alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### REED et al. v. GREENE et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 16, 1951.

Combs & Combs, Prestonsburg, for appellants.

Joe Plobson, Prestonsburg, for appellees.

WADDILL, Commissioner.

By a declaratory judgment action there is sought a determination of this question: Can the Board of Education of Floyd *893County under the provisions of KRS 160.380 disregard the recommendations of the superintendent of schools and-appoint janitors, bus drivers, and mechanics in the absence of the recommendation of the superintendent ?

KRS 160.380 reads: “Except as provided in KRS 160.130 and 160.430, all appoint-' ments, promotions and transfers of principals, supervisors, teachers and other public school employes shall be made only upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools, subject to the approval of the board. If the board of education cannot agree with the superintendent as to any legally qualified person recommended by the superintendent, the board of education may appeal to the State Board of Education to review the case and the decision of the State Board of Education shall be final. All employes of the board shall have such qualifications as are prescribed by law and by the regulations of the State Board of Education and o'f the employing board. Supervisors, principals, teachers and other employes may be appointed by the board of education for any school year at any time after April 1 next preceding the beginning of the school year. (1942, c. 113, § 13)”

The trial court adjudged that the board had the authority under the above statute and answered the question propounded' in the affirmative.

The primary purpose of judicial construction of statutes is to determine the intent and purpose thereof and if this may be ascertained from the wording of the statute, no other rule of construction or interpretation is necessary. City of Mayfield v. Reed, 278 Ky. 5, 127 S.W.2d 847; Gilbert v. Greene, 185 Ky. 817, 216 S.W. 105.

The language of the statute is clear and certain. We entertain no doubt that its terms include the appointments of janitors, bus drivers, and mechanics. The superintendent has the sole authority to recommend the appointments; the authority vested in the board, is to approve, or disapprove the recommendations. Therefore, the recommendation of the superintendent is a condition precedent to the right of the board to employ janitors, bus drivers, and mechanics which we find are “other public school employes” within the meaning of the statute. We are of the opinion that the court erred in ruling otherwise.

In -declaratory- judgment actions we are committed to the rule not to determine speculative rights or duties although future contingencies may create an actual, justiciable controversy. Board of Education of Berea v. Nuncy, Ky., 239 S.W.2d 471. For this reason we decline to answer other questions presented.

Judgment reversed.

COMBS, J., not sitting.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 292 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 292

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That a collection of statements made in tribute to the late Speaker of 
the House of Representatives, Thomas P. ``Tip'' O'Neill, Jr., together 
with related materials, shall be printed as a House document, with 
illustrations and suitable binding. The document shall be prepared 
under the direction of the Joint Committee on Printing.
    Sec. 2. In addition to the usual number, there shall be printed the 
lesser of--
            (1) 5,000 casebound copies of the document, of which 1,760 
        copies shall be for the use of the House of Representatives, 
        400 copies shall be for the use of the Senate, and 2,840 copies 
        shall be for the use of the Joint Committee on Printing; or
            (2) such number of casebound copies of the document as does 
        not exceed a total production and printing cost of $79,500, 
        with distribution to be allocated in the same proportion as 
        described in paragraph (1).

            Passed the House of Representatives October 7 (legislative 
      day, October 6), 1994.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
                                     

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            H. CON. RES. 292

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

   Providing for the printing of a collection of statements made in 
tribute to the late Speaker of the House of Representatives, Thomas P. 
                          ``Tip'' O'Neill, Jr.
```
EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF EXPERTS AND COUNSEL




<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
              ---------------------------------------------------


The Board of Directors
Leeds Federal Bankshares, Inc.:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statement (No.
333-44899)  on Form S-8 of Leeds  Federal  Bankshares,  Inc. of our report dated
August 18, 2000, relating to the consolidated  statements of financial condition
of Leeds Federal  Bankshares,  Inc. and subsidiary as of June 30, 2000 and 1999,
and the related  consolidated  statements  of income and  comprehensive  income,
stockholders'  equity  and cash  flows for each of the  years in the  three-year
period  ended June 30, 2000,  which  report  appears in the June 30, 2000 Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB of Leeds Federal Bankshares, Inc.


                                        /s/ KPMG LLP
                                        -------------------------
                                        KPMG LLP


Baltimore, Maryland
September 22, 2000
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           9,568
<SECURITIES>                                    80,355
<RECEIVABLES>                                   48,985
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,908
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               138,908
<PP&E>                                         748,981
<DEPRECIATION>                                  74,476
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 901,761
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          103,782
<BONDS>                                        552,570
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           225
<OTHER-SE>                                     220,168
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   901,761
<SALES>                                        175,951
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               175,951
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  169,463
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,156
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (13,668)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4,989)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,679)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 16,740
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,061
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 21

- 00331

- CR

John Darrick RITTENBERRY

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court

, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. B20109

Honorable Rex Emerson , Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ

, JUSTICE ALVAREZ , AND JUSTICE WATKINS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court ’ s judgment is

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED February 22, 2023.

_____________________________ Beth Watkins, Justice
#### JENKINS et al. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF OWEN COUNTY et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Feb. 8, 1952.

Rehearing Denied May 2, 1952.

R. C. Ford, Jr., Owenton, for appellants. L. M. Ackman, Williamstown, for appel-lees.

CULLEN,' Commissioner.

The only question in issue on this appeal is whether the appellee owes the appellants $206 plus a'small amount of interest. The appeal was granted by the lower court.

Since the amount in controversy is less than $500, the granting of the appeal by the lower court did not confer jurisdiction upon this court, and the appeal must be dismissed. Black v. York, 298 Ky. 557, 183 S.W.2d 641; Simpson v. Halcomb, 305 Ky. 849, 205 S.W.2d 352. It is immaterial that the judgment appealed from is a. declaratory judgment. Stewart v. City of Corbin, 294 Ky. 284, 171 S.W.2d 445. It is likewise immaterial that the appellee has not moved to dismiss the appeal. Jordan v. Merten, 309 Ky. 105, 216 S.W.2d 906.

Appeal dismissed.
|                                                                           
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                           
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                             
|View History: Annual                                                       
|View History: Annual                                                       
|View History:                                                              
|                                                                           
|Gulf Coast (PADD 3) Natural Gas Consumed at Refineries (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                           
|                                                                           
|Gulf Coast (PADD 3) Natural Gas Consumed at Refineries (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                           

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0  | Year-1  | Year-2  | Year-3  | Year-4  | Year-5  | Year-6  | Year-7  | Year-8  | Year-9 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | -------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |         |         |         |         |         | 338,022 | 416,319 | 419,198 | 426,877 | 419,156
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 441,868 | 459,835 | 480,550 | 499,028 | 487,115 | NA      | 519,776 | NA      | 607,868 | 521,537
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 521,036 | 488,490 | 458,652 | 429,800 | 395,157 | 395,980 | 395,627 | 363,004 | 381,022 | 383,891
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 415,660 | 434,493 | 474,359 | 491,023 | 474,212 | 445,865 | 462,107 | 465,489 | 482,945 | 495,521
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 514,668 | 557,541 | 587,274 | 575,110 |         |         |         |         |         |        
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
Case 4:22-cr-00106-P Document 71 Filed 04/20/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 49
Case 4:22-cr-00106-P Document 71 Filed 04/20/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 50
#### HERNANDEZ v. STATE.

No. 22575.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 23, 1943.

Chas. Owen, of El Paso, ?or appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was assessed a fine of $750 upon a conviction for negligent homicide by a jury in the county court of El Paso County.

The complaint and information in this case were filed on October 12, 1942. It appears from the record that the complaint was not sworn to until the 3rd day of February, 1943, which was the day before the case was called for trial. Under this state of fact, the complaint was void and there was no basis for the filing of the information, which is the written pleading required by law to be filed. Art. 415, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P., and authorities therein referred to; Sprowles v. State, 65 Tex.Cr.R. *96,*143 S.W. 622; Thomas v. State, 107 Tex.Cr.R. 405, 296 S.W. 310; Thomas v. State, 107 Tex.Cr.R. 474, 296 S.W. 894; Thomas v. State, 107 Tex.Cr.R. 593, 298 S.W. 590; and Murphy v. State, 132 Tex.Cr.R. 202, 103 S.W.2d 765.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
685 CAF 11-01129 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF KIM MONTAGUE, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
V ORDER
JASON A. BROOKS, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

--------------------------------------- IN THE MATTER OF JASON A. BROOKS, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V
KIM MONTAGUE, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

ELIZABETH CIAMBRONE, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT AND RESPONDENTAPPELLANT.
CATHARINE VENZON, BUFFALO, FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT AND PETITIONERRESPONDENT.
AYOKA TUCKER, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, BUFFALO, FOR NATHAN B.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Chautauqua County (Kevin M. Carter, J.), entered May 10, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, awarded respondent-petitioner sole custody of the subject child. Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation of discontinuance signed by petitioner-respondent, the attorneys for the parties, and by the Attorney for the Child on March 12, 2012, It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs upon stipulation.

Entered: June 8, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6107

LEE ALLEN KETCHUM, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA; ERNEST R. SUTTON, Superintendent; MICHAEL F. EASLEY, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-348-1) Submitted: March 25, 1999 Decided: March 31, 1999 Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lee Allen Ketchum, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Lee Allen Ketchum appeals the district court’s order grantingRespondents’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Ketchum v. Attorney General of North Carolina , No. CA-98-348-1 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 16, 1998). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § CASE NO.: 3:22-CR-00228-L

§

DEMONTRE ANTWON HACKWORTH §

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

After reviewing all relevant matters of record, including the Notice Regarding Entry of a Plea of Guilty, the Consent 

of the defendant, and the Report and Recommendation Concerning Plea of Guilty of the United States Magistrate Judge, 

and no objections thereto having been filed within fourteen days of service in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the 

undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge concerning the 

Plea of Guilty is correct, and it is hereby accepted by the Court. Accordingly, the Court accepts the plea of guilty, and 

DEMONTRE ANTWON HACKWORTH is hereby adjudged guilty of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(1)(A), 923(a), and 

924(a)(1)(D), namely, Dealing in Firearms Without a License. Sentence will be imposed in accordance with the Court's 

scheduling order.

☒ The defendant is ordered to remain in custody.

☐ The Court accepts the findings of the United States Magistrate Judge by clear and convincing evidence that the 

defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released and should therefore 

be released under § 3142(b) or (c).

☐ Upon motion, this matter shall be set for hearing before the United States Magistrate Judge who set the conditions 

of release for determination, by clear and convincing evidence, of whether the defendant is likely to flee or pose a 

danger to any other person or the community if released under § 3142(b) or (c).

☐ The defendant is not ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) pending determination of whether it has 

been clearly shown that there are exceptional circumstances under § 3145(c) why the defendant should not be 

detained under § 3143(a)(2), and whether it has been shown by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is 

not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released under § 3142(b) or (c). This 

matter shall be referred to the United States Magistrate Judge who set the conditions of release.

SIGNED this 31st day of January, 2023.

________________________________________

SAM A. LINDSAY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cr-00228-L Document 29 Filed 01/31/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 88
ORDER Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

MICHAEL POLICE, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-00712-E

§

NAVARRO COLLEGE and §

OFFICER DAVID ARNETT §

§

Defendant. §

ORDER

Before the Court are the following motions: (1) Defendant David Arnett’s Motion to 

Dismiss Plaintiff’s Original Complaint, (Doc. 12); and (2) Defendant Navarro College’s Motion 

to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Original Complaint, (Doc. 13). Having reviewed the motions, the responses 

and replies, and the applicable law, the Court hereby rules as follows: (1) Defendant David Arnett’s 

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Original Complaint, (Doc. 12), is GRANTED IN PART AND 

DENIED IN PART; and (2) Defendant Navarro College’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Original 

Complaint, (Doc. 13), is GRANTED. An opinion containing the grounds for the Court’s decision 

is forthcoming.

SO ORDERED: March 31, 2023. 

Case 3:22-cv-00712-E Document 28 Filed 03/31/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 207
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T PH I LI P PU LV ER, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. B A T T E L L E M E M O R I A L I N S T I T U T E , a n o n - p r o f it c o rp o r a tio n ; e t a l. D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 35906 D. C . No . 2 : 0 5 - c v - 0 5 0 2 8 - R HW ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe E a s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on R obe rtH . W ha l e y , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d J ul y 24, 2013 ** B efo re: A L A R C Ó N , C L IF T O N , an d C A L L A H A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P hi l i p P ul ve rappe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e ntdi s m i s s i ng hi s di ve r s i ty a c t i on a l l e gi ng br e a c h of c ontr a c ta nd othe rc l a i m s . W e ha ve ju risd icti o n u n d er2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r ev iew d e n o v o th e d istrict co u rt’s 

# FI LED AU G 05 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 35906 2 d is m is s a l f

o rla c ko f

s tan d in g . D e l. V

al le ySur gi c al Suppl yI nc . v . J ohns on & J ohns on , 5 2 3 F. 3 d 1 1 1 6 , 1 1 1 9 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) . W e a f f i rm. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r ly d is m is s e d th e a c tio n b e c au s e P u lv e rw a s n o t a pa rty t o the c ontr a c ti n hi s i ndi vi dua l c apa c i ty a nd l a c ke d s t a ndi ng t o m a i nt a i n the c orpor a t e pl a i nt i f

f’ s br e a c h of

c ontr a c tc l a i m i n hi s i ndi vi dua l c apa c i ty f ol l ow i ng th e d is m is s a l o f

th e c o rp o r a te p la in tif

f . See Sh erm a n v. B ri t ish L eyla n d Mo to rs, L td. , 60 1 F . 2d 42 9, 43 9-40 & n. 13 (9th C i r. 19 79 ) ( pres i dentand sol e s t ockh ol der o f c o rp o r a t i o n l a c k e d s t a n d i n g i n h i s i n d i v i du a l c ap a c i ty t o a s s e rtc o n tr a c tc l a i ms o n b e h a lf o f c o rp o r a tio n ) . AF F I RME D.
#### BRANDON et ux. v. FROST et al.

No. 2756.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

March 31, 1953.

*648Henry B. Penix, Wichita Falls, Willi-ford & Williford, Fairfield, for appellants.

Bowlen Bond, Teague, for appellees.

McDonald, justice.

This is a case involving the care and custody of two minor children, whose parents had been previously divorced. The father of the children filed suit against the children’s mother, and grandparents, who had previously been awarded custody. Ap-pellees, an uncle and aunt of the children, intervened, seeking custody for themselves. From a judgment of the trial court, finding that it was to the best interest of the children that their care and custody be awarded to their uncle and aunt, and so awarding same, the mother appeals.

The transcript and statement of facts from the trial court were filed in this court on July 1, 1947. The case was set for submission and for oral argument for October' 9, 1947, upon which date it was postponed indefinitely by agreement of counsel. Neither party has filed any brief in the case, and no request has been made by either party for any action to be taken since October 9, 1947.

■ Since no effort has been made to prosecute this appeal for almost six years, there is no reason why this court should continue indefinitely to carry the case on its docket, and to report the same from time to time as a pending suit.

■ Therefore this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution and the costs incident thereto are taxed against appellants.