alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### N. Dean GOODMAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Maurice D. LEE, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 15489.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Dec. 28, 1978.

Maurice D. Lee, pro se.

Tex R. Olson, Richfield, for plaintiff and respondent.

ELLETT, Chief Justice:

The parties to this case were joint purchasers of a farm, but they fell out and could not work it together. The plaintiff sued for a partition of the realty and water rights appurtenant thereto, for an accounting, and for damages, both compensatory and punitive. The defendant counterclaimed for an accounting and for damages.

Before trial the parties agreed upon a partition, and the case was tried, before a jury upon the issues of accounting and damages. The court submitted the case to the jury upon a special verdict; and based upon the answers to the questions in the special verdict, the court entered a judgment in favor of Mr. Goodman and against Mr. Lee in the amount of $4,054.66 on the accounting issue and the amount of $1,250.00 as punitive damages.

*760From that judgment Mr. Lee has appealed, pro se. He has not filed in this Court a transcript of the proceedings and we are unable to find wherein the trial court erred, if at all. The claim is made that the counterclaim was dismissed. The record does not bear out that contention.

The first cause of the counterclaim was for an accounting and that matter was determined by the jury. The second cause was for false arrest. That matter was submitted to the jury which found for Mr. Goodman. The third cause was for an assault claimed to have been made by Mr. Goodman upon Mr. Lee. The jury also found against Mr. Lee on that matter.

When no transcript is furnished on an appeal it is presumed that the evidence given was sufficient to sustain the judgment. In the case of *Walker Bank & Trust Co. v.*Neilson1 this court said:

> The appellant elected not to bring before us any of the testimony presented to the trial court, and so we must presume such findings as were made to be based upon competent and substantial evidence.

This court also spoke on the matter in the ease of *Bennett Leasing Co. v.*Ellison2 and there said:

> . [Tjhere being no transcript of the evidence, we must assume it supports the finding .

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs are awarded to the respondent.

CROCKETT, MAUGHAN, WILKINS and HALL, JJ., concur.

1

. 26 Utah 2d 383, 490 P.2d 328 (1971).

2

. 15 Utah 2d 72, 387 P.2d 246 (1963).
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-20557 

Summary Calendar

 

HOWARD VANZANDT WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MORRIS M. JONES, JR., LAWRENCE

N. HODGES, AL LOSACK, CARROL

PICKETT,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CA-H-95-455

- - - - - - - - - -

January 7, 1997

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Howard Vanzandt Williams appeals the district court’s

summary judgment in favor of the defendants in a civil rights

action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Williams argues

that the appellants are not qualifiedly immune from suit on the

claim that they conspired to retaliate against him. We have

reviewed the record and Williams’ brief and conclude that
No. 96-20557

- 2 -

Williams’ claims are without merit for essentially the same

reasons set forth by the district court. Williams v. Jones, No.

CA H 95-455 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 17, 1996). Williams’ appeal is

frivolous and is dismissed. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

We caution Williams that any additional frivolous appeals

filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of

sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Williams is further cautioned to

review all pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise

arguments that are frivolous. 

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-21-00315-CR

The State of Texas

v.

Juan Manuel Perez

On Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 7 of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CR-21-03442-G

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause 

remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED 

and REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

August 25, 2022
### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON O CT O BE R 1 6, 200 3 S es sio n ANTOI NE LAMARR v. CI TY OF MEMPHI S, ET AL 

### . Direc t Appeal from the Chancer y Court for Shelby Cou nty No. CH-01-1967- 2 F loyd Pe ete , Jr., Chancellor

No. W2002-02087-C OA-R3-C V - F iled Fe bruary 27, 2004

SEPARA TE CONCURRENCE

________________________ Iag ree with the result re ache d by the majority

in this case , but Iwrite sepa rate ly beca use I disag ree somewhat with the re asoning used by the majority . Although I agre e that ther e wa s su bs tanti a l and ma te ri a l e vid e nc e up on wh ic h the Me mph is Civ il Se rv ic e Com mis sio n c ou ld deter mine that the new zero toleranc e policy was proper ly communicated to police office rs such as Antoine L aMar

r, I think this is a periphe ral issue.
L aMar r wa s not terminated for violating the new zero toleranc e policy . L aMar r wa s found to have vio la te d D. R. 10 4, the Pol ic e De pa rtme nt’ s r ule pr oh ibi tin gc on du c t w hic h r e fl e c ts a dv e rs e ly on the De pa rtme nt o r i ts me mbe rs
. F ro m the Com mis sio n’ s re vie w o f t he pr oo f, the re wa s ampl e evidenc e fr om which to conclude that L aMar r had violated this policy

. He was involved in a one- car acc ident in the middle of the night. Althoug h he admitted to having consumed a lcohol and spending the e venin g at a

nig htc lub and

his vo ic e wa s sl ur

ry a t th e sc e ne , h e re fu se d a blo od -a lc oh ol t e st. L aMar r conte nded that he consumed no a lcohol in his 3 1/2 hours at the club bec ause he was sick, and at the sa

me time maintained that he spent most of his ti me at the c lub dancing . L aMar r told the Commi ssion that his car wa s forc ed off the road by

an eig hteen- whee ler truc k, but had said nothing about this to the office r at the scene
. The Commi ssion c oncluded that the testimony L aMar r g ave was “ neither c redible nor logic al.” Clearly there was plenty of evidenc e to support the conclusion that L aMar

r violated D.R. 104, and that termination was wa rra nted.
L a Marr ’s de fe ns e re g ard ingthe ne w ze ro tol e ra nc e po lic y

a pp e ars to b e that no on e ha d to ld him that D.R. 104 would really be enforce d. This is smokescre en. The rea l issue is whether ther e was suff icient evidenc e to suppor

t the Commi ssion’s conclusion that L aMar r violated D.R. 104, the Depa rtment’s long standing rule prohibiting conduct whic h would ref lect adve rsely

on theDe pa

rtme nt. Cle arl y

the re wa s mor e tha

n e no ug h e vid e nc e to s up po rt thi s c on c lus ion , a

nd Iwo uld up ho ld t he te rm inatio n o n th is b a sis

. For these re asons, I

concur separ ately

.

________________________________________ H O L L Y M

. K I R B Y , J.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

_________________________________________ Clerk January 25, 2013

p0122 

# Order

January 25, 2013

146099

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146099

COA: 305644

Washtenaw CC: 10

- 001781

- FC

RICHARD CHARLES GENTRY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 13, 2012

judgment 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1464 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1464

      To enact House Resolution 895, One Hundred Tenth Congress, 
 (establishing the Office of Congressional Ethics) into permanent law.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 28, 2019

Mr. O'Halleran introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on 
 Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 
   each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To enact House Resolution 895, One Hundred Tenth Congress, 
 (establishing the Office of Congressional Ethics) into permanent law.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Clean Legislating and Ethical 
Accountability Now Act'' or the ``CLEAN Act''.

SEC. 2. ENACTING HOUSE RESOLUTION 895 INTO PERMANENT LAW.

    House Resolution 895, One Hundred Tenth Congress, is hereby enacted 
into permanent law, except that--
            (1) the Office of Congressional Ethics shall be treated as 
        a standing committee of the House for purposes of section 
        202(i) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 
        4301(i));
            (2) references to the Committee on Standards of Official 
        Conduct shall be construed as references to the Committee on 
        Ethics;
            (3) the second sentence of section 1(b)(6)(A) shall not 
        apply;
            (4) members subject to section 1(b)(6)(B) may be 
        reappointed for a second additional term;
            (5) any individual who is the subject of a preliminary 
        review or second-phase review by the board shall be informed of 
        the right to be represented by counsel and invoking that right 
        should not be held negatively against them; and
            (6) the Office may not take any action that would deny any 
        person any right or protection provided under the Constitution 
        of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1

                                   Exhibit 21

                        CAPITAL INVESTMENT OF HAWAII, INC.
                                AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                 Subsidiaries of
                       Capital Investment of Hawaii, Inc.



        The Registrant, Capital Investment of Hawaii, Inc., has no parent. The
Registrant has the following subsidiaries, all of which are included in the
accompanying consolidated financial statements. All companies are wholly owned
subsidiaries of the Registrant except for Makaha Valley, Incorporated.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                          STATE OF
                                   NAME                                INCORPORATION
         ---------------------------------------------------------   -------------------
<S>                                                                  <C>
         Latipac Fine Foods, Incorporated                                  Hawaii
         Latipac Mortgage Company, Limited and its wholly owned            Hawaii
            subsidiary - Latipac, Limited                                California
         Makaha Valley, Incorporated (85.8% - owned)                       Hawaii
         Resources, Incorporated                                           Hawaii
</TABLE>
(June 24, 1991)

#### Anthony Bailey, Respondent, v Lauirine Parrish et al., Appellants.

—Appeal by the defendants from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurowitz, J.), dated December 20, 1989.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated by Justice Hurowitz at the Supreme Court. Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Lawrence and Balletta, JJ., concur.
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART SIX

INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

TITLE I

INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

CHAPTER 1

THE INSTITUTIONS

SECTION 1

SECTION 1

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Article 223

(ex Article 190(4) and (5) TEC)

(ex Article 190(4) and (5) TEC)

1.   The European Parliament shall draw up a proposal to lay down the provisions necessary for the election of its Members by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States or in accordance with principles common to all Member States.

The Council, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, which shall act by a majority of its component Members, shall lay down the necessary provisions. These provisions shall enter into force following their approval by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

2.   The European Parliament, acting by means of regulations on its own initiative in accordance with a special legislative procedure after seeking an opinion from the Commission and with the consent of the Council, shall lay down the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the duties of its Members. All rules or conditions relating to the taxation of Members or former Members shall require unanimity within the Council.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997             SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          97,161                  50,209
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,513,150               1,518,385
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                    192,854                 257,005
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,125,024               1,936,721
<PP&E>                                       1,882,622               1,819,811
<DEPRECIATION>                               (186,734)               (128,432)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,781,786               4,186,810
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      (1,757,863)             (1,548,987)
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        (200,000)                       0
<PREFERRED>                                   (75,418)                (75,418)
<COMMON>                                       (1,514)                 (1,498)
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,104,990)             (1,039,817)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               (4,781,786)             (4,186,810)
<SALES>                                    (9,613,875)             (4,305,756)
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           (9,613,875)             (4,305,756)
<CGS>                                        9,337,913               4,081,368
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,337,913               4,081,368
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,914                   4,828
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                    4000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              44,275                  30,317
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (85,330)                (95,699)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    23,560                  30,081
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             61,770                  65,618
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    61,770                  65,618
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.37                    0.53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.37                    0.53
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Paritosh K. Choksi, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of ATEL Capital Equipment Fund XI,LLC;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: November 21, 2005   /s/ Paritosh K. Choksi   Paritosh K. Choksi  Principal Financial Officer of Registrant,  Executive Vice President of Managing Member  
16
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

-- -- -- --

NO. 14-0514

TRACI TUCKER

v.

STEVEN C. PHILLIPS

§

§

§

§

§

§

Dallas County,

5th District.

February 27, 2015

Petitioner's petition for review, filed herein in the above numbered and styled case,

having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.



I, BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas, do hereby certify

that the above and attached is a true and correct copy of the orders of the Supreme Court of

Texas in the case numbered and styled as above, as the same appear of record in the minutes of

said Court under the date shown.

It is further ordered that petitioner, TRACI TUCKER, pay all costs incurred on this

petition.

WITNESS my hand and seal of the Supreme Court of Texas, at the City of Austin, this

the 9th day of April, 2015.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

By Monica Zamarripa, Deputy Clerk

FILE COPY
# Holland & 

# Knight 800 17 th S t ree t , N W, S ui te 11 00 

### I Was hin gto n , D C 20006 

### I T 202.955.3000 

### I F 202 . 955.5564 H o l la n d & Kn i gh t LLP 

### I www. h k l aw.com

Anita M . Mosner (202) 419 - 2604 anita.mosner@gmail . com 

### October 10 , 2014 BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Mr. Robert Finamore Division Chief, Foreign Air Carrier Licensing Division (X-45) U.S . Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue , S.W. Washington , DC 20590 Re : Application of Air Canada for a Blanket Statement of Authorization Dear Mr. Finamore: By Application dated October 8 , 2014 , Air Canada applied for a Blanket Statement of Authorization under 14 C . F.R. Part 212. Air Canada has polled all interested parties , and no party has objected to the Application. For this reason , Air Canada respectfully requests that the Department promptly grant the requested authority . Respectfully Submitted , ight , LLP

Anita M. Mosner Jennifer M . Nowak Attorneys for Air Canada

Atlanta I Bethesda I Boston I Chicago I Fort Lauderdale I Jacksonville I Lakeland 1 Los Angeles 1 Miami I New York Northern Virginia 1 O r lando 1 Portland I San Francisco 1 Tallahassee 1 Tampa 1 Washington , DC 1 West Palm Beach

### C ER T FI CATE OF S ERV I C E I he reb y certify that I ha ve this date served the foregoing le tter on the persons ident ified below by causing a copy to be sent by electronic mail. 

### R E CIPIEN T C O M PA NY E - MA IL Robert Wirick American Ai rlines Robert.W ir ick@aa.com Sandra Lunsford Federal E xp re ss s llun sfo rd @ fedex.com

Da nie l W e iss United dan. weiss @ un i ted.com 

### A l exa nder Van Oe rBe llen Delta sasc h a. v anderbe ll e n @ d e lta . com Marshall S. S ini ck Spirit A irline s marsha ll . s in ick @s quirepb.com

D av i d Kirste in Alaska Airlines Dkirstein@yklaw
. c o m Aaro n A. Goer lic h A ll eg iant agoe rli c h @gg h-airlaw.co m

Ru sse ll Pomme r At la s R u sse ii.P ommer@AtlasAir.c o m Kevin Montgomery P o lar

**cv in.Montgome**  **y~PolarAi Cargo**  **com** D o ntai Small s United Parc e l Serv ic e dsmalls@ups.com Tho m as T in g Sun C ount ry Thomas.Ti n g@s unc ou ntr y . com J oan Cann y Amerijct JCanny @ ame ri j e t.c o m P a rk e r E rkmann Hawa ii a n A irlin es p e rkmann @co oley.com Parke r E rkmann J et Blu e perkm a nn @ cooley.com

Ma rk Atwood Kalitta matwood@coze n .com S t

e phen H Lachter Front ie r ste p he n. J achte r @ la chterla w.co m Les li e Abbott So uth wes t 

### I A irTrain L es li e.Abbott @ wnco . com Rob e rt S ilv e nb e rg ABX r s il verberg@sgbdc . com



# ~~ . ._;t-c:Om,efod - October 1 0, 20 14

2