alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Glen DYER v. CITY OF OAKDALE, Oakdale Municipal Fire & Police Civil Service Board.

No. 89-C-1230.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1989.

In re Dyer, Glen; — Plaintiff(s); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA88-0056; Parish of Allen, 33rd Judicial District Court, No. 86-155.

Prior report: La.App., 542 So.2d 1138.

Denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

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

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

May 23, 2017

p0522 

# Order

Clerk May 23, 2017

155433 & (13)(14)(15)(19)(20)(23)

(30)(34)(37)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 155433

COA: 336184

Kalamazoo CC: 2015

- 000503

- FH

LANCE ADAM GOLDMAN,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motions for immediate consideration, the motion to add

new issues, and the m otion for leave to supplement are GRANTED. The application for

leave to appeal the February 10, 2017 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it

is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be

reviewed by this Court. The motion to expand the record and remaining motions for

miscellaneous relief are DENIED.
50183.

#### REGISTER v. KANDLBINDER.

Quillian, Judge.

Appeal in this case was taken from the final order of the court awarding child support to the plaintiff, pursuant to the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act. Code Ann. Ch. 99-9A (Ga. L. 1958, p. 34 et seq.). Defendant enumerates as error the dismissing of his counterclaim against the plaintiff in which child custody was sought. *Held:*

Code Ann. § 99-928a (Ga. L. 1958, pp. 34, 45) provides: "Participation in any proceedings under this Chapter shall not confer upon any court jurisdiction of any of the parties thereto in any other proceeding.”

The defendant contends that this provision is negated by provisions of the Civil Practice Act relating to compulsory counterclaims (CPA § 13; Code Ann. § 81A-113; Ga. L. 1966, pp. 609,625), and service (CPA§ 5; Code Ann. § 81A-105; Ga. L. 1966, pp. 609, 615; 1967, pp. 226,229), as well as the general rule of law exemplified in *Harrison v. Lovett,*198 Ga. 466, 469 (31 SE2d 799), which held: "Where a non-resident voluntarily institutes a suit in this State, he submits himself, for all purposes of that suit, to the jurisdiction of the courts in the county in which the suit is pending.”

None of these general principles of law are controlling in the case sub judice which deals with a specific procedure which expressly limits the jurisdiction of this particular procedure. "The statute [Code Ann. § 99-928a] precludes counterclaims based merely on the theory that the plaintiff, by initiating the procedure on behalf of the named dependents, has submitted to the jurisdiction of the court of the responding state for other purposes.” *Thibadeau v. Thibadeau,*133 Ga. App. 154, *755156 (210 SE2d 340), where this court held that in an action under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act the paragraph of the defendant’s answer seeking to counterclaim for custody should have been stricken. There is ample foreign authority supporting this proposition. Commonwealth v. Posnansky, 232 A2d 73, 75 (Pa.); Commonwealth ex rel. Livesey v. Cummings, 243 A2d 178 (Pa.); Beneventi v. Beneventi, 185 NW2d 219 (Iowa); Buchmann v. Buchmann, 196 NW2d 80 (N. D.).

Submitted February 4, 1975

Decided May 9, 1975.

*Joseph B. Bergen,*for appellant.

*Andrew J. Ryan, Jr., District Attorney,*for appellee.

The trial judge did not err in dismissing the defendant’s counterclaim.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Pannell, P. J., and Clark J., concur.*
III

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 60

Expressing the sense of Congress that a commemorative postage stamp should

be issued in honor of the U.S.S. Wisconsin and all those who served

aboard her.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 15, 1999

Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. KOHL) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Governmental

Affairs

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that a commemorative

postage stamp should be issued in honor of the U.S.S.

Wisconsin and all those who served aboard her.

Whereas the Iowa Class Battleship, the U.S.S. Wisconsin

(BB-64), is an honored warship in United States naval

history, with 6 battle stars and 5 citations and medals

during her 55 years of service;

Whereas the U.S.S. Wisconsin was launched on December 7,

1943, by the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard; sponsored by

Mrs. Walter S. Goodland, wife of then-Governor Goodland of Wisconsin; and commissioned at Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania, on April 16, 1944, with Captain Earl E.

Stone in command;
2

•SCON 60 IS

Whereas her first action for Admiral William ‘‘Bull’’ Halsey’s

Third Fleet was a strike by her task force against the

Japanese facilities in Manila, thereby supporting the amphibious assault on the Island of Mindoro, which was a

vital maneuver in the defeat of the Japanese forces in the

Philippines;

Whereas the U.S.S. Wisconsin joined the Fifth Fleet to provide strategic cover for the assault on Iwo Jima by striking the Tokyo area;

Whereas the U.S.S. Wisconsin supplied crucial firepower for

the invasion of Okinawa;

Whereas the U.S.S. Wisconsin served as a flagship for the

Seventh Fleet during the Korean conflict;

Whereas the U.S.S. Wisconsin provided consistent naval gunfire support during the Korean conflict to the First Marine Division, the First Republic of Korea Corps, and

United Nations forces;

Whereas the U.S.S. Wisconsin received 5 battle stars for

World War II and one for the Korean conflict;

Whereas the U.S.S. Wisconsin returned to combat on January 17, 1991;

Whereas the U.S.S. Wisconsin served as Tomahawk strike

warfare commander for the Persian Gulf, and directed

the sequence of Tomahawk launches that initiated Operation Desert Storm; and

Whereas the U.S.S. Wisconsin, decommissioned on September

30, 1991, is berthed at Portsmouth, Virginia; and may

soon be berthed at Nauticus, the National Maritime Museum in Norfolk, Virginia, where she would serve as a

floating monument and an educational museum: Now,

therefore, be it
3

•SCON 60 IS

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that—

3 (1) a commemorative postage stamp should be

4 issued by the United States Postal Service in honor

5 of the U.S.S. Wisconsin and all those who served

6 aboard her; and

7 (2) the Citizen’s Stamp Advisory Committee

8 should recommend to the Postmaster General that

9 such a postage stamp be issued.

Æ
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23(a)


                             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



Presstek, Inc.
Hudson, New Hampshire


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the respective
Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (Nos. 33-80466, 33-61215, 33-39337,
333-76905 and 333-97897) and on Forms S-3 (Nos. 333-2299 and 33-48342) of
Presstek, Inc. and in the Prospectuses constituting part of such Registration
Statements of our report dated February 13, 2003, except for Note 12, as to
which the date is March 18, 2003, relating to the financial statements and
schedule of Presstek, Inc. appearing in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 28, 2002.

We also consent to the references to us under the caption "Experts" in the
Prospectuses.



BDO SEIDMAN, LLP

New York, New York
March 26, 2003
EXHIBIT 13.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Bonso Electronics International, Inc., a British Virgin Islands international business company (the “Corporation”), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:





The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2011 (the “Form 20-F”) of the Corporation fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.











Date:  September 30, 2011





/s/ Albert So


Albert So


Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Glenn WRIGHT.

No. 89-KK-1532.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1989.

In re Wright, Glenn; — Defendants); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 9-86-*1229506; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. KW89 0750.

Denied.
* 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

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 21, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-20787 Conference Calendar

DARRELL J. HARPER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus CITY OF HOUSTON, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:04-CV-3079

-------------------- Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Darrell J. Harper filed a civil complaint against the City of Houston for $10,000,000, alleging unspecified “racial profiling” and “corruption.” The district court dismissed his complaint because it violated an injunction entered December 23, 2002. Harper has filed a motion in this court seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. Harper’s financial affidavit establishes that he is unable to pay the costs of his appeal without undue hardship orNo. 04-20787 -2- deprivation of life’s necessities. See Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. , 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). However, Harper does not address the reason for the district court’s dismissal of his complaint, and Harper has failed to establish a nonfrivolous ground for appeal. See Carson v. Polley , 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). His IFP motion is DENIED. As the appeal contains no nonfrivolous issues, it is DISMISSED. Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. Harper is warned that any future frivolous filings will subject him to sanctions.
MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
<PAGE>   1




                               Exhibit Number 23.2

                      Consent of Heathcott & Mullaly, P.C.



<PAGE>   2





INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-92824) of Franklin Financial Corporation of our
report dated March 13, 1997, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of
Franklin Financial Corporation for the year ended December 31, 1997.



/s/ Heathcott & Mullaly, P.C.
Brentwood, Tennessee

March 25, 1998
#### COLONIAL PIPELINE COMPANY, Plantation Pipeline Company, Sohio Pipeline Company and Truckline Gas Company v. MISSISSIPPI STATE TAX COMMISSION and Charles A. Marx, Ph.D., Chairman, Mississippi State Tax Commission and Commissioner of Revenue of the State of Mississippi.

No. 92-CC-0748.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 16, 1993.

Shane F. Langston, Langston Frazer Doc-kins & Sweet, Jackson, for appellant.

Bobby R. Long, Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal No. 13714403 from Judgment dated June 30, 1992; Denise Sweet-0 wens, Ruling Judge, Hinds County Chancery Court, First Judicial District.

Before PRATHER, P.J., and PITTMAN and McRAE, JJ.

Affirmed.

BANKS, J., not participating.
----

**Exhibit 32**

**Certification Pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)**

Pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officersof Newport Gold, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), does herebycertify, [to such officer's knowledge], that:

The Form 10-QSB for thethree-month period ended March 31, 2008****(the"Form *10-QSB*") of theCompany fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form *10-QSB* fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| Date: May 20, 2008 | /s/ Derek Bartlett                              |
|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------|
|                    | Derek Bartlett, Chief Executive Officer

  |
|                    |                                                 |
| Date: May 20, 2008 | /s/ John Arnold                                 |
|                    | John Arnold, Chief Financial Officer            |

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by theCompany and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

----
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice: 7830]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                         *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Ecstatic Alphabets/Heaps of Language,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Museum of Modern Art, New York, New York, from on or about May 6, 2012, until on or about August 27, 2012, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

Dated: March 15, 2012.

J. Adam Ereli,

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2012-7044 Filed 3-22-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
#### Victoria GILDRED, Appellant, v. Javier ALVERDE, Appellee.

No. 86-1088.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 30, 1986.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 3, 1987.

Paul, Landy, Beiley & Harper and David S. Garbett and Stanley Beiley, Miami, for appellant.

Rex B. Guthrie, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and DANIEL PEARSON, JJ.

BARKDULL, Judge.

The appellee instituted a suit to collect against the appellant as an accommodation-endorser on a $400,000 note and to recover a $25,000 loan not evidenced by a note. The trial court, after the case was set for trial, on the eve of trial, entered a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff as to both claims, plus awarded attorney’s fees under the note claim. Procedurally we would reverse as to both claims because no notice or motion was made in regard to the summary judgment. *Gold v. El Camino Mortgage Corporation,*491 So.2d 322 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); *Fruhmorgen v. Watson,*490 So.2d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); *Lazar v. Allen,*347 So.2d 457 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Rule 1.510 Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.

*308We would also reverse on the merits as to the claims under the promissory note for $400,000 against the appellant as an accommodation-endorser because it appears from the record that there are two material issues of fact. First, there is a question of agency as to one Stuart Gildred who was listed as a payee on this note. *A.B.G. Investment, Inc. v. Selden,*336 So.2d 444 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); *Vernon v. Yanks,*303 So.2d 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); *Courtesy Financial Services, Inc. v. Hughes,*424 So.2d 1172 (La.Ct.App.1982); *Dobbs-Maynard Company, Inc. v. Jumper,*388 So.2d 879 (Miss.1980); *cf. Alarcan v. Ferrari,*490 So.2d 1047 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Second, there is an issue of material fact as to who was being accommodated when the appellant fixed her name to the note subsequent to the maker’s death, subsequent to the maturity of the note, and admittedly at the request of the plaintiff. *Dobrow v. Bryant,*427 So.2d 809 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); *Gehrig v. Ray,*332 So.2d 703 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).

Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the summary judgment and attorney’s fees and costs awarded on the claim under the $400,000 note are reversed. We do not reverse the final summary judgment for $25,000, as any objection to this ruling has been waived in this court and this portion of the final summary judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
50367.

#### JACOBS v. THE STATE.

Submitted March 11, 1975

Decided April 8, 1975.

*William L. Kirby, II,*for appellant.

*E. Mullins Whisnant, District Attorney, Douglas C.*
      *528
      *Pullen, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

*527Pannell, Presiding Judge.

The defendant was convicted of a charge of aggravated assault and sentenced to 10 years in the penitentiary. His motion for new trial was overruled and he entered his appeal to this court. Only two alleged errors were enumerated. *Held:*

1. One enumeration contended that the trial court had denied the appellant his right of cross examination of a state’s witness relating to the extent of the effect of marijuana smoking upon the witness. An examination of the portions of the transcript referred to in the brief and argument of the appellant does not disclose there was any interference with his right of cross examination.

2. The second error alleged is the trial judge permitting the state to reopen its case and introduce additional testimony after the state had closed. The record discloses no abuse of discretion in so doing. *Chatman v. State,*8 Ga. App. 842 (2) (70 SE 188); *Davis v. State,*127 Ga. App. 76, 80 (3) (192 SE2d 538) and citations therein.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Quillian and Clark, JJ., concur.*
, 

July 9, 1970 

Hon. J. W. Edgar 

Commissioner of Education 

201 East 11th Street 

Austin, Texas 

Dear Dr. Edgar: 

Opinion NO. M-658 

Re: Whether trustees of an 

Independent School District 

have authority to adopt 

procedures for recall 

elections for members of 

such board. 

We are in receipt of your letter requesting an opinion in 

regard to the above stated question. We quote from your letter 

as follows: 

"The Board of Trustees of an independent school 

district (Wichita Falls), recently presented with a 

resolution by local patrons urging the Board to 

adopt and implement procedures for recall elections 

for removal of trustee members of such school board, 

has requested me to submit to the Office of Attorney 

General for an opinion the following question: 

"Does the board of trustees of the Wichita 

Falls school district have the power, expressed 

or implied, under common law or the statutes of 

Texas to adopt a resolution or policy providing 

procedures to effect petition and recall elections 

of member(s) of its school board?" 

Trustees of independent school districts are ccnsidered 

"county officers" subject to the provisions of Section 24 of 

Article V of the Texas Constitution. Fowler v. Thomas, 275 S.W. 

253 (Tex.Civ.App. 1925, err. dismd.). 

-3149- 
. - 

Hon. J. w. Edgar, Page 2 (M-658) 

. 

Section 24 of Article V is quoted as follows: 

"County Judges, County Attorneys, clerks of the 

District and County Courts, Justices of the Peace, 

Constables, and other county officers, may be 

removed by the judges of the district courts for 

incompetency, official misconduct, habitual drunkenness, or other causes defined by law, upon the 

cause therefor being set forth in writing and the finding of its truth by a jury." (Emphasis added.) 

The above method and the statutes enacted pursuant thereto 

(Articles 5970, et seq) of removing county officers from office 

are exclusive. Griver v. Thomas, 101 Tex. 36, 104 S.W. 1058 

(1907); State ex rel Downs v. Harvey, 164 S.W.2d 55 (Tex.Civ. 

APP. 1942, err. ref. w.0.m.); Jordan v. Crudqinoton, 149 Tex. 

237, 231 S.W.2d 641 (1950). 

In light of the above cited constitutional provision and 

the cases cited, it is our opinion hat the school board has 

no authority to prescribe a method i- or removal of individual 

trustees by recall or otherwise which may be inconsistent with 

said constitutional provision or statutes. 

SUMMARY 

The Board of Trustees of the Wichita 

Falls School District has no authority to 

adopt a resolution or policy providing for 

recall elections of i 

General of Texas 

Prepared by James C. McCoy 

Assistant Attorney General 

-3150- 
I 

, 

I , 

Hon. J. W. Edgar, page 3 

APPROVED : 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Kerns Taylor, Chairman 

W. E. Allen, CO-Chairman 

Mitchell William6 

Wardlow Lane 

Jerry Roberts 

Bob Giddings 

MEADE F. GRIFFIN 

Staff Legal Assistant 

NOLA WHITE 

First Assistant 

ALFRED WALKER 

FXecUtiVe ASSiStant 

(M-658) 

-3151-