alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[No. 35340.

Department Two.

January 26, 1961.]

#### Arthur F. Brown, Appellant, v. W. G. Shearer, *as County Auditor, et al., Respondents.*
      *1*

*Hull, Armstrong & Vander Stoep,*for appellant.

*John Panesko*and *Jas. E. Sareault,*for respondents.

Reported in 358 P. (2d) 800.

Finley, C. J.

— This, allegedly, is a taxpayer’s lawsuit to prevent an improper use of public funds.

The plaintiff, manager of a title insurance company in Lewis County, relying upon *Smith v. Lamping*(1902), 27 Wash. 624, 68 Pac. 195, and *Dirks v. Collin*(1905), 37 Wash. 620, 79 Pac. 1112, asks (a) that the auditor and the commis*618sioners of Lewis County be enjoined from keeping certain records.< (referred to by the parties as *“Tract Indices”*
      *2*
      *),*and (b) that the *tract indices*be no longer available for use by county officials or the public; in short, that the *tract indices*be abated or destroyed.

The trial court entered findings of fact to the effect that public funds were not being nor about to be expended in maintaining the *tract indices.*There is evidence in the record to support this -finding. Thus, as we have said in numerous cases, we accept and adopt this finding as a verity; *i.e.,*as an established fact for the purposes of this appeal. The decisions in the *Lamping*and *Collin*cases were based upon an anticipated or an actual and continuing improper expenditure of public funds. We are convinced this is a significant distinction, and that the above-cited cases are not controlling in the instant case. We agree , with the trial court’s conclusions of law. The judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. It is so ordered.

Hill, Weaver, Rosellini, and Foster, JJ., concur.

As stated by appellant, the so-called “Tract Indices” are a thirty-five-volume index of documents recorded by the county auditor “pertaining to real estate indexed geographically according to government plat and survey.” Furthermore, as stated by respondents, the *tract indices*cover “all real estate transactions in Lewis County commencing over 100 years ago” and “were kept up until approximately the year 1931, at which time entries were discontinued.”
DENY; and Opinion Filed July 24, 2018 .

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 18 - 00839 - CV IN RE TOYOTA MOTOR S ALES, U.S.A., INC. AND TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION , Relators Original Proceeding from the 134th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC - 16 - 15296 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang

- Miers, Fillmore, and Stoddart

Opinion by Justice Lang

- Miers Before the Court is relators’ petition for writ of mandamus in which they contend the trial court “effectively denied” a motion for protective order and has proceeded to trial. To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court has clearly abuse d its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

– 36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Based on the record before us, we conclude relators have not shown they are entitled to the relief reque sted. Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8(a) (the court must deny the petition if the court determines relator is not entitled to the relief sought).

180839F.P05 /Elizabeth Lang

- Miers/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                  MAR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                          $        89
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                         1,211
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          0
<PP&E>                                    0
<DEPRECIATION>                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        1,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   134
<BONDS>                               1,110
<COMMON>                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<OTHER-SE>                               56
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          1,300
<SALES>                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          0
<CGS>                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           0
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                              0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0.00
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>       5
<MULTIPLIER>    1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,420
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       3,143,594
<DEPRECIATION>                                 207,918
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,042,763
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      1,679,672
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           484
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,129,680
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,042,763
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                67,100
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      606
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                41,230
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,760
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,496)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (70)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3,426)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (3,054)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (372)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     $(0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   $(0.01)


</TABLE>
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2478 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny the deduction for 

advertising and promotional expenses for prescription drugs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 1, 2018 

Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself and Mrs. SHAHEEN) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny the 

deduction for advertising and promotional expenses for 

prescription drugs. 

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 ‘‘End Taxpayer Sub5 sidies for Drug Ads Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION FOR ADVERTISING 

7 AND PROMOTIONAL EXPENSES FOR PRE8 SCRIPTION DRUGS. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Part IX of subchapter B of chap10 ter 1 of subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 


amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2478 IS

1 (relating to items not deductible) is amended by adding 

2 at the end the following new section: 

3 ‘‘SEC. 280I. DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION FOR DIRECT4 TO-CONSUMER ADVERTISING OF PRESCRIP5 TION DRUGS. 

6 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—No deduction shall be allowed 

7 under this chapter for expenses relating to direct-to-con8 sumer advertising of prescription drugs for any taxable 

9 year. 

10 ‘‘(b) DIRECT-TO-CONSUMER ADVERTISING.—For 

11 purposes of this section, the term ‘direct-to-consumer ad12 vertising’ means any dissemination, by or on behalf of a 

13 sponsor of a prescription drug product (as such term is 

14 defined in section 735(3) of the Federal Food, Drug, and 

15 Cosmetic Act), of an advertisement which— 

16 ‘‘(1) is in regard to such prescription drug 

17 product, and 

18 ‘‘(2) primarily targeted to the general public, 

19 including through— 

20 ‘‘(A) publication in journals, magazines, 

21 other periodicals, and newspapers, 

22 ‘‘(B) broadcasting through media such as 

23 radio, television, and telephone communication 

24 systems, direct mail, and billboards, and 


amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2478 IS

1 ‘‘(C) dissemination on the Internet or 

2 through digital platforms (including social 

3 media, mobile media, web applications, digital 

4 applications, mobile applications, and electronic 

5 applications).’’. 

6 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of sec7 tions for such part IX of the Internal Revenue Code of 

8 1986 is amended by adding after the item relating to sec9 tion 280H the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 280I. Disallowance of deduction for direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs.’’. 

10 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

11 this section shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after 

12 the date of the enactment of this Act, in taxable years 

13 ending after such date. 

Æ 


amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         3784883
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2136793
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               6134921
<PP&E>                                         1713667
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 7899568
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           997986
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         47874
<OTHER-SE>                                     6449692
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   7899568
<SALES>                                        6368487
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               6368487
<CGS>                                          4616899
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  4616899
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1316900
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               64138
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 432944
<INCOME-TAX>                                     96900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    336044
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2534 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to permit individuals who are eligible 

for assistance under a Department of Defense educational assistance 

program or authority to use such tuition assistance for licensing and 

certification programs offered by entities other than an institution of 

higher education. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 12, 2018 

Mrs. ERNST (for herself, Mr. ISAKSON, and Mr. TESTER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to permit individuals 

who are eligible for assistance under a Department of 

Defense educational assistance program or authority to 

use such tuition assistance for licensing and certification 

programs offered by entities other than an institution 

of higher education. 

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


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2534 IS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Credentialing, Edu3 cating, and Relevant Training Initiative For Your Heroes 

4 Act’’ or the ‘‘CERTIFY Heroes Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION REGARDING USE OF DEPARTMENT 

6 OF DEFENSE TUITION ASSISTANCE FOR LI7 CENSING AND CERTIFICATION PROGRAMS. 

8 Section 2006a(a) of title 10, United States Code, is 

9 amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1)— 

10 (1) by striking ‘‘Effective as of August 1, 2014, 

11 an’’ and inserting ‘‘An’’; and 

12 (2) by striking ‘‘as follows’’ and inserting ‘‘that 

13 satisfies one or more of the following requirements’’. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
Order entered March 25, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00177-CR

ABRAHAM WELDEZION, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. WX09-90026-I, WX08-90034-I (F00-48131-I)

ORDER

On January 18, 2013, appellant filed a notice of appeal to appeal the trial court’s 

December 20, 2012 denial of his second application for writ of habeas corpus (cause no. WX09-

90026-I). On February 4, 2013, appellant filed an “amended” notice of appeal to appeal the trial 

court’s November 21, 2008 denial of his first application for writ of habeas corpus (cause no. 

WX08-90034-I). On February 12, 2013, the Dallas County District Clerk filed a clerk’s record 

containing the documents related to cause no. WX08-90034-I. In response to this Court’s order 

of February 19, 2013, the district clerk filed a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial 

court’s findings of fact and order denying appellant’s second writ application in cause no. 

WX09-90026-I. No other documents related to appellant’s second writ application have been 

filed in the appellate record.
We ORDER the Dallas County District Clerk to file, by April 5, 2013, a supplemental 

clerk’s record containing all documents filed in cause no. WX09-90026-I. 

We GRANT appellant’s March 18, 2013 first motion to extend the time to file 

appellant’s brief to the extent of the following relief.

The time to file appellant’s brief is extended until April 5, 2013. The State’s brief shall 

be due by April 23, 2013. 

 We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send copies of this order, by electronic 

transmission, to the following:

Dallas County District Clerk Gary Fitzsimmons

The Dallas County District Clerk, Criminal Records Division

Counsel for all parties

/s/ MICHAEL J. O'NEILL 

JUSTICE
#### WILDER v. AMERICAN PRODUCE CO. et al.

No. 3781.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

Jan. 12, 1939.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 9, 1939.

C. C. Carsner, of Victoria, for appellant.

Edward L. Dunlap and John S. Hadley, both of Victoria, for appellees.

WALTHALL, Justice.

This Court has no jurisdiction to hear this case on the merits for the reason that the transcript and statement of facts were not filed in the Court of Civil Appeals within the time required by the statute, nor within the time the Court of Civil Appeals has the authority to entertain a motion and extend the time for filing such records.

The judgment of the trial court was rendered in the case on December 2, 1937, and filed on December 8, 1937. Appellant’s motion for a new trial was filed on December 4, 1937, and overruled by an order of the court on December 24, 1937. On February 12, 1938, the court entered its order extending the time for filing the statement of facts and bills of exception for ten days to and including February 22, 1938. On March 3, 1938, the San Antonio Court of Civil Appeals, to which the case was appealed, entered an order on appellant’s motion filed on February 21, 1938, extending the time for such 'filing to April 1, 1938. On April 13, 1938, the San Antonio Court entered an order on appellant’s motion filed on March 28, 1938, extending the time for such filing to May 1, 1938. The record was filed in the San Antonio Court of Civil Appeals on May 1, 1938. On June 9, 1938, this case was transferred to this Court by the Supreme Court by its equalization order.

The same question came before this Court in the case of Parks et al. v. Purnell et al., 120 S.W.2d 895, and was there fully considered and the opinion written by Judge Higgins of this Court. Writ of error was granted and is now pending before the Supreme Court.

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT AND REPORT ON SCHEDULE


To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc.:


Re: Registration Statements No. 33-41050, No. 33-48808, No. 33-65132,
    No. 33-60891, No. 33-13013, No. 333-69157, and  No. 333-86527 on
    Form S-8 and No. 333-87603 and No. 333-76853 on Form S-3

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
referred to above of Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc. of our report dated
November 26, 1997 relating to the statements of operations, stockholders' equity
and cash flows of Flex Products, Inc. for the year ended November 2, 1997, which
report appears in the October 31, 1999 annual report on Form 10-K of Optical
Coating Laboratory, Inc.


KPMG LLP


San Francisco, California
January 27, 2000
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2243 

To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to authorize funding for the 

voluntary public access and habitat incentive program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 18, 2017 

Mr. DAINES (for himself and Mr. BENNET) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to authorize funding for the voluntary public access and habitat incentive 

program. 

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 ‘‘Voluntary Public Ac5 cess Improvement Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. VOLUNTARY PUBLIC ACCESS AND HABITAT INCEN7 TIVE PROGRAM. 

8 Section 1240R(f)(1) of the Food Security Act of 

9 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839bb–5(f)(1)) is amended— 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2243 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘practicable, $50,000,000’’ and 

2 inserting the following: ‘‘practicable— 

3 ‘‘(A) $50,000,000’’; 

4 (2) in subparagraph (A) (as so designated), by 

5 striking ‘‘2012 and $40,000,000’’ and inserting the 

6 following: ‘‘2012; 

7 ‘‘(B) $40,000,000’’; and 

8 (3) in subparagraph (B) (as so designated), by 

9 striking the period at the end and inserting the fol10 lowing: ‘‘; and 

11 ‘‘(C) $150,000,000 for the period of fiscal 

12 years 2019 through 2023.’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-12365

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:13-cr-00024-CDL-MSH-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

LORENZO HICKSON, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

________________________

(January 19, 2016)

Before HULL and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and CONWAY,* District Judge.

PER CURIAM: 

 

* Honorable Anne C. Conway, United States District Judge for the Middle District of 

Florida, sitting by designation. 

Case: 14-12365 Date Filed: 01/19/2016 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Lorenzo Hickson pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute over 280 

grams of cocaine base and received a 295-month sentence. In his plea agreement, 

Hickson reserved the right to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to 

suppress the cocaine base, which law enforcement officers discovered during a 

traffic stop. The district court denied the motion after finding that Hickson’s 

behavior, in fleeing from the traffic stop and throwing the cocaine base out of the 

window of his car, broke the causal connection between the prolonged traffic stop 

and the discovery of the drugs. Therefore, the district court concluded, the drugs 

could not be classified as “fruit of the poisonous tree” and were abandoned. 

After a thorough review of the briefs and the benefit of oral argument, we 

discern no reversible error in the district court’s findings that Hickson discarded 

the cocaine base while attempting to flee from the scene, and that, under the 

particular circumstances of this case, his flight and abandonment of the drugs 

“purge[d] the primary taint of the unlawful invasion.” Wong Sun v. United States, 

371 U.S. 471, 486, 83 S. Ct. 407, 417 (1963). Accordingly, we affirm the district 

court’s order denying Hickson’s motion to suppress.

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 14-12365 Date Filed: 01/19/2016 Page: 2 of 2
Order entered July 1 5 , 2019

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 18

- 01175

- CV

STEVEN D. CATHCART, Appellant

V.

DEWIGHT JONES, ET AL

., Appellee s

On Appeal from the 422n d Judicial District Court

Kaufman County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 98750

- 422



### O RDER

B e fore the Court is appellees’ July 11, 2019 motion to file brief out of time

. We

GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief be filed no later than August 9, 2019.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG

JUSTICE