alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### SMITH et al. v. CALVERT FIRE INS. CO. OF PENNSYLVANIA.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 22, 1951.

D. G. Boleyn, Hazard, Dan Martin, Carl D. Perkins, Hindman, for appellants.

G. C. Wilson, Hazard, William Mellor, Louisville, for appellee.

CAMMACK, Chief Justice.

This is an ordinary action to recover on an automobile collision insurance policy. Proof was taken by deposition and, by agreement of the parties, the case was submitted to the court for a trial without a jury. It was not transferred from the ordinary to the equity docket. The court ruled in favor of the Insurance Company. The appellants, plaintiffs below, did not file a motion for a new trial and did not file a bill of exceptions. On May 2, 1950, a motion to strike all the record except the pleadings and the judgment was overruled. The appellee is still contending that, under the authority of the case of Bingham v. Mills, 275 Ky. 552, 122 S.W.2d 133, the ■only question 'before us is, whether or not the pleadings support the judgment. The ruling in the Bingham Case supports the appellee’s contention. Therefore, we withdraw the order overruling the appellee’s motion to strike all of the record except the pleadings and judgment, and the motion is now sustained. We have examined the pleadings and they support the judgment.

Wherefore, on the authority of the Bing-ham Case, the judgment is affirmed.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP96-383-013]

Take notice that on October 27, 2000, Dominion Transmission, Inc. (DTI) tendered for filing the following tariff sheets for disclosure of a recently negotiated transaction with PSEG Power New York, Inc.:

Second Revised Sheet No. 1300

First Revised Sheet No. 1405

Original Sheet No. 1406

DTI requests an effective date of November 1, 2000, for the agreement.

DTI states that the transaction includes a negotiated rate. Further, because the transaction includes a provision that may be a material deviation from the form of service agreement included in DTI's tariff, DTI has also filed the letter agreement between the parties.

DTI states that copies of the filing have been served on all parties on the official service list, DTI's customers, and interested state commissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at ­http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-28636  Filed 11-7-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### TRINITY UNIVERSAL INS. CO. v. WALLACE.

No. 11493.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

May 2, 1945.

A. E. Wood and W. Sale Lewis, both of Austin, for appellant.

Morriss & Morriss, of San Antonio, and Roscoe C. Runge, of Mason, for appellee.

MURRAY, Justice.

Appellant has filed a motion asking us to certify to the Supreme Court the question of the correctness of our holding to the effect that under the provisions of Subdivision 23 of Article 1995, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Stats., where it is shown that plaintiff resided in the county of suit at the time his cause of action, if any, arose, and that the corporation defendant also had an agent in such county, it will riot be necessary for him to go further and prove that he had a good cause of action by proving the necessary constituent elements of the same.

We would be inclined to certify this question but for the fact that we are of the opinion that plaintiff below did show by a preponderance of the evidence all of the necessary constituent elements'of his cause of action and that same arose while he was a resident of the county of suit.

The evidence is sufficient to show that appellee was a minor, that he was totally and permanently disabled, and therefore he would have been entitled to compensation in the sum of $8,020. He was induced by a claim agent of the insurance carrier to enter into a compromise agreement for some $140. This agreement was approved by the Industrial Accident Board. The minor was not bound by such agreement and he would be entitled to repudiate such agreement by reason of his minority alone and would not have to show fraud before he could set the same aside. If the minor had been partially incapacitated, or temporarily totally incapacitated, then settlement could have been made with such minor and his receipt taken therefor, as is provided in Sec. 13 of Art. 8306, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Stats. But where the incapacity is total and permanent the rule is otherwise. The trial judge found “that plaintiff’s cause of action arose in Mason County, Texas,” and the evidence is sufficient to support this finding. This minor was not required to show fraud before he would be entitled to repudiate this compromise settlement, but could rely upon his minority alone for this purpose.

It is true this finding was made in supplementary findings, filed some thirteen *716days after the original findings were made. Appellant contends we should not consider this finding because it was not filed in keeping with the requirements of Rule No. 298, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. We have concluded that this rule does not apply to appeals taken in plea of privilege cases.

The motion to certify is overruled.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP01-38-000]

Take notice that on October 11, 2000, Colorado Interstate Gas Company (CIG), tendered for filing a letter stating that CIG believes it is currently in full compliance with Section 284.12(c)(2)(ii) of the Commission's regulations. Order No. 587-L requires pipelines to be in compliance with this regulation by November 1, 2000, to permit shippers to offset imbalances on different contracts held by the shipper and to trade imbalances.

CIG further states that copies of this filing have been served on CIG's jurisdictional customers and public bodies.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Davis P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-27622  Filed 10-26-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE
PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 26, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-26-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-26-1997
<CASH>                                          29,293
<SECURITIES>                                    54,502
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,869
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      8,043
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               108,458
<PP&E>                                          10,141
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,577
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 115,022
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,639
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           254
<OTHER-SE>                                     100,129
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   115,022
<SALES>                                         19,285
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,285
<CGS>                                            7,218
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,749
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,249
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,572
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,677
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,677
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

TARA FARRELL et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NEW MILLENIUM CONCEPTS, LTD.,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-00728-M

ORDER

The Court’s March 30, 2023, Order allowed Plaintiffs to amend their Complaint by April 

20, 2023, to plead a specific basis for recovery of punitive damages as to each cause of action. 

ECF No. 59. The Court told Plaintiffs that, absent amendment, it would dismiss Plaintiffs’ 

punitive damages claims with prejudice. Id. Plaintiffs did not amend their Complaint. 

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ punitive damages claims, with prejudice. 

SO ORDERED.

July 19, 2023.

BARBARA M. G. LYNN

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-00728-M Document 66 Filed 07/19/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 926
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 17, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-40285

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TODD W. ALTSCHUL,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:02-CR-137-ALL

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Following a jury trial, Todd W. Altschul was convicted of

five counts of mail fraud and sentenced to serve 87 months in

prison and a three-year term of supervised release. Altschul

argues that his sentence violates the principles enunciated in

Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531, 2537 (2004). This

argument is foreclosed by United States v. Pineiro, 377 F.3d 464

(5th Cir. 2004), petition for cert. filed (U.S. July 14, 2004)

(No. 04-5263). All outstanding motions are DENIED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families
 *Title:*
                    Uniform Project Description for a Discretionary Grant Application. *OMB No.:*
                    0970-0139. Description *Respondents:*
                    Applicants for ACF Discretionary Grant Programs. Annual Burden Estimates
Instrument
Number of 
                             respondents
Number of 
                             responses per respondent
Average burden hours per response
Total burden hoursUPD
2,838
1
8
22,838Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours



22,838
 *Additional Information:*
                    Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to The Administration for Children and Families, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. *OMB Comment:*
                    OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                    . Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attn: Desk Officer for ACF. Dated: October 26, 2000. Bob Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.


[FR Doc. 00-28052  Filed 11-8-00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 19-0518

_________________

STATE OF MONTANA,

 Plaintiff and Appellee,

 v.

MATTHEW GLEN HOTCHKISS,

 Defendant and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to the Court sitting en banc. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the 

Honorable Jennifer B. Lint, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 16 2020

09/16/2020
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

WALEED EDENS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 494 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 13th day of March, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7559

JAMES EDMOND WATTS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PATRICIA E. CONNER, Correctional Officer,

Augusta Correctional Center; L. SAUNDERS,

Warden; JACK LEE; S. JAMES TAYLOR; MAJOR DAY;

D. BOYERS, Captain; INVESTIGATOR REYNOLDS;

LAWRENCE W. DURY, III; L. H. HUFFMAN; SERGEANT

STARKEY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District

Judge. (CA-94-586-R)

Submitted: February 11, 1997 Decided: August 19, 1997

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Edmond Watts, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing his complaint

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994). We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Watts v. Conner, No. CA-94-586-R (W.D. Va. Sept. 24, 1996).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### BACHIS v. STATE.

No. 25038.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 13, 1950.

None on appeal for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction, for the unlawful sale of whisky in a dry area. The jury assessed his penalty at a fine of $200.00.

The record is brought forward without a statement of facts or bill of exception. The proceedings appear regular. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
                         [ERNST & YOUNG LLP LETTERHEAD]


                                                                    EXHIBIT 20.5


                         REPORT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


Board of Directors
WFS Financial Inc

We have audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the
consolidated statement of financial condition of WFS Financial Inc and
Subsidiaries (WFS) as of December 31, 1998 and the related consolidated
statements of operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows for the year then
ended, and have issued our report thereon dated January 25, 1999.

In connection with our audit, nothing came to our attention that caused us to
believe that WFS failed to, in all material aspects, comply with the terms,
covenants, provisions or conditions of the Sale and Servicing Agreements for WFS
Financial Auto Loans, Inc. dated March 1, 1998, June 1, 1998 or November 1, 1998
between Bankers Trust Company, Chase Manhattan Bank, and WFS insofar as they
relate to accounting matters. However, it should be noted that our audit was not
directed primarily toward obtaining knowledge of noncompliance.

This report is intended for the use and information of the Board of Directors
and management of WFS, Bankers Trust Company and Chase Manhattan Bank and should
not be used for any other purposes.


                                        /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

January 25, 1999
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2293
TOM SNYDER, d/b/a SCM, Incorporated, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ALPHA PRO TECH, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA96-1932-PJM) Argued: June 5, 1998 Decided: August 4, 1998 Before HAMILTON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAMS, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: John Michael Shoreman, MCFADDEN, SHOREMAN & TSIMPEDES, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. David B. Anderson, WALSTON, WELLS, ANDERSON & BAINS, L.L.P., Birmingham, Alabama, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Douglas B. McFadden, MCFADDEN, SHOREMAN & TSIMPEDES, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. J. David Moore, WALSTON, WELLS, ANDERSON & BAINS, L.L.P., Birmingham, Alabama, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM This case represents an appeal by the appellant of the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Alpha Pro Tech, Inc. The two basic findings were that no enforceable contract existed between appellant and appellee, and no service was rendered to justify a quantum meruit award. We review a summary judgment motion de novo . After reviewing the record and the district court’s bench ruling we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Snyder v. Alpha Pro Tech, Inc. , PJM 96-1932 (D. Md. August 12, 1997).

AFFIRMED
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 29, 2019.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-18-01076-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.L.P., A.M.P., A.G.P., AND A.R.P., CHILDREN 

On Appeal from the 310th District Court 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 2016-58613 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

This is an appeal from the November 13, 2018 final order in a suit to modify 

the parent-child relationship. The brief of appellant, M.P., was due July 18, 2019. 

No brief or motion to extend time to file the brief was filed. 

On July 25, 2019, the court ordered appellant to file a brief by August 19, 

2019. We cautioned that if appellant failed to comply with our order, we would 

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). No brief or 

motion to extend time to file the brief was filed.

Therefore, the appeal is DISMISSED. 

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Spain, and Poissant