alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Nathan YORKE, As Trustee in Bankruptcy for Spaulding Industries, Inc., Appellant, v. HARRY’S DEPARTMENT STORE, INC., et al., Appellees.

No. 21242.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

April 5, 1965.

Rehearing Denied April 26,1965.

Herbert P. Feibelman, Jr., Mobile, Ala., Jacob I. Grossman, and Alfred B. Teton, Chicago, 111., Holbert, Tully & Hodnette, Mobile, Ala., Froelich, Gross-man, Teton & Tabin, Chicago, 111., of counsel, for appellant.

*815Oliver J. Latour, Jr., Mobile, Ala., Hamilton, Denniston, Butler & Riddick, Mobile, Ala., of counsel, for appellees.

Before WOODBURY* JONES and GEWIN, Circuit Judges.

*

 Senior Judge of the First Circuit, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

The district court determined that there was no genuine issue of any mate-ria] fact, and that the undisputed facts required a judgment for the appellees. We are in agreement with the district court’s decision and its judgment is

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Brian Garrett, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

V.

The Ohio State University,

Defendant.

Civii Action 2:18-cv-692

Judge Michaei H. Watson

Magistrate Judge Deavers

ORDER

On October 26, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. EOF No.

33. The filing of the Amended Complaint renders Defendant's motion to

dismiss, ECF No. 23, MOOT. The Clerk is DIRECTED to remove ECF No. 23

from the Court's pending motions list.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ilCHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case: 2:18-cv-00692-MHW-EPD Doc #: 37 Filed: 11/02/18 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 192
Exhibit 21

SUBSIDIARIES

The active subsidiaries of United
Retail Group, Inc. (the Company) are:

|Name                                           | Principal Office Address                                                    | StateofIncorporation
|---------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------
|Avenue Giftcards, Inc.                         | 365 West Passaic Street,Rochelle Park, NJ 07662                             | VA                  
|                                               |                                                                             |                     
|The Avenue, Inc.                               | Little Falls Centre II,2751 Centerville Road, Suite 309Wilmington, DE 19808 | DE                  
|                                               |                                                                             |                     
|United Distribution Services, Inc.             | One United Retail Plaza,Troy, OH 45373                                      | DE                  
|                                               |                                                                             |                     
|United Retail Holding Corporation              | 365 West Passaic Street,Rochelle Park, NJ 07662                             | DE                  
|                                               |                                                                             |                     
|United Retail Incorporated*                    | 365 West Passaic Street,Rochelle Park, NJ 07662                             | DE                  
|                                               |                                                                             |                     
|United Retail Logistics OperationsIncorporated | One United Retail Plaza,Troy, OH 45373                                      | DE                  

---

*Doing business as
Avenue®

The Companys subsidiaries are
wholly owned, directly or indirectly.
Case: 2:17-cv-00998-EAS-EPD Doc #: 235 Filed: 04/29/20 Page: 1 of 1  PAGEID #: 12166
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         14,509
<SECURITIES>                                  789,974
<RECEIVABLES>                                  31,340
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0
<PP&E>                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              1,044,754
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               0
<BONDS>                                       124,575
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                        1,913
<OTHER-SE>                                    508,123
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  510,036
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               32,475
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  12,805
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (77)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              1,356
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                18,391
<INCOME-TAX>                                    4,523
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            13,868
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   13,868
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.73
        


</TABLE>
NUMBER 13-08-00513-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

 

IN RE: PHOEBE MARIE ARRIAGA

 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Garza, and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

On August 28, 2008, relator, Phoebe Marie Arriaga, filed a petition for writ of

mandamus with this Court in which she alleges that on May 23, 2008, respondent, the

Honorable Nanette Hasette, Presiding Judge of the 28th Judicial District Court of Nueces

County, Texas, abused her discretion by: (1) denying plaintiff’s motion to deem answers

to request for admissions admitted as to real parties in interest, Joseph Huerta, The Huerta

Law Firm, L.L.P., and Evident Music Group, L.L.C.; and (2) granting the real parties in

interest leave to file late answers to request for admissions. 
2

Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus asks this Court to order the respondent to:

(1) vacate the May 23, 2008 trial court’s order; and (2) compel respondent to issue an

order granting the motion to deem the answers to the requests for admission admitted.

The Court, having examined and fully considered relator’s petition for writ of

mandamus and the real parties in interest’s response thereto, is of the opinion that relator

has not shown herself entitled to the relief sought and the petition for writ of mandamus

should be denied. 

The petition for writ of mandamus is hereby DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a)..

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and 

filed this the 5th day of December, 2008.
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 Annual Report of Extended Stay America, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



Dated:
March 15, 2004

| |  |                                                                        
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/GEORGE D. JOHNSON, JR.George D. Johnson, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer

---

QuickLinks
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20 22

- 2679

_____________________________
B RITTNYE J OADELLE H AMBLIN , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Jennie Kinsey , Judge

. March 22, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. B.L. T HOMAS , B ILBREY , and T ANENBAUM , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Jasmine Russell Dixon, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS

E ASTLAND

, T EXAS

J UDGMENT

Devante Dewayne Maxwell, * From the 142nd District

Court of Midland County,

Trial Court No. CR40292.

Vs. No. 11

- 14

- 00073

- CR * December 11, 2014

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has considered Devante Dewayne Maxwell ’s motion for nonsuit and

dismissal of his appeal and concludes that the motion should be granted. Therefore, in

accordance with this court ’ s opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


The Board of Directors
Applied Innovation Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
33-62646, 33-94582 and 333-4432) on Form S-8 of Applied Innovation Inc. of our
report dated February 11, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Applied Innovation Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and
the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
1997, which report appears in the December 31, 1997, annual report on Form 10-K
of Applied Innovation Inc.


/s/ KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

Columbus, Ohio
March 23, 1998
##### 



Exhibit 32.01 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 Annual Report of Silicon Image, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16,
2005 and amended on April 1, 2005 (the Report), I, Steve Tirado, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, 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) 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 result of operations of the Company
for the periods presented therein. Date: April 1, 2005
    /s/ Steve TiradoSteve TiradoChief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) 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.
J:\CRUMBA\FORMS\CALENDAR\2001\01-096.WPD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

St. Paul Fire & Marine, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. C-1-01-096

(Hogan, M.J.)

Oswald Company, Inc., et al.,

Defendants.

 

ORDER

 

Pursuant to telephonic notification, this matter is hereby settled:

It is ORDERED that this action is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice,

provided that any of the parties may, upon good cause shown within sixty

(60) days, reopen the action if settlement is not consummated. 

The Court retains jurisdiction over the settlement contract for the

purpose of its enforcement.

Date 12/11/2003 s/Timothy S. Hogan 

bac December 11, 2003 TIMOTHY S. HOGAN

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:01-cv-00096-TSH Document 142 Filed 12/11/2003 Page 1 of 1
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21 - 0527

_________________ ST ATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ROBIN R. COLLINS,

Defendant and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause wa s classified for submission on briefs to the Court sitting en banc on August 17, 2022 . The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of r ecord and to the Honorable Brenda Gilber t , District Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 30 2022

09/30/2022
Case Number: DA 21-0527
#### Olen DAGGS *v.*BOONEVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 65

73-305

508 S.W. 2d 46

Opinion delivered April 22, 1974

*Dale W. Finley,*for appellant.

*424
      *C. Richard Lippard,*for appellee.

Lyle Brown, Justice.

Appellant Olen Daggs held a one-year contract of employment with appellee. The contract went into effect July 1, 1971. He was discharged September 30, 1971. Appellant sued for the balance of his salary under the contract and a jury denied him recovery. For reversal appellant alleges one error, namely, the court erred in permitting testimony concerning appellant’s alleged misconduct occurring prior to the contract sued upon.

Appellant was employed as the auto mechanic for the school district. “His duties were to keep the buses in good repair, assist and cooperate with the drivers and co-workers, report and correct various troubles, and to have a good working relationship with his co-workers.” One of appellant’s co-workers was Tom Brown. On September 27, 1971, Tom Brown reported to the superintendent he was going to quit because of a run-in with appellant. Superintendent Underwood called appellant into the office. Underwood testified that in the four and one-half years just passed, there had been five employees working with appellant and all of them quit, each complaining about appellant’s attitude toward them. About the conference on September 27, the superintendent testified: “I told Mr. Daggs that we had a problem, and that he would have to stop doing and saying things and get along with the people I hired. He would have to quit making cutting remarks to other employees. He said he could get a better job before the sun went down. I told him that he couldn’t continue working for the school unless he stopped these things and Mr. Daggs then stated that he didn’t care whether he worked for the school or not.I then told him he was dismissed.”

Over the objection of appellant, the superintendent was permitted to relate the problems between appellant and the five former employees heretofore mentioned. Since those experiences occurred prior to the work contract beginning July 1, 1971, appellant contends they were inadmissible. Appellant insists the contract dated July 1 was entered into with full knowledge of all events of the past and therefore the purported misconduct was waived.

*425We think appellant’s argument is without merit. According to appellee School District, appellant was stubborn and high tempered. The jury was entitled to know of those past experiences because it would shed light on appellant’s run-in with Tom Brown on September 27. Principally, the past encounters tended to show that the experience of September 27 was not an isolated event but one which was typical of appellant’s behavior. Appellant did not ask that the jury be instructed that appellant could not be discharged for events occurring prior to July 1, 1971.

Affirmed.
Case: 3:18-mj-00378-SLO Doc #: 3 Filed: 05/23/18 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 13
Case: 3:18-mj-00378-SLO Doc #: 3 Filed: 05/23/18 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

MELISSA HOLLINGSWORTH, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL 

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Defendant. 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 3:18-cv-195 

District Judge Thomas M. Rose 

Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington 

DECISION AND ENTRY 

This case is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Stipulation for an Award of 

Attorney’s Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. 

(Doc. #13). Specifically, the parties stipulate to an award to Plaintiff of attorney fees 

in the amount of $4,000.00 in full satisfaction and settlement of any and all claims 

Plaintiff may have under the EAJA in the above case. The award of attorney fees will 

satisfy all of Plaintiff’s claims for fees, costs, and expenses under 28 U.S.C. § 2412 in 

this case. Any fees paid belong to Plaintiff, and not her attorney, and can be offset to 

satisfy pre-existing debt that Plaintiff owes the United States under Astrue v. Ratliff, 

560 U.S. 586 (2010). 

After the Court enters this award, if counsel for the parties can verify that 

Plaintiff owes no pre-existing debt subject to offset, Defendant agrees to direct that the 

award be made payable to Plaintiff’s attorney pursuant to the EAJA assignment duly 
2

signed by Plaintiff and counsel. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 

1. The Parties’ Joint Stipulation for an Award of Attorney’s Fees 

under the Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. #13) is accepted 

and the Commissioner shall pay Plaintiff’s attorney fees, costs, 

and expenses in the total amount of $4,000.00; 

2. Counsel for the parties shall verify, within thirty days of this 

Decision and Entry, whether or not Plaintiff owes a preexisting debt to the United States subject to offset. If no such 

pre-existing debt exists, Defendant shall pay the EAJA award 

directly to Plaintiff=s counsel pursuant to the EAJA assignment 

signed by Plaintiff and counsel; and 

3. The case remains terminated on the docket of this Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: February 13, 2019 *s/Thomas M. Rose 

 Thomas M. Rose 

 United States District Judge
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 18 (Thursday, January 27, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 4238]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01646]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank 
or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank 
holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the 
applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 
1817(j)(7)).
    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as 
other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be 
obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the 
appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of 
Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards 
enumerated in paragraph 7 of the Act.
    Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at 
the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, 
Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than February 11, 2022.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Chris P. Wangen, Assistant 
Vice President), 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291. 
Comments can also be sent electronically to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#581519183528342b763e2a3a76372a3f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c8858988a5b8a4bbe6aebaaae6a7baaf">[email protected]</span></a>:
    1. The Revised and Restated Connor Family Voting Trust and Richard 
M. Connor, Jr., Brian Luc Connor, and Susan J. Connor, as co-trustees, 
all of Laona, Wisconsin; to join the Connor family shareholder group 
acting in concert to acquire voting shares of Northern Wisconsin Bank 
Holding Company, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire Laona State Bank, 
both of Laona, Wisconsin.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 24, 2022.
Ann E. Misback,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2022-01646 Filed 1-26-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 124-2 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 124-2 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

TINA BRICKLES, : Case No. 3:18-cv-193

:

Plaintiff, : Judge Thomas M. Rose

 :

v. :

: 

JUSTIN SANDERSON, et al., :

:

Defendants. :

______________________________________________________________________________

ENTRY AND ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANT 

JUSTIN SANDERSON’S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS (DOC. 6) 

______________________________________________________________________________

Defendant Justin Sanderson moves the Court for a stay of proceedings pending 

the resolution of a criminal proceeding against him based on many of the same 

allegations in this case. The criminal proceeding, captioned State of Ohio v. Justin 

Sanderson, Case No. 2017 CR 02588, is pending in the Montgomery County Common 

Pleas Court. In order to timely consider Sanderson’s motion, the Court hereby orders the 

parties to file their responses, if any, to the Motion to Stay Proceedings (Doc. 6) by no 

later than July 24, 2018. Sanderson may file a reply to the parties’ response no later than 

July 27, 2018.

DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Wednesday, July 18, 2018. 

 s/Thomas M. Rose

________________________________

THOMAS M. ROSE

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case: 3:18-cv-00193-TMR Doc #: 7 Filed: 07/18/18 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 68