alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Will of Elbert: Evangelical Lutheran Church of St. Matthew of Eau Claire and another, Appellants, vs. Race and others, Respondents.

*October 15*

November *9, 1943.*

*176
      *A. J.*Sutherland, attorney for the proponent of the will, and *F. V. McManamy*and *Curt W. Augustine,*attorneys for the Evangelical Lutheran Church of St. Matthew, all of Eau Claire, for the appellants.

For the respondents there was a brief by Wilcox, *Wilcox & Sullivan*of Eau Claire, and oral argument by *Francis J. Wilcox.*

Wickhem, J.

Testatrix, Annie H. Elbert, was a widow living in her own home with her daughter, Marie. She had a number of other children. On June 3, 1941, she made the will in question. She died December 19, 1942. Although she was possessed of considerable property, her only bequests in favor of her blood relatives were small legacies to a son and granddaughter and a conditional forgiveness of a note held against a daughter. All the rest, residue, and remainder of her property was bequeathed to the trustees of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of St. Matthew of Eau Claire and to their successors in office for the use of the church.

Testatrix was about eighty years old., Upon this appeal the contentions of appellants and respondents are not really in *177conflict. Appellants claim that the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence is to the effect that testatrix was bright, clear-minded, and g-enerally competent. Respondents did not contest this upon the trial below and do not contest it here. Respondents contend that decedent, beginning about 1937, began to entertain insane delusions that her children were stealing from her. They contend that this is the only possible cause for cutting off her children in the will, and that the trial court was entitled to believe that these delusions were present and that they did affect her disposition of her property.

A careful review of the record leads us to the conclusion that while the evidence shows that testatrix gave the appearance of being entirely competent, and that she was “generally competent,” it supports the finding that beginning about 1937 she entertained insane delusions to the effect that her children were stealing from her. The things which she supposed she was being deprived of by theft varied from trivial articles to securities. The court was warranted in believing that, except for these insane delusions, there existed no ground of estrangement between her and her children and no other way to' account for the disposition made of her property. Under these circumstances the case falls within the following decisions of this court: *Will of Behm,*187 Wis. 10, 203 N. W. 718; *Estate of Knutson,*201 Wis. 526, 230 N. W. 617; *Will of Shanks*, 172 Wis. 621, 624, 179 N. W. 747.

In *Will of Shanks, supra,*it was said:

“It is not a question whether testator had general testamentary capacity, for many persons laboring under insane delusions may be competent to make a will ( *Will of Cole,*49 Wis. 179, 5 N. W. 346), but whether the insane delusion under which the testator suffered materially affected the will he made.”

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
#### Brunner, Receiver, Appellant, vs. Cauley and another, Respondents.

*March 14*—

April *12, 1946.*

*532For the appellant there was a brief by *Atwell & Atwell*of Stevens Point, and oral argument by *W. E. Atwell.*

*533For the respondents there was a brief by /. *Meleski,*attorney, and *William E. Fisher*of counsel, both of Stevens Point, and oral argument by *Mr. Fisher.*

Fritz, J.

On this appeal it suffices to note, in addition and in relation to the matters stated above, that the evidence introduced on the hearings before the referee warranted the matters stated in his report, including his ultimate findings and conclusions that Brunner, as receiver, was entitled to receive, as a payment to be applied on the judgment against Cauley and wife, the sum of $41.79 awarded to the receiver out of the $1,000 deposited in court under the stipulation for the release of the cattle. Consequently, the court did not-err in confirming on July 6, 1942, the referee’s report and award, and then ordering the preparation by plaintiff of a judgment to be entered accordingly. Upon plaintiff’s failure to comply with that order by preparing the judgment and causing it to be entered within sixty days of July 6, 1942, the circuit court clerk could have prepared and entered judgment accordingly, but without costs to either party (sec. 270.66, Stats.) ; and the court could have directed the clerk to do that. However’ when the court, on its motion, in view of plaintiff’s failure to cause judgment to be entered within the sixty-day period after July 6, 1942, finally in July, 1945, adjudged and determined that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed .upon the merits, the court was in error. Although plaintiff was then no longer entitled to costs, he clearly was still entitled to have the judgment award to him said sum of $41.79 as reported and found by the referee and confirmed by the court in its order of July 6, 1942. Consequently it follows that the provision in the judgment dismissing the complaint must be reversed with directions to adjudge in lieu thereof that plaintiff is entitled to the award of said sum of $41.79.

As the respondents are not responsible for the discrepancy between the judgment which was to be entered pursuant to the court’s order of July 6, 1942, and the judgment of dismissal *534which was entered in July, 1945, and as defendants’ above-stated notice and consent to have the finally entered judgment properly amended was given prior to the transmittal of the record to this court, no costs will be allowed on this appeal to appellant, and he shall pay the clerk’s fees.

*By the Court.*— Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with directions to enter judgment in accordance with the opinion.

Rector, J., took no part.
Exhibit 32.1   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Pacific Software, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Harrysen Mittler, President of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1. The Report 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 result of operations of the Registrant.  May 24, 2010  /s/ Harrysen Mittler Harrysen Mittler Principal Executive Officer Principal Accounting Officer  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.   3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1998, AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED 
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           9,057
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   62,511
<ALLOWANCES>                                    11,172
<INVENTORY>                                    132,035
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               219,196
<PP&E>                                         141,402
<DEPRECIATION>                                 205,449
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 495,259
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          104,324
<BONDS>                                        433,656
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     32,782
<COMMON>                                           240
<OTHER-SE>                                   (112,519)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   495,259
<SALES>                                        533,068
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               533,068
<CGS>                                          349,953
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  349,953
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               181,491
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              34,290
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (32,666)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       947
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (33,312)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (33,312)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.50)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3, as amended (SEC File
No. 333-49499-99), and Form S-8 (SEC File No. 333-62458) of Great Lakes REIT of our report dated January 27, 2003, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Great Lakes REIT included in the Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2002 (Form 10-K). We also
consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Selected Financial Data" in the Form 10-K.

Ernst &
Young LLP
Chicago, Illinois
March 24, 2003

---

QuickLinks
#### George Muccino, Claimant, *v.*The State of New York, Defendant.

(Claim No. 24806.)

Court of Claims,

October 7, 1937.

*Paul D. Siegel,*for the claimant.

*John J. Bennett,*Jr,, *Attorney-General [Gerald J. Car by, Assistant Attorney-General,*of counsel], for the defendant.

Ryan, J.

This claimant has sued the State, alleging that in the elimination of a railroad grade crossing barriers were erected in front of premises ef which he was tenant and that he was deprived of egress and ingress thereto and was constructively evicted therefrom. The Attorney-General has moved for seminary judgment pursuant to mle 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice,

The remedy sought is not available to the defense, The cause of action is not one of those enumerated in rule 113. *(Felberose Holding Corp.*v. *New York Rapid Transit*Corp., 244 App. Div. 427 [1935]; *Tracy*v. *Danzinger,*249 id. 46 [1936].) We are aware of the Special Term decisiou in New York county wherein is suggested a broader interpretation of the words “ in any action *”*appearing in the rule. *(Pross*v. *Foundation Properties, Inc.,*158 Misc. 304 [1935].)

Moreover, it appears that rule 113 cannot be invoked in the practice in the Court of Claims. The preamble to the rule is: “ When an answer is served in an action.” By rule 2 of the rules of this court the State is not required to answer, and all allegations in the *919claim are treated as denied. Henee, no answer has been served here.

The motion must be denied.

Barrett, P. J. I agree with the conclusion reached by Judge Ryan that the motion to dismiss the claim herein must be denied, upon the ground that the remedy sought under rule 118 of the Buies of Civil Practice is not available to the State as the cause of action is not one of those enumerated in the rule.
Exhibit
99.7




















CONSENT OF
ENGINEER








Ladies and
Gentlemen:





The undersigned company
hereby consents to (1) the references to the undersigned
company’s name included or incorporated by reference in the
Annual Report on Form 40-F of Denison Mines Corp. in connection
with (a) the report entitled “Technical Report on the Denison
Mines Inc. Uranium Properties, Saskatchewan, Canada” dated
November 21, 2005, as revised on February 16, 2006, (b) the report
entitled “Technical Report on the Mineral Resource Estimate
for the McClean North Uranium Deposits, Saskatchewan” dated
January 31, 2007, and (c) the report entitled “Technical
Report on the Sue D Uranium Deposit Mineral Resource Estimate,
Saskatchewan, Canada” dated March 31, 2006, and (2) all other
references to the undersigned company included or incorporated by
reference in the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Denison Mines
Corp.





Dated: March 13,
2019








Per:





(Signed)
“Deborah A.
McCombe”


_____________________________________


Name: Deborah A. McCombe,
P.Geo.


Title: President and
CEO


Roscoe Postle Associates
Inc.














RPA 55 University Ave. Suite 501 |
Toronto, ON, Canada M5J 2H7 | T +1 (416) 947
0907            
           
www.rpacan.com
**Exhibit 10.2**

Description of Corporate Bonus Plan 

On March 18, 2010, the Board of Directors approved SuccessFactors, Inc.’s (the “Company”) 2010 Corporate Bonus Plan. Employees of theCompany, including the Company’s named executive officers, who are not on sales commission plans or other bonus plans, are eligible to receive cash and/or equity awards following the end of the year, based upon the attainment of performanceobjectives for the year, which performance objectives will consist of corporate objectives established by the Board of Directors, as well as personal goals established by the chief executive officer and the compensation committee. Corporateobjectives for 2010 consist of bookings and non-GAAP operating profitability targets. The target bonus for 2010 is based on a weighting of 75% for corporate objectives and 25% for performance objectives. A portion of the bonus will be payable basedon achievement of targets on a quarterly basis as well as on an annual basis. In order to be eligible to receive a bonus, the employee must be employed by the Company at the time the bonus is paid. The amount of any bonus may be adjusted based onthe level of achievement of targets, with the Company retaining the discretion to further adjust bonus amounts.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 23

- 00220

- CV

Eric J. Miller, M.D., and The Spine Group, PLLC , Appellant s

v.
Central Texas Pain Center, PLLC; PSA Management Company, LLC; PSA Group

Holdings, LLC; PSA Practice Holdings, PA; PSCT Practice Holdings, PA; Daniel Frederick, MD.; Scott Budoff; and Commonview Capital, LLC , Appellee s

FROM THE 201ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D

- 1

- GN

- 22

- 005681 , THE HONORABLE JESSICA MANGRUM , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

PER CURIA M
Appellant s Eric J. Miller, M.D., and The Spine Group, PLLC, have filed a
suggestion of bankruptcy. See Tex. R. App. P. 8.1. We therefore abate this appeal until a party

files a motion to reinstate or a motion to sever. See id . R. 8.2, 8.3. A ppellants a r e ordered to
inform this Court of the resolution of the bankruptcy proceeding or some other event that would

allow this appeal to be reinstated. Should they fail to prov ide such notice, the appeal will be
subject to dismissal for want of prose cution on t hi s Court ’ s or another party's motion. See id.

R. 42.3(b), (c).

Before Chi ef Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Theofanis
Bankruptcy

Filed: May 16 , 202 3
#### Garfield Investment Company, Respondent, vs. Town of Oconomowoc, Appellant.

*April 4*

May *2, 1950.*

*99The cause was submitted for the appellant on the brief of *Alvin G. Brendemuehl*of Oconomowoc, and for the respondent on the brief of *Clayton A. Cramer*and *Robert T. Mc-Grow,*both of Waukesha.

Hughes, J.

The town concedes that there can be no legal tax levy for expenditures made by it on a private roadway, but seeks to defend against the plaintiff’s action on the ground that it was merely collection of a debt by the town which the plaintiff was estopped to deny because it had received the *100benefits of the expenditures made by the town and had participated in similar transactions in previous years.

The town has no commercial status, and can obtain money from its citizens only by taxation. The levy in this case was an attempted levy of a special assessment and when the plaintiff paid it under protest, it paid it as a taxpayer, and is now entitled to maintain this action to recover it. The defense offered being sham, the trial court properly entered summary judgment in the plaintiff’s favor.

*By the Court.-*— Judgment affirmed.

Gehl, J., took no part.
**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**

|  | (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. |
|--|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| May                14, 2008 |   | /s/                Harvey L. Weiss                |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                        |   | Harvey                L. Weiss                    |   |
|                        |   | Principal                Executive Officer   |   |
|                        |   |                                              |   |
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-11174 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. MICHAEL BROWNE, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:10-CR-305-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Michael Browne has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. Ca l if o r n i a , 386 U

. S

. 7 3 8 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Browne has not filed a response. We have r e vi e w e d c o u nsel’s brief and the relevant portio n s o f the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion fo r l e ave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Octob er 16 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-11174 Document: 00512020906 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/16/2012No. 11-11174

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See5 T H C I R . R. 42.2.

2 Case: 11-11174 Document: 00512020906 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/16/2012
ex10a.htm
















Exhibit (10)(a)

















Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm












We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Post-Effective Amendment No. 60 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-61554) pertaining to Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N, which is incorporated by reference into Post-Effective Amendment No. 61 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-61554) and Amendment No. 416 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-08517), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) April 1, 2014, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 1, 2014, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N for the registration of interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.







/s/ Ernst & Young LLP






Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


August 22, 2014
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 May 31, 2017

t0522

Order 

Clerk

May 31, 2017

154031 (66)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 154031

COA: 324672 

Wayne CC: 14-006199-FC

DARRELL MILES WALKER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s April 4, 2017 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
**Exhibit
      32.1**








**The
      following certification is provided by the undersigned Chief Executive Officer
      and Chief Financial Officer of Clark, Inc. on the basis of such officers’
knowledge and belief for the sole purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002.**





Certification




In
      connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Clark, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the “Report”), I, Tom Wamberg,
      Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and I, Jeffrey W. Lemajeur, Chief Financial
      Officer, of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      as
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





(1) The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2) The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.














/s/
      Tom Wamberg ______


Name:
      Tom
      Wamberg


Title:
      Chairman and


Chief
      Executive Officer


Date:
      February 27, 2006











/s/
      Jeffrey W. Lemajeur


Name:
      Jeffrey W. Lemajeur


Title:
      Chief Financial Officer


Date:
      February 27, 2006

















*A
      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
      provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*