alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MORGAN FARMS et al. v. BROWN

No. 12113.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

June 14, 1950.

Rehearing Denied July 12, 1950.

Pichinson, Davis & Hale and Norman Utter, all of Corpus Christi, for appellants.

Jackson & Jackson and H. S. Groesbeck, all of Crystal City, for appellee.

W. O. MURRAY, Chief Justice.

Appellee, C. M. Brown, instituted this suit against appellants, Morgan Farms, a partnership composed of Fred F. Morgan and John J. Pichinson, both residents of Nueces County, Texas, and Fred F. Morgan and John J. Pichinson, individually, seeking to' recover the balance alleged to be due appellee by virtue of a written contract for clearing land located in Zavala County, Texas, and further seeking to foreclose a mechanic’s lien upon the property set out in the contract.

Appellants filed their plea of privilege to be sued in the county of their residence,, which plea of privilege was controverted by appellee, who sought to maintain venue in Zavala County under the provisions of Subdivision 12 of Article 1995, Vernon’s Ann. Civ. Stats. There were other grounds in the controverting affidavit which need not be here discussed.

The trial court overruled appellants’ plea of privilege, and from that order appellants have prosecuted this appeal.

It is the contention of appellants that before appellee could sustain venue in this, case he would have to show from a pre*791ponderance of the evidence that he had a valid mechanic’s lien against the land involved. We overrule this contention. This Court has held on a number of occasions that where a suit is brought to foreclose a mortgage or other lien upon land or other property, venue may be sustained in the county where the land or other property is located, under the provisions of Subdivision 12 of Article 1995, Vernon’s Ann.Civ. Stats., by alleging a lien upon the property, without the necessity of proving a valid debt •and lien. The nature of the suit is determined by a consideration of the pleadings and not the evidence. George v. Northwest Engineering Co., Tex.Civ.App., 156 S.W.2d 576; Eastham v. Farmer, Tex.Civ.App., 193 S.W.2d 568. See also: Tennessee Gas & Transmission Co. v. Heard, Tex.Civ.App., 190 S.W.2d 518. We are aware that there are other decisions in conflict with these cases: Hagan v. Acme Drilling & Service Co., Tex.Civ.App., 225 S.W.2d 870; McGriff v. Hazle, Tex.Civ.App., 201 S.W.2d 92; Ruwaldt v. Mohawk Drilling Co., Tex.Civ.App, 195 S.W.2d 855.

We do not deem it necessary to pass upon other questions herein raised and accordingly the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
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

The undersigned, Maureen D. Howley, Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President of the Managing Owner,
Preferred Investment Solutions Corp. (the Managing Owner), of World Monitor Trust  Series A (Series A), hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:



| | (1) | Series As Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Annual
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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Series A.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Maureen D. Howley                            
|Maureen D. Howley                                
|Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President
|March 31, 2006
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, 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

September 21, 2010 

Order 

 

September 21, 2010 

140842 (56) 

_________________________________________ 

In re LENA ANNE BECK and AVERY JOEL 

BECK, Minors. 

_________________________________________ 

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, 

Petitioner-Appellee, 

 SC: 140842 

v COA: 293138 

Oakland CC Fam Div: 

LAWRENCE MICHAEL BECK, 07-733751-NA 

Respondent-Appellant. 

_________________________________________ 

 On order of Chief Justice, the motion by appellee for extension to September 3, 

2010 of the time for filing its brief is considered and it is GRANTED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
     audited financial statements at December 31, 1998 which are included in the
     Registrant's  Form 10-K and is  qualified  in its  entirety by reference to
     such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001052196
<NAME>                        DSET Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         1,159
<SECURITIES>                                   43,864
<RECEIVABLES>                                  9,284
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (176)
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               54,583
<PP&E>                                         3,081
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,489)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 56,854
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5,545
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       41,912
<OTHER-SE>                                     9,277
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   56,854
<SALES>                                        29,290
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               29,290
<CGS>                                          5,467
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  18,138
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             12
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                7,355
<INCOME-TAX>                                   2,561
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            4,794
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   4,794
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .53 <F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .43 <F2>
<FN>
<F1>      This amount represents Basic Earnings per Share in accordance with the
          requirements of Statement of Financial  Accounting Standards No. 128 -
          "Earnings per Share."

<F2>      This amount  represents  Diluted Earnings per Share in accordance with
          the  requirements of Statement of Financial  Accounting  Standards No.
          128 - "Earnings per Share."
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.3


 


FOURTH AMENDMENT TO

THE PIPER IMPACT 401(K) PLAN


 


THIS AGREEMENT by Quanex
Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Sponsor”),


 


W I T N
E S S E T H:


 


WHEREAS, the Sponsor maintains the
Piper Impact 401(k) Plan, as amended and restated effective January 1, 2002 (the
“Plan”);


 


WHEREAS, pursuant to
Section 13.01 of the Plan, the Sponsor has the right to amend the Plan;
and


 


WHEREAS, the Sponsor has determined to amend the
Plan;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the Sponsor
agrees that Section 5.04 is hereby completely amended and restated, effective
for mandatory distributions under the Plan on and after March 28, 2005, to
provide as follows:


 


5.04         Immediate Payment of Small Amount Upon Separation From Service.
Each Participant or former Participant whose Nonforfeitable Interest in his
Account balance at the time of a distribution to him on account of his
Separation From Service is, in the aggregate, less than or equal to $1,000.00,
shall be paid in the form of an immediate single sum cash payment and/or as a
Direct Rollover, as elected by him under section 5.05. However, if a
Distributee who is subject to this Section 5.04 does not furnish instructions
in accordance with Plan procedures to directly roll over his Plan benefit
within 45 days after he has been given direct rollover forms, he will be deemed
to have elected to receive an immediate lump sum cash distribution of his
entire Plan benefit. If a Participant’s or former Participant’s Nonforfeitable
Interest in his Account balance payable upon his Separation From Service is
zero (because he has no Nonforfeitable Interest in his Account balance), he
will be deemed to receive an immediate distribution of his entire
Nonforfeitable Interest in his Account balance.


 

















 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Sponsor
has caused this Agreement to be executed on the 19th day of December, 2005.


 


 


	
   

  	
   

  	
  QUANEX
  CORPORATION

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  /s/
  Kevin P. Delaney

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  Kevin
  P. Delaney

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  Senior
  Vice President – General Counsel and

  Secretary
#### Lee PARKER, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee (seven cases).

Nos. 25371-25377.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 10, 1951.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 14, 1951.

Bennett & Bennett, by Mac L. Bennett, Jr., Normangee, for appellant.

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

MORRISON Judge.

The question herein submitted is identical with that presented in L. J. Taylor v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 243 S.W.2d 582, this day decided.

For the reasons therein stated the State’s motion for rehearing is granted, the original opinion withdrawn, the judgment of reversal and dismissal is set aside, and the judgment is now affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

The same proposition confronts us as is raised in Taylor v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 243 S.W.2d 582, and in conformity with our reasoning in that case, this motion for a rehearing is overruled.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court

The State, Petitioner,

v.
Richard Lewis, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2013-001571

ON WRI T OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

Appeal from Laurens County The Honorable Frank R. Addy, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Opinion No. 27511 Heard March 4, 2015 – Filed March 25, 2015

CERTIORARI DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED

Attorney General Alan M. Wilson and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Sa lley W. Elliott, both of Columbia, for Petitioner.

C. Rauch Wise, of Gr eenwood, for Respondent.PER CURIAM: We granted certiorari to revi ew the court of appeals' decision in State v. Lewis , 403 S.C. 345, 743 S.E.2d 124 (C t. App. 2013). We now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted.



### TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ.,

concur.
#### NATIONAL BEDDING CO. v. McGEE et al.

No. A-4359.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Jan. 13, 1954.

*949Plarold Kahn, Houston, for relator. ,

BREWSTER, Justice.

This is an original mandamus proceeding by which relator, Albert Bentch d/b/a National Bedding Company, seeks an order directing Hon. W. Sears McGee, Judge of Harris County Court at Law, respondent, “to set aside thé order of August 10, 1951 (1953), setting aside the default judgment rendered in favor of relator June 16, 1953.”

On May 24, 1953, relator filed suit in respondent’s court against All Bargain Furniture Company on a sworn account of $326. On June 16, 1953, and after citation had been duly served, the court rendered a default judgment for plaintiff for $326, interest and costs, during a term of court which ended on July 6, 1953.

• On July 3, 1953, defendant furniture company filed a motion to set aside the judgment, hearing on which motion was set for 'July 10. It was heard on July 27, 1953, and granted on August 10, 1953. Two days later relator moved the court to set aside this last order because the court term during which the original judgment was rendered had expired and the order was therefore'void.

The default judgment-rendered on June 16 was a final judgment valid both on its face and on the face of the record. Therefore, the trial court had no power to set it aside at a subsequent term, either upon motion .of the defendant furniture company or upon its own motion. Its validity can be challenged' only by the equity action of bill of review. Ridley v. .Mc.Callum, 139 Tex. 540, 163 S.W.2d 833. See, also, Rule 320(d) T. R. C. P. and Arenstein v. Jencks, Tex.Civ.App., 179 S.W.2d 831, for an interesting .discussion by Justice Murray, rnuch of which is applicable here.

The writ of' mandamus Will issue as prayed by relator.
## SERVED APRIL 14,2010 : L! U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF BUSH AIR CARGO, INC. FAADOCKETNO. CPlOALOOO 1 (Civil Penalty Action) DMS NO. FAA-2010-0311


### NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2009AL7030119) has been assigned to Admihistrative LawJudge Richard C, Goodwin. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served onthe Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other persons onthe attached Service List.

Ro ie A. Yoder ChiefAdministrative L'''.X,-",",ITI Attachment

- Service ListFAA DocketNo. CPIOAL0001 (Civil Penalty Action) SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COpy Hearing Docket Federal AviationAdministration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Att: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building Room 2014 1 ONE COPY
Brent M. Tieman, President Bush Air Cargo, Inc., 

### Respondent P.O. Box 93144 Anchorage, AK 99509-3144 TEL: 907-277-7657 FAX: 907-274-1725 GlennH. Brown, 

### Complainant's Counsel Senior Attorney Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AAL-7 Alaskan Region Federal Aviation Administration 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14 Anchorage,AK 99513-7587 TEL: 907-271-5269 FAX: 907-271-2800 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,

### AdministrativeLawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. East Building Ground Floor, RoomE12-320 Washington, D.C. 20590 TEL: ·202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 202- 366-5121 Legal Assistant FAX: 202- 366-7536

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the followmg address: Hearing Docket, Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building

- Room 2014, Washington, DC 20591, Att: Heru:ing DocketClerk, AGC-430.
exv10w32



 






Exhibit 10.32




RECOMMENDATIONS



It is recommended that effective January 1, 2005, the Speedway SuperAmerica LLC Excess Benefit
Plan be amended to provide that, in the event a participant separates from service during the 2005
calendar year, the participant’s 2005 benefit accruals will be automatically canceled and
distributed in a lump sum on or prior to December 31, 2005.



It is further recommended that effective January 1, 2006, the Speedway SuperAmerica LLC Excess
Benefit Plan be amended to provide that:





	 	•	 	In the event a participant has not made a distribution election, his or her Excess
Retail Sub-Plan Benefit will be distributed as a lump sum; and
	 
	 	•	 	Participants must commence their Excess Retail Sub-Plan Benefits following separation
from service (in accordance with the distribution rules approved by the Plan
Administrator) regardless of whether they have commenced benefits under the qualified
Retail Sub-Plan.





Reviewed:




	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	Law

	 	Date	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	Tax

	 	Date	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Approved:
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
   /s/ Larry Echelberger             
                       
                        
                        
      
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	Senior Vice President

	 	Date
July 30, 2015



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

GREG SALDINGER , Appellant

NO. 14

- 14

- 00402

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

_____________ ___________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
## F I F T H 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D 2 2

- 25 48 LT Case No. 2017

- CF

- 003138

- A

_____________________________ I V AN E NRIQUE F IGUEROA
S ERRAN O , Appellant,

v. S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County. G. Richard Sing e l t ary, Judge. Matthew J. Metz, P ubli c Defender, and Jane C. Almy, Assistant Pu blic De fender, Daytona Bea ch , for Appellant. Ivan Enrique Figueroa-Serrano , Milt on, pro se. Ashley M oody, Attorney General, Tallahassee and Stephen R. Putn am, Jr., Assistant Attorney Gener al, Dayt ona Beach, for Appellee. February 13 , 2024
P ER C URIAM . A FFIRMED .2

E DWARDS , C.J., H ARRIS , and K ILBANE , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331 .

_____________________________
**Exhibit 32(i)**

****

**CERTIFICATION**

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



In connect
with the quarterly report of Taylor Devices, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB
for the period ended August 31, 2007 to be filed with Securities and Exchange
Commission on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Douglas P. Taylor,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 as of the dates
and for the periods covered by the Report.

It is not
intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.



|Date: October 11, 2007 | By: | /s/ Douglas P. Taylor                     
|---------------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------
|                       |     | Douglas P. Taylor, Chief Executive Officer
Sli p Op . 07
- 8 1 UNITE D STATE S COURT O F INTERNATIONAL TRAD E

ROCKWEL L AUTOMATION , INC . f/k/ a ROCKWEL L AUTOMATION / ALLEN-BRADLE YCO. , LLC ,

Plaintiff , v . UNITE D STATES , Defendant . Before : Richar d K . Eaton , judg e Cour t No . 03-0000 7

JUDGMEN T Upo n consideratio n o f th e parties ' respons e t o th e court' s Opinio n and Orde r o f May7 , 200 7 (Slip Op . 07-67) , i t i s hereb y ORDERE D tha t th e subjec t merchandis e identifie d o n th e commercia l invoice s a s "shor t bod ytimer " mode l number s 700
- HR52TA17B ; 700-HR52TU243 ; 700-HRC12TA173 ; 700-HRC12TU24B ; 700
- HRM12TU24 B and 700-HRM12TA17 B i s classifie d unde r Harmonize d Tarif f Schedul e o f th e unite d State s ("HTSUS" ) subheading 8536.49.00 ; an

d i t i s furthe r ORDERE D tha t th e U.S . Custom s and Borde r Protectio n shal l re-liquidat e th e subjec t entrie s reflectin g tha t th e above-liste d shor t bod

ytimer s b e classifie d unde r HTSUS subheading 8536.49.0 0 and payrefund s t o plaintiff , togethe r wit hinteres t a s provide d b ylaw .

Dated : May22 , 200 7

Ne wYork , Ne wYork IS I RichardK . Eato n Judg e
(LOGO)
10 South Broadway                   Telephone 314 444 1400    Fax 314 444 1470
Suite 900
St. Louis, MO 63102-1761


                         INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT

The Board of Directors
Citicorp Mortgage, Inc.:

We have  examined  management's  assertion  about  Citicorp  Mortgage,  Inc. (an
indirect wholly owned  subsidiary of Citicorp) and  subsidiaries'  (the Company)
compliance  with the minimum  servicing  standards  identified  in the  Mortgage
Bankers   Association  of    America's  UNIFORM  SINGLE ATTESTATION  PROGRAM FOR
MORTGAGE  BANKERS as of and  for   the  year ended December 31, 1997 included in
the  accompanying  management  assertion.  Management  is  responsible  for  the
Company's compliance with those minimum servicing standards.  Our responsibility
is  to  express  an  opinion  on  management's  assertion  about  the  Company's
compliance based on our examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on a test basis,  evidence about the Company's  compliance  with the
minimum  servicing   standards  and  performing  such  other  procedures  as  we
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe our examination provides a
reasonable  basis for our  opinion.  Our  examination  does not  provide a legal
determination on the Company's compliance with the minimum servicing standards.

In  our  opinion,  management's  assertion  that  Citicorp  Mortgage,  Inc.  and
subsidiaries complied with the aforementioned  minimum servicing standards as of
and for the year ended  December  31,  1997 is fairly  stated,  in all  material
respects.

                                                  /s/KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

February 20, 1998
#### LEE v. STATE.

No. 26118.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 17, 1952.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

The offense is driving a motor vehicle upon a public road while intoxicated; the punishment, a fine of $50.

No statement of facts or bills of exception are found in the record, and the proceedings appear to be regular.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.