alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### GUTMAN v. NEW YORK EL. R. CO. et al.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.

December 18, 1895.)

Elevated Railroads—Damages to Abutters—Evidence.

Where the referee, in an action for damages from the operation of an-elevated railroad, admits evidence as to damages for which plaintiff is-not entitled to recover, a judgment for plaintiff will be reversed.

*648Appeal from judgment on report of referee.

Action by Emma Gutman against the New York Elevated Railroad Company and another to enjoin the operation of defendants’ railroad in the street in front of plaintiff’s premises, No. *737*Third .avenue, and for damages. There was a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed.

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and O’BRIEN and FOLLETT, JJ.

Sidney Smith, for appellants.

W. G. Peckham, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

It seems to be conceded by the respondent that evidence, and, upon an examination of the record, a considerable .amount thereof, was admitted in this action for the purpose of proving damage, of a character which was condemned by the court of appeals in the case of Jamieson v. Railway Co. (recently decided) 41 N. E. 693. It is impossible for us to say that such ■evidence did not influence the referee, or that he would have come to the same conclusion had it not been presented before him for consideration. It may be true that the evidence in question was of a character such as has been presented in various of these cases which have been affirmed by the court of appeals. But that court .-seems in the case last decided to have Anally come to the conclusion that it is necessary to enforce the rules of evidence which -commonly obtain, even in an elevated railroad case, in this city; .-and we see no reason for dissenting from this conclusion.

The case at bar, as already stated, is clearly within the rule laid down in the Jamieson Case; and the judgment must therefore be reversed, and a new trial ordered before another referee, to be appointed by this court, with costs to the appellants to abide the ■event.
#### Marchman *v.*Brown.

Beck, J.

1. Where, to a judgment rendered by the ordinary upon application to remove alleged obstructions from a private way, a certiorari is sued out to the superior court, and the answer of the ordinary to the writ of certiorari states incorrectly the facts as shown upon the trial, or is incomplete in that it fails to send up pleadings which should have been incorporated in the record, the proper remedy for the party complaining of the incorrectness or incompleteness of the answer is by exception to it, and not by motion to dismiss the petition for certiorari. *Star Glass Co.*v. *Longley,*64 *Ga.*576.

2. Proceedings of the character indicated are in the nature of proceedings *336to abate a nuisance, and should be brought in the county in which the obstructions are situated. And if’ obsti'uctions are placed in a road which crosses the line between two counties, some of them being in one county and some in the other, proceedings for their removal should be brought in each of the two counties, respectively, where such obstructions are. The ordinary of either of the two counties is without jurisdiction to pass upon an application for- the removal of obstructions not lying in the county in which he holds office; and the ordinary whose judgment was under review in the superior court correctly so held.

April 16, 1915.

Certiorari. Before Judge Park. Greene superior court. January 29, 1914.

*Lewis, Davison & Lewis,*for plaintiff in error.

*Samuel H. Sibley,*contra.

3. There was sufficient evidence to authorize the judge of the superior court, upon hearing the petition for certiorari and the answer of the ordinary thereto, to remand the case for a new hearing as to the alleged obstructions complained of in the county of Greene. The court erred, however, in adjudging that the ordinary of that county had jurisdiction to entertain the application for the removal of the obstructions in that part of the road lying in the adjoining county of Hancock. Consequently, the judgment of the court below is affirmed in so far as it reversed the judgment of the ordinary of Greene county in regard to the obstructions in that part of the road lying in said county, but it is reversed in so far as it directs the ordinary of Greene county to pass upon the merits of the complaint as to the obstructions in that part of the road which lies in the adjoining county of Hancock.

*Judgment reversed in part and affirmed in part.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, O. J., absent.*
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00463

- CV

LATRICIA SMITH AND A LL OTHER OCCUPANTS OF 4024 SO UTHERN CHARM COURT, ARLINGT ON, TX 76016 APPELLANT

V.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A

. APPELLEE

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

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 2013

- 001982

- 1

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

------------
On September 5, 2014, we notified appellant that her brief had not been

filed as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.6(a). See Tex. R.

App. P. 38.6(a). We stated we could dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution

unless appellant or any party desiring to continue this appeal filed with the court

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

within ten days a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex.

R. App. P. 42.3. We have not received any response.

Because appellant ’ s brief has not been filed, we dismiss the appeal for

want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let e xecution issue.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED: October 9 , 2014
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### October 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice



### 136250 Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, J ustices



### v SC: 136250 COA: 280571 Macomb CC: 2 002-000375-FH LISA MARIE HAVENS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the March 14, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s1020 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 27, 2008

Clerk
#### Alabama Great Southern Railroad Co. *v.*Dawkins *et al.*

May 12, 1915.

Hill, J.

1. Where a railroad company ¡builds a cattle-guard on the dividing line between adjacent land of different owners, it is bound to maintain it, and the Civil Code (1910), § 2699, does not require the landowner to give the railroad company thirty days notice to repair the same.

2. The cattle-guard required by the Civil Code (1910), § 2699, is intended to protect the adjacent land from the trespass of live stock going over the railroad right of way; and the contrivance must be sufficiently extensive to embrace the entire width of the right of way.

3. The Civil Code (1910), § 2702, does not require landowners to extend their fences across the entire railroad right of way, in order to connect with the cattle-guard on the track of the railroad.

4. The evidence authorized the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, C. J., absent.*

*416Action for damages. Before Judge Fite. Dade superior court. July 28, 1914.

*Payne & Hale,*for plaintiff in error.
Case: 1:01-cv-07914 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/15/01 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1
Case: 1:01-cv-07914 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/15/01 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:1
Case: 1:01-cv-07914 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/15/01 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:1
Case: 1:01-cv-07914 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/15/01 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:1
Case: 1:01-cv-07914 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/15/01 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:1
Case: 1:01-cv-07914 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/15/01 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:1
Case: 1:01-cv-07914 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/15/01 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2445

IRMA IVONNE LANWGLOIS-ROLDAN,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: August 28, 2017 Decided: September 21, 2017

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anna M. Gallagher, MAGGIO & KATTAR, P.C., Washington, DC, for Petitioner. Chad 

A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Dawn S. Conrad, Senior Litigation 

Counsel, Remi Da Rocha-Afodu, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Irma Ivonne Lanwglois-Roldan, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for 

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her untimely 

motion to reopen. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including LanwgloisRoldan’s supporting evidence and conclude that the record evidence does not compel a 

ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) 

(2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. See INS v. Elias–

Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. 

In re Lanwglois-Roldan (B.I.A. Dec. 9, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court 

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
1 Docum ents in the record refer to appellant as Keenon and Kennan; however, our

opinion will reflect appell ant’s nam e as it appears in the trial court’s j udgme nt. NO. 07-02-0249 -CR IN THE COU RT OF APP EALS FOR THE SEVENT H DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMA RILLO PANE L A AUGUST 8, 2002

______________________________ KENNON SHAW, APPELLANT 1

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE 13 7TH DIST RICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUN TY; NO. 2001-437619; HON ORABLECECIL G. PURYEAR, JUD GE

_______________________________ Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ. Following a plea of not guilty, on March 1, 2 002 , appellant Kennon Shaw was convicted by a jury of possession of a co ntroll ed subst ance in a drug free zone and punishment was as sessed at 50years confinem ent. Appellant timely filed his m otion for2

new trial extending the ti me in which to perfect his appeal until May 30, 2002. Tex . R. App. P. 26.2(a)(2) . The notice of appeal, however, was n ot filed until the following day and was not accom panied by a m otion for extension of tim e reasonably explaining the delay. In a c rim inal case , th e tim e w ithin w hich to f ile a written no tice of appeal may be enlarged if, within 15 days after t he deadline for fili ng the notice, the party fil es the notice of appeal and a m otion complying w ith Rule 10.5(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. Because appell ant’s sentence was imposed on March 1, 2002, the 15-day

window for filing hi s n ot i ce of

ap pe al an d mo ti on fo r e xt en si on of ti me expired on June 14, 2002. By letter dated July 26, 2002, t his Court requested that appellant show cause why the appeal should not be dism issed for want of jurisdiction. In response, on August 5, 2 002, counsel forap pe l l an t f i l ed a mo ti on fo r e xt en si on of ti me explaining the reason for the late notice of appeal. How ever, when a notice of appeal, but no timely m otion for extens ion, is filed within the 15-day window, this Court do es not have jurisdiction to dispose of the purported ap peal in any manner oth er than by dism issal for want of jurisdiction. Olivo v. State, 918 S .W .2d 519, 523 (Tex .Cr.App. 1996). Addition ally, we do not have jurisdiction to i nvo ke R ule 2of t he T exas R ulesof Appe llatePr oce dur e in an effort to obtain j urisdiction of the case. Thus , we cannot create j urisdiction where none exists. Id ; see alsoSlaton v . Sta te, 981 S.W.2d 208, 20 9-10 (Tex .Cr.A pp. 1998 ). Appellantmay be entitled to an out-of-tim e appeal by filing a post-conviction w rit of habeas corpus returnable to the Texas Court of Crim inal Appeals. SeeTe x. Co de Cr i m.3

Proc. Ann. art. 11. 07, § 3 (Vernon Supp. 2002); see alsoEx Parte Garcia, 988 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. Cr.Ap p. 1999)
. Accordingly, we dism iss this cause for want of j urisdiction.
Don H. Reavis Justice Do not publish.
**Exhibit 10.15**

 

***Aerospace Defense, Inc.***

***4838 Jenkins Avenue***

***North Charleston, SC 29405***

***Telephone: (843) 744-5174***

***Facsimile: (843) 747-4092***

 

*ViaFacsimile (843) 553-3832*

Mr. John Wall, III

Force Protection, Inc.****

Force Protection Industries,Inc.****

9801 Highway 78, Building 1

Ladson, SC 29456

 

**Re:****                             Amendmentto Industrial Leases by and between Force Protection Industries, Inc. (formerlyTechnical Solutions Group, Inc.) and Force Protection, Inc. (collectively “Tenant”)and Aerospace/Defense, Inc. (“Landlord”) - - One Industrial Lease dated July13, 2004 covering a portion of Building No. 2 and the other Industrial Leasedated September 2, 2003 covering Building No. 3. Each Industrial Lease shall bereferenced below as the “Lease” and collectively as the “Leases.”**

 

Dear Mr. Wall:

 

This letter, when signed byrepresentatives of the Tenant and Landlord, shall serve as an amendment (the “Amendment”)to the Leases.

 

To correct an error in theLeases, Section 12(b) (Insurance) in each Lease is hereby amended byamending and restating the 7th line thereof as follows:

 

“...Tenant’sliability to the Landlord assumed under the indemnification provisions of thisLease.”

 

Facsimile signatures to thisAmendment shall be considered originals.

 

Except as amended by thisletter, each of the provisions of the Leases remain in full force and effect.

 

Aerospace/Defense, Inc.

 
| By:    | /s/ M. Jerry  Garfinkle |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | M. Jerry  Garfinkle     |   |
| Its:   | Assistant  Secretary    |   |

 

We agree to the aboveAmendment:

 
| Force  Protection, Inc. | Force  Protection Industries, Inc. |
|-------------------------|------------------------------------|
|                    |                               |
| By:                     | /s/ Gordon  McGilton               |   | By: | /s/ Raymond  Pollard |   |
|                    |                               |   |   |   |   |
| Its:                    | CEO 7/18/06                        |   | Its: | COO |   |

 

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 1, 2017

Order 

Clerk

December 1, 2017

154442(162)

ALI BAZZI,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

and

GENEX PHYSICAL THERAPY, INC. and 

ELITE CHIROPRACTIC CENTER, PC,

Intervening Plaintiffs-Appellants,

and

TRANSMEDIC, LLC,

Intervening Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 154442

v COA: 320518

Wayne CC: 13-000659-NF

SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant/Third-Party

Plaintiff-Appellee,

and

CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee,

and

HALA BAYDOUN BAZZI and

MARIAM BAZZI, Third-Party Defendants-Appellees.

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Auto Club Insurance Association 

to extend the time for filing a brief amicus curiae to January 26, 2018, is DENIED.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 
      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 the entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;c)
    
    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; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrant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
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability
to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal controls over financial reporting.
 /s/ Michael D. AndereckMichael D. AndereckPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDecember 7, 2005
EXHIBIT 23





                              ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
Optical Cable Corporation:


We consent to incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 33-09433
on Form S-8 of Optical Cable Corporation of our report dated December 8, 2000,
relating to the balance sheets of Optical Cable Corporation as of October 31,
2000 and 1999, and the related statements of income, stockholders' equity, and
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended October 31,
2000, which report appears in the October 31, 2000 Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Optical Cable Corporation.


                                      KPMG LLP




Roanoke, Virginia
January 29, 2001
EXHIBIT 31.2**CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 302**I, Hervé Duchesne de Lamotte, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of IDM Pharma, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, 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 and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrols over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: April 2, 2007                     /s/ Hervé Duchesne de Lamotte   Hervé Duchesne de Lamotte   Acting Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46253-46254]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17680]


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

FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD


Notice of Board Meeting

DATES: August 24, 2021 at 10:00 a.m.

ADDRESSES: Telephonic. Dial-in (listen only) information: Number: 1-
415-527-5035, Code: 199 981 0184; or via web: https://tspmeet.webex.com/tspmeet/onstage/g.php?MTID=ec2075faccae9511e93ed59f66aef58ec.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly Weaver, Director, Office of 
External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Board Meeting Agenda

Open Session

1. Approval of the July 27, 2021 Board Meeting Minutes
2. Monthly Reports
    (a) Participant Activity Report
    (b) Investment Report
    (c) Legislative Report
3. Quarterly Reports

[[Page 46254]]

    (d) Metrics
4. FY22 Budget Review and Approval
5. Participant Survey Report

Closed Session

6. Information covered under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) and 552b(c)(10).

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b (e)(1).

    Dated: August 12, 2021.
Dharmesh Vashee,
General Counsel, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
[FR Doc. 2021-17680 Filed 8-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
### JUDGMENT 

## Court of Appeals First District of Texas

NO. 01

- 14

- 00696

- CV

REBECCA HAAS , Appellant

V.

ELLIOTT CIN , Appellee
Appeal from the 113th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 2013

- 76341 ).

After due consideration, the Court grants appellee Elliott Cin’s motion to dismiss the appeal. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the appeal.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered February 3 , 2015.

Per curiam opinion delivered by panel consisting of Justices Jennings, Massengale, and Lloyd.

y