alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### WESTERN COTTONOIL COMPANY, Appellant, v. Fred J. BRECHEEN et ux., Appellees.

No. 3129.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Eastland.

Jan. 14, 1955.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 4, 1955.

*768McMahon, Springer, Smart & Walter, Abilene, Fulbright, Crooker, Freeman & Bates, Houston, for appellant.

Bryan Bradbury, Abilene, for appellees.

.GRISSOM, Chief Justice.

Fred J. Brecheen and wife sued Western Cottonoil Company for damages alleged to have been caused by storing soap stock in an earthen pit near their home. A jury found that such storing constituted-a nuisance and awarded the Brecheens damages. The Cottonoil Company has appealed.

Appellant’s first point is that the court erred in overruling its motion for a new trial because appellees’ counsel informed the jury that an injunction had been issued against appellant in a similar case.

Assuming for present purposes that the jury was so'informed under circumstances which otherwise would constitute1 reversible error, appellant waived such error by not then moving for a mistrial. Ford v. Carpenter, 147 Tex. 447, 216 S.W.2d 558, 560; Crain v. West Texas Utilities Co., Tex.Civ.App., 218 S.W.2d 512, 513, R.N.R.E.; Western Cottonoil Company v. Patterson, Tex.Civ.App., 271 S.W.2d 106, 108, R.N.R.E.; McDonald v. Alamo Lines, Tex.Civ.App., 222 S.W.2d 1013; McCullom v. McClain, Tex.Civ.App., 227 S.W.2d 333, 335.

Appellant’s remaining point is that the court erred in admitting in evidence a jar containing soap stock from appellant’s earthen pit. The witness Patterson testified he had with him some of the “stuff” he had taken from said pit about April, 1953; that it was not the same jar he had. in the other cases but it contained the “same stuff”; that he had taken matter from appellant’s pit on two occasions; that the contents of the jar introduced was taken out of said pit. Appellant objected to its introduction for the “reason that it is" not shown to be in the same condition”; that it was prejudicial and it was not apparent that the contents of the jar was like the substance in the pit. Said objection was overruled and appellees’ counsel handed the jar to the jury with the remark, “if you care to smell it.”

We have studied the statement of facts. It does not disclose whether the top was removed from the jar, or the jury smelled its contents. Even if the record showed the jury actually smelled the contents of the jar, it would be difficult to imagine a worse odor than that described by all the witnesses as the odor emanating from appellant’s pit. Appellees should have introduced evidence that there had been no substantial change in the condition of the contents of the jar. The evidence simply showed that the matter in the jar was taken from the pit several months before the trial. But, appellant has the burden of showing not only that there was error but that it was probably injured thereby. We are forced to the conclusion that reversible error is not shown.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### PALMER v. STATE.

No. 26507.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 21, 1953.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, dor the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is murder; the punishment, fifteen years.

The^ record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exceptions.

All the proceedings appearing regular and nothing being presented for ortr review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 99.4


                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Image Technology Laboratories, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I
David Ryon, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss 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 results of
               operations of the Company.


/s/ DAVID RYON
----------------
David Ryon
Chief Executive Officer
November 14, 2002


<PAGE>
Exhibit 99.1





PVH Corp. Declares Quarterly Cash Dividend








NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)— August 9, 2023 -- PVH Corp. [NYSE:PVH], announced the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of PVH Corp. declared a quarterly cash dividend of $0.0375 per share payable on September 27, 2023 to stockholders of record on September 6, 2023.








About PVH Corp.





PVH is one of the world's largest and most admired fashion companies, connecting with consumers in over 40 countries. Our global iconic brands include Calvin Klein and TOMMY HILFIGER . Our 140-year history is built on the strength of our brands, our team, and our commitment to drive fashion forward for good. That's the Power of Us. That's the Power of PVH.





Follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn.








Contact:


Mark D. Fischer


Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary


(212) 381-3509
SERVED NOVEMBER 2, 2011 

Ol^PAHTWENTOF 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. .pAySPOniA^^^ 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS A.^Jt\ OPErlAIIOr-Jb 

WASHINGTON, DC 

ZGii ;^0V - 3 P 3^ 5 0 

IN THE MATTER OF 

ISLAND BIRD INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMSNO. FAA-201I-I008 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 201OSOI90309) has been assigned to 

Administrative Law Judge J.E. Sullivan. All future pleadings and other communications 

regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other 

persons on the attached Service List. 

_ ^-k 

R(5iinie A. YodEf^ " ^ ' 

Chief Administrative La\y<ludge 

Attachment - Service List 
FDMSNO. FAA-2011-1008 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2WI000' 

ONE COPY 

Kathleen A. Yodice, Respondent's Counsel 

41) Aviation Way 

Suite 245 

Frederick, MD 21701 

TEL: 301-695-2300 

FAX; 301-695-2151 

Jay S. Lammering, Director of Maintenance 

Island Bird Inc., Respondenl 

8109 Lindbergh Drive 

North Ramp 

CyrilE. King Airport 

St. Thomas, VI 00802 

Ryan M. Landers, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, ASO-7 

Southern Region 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, GA 30320 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

The Honorable J.E. S\}\\\y3in, Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2132 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

^ Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the Following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2WI000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC^30. 

- 2 -
`Promissory Note
$ 50,000.00 USD                Temple, Texas                   Date April 23, 01



FOR VALUE RECEIVED, after date, without grace, in the manner, on the dates, and
in the amounts so herein stipulated, the Undersigned, Communicate Now.com Inc.

PROMISE TO PAY TO THE ORDER OF : David Hancock, At Temple, Texas in Bell County 

                 THE SUM OF FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($50,000.00)

In lawful money of the United States of America, which shall be legal tender, in
payments of all debts and dues, public and private at the time of payment, and
to pay interest thereon from the date until maturity at the rate of 6.5% per
annum, payable as stipulated herein.

THIS NOTE IS DUE AND PAYABLE AS FOLLOWS TO WIT:

FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($50,000.00) principal due in one year (on or before
April 23, 2002). Interest of 270.83 per month due monthly beginning on May 23,
2001.

IT IS AGREED that time is of the essence of this agreement, and that in the
event of default in the payment of any installment of principal or interest when
due, the holder of this note may declare the entirety of the evidenced herby due
and payable without notice, and failure to exercise said option shall not
constitute a waiver on part of the holder of the right to exercise the same at
any other time.

IN THE EVENT of default in the making of any payment herein provided, either or
principal or interest, or in the event the entirety of said note evidenced
hereby is declared due, interest shall accrue at the rate of 10.0% per annum
from such time.

THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY AGREES to pay all expenses incurred, including an
additional 10.0% on the amount of principal and interest hereof as attorney's
fees, all of which shall become part of the principal hereof, if this note is
placed in the hands of an attorney for collection, or if collected by suite or
through any probate, bankruptcy or other legal proceedings,

EACH MAKER, SURETY and endorser waives demand, grace, notice, presentment for
payment, and protest and agrees and consents that this note an the liens
securing its payment, may be renewed, and the time of payment extended without
notice, and without releasing any of the parties.


                             CommunicateNow.Com Inc.

                            David Hancock, President`
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

David F. Viviano

, 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.

July 29, 2014

p0721 

# Order

Clerk July 29, 2014

149037

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 149037

COA: 319491

Oakland CC: 2012

- 243943

- FC

GREGORY JEROME MORRIS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 14, 2014

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and i t is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

UNDER

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

PACIFIC
MERCANTILE BANCORP

Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q

for the
quarter ended September 30, 2008

The undersigned, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Pacific Mercantile Bancorp (the
Company), hereby certifies that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Quarterly Report), to which
this Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and (ii) the information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |  |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
|---------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                       |  | 
|Date: November 7, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ RAYMOND E. DELLERBA                                                                                                                                                                                                    
|                       |  |  |  | Raymond E. Dellerba, President and Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                                 
|                       |  | 
|                       |  |  |  | A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
**As filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 20, 2007**

**Registration No. 333-______**

UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00571-CR 

SARAH WESTFALL APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered appellant’s “Motion To Dismiss Appeal.” The motion 

complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure. Tex. R. App. P.

42.2(a). No decision of this court having been delivered before we received this 

motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P.

42.2(a), 43.2(f).

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: June 27, 2013
#### Jack M. FISHMAN et al., Appellants, v. Edward K. LOVE, Trustee, et al., Mortgage Creditors, etc.

No. 10895.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Aug. 16, 1937.

Sam Goldman, of St. Louis, Mo., for appellants.

Sylvan Agatstein, of St. Louis, Mo., for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed, per stipulation of parties, without costs to either party in this court.
#### MARMOR v. BANK OF LOUISVILLE.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 9, 1953.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 11,1953.

Steinfeld & Steinfeld, Louisville, for appellant.

Dodd & Dodd, Allen P. Dodd, Jr., Louisville, for appellee.

WADDILL, Commissioner.

This is the second appeal of this case. The first appeal was taken by the Travelers Fire Insurance Company from a judgment in favor of the Bank of Louisville and this Court reversed that judgment. Travelers Fire Insurance Company v. Bank of Louisville, Ky., 243 S.W.2d 996. Upon return of the case to the lower court it entered an amended judgment holding Arch J. Mar-mor liable to the Bank of Louisville for the amount claimed originally against the Travelers Insurance Company. Marmor prosecutes this appeal.

The facts and circumstances out of which this litigation arose are fully set forth in Travelers Fire Insurance Company v. Bank of Louisville, Ky., 243 S.W.2d 996, and for purposes of this opinion it is sufficient to say that appellant, Marmor, represented that he had procured a contract of insurance on a motor vehicle for the Bank of Louisville, as agent for Travelers Insurance Company, and that a loss occurred before Marmor had placed the insurance with any insurance company. This Court held that Marmor was acting as an independent broker and not as an agent for the Travelers Insurance Company and that there was no acceptance by the Travelers Insurance Company of the application for insurance.

The supplemental judgment was entered against Marmor under the rule that a person who undertakes to contract as agent for another, without authority to do so, will be personally liable on the contract regardless of his good faith belief in his own authority. A review of the record convinces us that the pleadings will not support a judgment on this theory.

In its petition, appellee, Bank of Louisville, asserts that Marmor was the agent of Travelers, acting in the real or apparent scope of his authority. There is no alternative allegation to the effect that Marmor held himself out as an agent without authority. Such an allegation is necessary to support a judgment against Marmor individually. The only liability that could be adjudged against Marmor under the allegations of the petition would be merely secondary to the liability of his principal. It is an elementary rule that although tne court has jurisdiction of the parties and of *174the subject matter, it is without authority to adjudicate upon matters not put in issue by the pleadings. Newsom v. Damron, 302 Ky. 79, 193 S.W.2d 643.

Any recovery against Marmor individually must be had in a new suit. This question, however, under the state of the record, is not before us.

Judgment reversed.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 42 (Friday, March 1, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 15225]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-04396]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Advisory Committee for Geosciences; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the 
following meeting:
    Name and Committee Code: Advisory Committee for Geosciences (#1755) 
Hybrid Meeting.
    Date and Time: March 25, 2024; 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.; March 26, 2024; 
8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Place: NSF, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314. Hybrid 
participation is for members and speakers only. Public participants may 
attend the meeting virtually by accessing the following link: https://nsf.zoomgov.com/webinar/register/WN_aZeZPArhRC-NP1KEXb04rg. After 
registering, you will receive a confirmation email with a unique link 
to join the meeting.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Contact Person: Simona Gilbert, National Science Foundation, 2415 
Eisenhower Avenue, Room C 8047, Alexandria, Virginia 22314; Telephone: 
703-292-7216.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice, recommendations and counsel 
on major goals and policies pertaining to engineering programs and 
activities.

Agenda

Monday, March 25, 2024; 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.

<bullet> COI Ethics Briefing
<bullet> Call to Order
<bullet> AD Updates
<bullet> Program Updates
<bullet> Agency Updates
<bullet> Division/Office Highlights
<bullet> Closing Remarks

Tuesday, March 26, 2024; 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.

<bullet> Agency Updates Continued
<bullet> NSF Director's Briefing
<bullet> AI for Climate Discussion
<bullet> Partnerships Discussion
<bullet> Future Meetings
<bullet> Action Item(s) Discussion
<bullet> Closing Remarks

    Dated: February 27, 2024.
Crystal Robinson,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2024-04396 Filed 2-29-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
#### Bill LAWLESS et ux., Appellants, v. BIG STATE LAND COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 15809.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Fort Worth.

April 19, 1957.

Rehearing Denied May 17, 1957.

*959E. L. Goldsmith, Fort Worth, for appellants.

Travis Alley, Lowell Dushman and Thorp A. Andrews, Fort Worth, for appellee.

RENFRO, Justice.

Appellants appealed from a temporary injunction which enjoined them from operating a beauty parlor on certain described premises.

The order recited that after hearing the pleadings, the evidence and arguments of counsel, the court found the law and the facts to be with appellee, that operation of the beauty parlor was in violation of a city ordinance and in violation of restrictive covenants, and that a necessity existed for the issuance of a temporary injunction for the purpose of preserving the status quo between the parties.

The appellants did not file a statement of facts in this court.

The rule is well settled that the granting or refusing of a temporary injunction is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and its action will not be disturbed on appeal unless it clearly appears, from the record that there has been an abuse of such discretion.

Where the transcript shows that proof was heard, but does not show what it was, the court may presume, in the absence of a statement of facts, that it was sufficient and that the findings and order were justified. 24 — A Tex.Jur., p. 380; Hartley v. Brady, Tex.Civ.App., 114 S.W.2d 406.

Our review herein is limited to the propriety of the order granting the temporary injunction and does not extend to subsequent actions on hearing on the merits for permanent injunction. Parrino v. Dubois, Tex.Civ.App., 220 S.W.2d 305. The propriety of a temporary injunction is not dependent upon the ultimate merits of the controversy. 24 — A Tex.Jur., p. 43.

In our opinion the record as presented to us does not show an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in granting a temporary injunction.

Judgment affirmed.
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

December 31, 2005

 

 

To the Addresses listedon Schedule I hereto.

 

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

This Annual Statement asto Compliance is delivered to you pursuant to Section 4.10 (a) of the Sale andServicing Agreement dated as of January 27, 2005 (the “Agreement”) and pursuantto Section 3.9 of the Indenture Agreement dated as of January 27, 2005 (the “Indenture),executed in connection with the formation of AmeriCredit Automobile ReceivablesTrust 2005-A-X (the “Trust”), the issuance of the Notes by the Trust and theclosing of the transactions and the execution and delivery of the variousdocuments by AmeriCredit Corp., AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (the “Servicer”)and AFS SenSub Corp. in connection therewith. The capitalized terms used hereinshall have the same meanings as in the Agreement.

 

The undersigned certifiesthat I am the Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurerof the Servicer. I further certify as follows:

 

1.               I have conducted,or caused to be conducted under my supervision, a review of the Servicer duringthe preceding period from January 27, 2005 through December 31, 2005, and itsperformance under the Agreement.

 

2.               To the best of myknowledge, following such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all itsobligations under the Agreement throughout such period, and, to the best of myknowledge, there has been no default in the fulfillment of any such obligation.

 

 

AmeriCredit FinancialServices, Inc.

 

 
| By:    | /s/ Chris A. Choate                    |   | Dated: February 28,  2006 |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------|
|   | Chris A. Choate                        |
|   | Executive Vice  President,             |
|   | Chief Financial Officer  and Treasurer |

 

----

 

Schedule I

 

Trustee, Trust CollateralAgent

andBackup Servicer:

 

Wells Fargo BankMinnesota

Sixth and MarquetteAvenue

MAC N9311-161

Minneapolis MN 55479

Attention: MariannaStershic

 

Owner Trustee:

 

Wilmington Trust Company

Rodney Square North

1100 North Market Street

Wilmington, DE  19890-0001

Attention: Steve Barone

 

Insurer:

 

XL Capital Assurance,Inc.

1221 Avenue of theAmericas

New York, NY  10020-1001

Attention: ChristineBrunie

 

Rating Agencies:

 

Moody’s InvestorsService, Inc.

99 Church Street

New York, NY 10007

Attention: ABS MonitoringDepartment

 

Standard & Poor’sRating Services

55 Water Street

40th Floor

New York, NY 10041

Attention: Asset BackedSurveillance Department

 

Fitch, Inc.

One State Street Plaza,32nd Floor

New York, New York 10014

Attention:  Auto Surveillance Department

 

----