemica l Enginee r ^cctA/k ^ 0.. JfejdLisv^

Standard s Developmen t an d Suppor t Branc h Th e Recor d Glen n W . Passavant , Senio r Projec t Manage r JjLb*^^ ( '- u< * / **J\ Standard s Developmen t an d Sflppo i Branc h Cheste r J . France , Chie f M Standard s Developmen t aiyoiSu p O n Augus t 20 , 1987 , I participate d i n a telephon e conversatio n wit h Grenvill e Sutcliffe , Presiden t o f Husk y Corporation , regarding in-us e dispensing rat e limits . H e ha d reviewe d EPA' s technica l report , "Investigatio n o f th e Nee d fo r In-us e Dispensing Rat e Limit s an d Fue l Nozzl e Geometry Standardization " an d ha d a fewcomments . First , h e wante d t o clarif ytha t Husk yCorporatio n i s th e larges t fue l nozzl e manufacture r whe n considering bot h ne wan d rebuil t nozzles . Second , h

e expresse d a strong suppor t fo r the IS O nozzl e geometr ystandard s whic h wer e discusse d i n the report . Finally , he informe d m e tha t Husk

yfue l nozzle s currentl yhav e a flo wregulato r incorporate d i n the nozzl e design t o limi t the in-us e dispensing rat e t o 1 0 gpm . Thi s flowregulato r decrease s prematur e shut-off s an d fue l spitbac k fromth e nozzle . i n addition , h e sai d h

e woul d sen

d me a videotap e whic h discusse s flo wregulator s i n fue l nozzle s an d the effect s theyhav e o n spra ypattern s an

d potentia l spillag e fro m nozzles . H e sai d tha t Husk yCorporatio n coul d suppl ya copyo f thi s videotap e t o th e onboar d docket . (O n Augus t 31 , 1987 , I calle d Husk

yCorporatio n t o as k tha t the ysen d a cop

yo f thi s videotap e t o the docke t wit h a cove r lette r highlightin g it s majo r points. ) Furthermore , Mr . Sutcliff e sai d tha t Husk y woul d be sending a memorandu maddressing thes e an d othe r relate d comment s regarding EPA' s onboar d refueling contro l proposa l t o the docket . cc : Docke t A-87-1 1
#### Augustine B. LEMOINE and Joseph Lemoine v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA et al.

No. 86-C-2209.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 12, 1986.

In re Lemoine, Augustine B.; Lemoine, Joseph; applying for writ of certiorari *200and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 85-933; Parish of Avoyelles, 12th Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 83-4560.

Prior report: La.App., 499 So.2d 1004.

Denied.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DAVID JONES AND LINDA JONES,

Appellant s

,

v.

TRANSPECOS BANK,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 14

- 00217

- CV

Appeal from

143rd District Court

of Reeves County, Texas

(TC # 13

- 10

- 20505

- CVR )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court to determine whether it should be dismissed for want of

prosecution. Finding that the Appellant s ’ brief has not been filed, we dismiss the appeal for want

of prosecution.

Appellants’ brief was due to be filed on December 1, 2014. O n December 8 , 2014 , the

Clerk notified Appellant s that their brief was past due and no motion for extension of time had

been filed. The letter advised Appellant s that the Court intended to dismiss the appeal for want

of prosecution unless Appella nt s responded within ten days and showed grounds for continuing

the appeal. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 38.8(a)(1). Neither the brief nor a motion for extension of time in

which to file the brief has been filed. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of

prosecution.

March 1 9 , 2015

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
Casie Walker

Burnet County District Clerk

1701 East Polk Street, Suite 90

Burnet, Texas 78611-2757

Phone (512) 756-5450

August 18, 2015

Court of Appeals - Third District of Texas

via email - 3rdclerksandreporters@txcourts.gov

Re: Court of Appeals Number: 03-15-00298-CR

Trail Court Case Number: 41100

Style: The State of Texas

vs.

James Bradley Warden

This letter is to request an extension of thirty (30) days to file the Clerk’s record in the 

above-referenced cause. 

Sincerely,

Casie Walker

District Clerk
#### LOUISIANA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, v. Maurice D. ROBINSON, Jr., Respondent.

No. 87-B-2516.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 17, 1987.

ORDER

PREMISES CONSIDERED,

IT IS ORDERED that Maurice D. Robinson, Jr. be allowed to surrender his license to practice law in Louisiana, pursuant to *360Article XV, Section 11, of the Articles of Incorporation of the Louisiana State Bar Association and that same be cancelled and revoked and that the name of Maurice D. Robinson, Jr. be stricken from the roll of attorneys authorized to practice law in Louisiana, thus being disbarred on his own consent. Costs of these proceedings are assessed against Maurice D. Robinson, Jr.
M A N D A T E

TO THE 404TH DISTRICT COURT of CAMERON COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 23rd day of July,

2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Eleazar Vasquez, Appellant,

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13-14-00277-CV (Tr.Ct.No. 03-CR-1173-G)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed in part and reversed

and remanded in part. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED IN

PART and REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART. Costs of the appeal are adjudged

twenty-five percent against appellant although he is exempt from payment due to his

affidavit of inability to pay costs and seventy-five percent against appellee and it is

ordered to pay its costs of the appeal from which it is not exempt by statute.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

      

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 6th day of October, 2015.

Dorian E. Ramirez, CLERK

FILE COPY
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Rodolfo SALAS MARTINEZ.

No. 88-K-0537.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 13, 1988.

In re Martinez, Rodolfo Salas; applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus and pro*1048hibition; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CR87-0239; Parish of Natchitoch-es, 10th Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 86-3522.

Prior report: La.App., 524 So.2d 871.

Denied.
**Exhibit 21.1**

 

**Subsidiaries of the Registrant**

 

Equilease Financial Services, Inc. 

RadiantSystems Central Europe, Inc. 

Radiant Systems, International, Inc. 

Estorelink.Com, Inc. 

RetailEnterprise, LLC 

RadiantEnterprise Software LLC 

Radiant Systems Asia-Pacific Pty Ltd. 

Radiant Systems Retail Solutions Pte Ltd. 

Radiant Systems s.r.o. 

Radiant Systems Retail Solutions, S.L. 

Radiant Systems UK Limited 

Radiant Enterprises Systems, Inc. 

Radiant Hospitality Systems, Ltd.

RADS Holding Corp.