alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Strauss, Respondent, vs. Turck, Appellant.

*December 5, 1928*

January *8, 1929.*

*587For the appellant there were briefs by *C. F. Rouiller,*attorney, and *Thomas A. Byrne,*of counsel, both of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Mr. Rouiller.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Churchill, Bennett & Churchill*of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *W. H. CJmrchill.*

Stevens, J.

When the defendant surrendered possession of the premises it was the duty of the owner “to use reasonable diligence to let the property at the best obtainable rent, and thereby obviate or reduce the resulting damages.” *Roberts v. Watson,*196 Iowa, 816, 195 N. W. 211, 212-13. See, also, *Robinson Seed & Plant Co. v. Hexter*(Tex. Civ. App.) 167 S. W. 749, 751. “In any case of a breach of contract the party injured should use reasonable diligence and make all reasonable effort to reduce to a minimum the damages resulting from such breach.” *Poposkey v. Munkwitz,*68 Wis. 322, 331, 32 N. W. 35.

Two witnesses testified that they attempted to rent the premises of the plaintiff and that they were ready, able, and willing to pay the stipulated rent. There is proof which tends to establish the fact that these witnesses offered to lease the premises from the plaintiff after the time that he had elected to take possession thereof and to rent the same. Under this state of the proof the court should have submitted the case to the jury, as it presented issues of fact which, if decided in favor of the defendant, would have materially reduced his liability under the lease.

*By the Court.*— Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      10,979,000
<SECURITIES>                                45,624,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,725,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   609,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            64,797,000
<PP&E>                                      12,887,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,111,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              83,228,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,129,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  74,221,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                83,228,000
<SALES>                                      3,921,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,731,000
<CGS>                                          222,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,949,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,332,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               190,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         (1,070,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,467,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,467,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,467,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.27)


</TABLE>
#### Gordon, Administratrix, Respondent, vs. Wisconsin National Bank, Appellant.

*January 13*

February *10, 1920.*

*Negligence: Removing' ice from building: Pedestrian killed by falling ice: Contributory negligence: Disregarding rope barrier.*

Where a rope was stretched from a building, from the roof of which ice was being removed, to a point near the street-car tracks, it was not negligence as a matter of law for one alighting from a car to pass alongside the car and by a man holding the rope, though he was killed by falling ice.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: E. T. Fairchild, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

Personal injury. On the morning of the 11th of February, 1918, the deceased, husband of plaintiff, was on a street car traveling south on East Water street in the city of Milwaukee. The car stopped on East Water street, north of the intersection of Wisconsin street. The deceased alighted and passed south alongside the car and by a man holding the end of a rope reaching from near the car to the Pabst building, and while he was in the street, next to the car, was hit on the head by a piece of falling ice and instantly killed. The ice was loosened by employees of defendant in the course of removing it from the roof of the building.

' The plaintiff brought this action, and from the judgment awarding her $10,000 damages and costs defendant appeals.

For the appellant there was a brief by *Burr J. Scott,*attorney, and *Lawrence A. Olwell,*of counsel, both of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Mr. Scott.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Carroll & Carroll*of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *George J. Carroll.*

Rosenberry, J.

The sole contention made on the appeal is that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. This clear-cut issue has been fully and *583ably argued and we have given the matter the attention that the importance of the case demands. The contention of the defendant is briefly that, in passing by the man who held the rope, the deceased was warned of the fact that he was in the zone of danger, and that his failure to accept the warning and his entrance into the zone of danger constitute contributory negligence as a matter of law. While the argument is persuasive there is no circumstance or combination of circumstances which is conclusive upon this question. The evidence no doubt would sustain a finding of the jury either way. Reasonable men might well come to different conclusions upon the facts and circumstances appearing in the evidence; it is therefore a jury question, and the trial court rightly so held.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

,

v.

RICHARD COURTLAND

,

Appellee

. **§**

**§**

**§**

**§**

**§**

**§**

**§** No. 08

- 21

- 00 047

- C R

Appeal from the

County Criminal Court No. 4

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 20180C11534 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Motion for Extension of Time to File Findings of Facts and

Conclusions of Law in reference to this Court’s order of June 15, 2021 . The trial court is directed

to file written findings of facts and conclusions of law with the County C lerk of El Paso, County

on or before J uly 22, 2021 . The County Clerk of El Paso County is directed to prepare and file

supplemental clerk’s record containing the findings of fact and conclusions of law with the Clerk

of this Court on or before J uly 2 6 , 2 021

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 20 th d ay of July , 20 2 1

.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez , C.J., Palafox and Alley , JJ.
### SER VED: May 24, 2013 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO. FAA DOCKETNO. [TO BEASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA-2013- 0050
HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that testimony and evidence will be heard and considered on September24 and 25,2013, inclusive, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 14th Floor, 1100 Commerce Street, Dallas, TX75242-1496. Hearings will commence at 9:00a.m. and conclude at 4:30p.m. each day. The parties shall vacate the courthouse on orbefore 5:00p.m. each day. Settled cases will not be removed from the docket until the Judge receives the proper pleading(s). Pleadings1may be forwarded by fax, express mail, courier or postal service2

.

Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative Law Judge Attachment

- Service List

1 Materials filed in the FAA Hearing Docket (except for materials which are sealed) also available for viewing at http://www.regulations.gov. For additional information see: http://dms.dot.gov. 2 The Administrator's civil penalty decisions, along with indexes ofthe decisions, the Rules ofPractice, as well as other materials relatingto civil penalty cases, are available on the internet at: http://www.faa.gov/aboutloffice org/headquarters offices/age/pol adjudication!agc400/civil penalty/: see also: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgiltltext/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=lecfrbrowse/Titlel4/14tab 02.tpl
.. In addition, Thomson Reuters/WestPublishing publishes Federal AviationDecisions. Finally, the decisions are available through LEXIS (TRANS library) and WestLaw 9FTRAN-FAA database. For additional information, see the Web site. 1I, 

# .

SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

### Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: ·HearingDocket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2W1000 1



### Dane B. Jaques, Respondent's Counsel 

### McKenna Long & 

### Aldridge LLP 1676 International Drive, PH McLean, VA 22102 TEL:**703-J36~8800** 

### FAX: 703-336-8750 ONE COPY



### EMAIL: djaques@mckennalong.com Jeffrey Novata, Respondent's Counsel 

### Attorney, Southwest Airlines Co. Love Field P.O. Box 36611 Dallas, TX 75235-1611 TEL: 214-792-4263 YolandaAyala Bernal, Complainant's Counsel 

### Senior Attorney, Office ofthe Regional Counsel Safety Enforcement Branch, Southwest Region, ASW-7E2 Federal AviationAdministration · 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Room 663 Fort Worth, TX 76137 TEL: 817-222-5070 FAX: 817-222-5945 or 5092 EMAIL: Y

### olanda.A.Bernal@faa.gov FDMS No. FAA-2013-0050 (Civil Penalty Action)

1Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal AviationAdministration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 2059I, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

### -2-The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,AdministrativeLawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536



### -3-
Argued and submitted December 3, 1982,

affirmed September 28,

reconsideration denied November 18, petition for review denied December 20, 1983 (296 Or 236)

#### MYERS, *Appellant, v.*DUNSCOMBE, dba Dr. David K. Dunscombe, D.D.S., P.C., *Respondent.*

(27191; CA A22180)

669 P2d 388

Patrie J. Doherty, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was Rankin, McMurry, VavRosky & Doherty, Portland.

David D. Landis, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were James M. Callahan and Landis, Aebi & Bailey, P.C., Portland.

Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Warren and Rossman, Judges.

PER CURIAM.

*723PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals the trial court’s granting of a directed verdict in favor of defendant in this dental malpractice action. We affirm.

Causation of nerve damage which results in the loss of sense of taste is a complicated medical question that must be resolved by expert medical testimony. *Cleland v. Wilcox,*273 Or 883, 887, 543 P2d 1032 (1975). The only medical testimony offered by plaintiff was that of Dr. Henkin and Dr. Hodson. Dr. Hodson made no conclusion as to causation in this case. Although Dr. Henkin stated unequivocally that the injection of a local anesthetic administered by defendant’s dental hygienist caused plaintiffs loss of taste, he was unable to state with any degree of certainty whether the injury was the result of a chemical reaction (a rare but known side effect of the drug) or the negligent administration of the injection by defendant’s dental hygienist.

Although there was some evidence the injection was improperly administered, there was no evidence on which the jury could do more than speculate that such negligence *caused*plaintiffs injury.

Affirmed.
#### Taylor, Special administratrix, Respondent, vs. Gustafson and another, Appellants.

For the appellants: *James E. Coleman,*attorney, and *William J. McCauley,*of counsel, both of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *Cadigan & Cadigan*of Superior.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997             JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       3,569,132               7,548,967
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                 97,260,578              97,893,748
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                      15,038,978              18,097,657
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,660,625               1,910,817
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             223,560,691             232,276,174
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                   149,385,777                 169,851
<OTHER-SE>                                 (6,375,182)            (15,267,471)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               223,560,691             232,276,174
<SALES>                                    110,152,675             131,074,403
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           110,152,675             131,074,403
<CGS>                                       30,948,291              39,572,988
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               89,059,050             111,468,900
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            16,945,167              29,055,617
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,005,873               2,307,954
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,272,929            (12,431,177)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,115,072             (2,401,186)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,157,857            (10,029,991)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,157,857            (10,029,991)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .08                   (.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08                   (.59)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Incitations,
Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Dominique Bellemare, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, 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; and

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


By:   /s/ Dominique Bellemare
     ----------------------------
Name: Dominique Bellemare
     -----------------------
Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
August 20, 2002
*December 4, 1934.*

#### Fullington, Respondent, vs. Dickson and another, Appellants: Stewart and another, Defendants.

For the appellants: *Quarles, Spence & Quarles,*attorneys, and *Arthur Wickham*of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *Dunbar & Dubail*of St. Louis, Missouri, attorneys, and *John P. McGalloway*of Fond du Lac of counsel.

For the defendants Stewart and Globe Indemnity Company : *L. J. Fellens*of Fond du Lac.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.

A motion for a rehearing was denied, with $25 costs, on February 5, 1935.
NRO.APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART 

DECLASSIFIED ON: 1 OCTOBER 2012 

-'01' SEeRETr 

.J' 

1811 ... 

MEMOB..61mtJ)4· FOR DB. FLAX 

Ja acewclaace with ,fie ......,... .... "·B ....... bJ:1Ie CIA 

baa lJeeD rev Ie ........ IWJaed ...... ....... ... tile CU 

.-.011881 .. tbt revIaId ..... ......... ,,"III" BIP ..... . ao1eJr with tile ~ lillie ••• _.. ... . 41t1pr1rt,_ . deettas tile CJNnU.,..... . Ja aHMI-. 

the tecludeal'" puforll,_ ebjelltt·N lIMe ............. .., 

to 888Ve tIuat.., of the· tbne ...... fa lilt anc ..... from COD8Jdenttc., or ....... 1!'l1J IRaM.. ·t ........... tIda 

bulle. Aa. read. the BFP ..... I'8Iat.tIe1J . .6l1l1I .... It .-

be uaed·to r ..... 'fI'CIPOI.II............ .. .............. ,. It wt1l reqwt.re fartIaer ................... ta ..... . -,....,... .......................... ...... 

tbrouP • ....u 81'" .... rllll ....... It will .aDZ ... ... 

- sabaystea.,.~ ........ 

Nearly every aectkJa of tile ·BFP ....... "'. IA ......... by 

thIB re9J.ew.· IIoweYer, tile ID88t 8tplflaat ""'II1II_ .... Nd III 

Statemeat of Work, par8Inpb8 1. 0 tiara" 4. 0; '..un A" .... I, 

Destp Criteria; tile eJI&lre A .... _ A, .,.... j'" . AppeDdix vm, .A88eIDbJ.J'''' ·CllecDat SaI(Welt TIle c ...... to . the stat.emeat ar Wort ... tile cIeJItI. ar .6 vm wen·~ . to eUmIDate SJStea ma ..... nat .... ~ Ia CIA .. 1f.MI. The 

de8lp criteria ... sy"" eeaaJde,au.. .... ...arel)'. ren ... aDd are ill effect compJeIelJ an ........ . .I.tlou haft beeD 

marDd for yoar COIlftD18ce .• tile doc .. eat IJJCJA, ... t1ae 

revised ftraiGll. . 

The pl'ftJoualy prepared latter ollD8tractlioaS h a seurce 8elect1aIa 

board baa beea upcWed to be·CCIMW.eBt:db'" D

r

..- (Tab A). It fa 

.... -

I 

I 

I 

I· 

~ ~·I cJ ~ C c d--
NRO·APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART 

DECLASSIF~ED ON: 1 OCTOBER 2012 l'OP SESRET 

...................... " ...................... .. "'.'m1,* WIdIIl ............... · ......... ... .......... .......... ..".."' .......... , .. . 

• ." 811, ............. 11 ..... · ............ ,_ ............. fI.'_ ........ · .•.• I.~ ... ___ ................... _ .............. _ .......... M 

be ...... _......... ___ a. ":18£1111' .... .,. ..... .. 

...... ... , ............. ,.. ........ -. .. ,. .. _ .. 

..,11. If till· 8 .. " ."1"'" _.1111111 .... tltl~ I ......... ., • 

.... t_=..." ........ '10 ... 111': .... ___ _ ....... . ,I'" II=," ........... m .,..,.., nJ)llft ........... _ .. ,.... . . ,,"I11111.··.".f '1.11' Ii It._. 11' ........................ ., .................. . 

~.'" It .. ., ......... ..., . . ..... ...... .. yea at t1da .... , ............... .., ... II( 11 __ ... ~,....,..,. .... .... 

A DKBO AeUca ............ 'IIaIllld ... T_ 0. ..... .... .. 1eeUa ilia ........ .......... (TIlt a,. ftt u .... "'lit ... ..... baW Mea ...... , ... wItb coJ..a ...... 'I'M MIl. If eM 

CIA •• mben "·1Je r""""; ••••• ., ...... 111 talc •• .. ,aur~ . 

DaWI L. Cutei' . 

CokIael, 1.BAF
# C_2004315EN.01000101.xml

| 21.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

20 December 2004

(2004/C 315/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3378 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 139,44 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4329 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,68740 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,9630 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5382 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 83,90 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,2290 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9559 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5788 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 30,460 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 244,93 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6880 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4315 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1223 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 38 672 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,78 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 38,545 |
| TRL | Turkish lira | 1 855 600 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7516 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,6428 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,4076 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8672 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,1994 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 415,66 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,6633 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3378

JPY

Japanese yen

139,44

DKK

Danish krone

7,4329

GBP

Pound sterling

0,68740

SEK

Swedish krona

8,9630

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5382

ISK

Iceland króna

83,90

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,2290

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9559

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5788

CZK

Czech koruna

30,460

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

244,93

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6880

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4315

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1223

ROL

Romanian leu

38 672

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,78

SKK

Slovak koruna

38,545

TRL

Turkish lira

1 855 600

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7516

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,6428

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,4076

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8672

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,1994

KRW

South Korean won

1 415,66

ZAR

South African rand

7,6633

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---