alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Nayes, Respondent, vs. The Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Company, Appellant.

*November 6, 1940*

March *11, 1941.*

For the appellant there were briefs by *Shazv, Muskat & Paulsen*of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Carl Muskat.*

*Leo J. Kohn*and *John L. Newman,*both of Milwaukee, for the respondent.

The following opinion was filed December 3, 1940:

Per Curiam.

This case is ruled by the case of *Nayes v. Milwaukee E. R. & L. Co., ante,*p. 141, 294 N. W. 812.

The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and cause remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint.

A motion for a rehearing was denied, with $25 costs in one case, on March 11, 1941.
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 408

AN ACT

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey a former

Bureau of Land Management administrative site to the

city of Carson City, Nevada, for use as a senior center.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 408 ES

1 SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN BUREAU OF LAND

2 MANAGEMENT LANDS IN CARSON CITY, NE3 VADA.

4 (a) CONVEYANCE.—Not later than 120 days after the

5 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Inte6 rior, acting through the Director of the Bureau of Land

7 Management, shall convey to the city of Carson City, Ne8 vada, without consideration, all right, title, and interest

9 of the United States in the property described as Govern10 ment lot 1 in sec. 8, T. 15 N., R. 20 E., Mount Diablo

11 Meridian, as shown on the Bureau of Land Management

12 official plat approved October 28, 1996, containing 4.48

13 acres, more or less, and assorted uninhabitable buildings

14 and improvements.

15 (b) USE.—The conveyance of the property under sub16 section (a) shall be subject to reversion to the United

17 States if the property is used for a purpose other than

18 the purpose of a senior assisted living center or a related

19 public purpose.

Passed the Senate April 13, 2000.

Attest:

Secretary.
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 408

AN ACT

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey a

former Bureau of Land Management administrative site to the city of Carson City, Nevada, foruse as a senior center.
EXHIBIT 31.2 Certification of 
Principal Financial Officer CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Toni A. Eldred, Chief Financial Officer of Coastline Corporate Services, Inc., a Florida corporation (the "Company"), certify that: 1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company; 2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4.     The Companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have: a)     Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; b)     Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c)     Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Companys most recent fiscal quarter (the Companys fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 5.    The Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Companys Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a)     All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and b)     Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Companys internal control over financial reporting. Date: September 15, 2009 /s/ Toni A. EldredToni A. Eldred 
Principal Financial Officer
#### Haefner, by Guardian *ad litem,*Respondent, vs. Batz Seed Farms, Inc., Appellant.

*September 14*

October *11, 1949.*

*440For the appellant there was a brief by *Riley, Riley & Riley,*and oral argument by *Thomas Pierce*and *John L. Riley,*all of Madison.

*George F. Lange*of Madison, for the respondent.

Hughes, J.

The trial court has the duty of giving the jury instructions adequate to enable it to intelligently perform its function. We are of the opinion that the failure of the court to give an instruction to the jury which would apprise it of the duty which the defendant owed to the plaintiff constitutes prejudicial error requiring a new trial.

*441The jury's finding that the defendant was negligent in the discharge of its duty toward the plaintiff is meaningless because no definition of the duty was given.

What test did the jury apply in measuring defendant’s conduct ? Under the safe-place statute an employer must furnish a place of work which is as free from danger as the nature of the employment will reasonably permit, and not merely a “reasonably” safe place, as at common law. *Rosholt v. Worden-Allen Co.*(1913), 155 Wis. 168, 144 N. W. 650; *Baker v. Janesville Traction Co.*(1931), 204 Wis. 452, 234 N. W. 912.

It was also error to admit the testimony with respect to the industrial commission orders. The determination of whether the operation was farming or an operation subject to safety regulation should have been made before rather than after receipt of such testimony.

Defendant contends that the negligence of the plaintiff is equal to or greater than the alleged negligence of the defendant. We are unable to agree with that contention. We are of the opinion that the testimony in this record presents issues for a jury under proper instructions of the trial court.

Other minor errors are assigned which we deem unnecessary to comment upon since a new trial is necessary and they will undoubtedly not recur.

*By the Court.*— Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.

Brown, J., took no part.
`
**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Brenda Pfeifer, certify that:

 

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Commercial E-Waste Management, Inc.;

 

2.

Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

 

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

 

4.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

 

a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

 

5.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)

all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

 

6.

I have indicated in this quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

 

 

Date:  May 15, 2008

/s/ Brenda Pfeifer

     Brenda Pfeifer

     President
`
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 99.2


                                 LOUDEYE CORP.

                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Loudeye Corp. (the
"Company") certifies that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: April 14, 2003

                                             LOUDEYE CORP.

                                                  /s/ Jerold J. Goade Jr.
                                             __________________________________
                                                      JEROLD J. GOADE JR.
                                                   CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER,
                                                        VICE PRESIDENT

     This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to Loudeye Corp. and will be retained by Loudeye Corp. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         523,599
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,321,089
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (72,651)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,727,037
<PP&E>                                       9,631,079
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,281,890)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,121,326
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,467,598
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           163
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,355,336
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,121,226
<SALES>                                      1,082,246
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,404,322
<CGS>                                        (853,538)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                (918,662)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (30,066)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (397,994)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (397,994)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (37,785)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (435,729)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)
        

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,141
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,047
<INVENTORY>                                     22,372
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,661
<PP&E>                                          35,592
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,222
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 107,939
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,118
<BONDS>                                        226,373
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           36,068
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                   (178,214)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   107,939
<SALES>                                        120,270
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               120,270
<CGS>                                           85,575
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   85,575
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,592
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   552
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,646
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,095)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,564)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,531)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,531)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### McGregor v. The Fuller Implement Co.

1. Pleading: evidence: variance: corporate name. The value of services rendered to one corporation cannot be recovered in a suit against another corporation, on the ground that the two corporations arfe identical, and that there was only a change of name, unless the fact thus relied on is distinctly averred in the pleading.

*Appeal from, Crestón Superior Court.*

Thursday, June 23.

ActioN upon an account for service. There was a trial to a. jury, and verdict and j ndgment were rendered for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals.

*Maxwell &*Leonard, for appellant.

*Gregory & Wicks,*for appellee.

*144Adams, Ch. J.

The plaintiff appears to have recovered for services from the 1st day of December, 18S5. The defendant is a corporation organized January 1, 1886. It insists that it could not be held liable for services rendered before its organization.

The fact appears to be that a certain business was conducted by a corporation called the Fuller Implement & Coal Company. The services rendered by the plaintiff during the month of December, 1885, appear to have been rendered for that company. January 1, 1886, the defendant company was organized, and took up and carried on the business theretofore carried on by the Fuller Implement & Coal Company.

There was evidence tending to show that the stock in both companies was owned by one A.' R. Fuller; and the plaintiff contends that the two companies-were identical, and that the organization which took place January 1, 1886, was in effect nothing but a change of name. The petition, however, does not aver an identity between the defendant and a company existing prior to January 1, 1886, and it appears to ns that the defendant was not bound to come prepared to disprove such identity. It is true that A. R. Fuller appeared as a witness, and that upon his testimony the plaintiff relies to show that he owned the whole stock in both companies, and that they were identical. Rut it may be that Fuller did not own the whole stock in both or either of the companies. If there were other stockholders in the defendant companj'-, they had a right to assume that the company could not be charged with any liability which had accrued against some other company before'the organization of the defendant.

Where a corporation is to be called upon to defend against a liability which accrued against some other corporation, it seems to us that the defendant is entitled to be apprised in advance of the name of the company with whom it is charged with being identical, and a distinct issue be tendered. Any other rule, it appears to us, might result in great inconvenience and hardship.

We think that the judgment must be REVERSED.
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                         CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF
                               MOVIE GALLERY, INC.

     Movie  Gallery,  Inc.  (the  "Corporation"),  a  corporation  organized and
existing  under  and by virtue of the  General  Corporation  Law of the State of
Delaware, does hereby certify:

     1.  That  at a  meeting  of the  board  of  directors  of the  Corporation,
resolutions  were  duly  adopted  setting  forth  a  proposed  amendment  to the
Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation,  declaring said amendment to be
advisable  and  calling a meeting of the  stockholders  of the  Corporation  for
consideration thereof. The resolution setting forth the proposed amendment is as
follows:

          Resolved,  that the first paragraph of Article Fourth of the Company's
     Certificate of incorporation be amended to read in its entirety as follows:

          "1. The Corporation is authorized to issue two classes of stock, to be
     designated  "Common Stock" and "Preferred Stock,"  respectively.  The total
     number  of  shares  which  the   Corporation  is  authorized  to  issue  is
     thirty-seven  million  (37,000,000)  shares. The number of shares of Common
     Stock authorized to be issued is thirty-five million  (35,000,000),  with a
     par value of $0.001 per  share.  The  number of shares of  Preferred  Stock
     authorized  to be issued is two  million  (2,000,000),  with a par value of
     $0.10 per share."

     2. That  thereafter,  pursuant to resolution of its board of directors,  an
annual meeting of the  stockholders of the Corporation was duly called and held,
upon notice in accordance with Section 222 of the General Corporation Law of the
State of Delaware at which meeting the necessary number of shares as required by
statute were voted in favor of the amendment.

     3. That said  amendment was duly adopted in accordance  with the provisions
of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

     4. That the  capital of the  Corporation  shall not be reduced  under or by
reason of said amendment.

     IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the  Corporation  has  caused  this  Certificate  of
Amendment to be signed by H. Harrison  Parrish,  its President and S. Page Todd,
its Secretary this 1st day of July, 1999.




                                 /s/ Harrison Parrish, President
                                 -------------------------------
                                 Harrison Parrish, President



                                 /s/ S. Page Todd, Secretary
                                 -------------------------------
                                 S. Page Todd, Secretary
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 206 (Thursday, October 24, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 84947]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24607]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: October 24, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
October 15, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 483 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-87, K2025-85.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-24607 Filed 10-23-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#                                                     Fahim  Abdullah                                            

### 

## Contact

abdullahf@ornl.gov

## Key Links

ORCID

Oak Ridge National Laboratory				1 Bethel Valley Road				Oak Ridge, TN 37830

(+1) 865.576.7658

#### Connect With Us

                                  -  Partnerships 
                                  -  Visit 
                                  -  Contact 

#### News

                                  -  Newsroom 
                                  -  Newsletter Signup 
                                  -  Media Contacts 

#### Research

                                  -  Science Areas 
                                  -  User Facilities 
                                  -  Centers & Institutes 

#### Resources

                                  -  Internal Users 
                                  -  Directory 

                                  -  Privacy 
                                  -  Accessibility/508 
                                  -  Nondiscrimination/1557 
                                  -  Vulnerability Disclosure Program
FILED 2/25/2015 12:27:51 PM

Stan Stanart County Clerk Harris County 

## DV

419625 PROBATE COURT 1 ACCEPTED 419,625 FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 3/2/2015 12:41:51 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK