alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### LEWALLEN v. DAVENPORT.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Feb. 13, 1953.

Hiram H. Owens, Barbourville, for appellant.

C. B. Upton, William Rose, Williams-burg, for appellee.

CLAY, Commissioner;

Appellee brought this suit to recover damages for the flooding of his property caused by a fill or dam built by appellant. A verdict was directed for appellée, and appellant contends that neither the law nor the evidence justified the judgment.

Appellee owned a lot which adjoined a state highway. Thereon he built a store and-grist mill. Adjoining -this lot at a lower elevation was the land of-appellant. In 1949 the State Highway Department reconstructed the highway ^nd. in .doing *so*caused water to drain over appellee’s lot, whence it flowed onto appellant’s land.

Soon thereafter appellant built a dirt fill 50 or 60 feet long and 5 or 6 feet high to prevent the water from flowing onto his land. This fill backed water into appel-lee’s grist mill and temporarily destroyed its use.

At the trial it appeared conclusively from the evidence that the increased flow of water onto appellant’s land was caused by the reconstruction of the road by the Highway Department. Thereupon the court ruled in substance that appellant’s possible claim against the Commonwealth constituted no defense to appellee’s suit, and appellant was not permitted to introduce further proof except by way of avowal.

Appellant’s two-fold theory seems to be that appellee had no right to permit the Highway Department to shift the drainage over his lot, and that in any event, appellant had the right to protect himself by constructing his fill. He further claims that it was appellee’s duty to minimize damages, and that the verdict was excessive.

We find no merit in any of appellant’s contentions. We are cited no authority to the effect that a landowner may intentionally divert the' natural flow of water to- the damage of a neighboringland-owner on the ground that this prevents, injury to his land. The law is all the other way. See Stone et ux. v. Ashurst, 285 Ky. 687, 149 S.W.2d 4, and White v. Howe, 293 Ky. 108, 168 S.W.2d 28.

Appellant argues that if appellee had moved his mill or had raised it several feet above the ground it would not have *17been flooded, and he could thus have minimized damages. While the mitigation of damage principle is generally recognized, we are doubtful if it is applicable in such a case as this. However, the court submitted that question to the jury,' and it found for appellee.

With respect to the excessiveness of the verdict, there was evidence of a substantial diminution in the value of appellee’s land. He suffered a loss of, profits which was specially pleaded, and there was damage to his building and machinery. The verdict of $1,250 does not strike us as excessive.

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

No. 26799.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 3, 1954.

T. M. Reid, Abilene, for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, Judge.

The conviction is for assault with a motor vehicle; the punishment, 30 days in jail and a fine of $75.

We overrule the contention that the complaint and information are -insufficient because of the absence of an allegation that the act was done wilfully.

A complaint for the violation of Art. 1149, Vernon’s Ann.P.C., may allege the offense to have been wilfully committed, or that it was committed through negligence, or both. Young v. State, 120 Tex. Cr.R. 39, 47 S.W.2d 320; Clifton v. State, 138 Tex.Cr.R. 258, 135 S.W.2d 115.

The complaint and information alleged that at the time of the assault appellant was driving an automobile on the left side of “State Highway No. FM 18”.

The state was not bound to allege the specific highway upon which appellant was driving in a negligent manner, but having done so was required to prove the allegation. Duncan v. State, 152 Tex.Cr.R. 283, 213 S.W.2d *824;*Blackburn v. State, 150 Tex.Cr.R. 572, 204 S.W.2d 619; White v. State, 82 Tex.Cr.R. 274, 198 S.W. 964.

In the statement of facts which is agreed to contain the entire evidence adduced and heard by the jury, we are unable to find proof to sustain the allegation that appellant drove an automobile on “State Highway No. FM 18”.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2043 

To amend the Revised Statutes of the United States to authorize vicarious 

liability in certain civil actions dealing with the deprivation of rights. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 26, 2011 

Mr. MEEKS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Revised Statutes of the United States to 

authorize vicarious liability in certain civil actions dealing 

with the deprivation of rights. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Restoration of Civil 

5 Rights Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. VICARIOUS LIABILITY. 

7 Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 

8 1983) is amended by inserting after ‘‘District of ColumVerDate Mar 15 2010 22:07 Jun 02, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2043.IH H2043

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2043 IH

1 bia,’’ the following: ‘‘whether directly or vicariously 

2 through any employee or agent,’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Melvin J. KESSLER, Appellant, v. STATE, Appellee.

No. 24223.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 19, 1949.

No attorney for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for operating a motor vehicle, upon a public highway while appellant was intoxicated, punishment assessed at a fine of $200.00.

Appellant has filed his affidavit requesting that his appeal be dismissed. It appearing therefrom that appellant does *not*desire to further prosecute his appeal, same is ordered dismissed.
#### WALTERS, Jailer, v. WOOD.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 18, 1954.

*286Davis Williams, County Atty:, Munford-ville, for appellant.

Stokes A. Baird, Munfordville,'for appel-lee.

STEWART, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment granting a writ of habeas corpus and discharging appellee, Mattie Wood, from jail.

The sole issue raised is the construction of KRS 242.410 and its application to the facts of this case. This statute provides that on a first or second conviction for a violation of any of the provisions of KRS, Chapter 242, known as the “Local Option Law,” the court shall require the defendant, in addition to the penalty inflicted under KRS 242.990(1), to execute a bond for not less than. $500 nor more thán $1,000 to be of good behavior for 12 months and not to violate any of the provisions of the Local Option Law. If the bond is- not executed, the defendant shall be imprisoned in the county jail for 60 days.

Appellee, Mattie Wood, was duly convicted in the Hart Quarterly Court on January 18, 1954, of violating the Local Option Law in Hart County, and her punishment was fixed at a fine of $40 and 60 days imprisonment in the county jail. The judgment further ordered defendant to execute a bond to the Commonwealth of Kentucky in the penal sum of $1,000 conditioned upon the requirements set forth in KRS 242.410. Thereafter she was committed to j ail.

On March 18, 1954, appellee, having served the 60 days imprisonment imposed by the judgment, paid the fine and costs. Appellant, Ralph Walters, jailer' of Hart County, continued to hold her in jail on account of her failure to execute the bond, pursuant to the foregoing statutory provision, as required by the judgment.

On April 13, 1954, appellee sued out a writ of habeas corpus against the jailer whereby she sought to be discharged from jail upon the ground that she was being unlawfully imprisoned. The jailer responded stating that appellee was being confined in jail because of her failure to execute the $1,000 bond in conformity with KRS 242.410 as stipulated by the judgment. The trial court adjudged the response insufficient and ordered appellee released from custody. The jailer appeals.

The statutory provision in this case is in substance the same as 2554a-18 of Carroll’s Kentucky Statutes, Baldwin’s Revision, Official Edition Revised to 1930, which was the peace bond section of the old “Rash-Gullion Act.” The case of Roberts v. Dover, 200 Ky. 352, 254 S.W. 1058, construed that section, and we believe that opinion controls in every respect the facts and law involved in this appeal. Since the Roberts case fully discussed and decided the precise question now before us we deem it unnecessary to repeat here what was there written. Under the authority of the Roberts case the lower court properly released appellee.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.

COMBS, J., diss.ents and believes the Roberts case should be overruled.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

Nos. 04-13-00571-CR & 04-13-00572-CR

Fernando LOPEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 12-1791-CR & 12-2454-CR-C

Honorable William Old, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgments of the trial court are 

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED September 17, 2014.

_____________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
#### Ex parte BLAND.

No. 24799.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 29, 1950.

Rehearing Denied April 19, 1950.

Bowen C. Tatum, Dallas, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

In Cause No. 24,436, upon the docket of this Court, relator, as appellant, appealed to this Court from a conviction in the Dis*171trict Court of Hardeman County, Texas, carrying a punishment of life imprisonment in the penitentiary. ■ , ■

The appeal was dismissed because of appellant’s escape from custody pending the appeal. Bland v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 224 S.W.2d 479.

The record in that case affirmatively reflects that the question upon which relator seeks to now nullify that judgment was a part of and was relied upon by appellant in the appeal mentioned.

■ The order dismissing the appeal because of appellant’s escape from custody after invoking the jurisdiction of this Court, had the effect of making final the judgment appealed from and an adverse adjudication of the question presented upon appeal.

Relator, in so far as this Court is concerned, has had his day in court upon the question here presented, and, accordingly, the application for the writ of habeas corpus is refused.
|                                                                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                 
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                                             
|View History: Annual                                                                             
|View History:                                                                                    
|                                                                                                 
|Texas - RRC District 5 Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Revision Increases (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                 
|Texas - RRC District 5 Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Revision Increases (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                 

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 5     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 3      | 8      | 11     | 1      | 3      | 20     | 6      | 5      | 8      | 21    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 18     | 4      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Rackable Systems, Inc. (the
Company) for the year ended December 29, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Mark J. Barrenechea, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Madhu Ranganathan,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1, 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.

Dated: March 13, 2008



|                                                          |  |  |  |                                          
|--------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------
|/s/    MARK J.
BARRENECHEA                                |  |  |  | /s/    MADHU
RANGANATHAN                 
|Mark J. Barrenechea President and Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | Madhu Ranganathan Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC
and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000090168
<NAME> SIFCO INDUSTRIES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           1,803
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,904
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     23,799
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                46,376
<PP&E>                                          30,031
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  81,824
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,358
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,174
<OTHER-SE>                                      42,983
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    81,824
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                53,527
<CGS>                                           44,607
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   51,171
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     1
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 501
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,854
<INCOME-TAX>                                       282
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,572
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .30


</TABLE>
# U.S. and Global Carbon Emissions Projections (million metric tons) 45,000 40.000 j

~
~ 35.040 ;

~ 30.040 ; 25,000 ~ ; ; 20,000 ~ 15.000 ~ 10.040 5.000 • ' • 

## v 1990 2010 2020 2030

-~ 

## --Total Gfobal CO2 Emissions --•—Tota1 Giobal CO2 Emissions with EPA Rule —•—Non-U.S. CO2 Emissions —*—U.S. CO2 EnYissions --+-- U.S. CO2 Eni issions with EPA Rtile Source , EPn Carbon Regulation Proposat, pg 547-548, and twsw.e(a.gov ,/torecasts/leo/table2 i.¢im
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
This schedule contains  summary  financial information extracted from the
financial statements at November 30, 1999 (Unaudited) and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                       NOV-30-1999
<CASH>                                  1,940
<SECURITIES>                           65,343
<RECEIVABLES>                             829
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       76,704
<PP&E>                                 22,704
<DEPRECIATION>                         19,704
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         75,105
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   2,434
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                              391,437
<OTHER-SE>                           (317,267)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           76,704
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          890
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          347
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           543
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       543
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                              543
<EPS-BASIC>                            0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0.00





</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 3.1.4

                           CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                      OF
                         CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION


         Nextlink Communications, Inc., a corporation organized and existing
under the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, does hereby
certify:

         1.       A resolution setting forth the following amendment to the
corporation's Certificate of Incorporation and declaring the advisability of
such amendment was duly adopted by the corporation's Board of Directors in
accordance with the applicable provisions of Section 242 of the General
Corporation Law of the State of Delaware:

                  Article First of the Certificate of Incorporation is amended
                  to read as follows:

                           "The name of the corporation is XO Communications,
                           Inc."

         2.       In lieu of a meeting of the stockholders, written consent
has been given for the adoption of said amendment in accordance with the
applicable provisions of Section 228 and Section 242 of the General
Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

         3.       The amendment shall be effective on October 25, 2000.


                                        NEXTLINK COMMUNICATIONS, INC.



                                        By:  /s/ Richard A. Montfort, Jr.
                                        -------------------------------------
                                        Richard A. Montfort, Jr.,
                                        Assistant Secretary
EXHIBIT 10.17
Nuytco Agreement

June  16,  1999

                                Agreement Between

                              NUYTC0 RESEARCH LTD.

                                       AND

                     HYPERSTEALTH BIOTECHNOLOGY CORPORATION

NUYTCO  will, for a fee, carry out the necessary engineering design work for a 6
place  + 1 attendant cylindrical Acrylic patient area Hyperbaric Chamber, with &
steel  double  lock  exit  and  entry  area,  and  all the necessary operational
fittings,  controls,  and  safety  equipment.

NUYTCO  will,  for a fee, provide the necessary fabrication drawings, to include
electrical  and  mechanical,  end  a  cost  estimate for completion of the first
prototype  operational  chamber that will be able to pass insurance regulations,
Included  will  be  the  additional  drawings etc. to provide the ability to add
another  section  to  offer  a  12  place  capacity.

NUYTCO will, for a fee, service, oversee, manage, all fabrication, assembly, and
testing  of  the  first
prototype  chamber.

NUYTCO will be called upon from time to time for a fixed fee, or hourly rate, to
assist  in  necessary
changes,  upgrades,  or  an),  required  new  designs  or  changes.

HYPERSTEALTH  agrees  to  abide  by  NUYTCO's  directions,  as long as NUYTCO is
associated with the project, to honor all financial contracts and agreements, to
provide  all  the  necessary  input  into  operational  requirements  and safety
conditions,  to  avoid  disclosure  of  Engineering  designs deemed to be NUYTCO
proprietary or patentable, and will not discuss and design parameters with third
panics  unless  permission  has  been  granted  by  NUYTCO,

Proprietary designs shall be held to be the Property of the designers - transfer
of  patents  or  patent
application  rights  to  HYPERSTEALTH  by  NUYTCO  to  be subject to negotiation
between  the
parties  as  to  price,  royalties,  etc.

     Signed:  "Phil  Nuytten"            Date:  June,  l6  1999

     Per:  Nuytco  Research  Ltd.
Exhibit 32.2   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 Tranquility, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 (the Report), I, Dominick Pope, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  October 29, 2007 /s/ Dominick Pope Chief Financial Officer