alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### DOROTHY (STRUTZEL) CROCKETT, Appellant, v. EAGLE THRIFTY DRUGS & MARKETS, INC., Respondent.

No. 7467

June 18, 1975

536 P.2d 490

*Charles E. Springer, Ltd.,*of Reno, for Appellant.1

*Hibbs & Bullís, Ltd.,*of Reno, for Respondent.

1

 The case was presented in the district court by Howard W. McKis-sick, Jr., for plaintiff Crockett.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

In this “slip and fall” personal injury action, the jury, upon conflicting evidence, returned a verdict for the defendant. In the factual context of this case, we perceive no prejudicial error in the district court’s rulings on evidence and instructions to the jury, and accordingly we affirm. See American Cas. Co. v. Propane Sales & Serv., 89 Nev. 398, 513 P.2d 1226 (1973); Ginnis v. Mapes Hotel, 86 Nev. 408, 470 P.2d 135 (1970); Eldorado Club, Inc., v. Francis B. Graff, 78 Nev. 507, 377 P.2d 174 (1962); Yturralde v. Barney’s Club, Inc., 87 Nev. 249, 484 P.2d 1079 (1971).
<PAGE>   1


                                                                     EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following (i)
Registration Statement No. 2-82186 on Form S-8 filed March 3, 1983; (ii)
Registration Statement No. 33-48363 on Form S-8 filed June 3, 1992; (iii)
Registration Statement No. 33-79146 on Form S-8 filed May 19, 1994; (iv)
Registration Statement No. 333-06021 on Form S-8 filed June 14, 1996; (v)
Registration Statement No. 333-48697 on Form S-8 filed March 26, 1998; (vi)
Registration Statement No. 333-57585 on Form S-8 filed June 24, 1998; (vii)
Registration Statement No. 333-46726 on Form S-8 filed September 27, 2000; and
(viii) Registration Statement No. 333-55574 on Form S-8 filed February 14, 2001,
and in the related Prospectuses, of our report dated August 8, 2001 with respect
to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of WMS Industries Inc. and
subsidiaries, included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) of WMS Industries Inc.
for the year ended June 30, 2001.


                                                   /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Chicago, Illinois
September 24, 2001
#### Michelle Tortora et al. *v.*Jean-Yves Wood et al.

*Thomas M. Murtha*and *Steven A. Oullette,*in support of the petition.

*Maureen E. Norris,*in opposition.

Decided June 17, 1993

The named defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 31 Conn. App. 911 (AC 11121), is denied.
**
POWER OF ATTORNEY
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each of the undersigned being adirector or officer, or both, of SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., a New York corporation(the "Company"), does hereby constitute and appoint ALAN J. LACY, JEFFREYN. BOYER, and GLENN R. RICHTER with full power to each of them to act alone,as the true and lawful attorneys and agents of the undersigned, with fullpower of substitution and resubstitution to each of said attorneys, toexecute, file and deliver any and all instruments and to do any and allacts and things which said attorneys and agents, or any of them, deem advisableto enable the Company to comply with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended, and any requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commissionin respect thereto, relating to annual reports on Form 10-K, includingspecifically, but without limitation of the general authority hereby granted,the power and authority to sign his or her name in the name and on behalfof the Company or as a director or officer, or both, of the Company, asindicated below opposite his or her signature, to annual reports on Form10-K or any amendment or papers supplemental thereto, and each of the undersigneddoes hereby fully ratify and confirm all that said attorneys and agentsor any of them, or the substitute of any of them, shall do or cause tobe done by virtue hereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has subscribed his or hername, this 14th day of March, 2001.NAME TITLE/s/ Alan J. LacyAlan J. LacyChairman of the Boardof Directors,President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)/s/ JeffreyN. BoyerJeffrey N. BoyerSenior VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)/s/ GlennR. RichterGlenn R. RichterVice Presidentand Controller(Principal Accounting Officer)/s/ HallAdams Jr.Hall Adams, Jr.Director/s/ Brenda C. BarnesBrenda C. BarnesDirector/s/ Warren L BattsWarren L. BattsDirector/s/James R CantalupoJames R. CantalupoDirector/s/ W. James FarrellW. James FarrellDirector/s/ Michael A. MilesMichael A. MilesDirector/s/ Hugh B PriceHugh B. PriceDirector/s/ Dorothy A TerrellDorothy A. TerrellDirector

**
1 NO. 04-15- 00 312- CV

__________________________________________________________________

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

__________________________________________________________________ Luis and Janeth Moreno, individually and on behalf of their daughter GM

v. Rosa Vida, Individually

__________________________________________________________________

Trial Court Cause No. 2015CVT000802 D3, in the 341st District Court, Webb County, Texas The Honorable Beckie Palomo, Presiding

__________________________________________________________________

A PPELLANTS ’ M OTION TO D ISMISS A PPEAL

__________________________________________________________________ TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS:
COMES NOW Appellants Luis and Janeth Moreno
, individually and on
behalf of G.M., and respectfully ask the Court to dismiss this appeal.

I.
Appellants are Luis and Janeth Moreno, in dividually and on behalf of G.M.
Appellant perfected the appeal on May 15, 2015, when they filed a notice of appeal.

II.
On June 12, 2015, Appellants reached a settlement with Appellee ’ s codefendant in the underlying case, Mary Help of Christians School. ACCEPTED 04-15-00312-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7/27/2015 4:52:46 PM KEITH HOTTLE CLERK2 III.
The Court has the authority under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)

to gr ant this motion to dismiss. Therefore, A ppellants request the Court dismiss the
appeal in whole.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellants Luis and Janeth
Moreno, Individually and on behalf of their daughter G. M. respectfully move this

Court to dismiss the appeal in whole. Appellants further pray for such other relief,
at law or in equity, to which they may be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,

BY: “/s/ Ronald Rodriguez” Ronald Rodriguez

T HE L AW O FFICES OF R ONALD R ODRIGUEZ , P.C. Ronald Rodriguez SBN 00788306 Willard Clark SBN 24087307 915 Victoria Street Laredo, Texas 78040 (956) 796

- 1000

– Telephone (956) 796

- 1002

– Fax ron@ronaldrodriguez.com will@ronaldrodriguez.com

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS LUIS AND JANETH MORENO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF

THEIR DAUGHTER GM (VICTIM)3 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
I certify that I conferred with Counsel for Appellee regarding this motion

. Appellee h ad not responded at the time of filing this motion

. “/s/ Ronald Rodriguez” Ronald Rodriguez

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that I served opposing counsel on July 27 , 2015, in accordance with

the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
“/s/ Ronald Rodriguez” Ronald Rodriguez
#### HOWARD W. HERZ, Appellant, v. MICHELLE J. GABLER-HERZ, Respondent.

No. 19146

March 28, 1991

808 P.2d 1

*118*Petersen & Petersen,*Reno, for Appellant.

*Bryon L. Bilyeu,*Reno; *Norman Herring,*Riverside, California, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

This is an appeal from a decree of divorce and from an order denying a motion to modify the decree.

Appellant contends that the district court abused its discretion in awarding child support in the amount of $1000.00 per month for each of the two children of the marriage. Specifically, appellant contends that before a district court may depart from the statutory formulas for child support provided in NRS 125B.070, the party advocating an award in excess of the statutory amount must prove that the additional amount is necessary to meet the child’s needs. We disagree.

At the time of the divorce decree, there was a presumption that the amount of child support provided under NRS 125B.070 was sufficient to meet a child’s needs. NRS 125B.080(4).1 A party could rebut that presumption by presenting evidence that a child’s needs were not met by the statutory formula. *Id.*Contrary to appellant’s contention, however, there was and is nothing in the applicable statutes to preclude the district court from awarding an additional amount of child support based on some factor other than increased need.

*119The district court specifically found that the amount awarded was “fair and equitable” in light of “the vastly different incomes and financial resources of the plaintiff and defendant, and the amount of time the children will spend with each parent as a result of this decree.” See NRS 125B.080(5) (district court shall set forth findings of fact as to the basis for deviating from the formula). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in making the child support award in excess of the statutory amount based on these factors. We note initially that the factors cited by the district court fall within those listed in NRS 125B.080(8) as factors that the district court should consider when adjusting the amount of child support. We further note the extensive evidence of appellant’s wealth supporting the district court’s findings, including appellant’s income tax returns and property holdings.

Appellant contends that the district court erred by denying his motion to modify the judgment on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction over his motion. Assuming, without deciding, that the district court erred in denying appellant’s motion, such error was harmless. *See*Barbagallo v. Barbagallo, 105 Nev. 546, 779 P.2d 532 (1989) (fixed expenses of primary custodian are not usually appreciably diminished by secondary custodian’s sharing of burdens of child care and maintenance).

Having concluded that appellant’s contentions lack merit, we affirm the decree of divorce and the order of the district court denying appellant’s motion to modify the decree.

1

The citations to NRS Chapter 125B refer to the statutes as they existed prior to the 1989 amendments.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Stanley Lucius Atnipp

, * From the 441st District Court

of Midland County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR40673

.

Vs. No. 11

- 14

- 00287

- CR * April 20 , 2017

The State of Texas, * Opinion by Willson , J.

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

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that

there is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this

court ’ s opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000051387
<NAME> INTERNATIONAL MERCANTILE CORPORATION
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          313,395
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,133,513
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.T., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Sault Ste. Marie, MI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0764

Issued: May 27, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On April 7, 2021 appellant filed an appeal from a May 22, 2020 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned Docket 

No. 21-0764.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act.1 

For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s review 

authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of OWCP’s 

decision.2

The 180th day following the May 22, 2020 decision was November 18, 2020. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until April 7, 2021, more than 180 days after the May 22,

2020 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 21-0764 is untimely filed. 

The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not offered a reason to 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8149; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a) (2009).

2

Id. at § 501.3(e).
2

explain the failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to establish 

compelling circumstances.

The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date 

of their issuance.”

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 21-0764 is dismissed.

Issued: May 27, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

3

Id. at § 501.6(d).
#### VISITING NURSE AND HOME CARE, INC., Plaintiff, v. STRATFORD VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION, INC. and The Southern New England Telephone Company, Defendants.

Civ. No. 5:91CV00139 (WWE).

United States District Court, D. Connecticut.

May 14, 1991.

Charles L. Howard, Michael Hotaling, Shipman & Goodwin, Hartford, Conn., for plaintiff.

Alfred J. Brunetti, Milton F. Smith, Jr., New Haven, Conn., J. Roger Shull, Strat-ford, Conn., for defendants.

RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

EGINTON, District Judge.

Plaintiff Visiting Nurse and Home Care, Inc. (“VNA”) brings this trademark infringement action against defendants Stratford Visiting Nurse Association, Inc. (“Stratford”), and The Southern New England Telephone Company (“SNET”) seeking an injunction against defendants’ further unauthorized use of VNA’s stylized trademark, to which plaintiff claims an exclusive right of use in interstate commerce. Plaintiff asserts that its stylized VNA trade*747mark is currently registered with both the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and the office of the Connecticut Secretary of State. Although the plaintiffs stylized VNA trademark has been licensed to various health care organizations, it is undisputed that no such licensing has occurred with respect to defendant Stratford. The instant action arises out of plaintiffs desire to estop defendant Stratford from renewing its SNET Yellow Pages’ advertisement, which features the stylized VNA trademark.

Jurisdiction of the court is established pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1121, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331(a) and 1338(a), as the action arises under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051, *et seq.,*and raises a federal question.

Following three days of hearings the court will grant plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction, based upon plaintiffs demonstration of the following elements:

1. Irreparable harm has been established by evidence that the holder of the trademark is deprived of control, including the right to license, over the nature and quality of the services that the public associates with the trademark, causing the holder of the trademark to lose good will and increasing its exposure to liability from any misuse of the trademark.

2. Although the plaintiff has not established a probability of success on the merits, it has established the appropriateness of litigation by demonstrating a sufficiently serious question on the merits.

3. The balance of hardship tips decidedly toward the plaintiff. Indeed, defendant Stratford has failed to establish any damages. Defendant Stratford need only change the horizontal or vertical orientation of its logo’s “VNA” lettering to avoid trademark infringement with the plaintiff’s stylized logo.

4. Plaintiff is required to post a bond of ten thousand dollars. This sum is appropriate, taking into consideration expenses associated with any appeal.

5.The parties are to negotiate, in good faith, an agreement which establishes the scope and timing of this preliminary injunction order. If that negotiation does not result in a stipulated order, the parties are to submit, no later than 10 days from the date hereof, respective proposed orders.

SO ORDERED.
**
**Exhibit 23**

CAWLEY, GILLESPIE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 

PETROLEUM CONSULTANTS 

 

6500 RIVER PLACE BLVD, SUITE 3-200

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78730-1111

512-249-7000
 
306 WEST SEVENTH STREET, SUITE 302

FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76102-4987

817-336-2461713-651-9944

www.cgaus.com
 
1000 LOUISIANA STREET, SUITE 1900

    HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002-5008

San Juan Basin Royalty Trust 

Argent Trust Company, Trustee 

3838 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1720

Dallas TX 75219 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

Cawley, Gillespie & Associates, Inc. hereby consents to the use of the oil and gas reserve information in the San Juan Basin RoyaltyTrust Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2023 and in the San Juan Basin Royalty Trust Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2023 based on reservereports prepared by Cawley, Gillespie & Associates, Inc. and dated March 11, 2024. 

 

CAWLEY, GILLESPIE & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-693

/s/ J. Zane Meekins, P. E.

****J. Zane Meekins, P. E.****

****Executive Vice President****

Fort Worth, Texas 

April 1, 2024 
**
Exhibit 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   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 China  Mineral
Acquisition  Corporation  (the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
June 30,  2005,  as filed  with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  (the
"Report"),  I, Bing  Zhao,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the  Company,  certify,
pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.   Section   1350,  as  added  by  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

                  1. The Report fully complies in all material respects 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.

Pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission,
this certification is being furnished and is not deemed filed.



Dated:  August 15, 2005              /s/ Bing Zhao
                                     -------------------------------------
                                     Bing Zhao
                                     Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 204 (Monday, October 24, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61490-61491]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21200]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Application of U.S. Helicopter Corporation for Certificate 
Authority

AGENCY: Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of Order to Show Cause (Order 2005-10-12) Docket OST-
2005-20405.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is directing all interested 
persons to show cause why it should not issue an order finding U.S. 
Helicopter Corporation fit, willing, and able, and awarding it a 
certificate of public convenience and necessity to engage in interstate 
scheduled air transportation of persons, property, and mail.

[[Page 61491]]


DATES: Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than 
October 31, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Objections and answers to objections should be filed in 
Docket OST-2005-20405 and addressed to U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Docket Operations, (M-30, Room PL-401), 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, and should be served upon the 
parties listed in Attachment A to the order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vanessa R. Balgobin, Air Carrier 
Fitness Division (X-56, Room 6401), U.S. Department of Transportation, 
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-9721.

    Dated: October 17, 2005.
Michael W. Reynolds,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 05-21200 Filed 10-21-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P