alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Argued and submitted August 23,

reversed and remanded November 5,

reconsideration denied December 13, 1979,

petition for review denied January 3, 1980 (288 Or 253)

#### MINOR, *Petitioner, v.*DELTA TRUCK LINES AND TRANSPORT INDEMNITY CO., *Respondents.*

(No. 78-2995, CA 14407)

602 P2d 288

Stephen R. Frank, Portland, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Tooze, Kerr, Marshall & Shenker, Portland.

Dennis R. VavRosky, Portland, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was Rankin, McMurry, Osbum, Gallagher & VavRosky, Portland.

Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Tanzer and Campbell, Judges.

TANZER, J.

*31TANZER, J.

The issue in this workers’ compensation case is whether a claimant who is enrolled and actively engaged in an authorized program of vocational rehabilitation may contest the adequacy of a determination order entered prior to the commencement of rehabilitation. We hold that he may.

On January 20, 1978, the Evaluation Division issued its determination order awarding claimant unscheduled permanent partial disability of 25 percent. Claimant thereafter requested a hearing to contest, among other things, the adequacy of the award. Claimant then enrolled and actively engaged in an authorized vocational rehabilitation program. His request for a hearing was subsequently dismissed by the Workers’ Compensation Board on the ground that the award would be redetermined as a matter of course upon the completion or termination of his rehabilitation program. ORS 656.268(5).

In *Leedy v.*Knox, 34 Or App 911, 919-21, 581 P2d 530 (1978), we held that a determination of disability is required for a worker whose condition is medically stationary but who is not yet enrolled in vocational rehabilitation. Claimant was accorded such a determination. The issue here is whether the denial of a worker’s request for a hearing on the determination is lawful.1

It is understandable that for reasons of administrative economy the Board may prefer to deny hearings pending completion of rehabilitation, but such action is precluded by ORS 656.283(3). That section requires that "[t]he board shall refer the request for hearing to a referee for determination as expeditiously as possible.” We find no applicable statutory exception to this requirement of an expeditious hearing, either *32pending redetermination after rehabilitation, or otherwise. Claimant is entitled to his hearing.

Reversed and remanded.

1

 This case does not present an issue of whether the Board can by rule or order defer hearing until the post-rehabilitation redetermination or until necessary.
<PAGE>



                                                                Exhibit 99.2

                           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 Union Financial Bancshares, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Richard H. Flake, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 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 as of and for the period covered by the
               Report.

                                               /s/  Richard H. Flake
                                               ------------------------
                                               Richard H. Flake
                                               Chief Financial Officer
                                               August 7, 2002
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

OP 24-0437

_________________

KAREN TUSCANO and WESLEY TUSCANO,

 Petitioners,

 v.

MONTANA SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT, SWEETGRASS COUNTY, HON. 

BRENDA R. GILBERT, Presiding,

 Respondent.

O R D E R

_________________

Petitioners Karen Tuscano and Wesley Tuscano, via counsel, seek a writ of review or 

writ of supervisory control over the Montana Sixth Judicial District Court in Cause No. 

DV-2021-39 to vacate that court’s July 11, 2024 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and 

Order Regarding Contempt on the allegation that the court violated Tuscanos’ constitutional 

rights and exceeded its jurisdiction in its ruling. 

Having reviewed the Petition and the challenged order, this Court deems it appropriate 

to obtain a summary response. Therefore, in accordance with M. R. App. P. 14(7),

IT IS ORDERED that Sidney and Julian Helvik, Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants in the 

underlying litigation, Jacqueline Conner, Third-Party Defendant in the underlying litigation, 

and the Sixth Judicial District Court are each granted to and including September 9, 2024, to 

prepare, file, and serve a response(s) to the petition. 

The Clerk is directed to provide immediate notice of this Order to Petitioner, to 

all counsel of record in DV-2021-39, and to the Honorable Brenda R. Gilbert, presiding 

District Judge.

Electronically signed by:

James Jeremiah Shea

Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 8 2024

08/08/2024

Case Number: OP 24-0437
##### 



(RS LOGO)
    
    
    
    FAX (713) 651-08491100 LOUISIANA     SUITE 3800
    
    HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002-5218
    
    TELEPHONE (713) 651-9191
 EXHIBIT 23.C
 CONSENT OF RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.
  (-s- RYDER SCOTT CO.)RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L. P.
 
 1200, 530 8TH AVENUE, S.W.621 17TH STREET, SUITE 1550
    
    CALGARY, ALBERTA T2P 3S8DENVER, COLORADO 80293-1501
    
    TEL (403) 262-2799TEL (303) 623-9147
    
    FAX (403) 262-2790FAX (303) 623-4258
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 160 (Thursday, October 2, 2008)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2208]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

 RECOGNIZING BOB SIKES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL UPON ITS FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. JEFF MILLER

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 2, 2008

  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the United States 
Congress, it is an honor for me to rise today to recognize Bob Sikes 
Elementary School on its fiftieth anniversary.
  Named after Robert L. F. Sikes, the beloved former U.S. 
Representative of Crestview, Florida, Bob Sikes Elementary School 
upholds the same values and standards as its namesake. Serving from 
1941 until 1962, Congressman Sikes is still remembered for his hard 
work and dedication to the area. His image continues to live on in the 
exemplary institutions that adopt both his name and his commitment to 
excellence.
  For 5 decades, Bob Sikes Elementary School has influenced the 
academic success of its students. The school houses an exceptional 
faculty whose outstanding teaching capabilities have enhanced the 
learning opportunities for those enrolled. The school's administration 
is equally impressive as it expertly balances the rigorous demands of 
running the school. It is the countless hours of service and dedication 
employed by the faculty and administration that have enabled the 
students at Bob Sikes Elementary to attain academic excellence.
  In addition to the active academic environment, Bob Sikes Elementary 
maintains a strong sense of community and enables each of its students 
to feel special. Teachers take the time to recognize and reward 
students' individual talents and help foster a familial feel in the 
classrooms. After 50 years, multiple generations of Crestview families 
who have attended Bob Sikes Elementary look back fondly on the school 
that taught them to read, to be kind to others, to count, and so many 
other important lessons. It is a testament to the school's academic and 
administrative strengths that 5 decades of families have continued to 
send their children to this exemplary school. It is these same 
strengths that ensure its continued success and the enrollment of 
children for decades to come.
  Madam Speaker, on behalf of the United States Congress, I am proud to 
recognize Bob Spikes Elementary School on this outstanding achievement 
and for its exemplary service in the Okaloosa County School District.

                          ____________________
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           7,198
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   92,599<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    111,577
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               232,779
<PP&E>                                         234,650<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 536,617
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          143,545
<BONDS>                                        312,948
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,351
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   536,617
<SALES>                                        178,174
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               178,174
<CGS>                                          167,269
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,146
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (2,434)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,252
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (12,059)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       769
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (12,828)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   4,632
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (1,522)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (9,718)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>AMOUNTS PRESENTED ARE NET.
</FN>


</TABLE>
###### **EXHIBIT 23**

 

 

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENTREGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM****        **

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements of ourreports dated February 21, 2011, relating to the financial statements andfinancial statement schedules of Alexander’s, Inc. and subsidiaries and theeffectiveness of Alexander’s, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting,appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Alexander’s, Inc. for the yearended December 31, 2010:  

Registration StatementNo. 333-151721 on Form S-8  

Amendment No. 1 toRegistration Statement No. 333-155727 on Form S-3

 

 

/s/Deloitte & Touche LLP

 

 

Parsippany, New Jersey

February 22, 2011

 

----
<Page>

                                                                   Exhibit 4.5.1

SCHEDULE 1.

1. The Owner Lessor Subordination Agreement dated as of December __, 2001 by
and among Homer City OL1, a Delaware limited liability company, as Owner
Lessor; General Electric Captial Corporation, a Delaware corporation, as
Owner Participant; and The Bank of New York (as successor to United States
Trust Company of New York), both in its individual capacity and solely as
Security Agent.

2. The Owner Lessor Subordination Agreement dated as of December __, 2001 by
and among Homer City OL2, a Delaware limited liability company, as Owner
Lessor; Full Service Lease Corp., a Delaware corporation, as Owner
Participant; and The Bank of New York (as successor to United States Trust
Company of New York), both in its individual capacity and solely as Security
Agent.

3. The Owner Lessor Subordination Agreement dated as of December __, 2001 by
and among Homer City OL3, a Delaware limited liability company, as Owner
Lessor; Full Service Lease Corp., a Delaware corporation, as Owner
Participant; and The Bank of New York (as successor to United States Trust
Company of New York), both in its individual capacity and solely as Security
Agent.

4. The Owner Lessor Subordination Agreement dated as of December __, 2001 by
and among Homer City OL4, a Delaware limited liability company, as Owner
Lessor; Full Service Lease Corp., a Delaware corporation, as Owner
Participant; and The Bank of New York (as successor to United States Trust
Company of New York), both in its individual capacity and solely as Security
Agent.

5. The Owner Lessor Subordination Agreement dated as of December __, 2001 by
and among Homer City OL5, a Delaware limited liability company, as Owner
Lessor; Full Service Lease Corp., a Delaware corporation, as Owner
Participant; and The Bank of New York (as successor to United States Trust
Company of New York), both in its individual capacity and solely as Security
Agent.

6. The Owner Lessor Subordination Agreement dated as of December __, 2001 by
and among Homer City OL6, a Delaware limited liability company, as Owner
Lessor; Full Service Lease Corp., a Delaware corporation, as Owner
Participant; and The Bank of New York (as successor to United States Trust
Company of New York), both in its individual capacity and solely as Security
Agent.

7. The Owner Lessor Subordination Agreement dated as of December __, 2001 by
and among Homer City OL7, a Delaware limited liability company, as Owner
Lessor; Full Service Lease Corp., a Delaware corporation, as Owner
Participant; and The Bank of New York (as successor to United States Trust
Company of New York), both in its individual capacity and solely as Security
Agent.

8. The Owner Lessor Subordination Agreement dated as of December __, 2001 by
and among Homer City OL8, a Delaware limited liability company, as Owner
Lessor; Full

<Page>

Service Lease Corp., a Delaware corporation, as Owner Participant; and The Bank
of New York (as successor to United States Trust Company of New York), both in
its individual capacity and solely as Security Agent.





                                       2
*April 15, 1941.*

#### In re Vacating Portions of Plat of Lake Wandawega Subdivision: Froehlke, Respondent, vs. Wandawega Country Club, Inc., and others, Appellants.

For the appellants: *Charles E. Wilson*of Elkhorn.

For the respondent: *Sheldon & Freytag*of Elkhorn.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
# ., 00 0 oo 0 oo 0 oo 0 0 0

## $~

# ~:

# ~

0 0 0 

# ..J



# ' l
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

**Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United StatesCode)**

 

Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) ofSection 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersignedofficer of Boston Restaurant Associates, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the“Company”), does hereby certify, to the best of such officer’s knowledge andbelief, that:

 

(1)           The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended January 26, 2003 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The information contained in the Form10-Q fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated:  March 4, 2003 | /s/ George R. Chapdelaine              |   |
|----------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                       | George  R. Chapdelaine                 |
|                       | President  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

_________________________________________ Clerk September 4, 2012

h0827 

# Order

September 4, 2012

144727

KIMBERLY BEDDINGFIELD,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 144727

COA: 300471

Washtenaw CC: 09

- 001052

- NI

DAVID EARL VAUGHN and MATTHEW

VAUGHN,

Defendants,

and

FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant

- Appellant,

and

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant

- Appellee

.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 19, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### George W. McCoid, Appellee, v. Patrick Rafferty *et al.,*Appellants.

Bill of Exceptions: time of filing. A bill of exceptions, filed the-next day after the expiration of the time agreed upon by the parties to a cause for the'filing of such bill, will not entitle an appellant to a. review in the supreme court of errors based upon the evidence.

*Appeal from Shelby District Cowrt.*— Hon. N. W. Macy,. Judge.

Wednesday, February 3, 1892.

Action at law upon a promissory note and account.. An attachment was issued, and two mules, which were found in the possession of Rafferty the defendant were-attached as his property. Patrick White intervened, and claimed that he was the owner of the mules. The right of property in the mules was tried to a jury, and there was a verdict for the plaintiff. The intervenor *appeals.*

Affirmed.

*Smith*& *Oullison,*for appellants.

*IL. W. Byers,*for appellee;

Rothrock, J.

The defendant Rafferty did not appear in the action and did not defend. The whole *533•controversy was as to whether White was the owner of the mules. If he was not the owner, they were the property of Rafferty, and were rightfully attached. It appears from the abstract filed by the appellants that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict, and we think there was no prejudicial error in the instructions. But we are precluded from considering the evidence and the rulings thereon. The appellee filed an abstract in which the following statement is made: “Appellee denies that the evidence in this case was preserved by bill of exceptions, as required by law. The record shows that the intervenor was to have, by agreement of parties, sixty days from March seventeenth in which to file his bill of, exceptions; that on May seventeenth, sixty-one days thereafter, a bill -of exceptions was filed.” The appellant does not deny or take issue with this averment of appellee’s abstract, and we are required to accept it as true. The cause was fried in the year 1890, and the sixty days expired on the sixteenth day of May of that year. The case is within the rule of *Manning v.*Irish, 47 Iowa, 650.

As the merits of the appeal are based upon the evidence, the judgment of the district court must be . AFFIRMED.
#### E. H. GRANT *ET. AL.*EXECUTORS v. *J. A.*REID *ET. AL.*ADM'R.

In an action at law, upon a negotiable paper alleged to be lost, the loss cannot be proved by the oath of the plaintiff. His affidavit is not admissible *to*prove that he had not negotiated the paper, nor for any other purpose, but* in Courts of Equity, to give jurisdiction ; and in both Courts, to let in secondary testimony

(ChauNcy v. Baldwin, Jones’ Rep. 78, cited and approved.)

ActioN of Debt, tried before bis Honor Judge Dick, at the Spring Term, 1854, of McDowell Superior Court.

The suit was commenced oidginally by a -warrant before a Justice of the Peace, by the plaintiff’s testator, and came up by successive appeals to this Court. On the trial before the Justice of the Peace, the plaintiff’s testator made the following affidavit:

“ William Grant malceth oath, that John Reel, late of McDowell county, was indebted to him in the sum of forty dollars; that, on the 5th day of May, 1848, he, the said Reel, executed bis note to affiant, due one day after date, for forty dollars, as evidence of said indebtedness. Affiant swears that the note has been mislaid or lost.”

He also swore, in another affidavit, “that the note had not been negotiated or assigned by him, but was justly owing to bim by the defendants.” These affidavits were offered on the trial in the Superior Court, and objected to by the defendant, but received by the Court, subject to the question reserved.

The plaintiff's intestate having died, and the present plaintiffs, bis executors, having, in the mean time, been made parties, they made the further affidavit, “that they had made diligent search for the note, and could not find it,” which was also objected to, but received by the Court, on the terms above stated. Upon this and other evidence, the cause was submitted to the jury, under an agreement that the questions above stated should be reserved for his Honor’s consideration, with leave to set aside *513the verdict and enter a non-suit, if rendered for the plaintiffs. The jury found the verdict for the plaintiffs.

Afterwards, his Honor, having considered the questions reserved, and being of opinion with the defendants, ordeied the verdict to be set aside, and a non-suit of the plaintiffs entered. From which judgment the plaintiffs appealed to this Court.

*Bynum*and Davis, for plaintiffs.

*Avery,*for defendants.

Battle, J.

We are informed by the counsel for the plaintiffs,, that this appeal was taken before the case of Chauncy v. Baldwin, decided at the last December Term, (see ante. 78,) was reported. We think that the present case is substantially ther same with that, and must be governed by it. The affidavit of the plaintiffs’ testator, that the note sued on had not been assigned' nor negotiated by him, was inadmissible as testimony, and cannot therefore make any difference. The loss or destruction of a note or bond, is the only fact which the party’s own affidavit is admissible to prove, and that only for the purpose of giving jurisdiction to the Court of Equity, and of admitting secondary evidence of the contents of the note or bond, in the Courts either of law or equity.

Judgment affirmed.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    Exhibit 23.1



Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on 
Form S-8 (Lodgian 1998 Short-Term Incentive Compensation Plan, the Lodgian 1998 
Stock Incentive Plan, and the Lodgian Non-employee Directors' Stock Incentive 
Plan) of Lodgian, Inc. (formerly known as Servico, Inc.) of our report dated 
March 31, 1999 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Lodgian,
Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 
1998.


Atlanta, Georgia
March 31, 1999



Ernst & Young LLP