alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Joseph Elguth v. Josefa Grueszka.

1. Res *Gestae—Declarations, When*Not.—Declarations which are narrative of what has happened, however recently, are not *res gestae.*So when a witness was permitted to state that at his door, seventy-five feet away, he saw the plaintiff with blood dripping from her nose and lips, and asked her what was the matter, to which she replied, pointing to the defendant, “that peddler, he struck me severely,” *it was held*error.

Memorandum.—Trespass for assault and battery. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. James Goo-gun, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1894.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed December 20, 1894.

Johnson, Herring *&*Brooke, attorneys for appellant.

John M. Southworth, attorney for appellee.

Mr. Justice Gary

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The appellee sued the appellant for assault and battery. On her behalf, over the objection and exception of the appellant, the court permitted a witness to state that at the *194door of Ms place of business, seventy-five feet from the appellant’s store or shop, the witness saw the appellee, blood dripping from her nose and lips, and asked what was the matter, to which she replied, pointing to the appellant’s place, “ that peddler, he struck me severely.”

Without that testimony it is impossible to say that the appellee would have obtained a verdict; and the admission of that was error.

That question was in Carter v. Carter, 37 Ill. App. 219-223, which being affirmed without mention of that question, but with a statement that other alleged errors are not deemed important, is a reiteration of Chi. W. D. Ry. Co. v. Becker, 128 Ill. 545. That many cases from other States can be cited in favor of admitting such testimony is not to the purpose.

C., B. & Q. R. R. v. Johnson, 36 Ill. App. 564, and O. & *M.*Ry. v. Cullison, 40 Ill. App. 67, also hold that declarations which are narrative of what has happened, however recently, are not *res gestae.*

In East St. Louis Ry. v. Allen, 54 Ill. App. 27, the Appellate Court of the Fourth District has made a contrary decision, based upon Quincy Horse Ry. v. Gruse, 137 Ill. 264; but referring to that case as reported in 38 Ill. App. 212, and comparing the two reports, it is probable that the declaration of the driver of the car, there admitted, Avhich Avas made Avhile the injured boy Avas still under the car, Avas one showing that the driver was then drunk, and not a statement of anything Avhich had before happened.

We can not regard that decision in the Fourth District as authoritative. Eeversed and remanded.
**Exhibit 32.01**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Tigrent Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Form 10-K”), I, Steven C. Barre, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                The Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)                                The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|   | /s/   STEVEN C. BARRE     |
|--------|---------------------------|
|   |                      |
|   | Steven   C. Barre         |
|   | *Chief Executive Officer* |
|   | March 31,   2011     |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 167 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 167

 To amend the National Trails System Act to extend the Lewis and Clark 
            National Historic Trail, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 16, 2019

   Mr. Young introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the National Trails System Act to extend the Lewis and Clark 
            National Historic Trail, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Eastern Legacy Extension Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF LEWIS AND CLARK NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL.

    (a) Extension.--Section 5(a)(6) of the National Trails System Act 
(16 U.S.C. 1244(a)(6)) is amended, in the first sentence--
            (1) by striking ``three thousand seven hundred'' and 
        inserting ``4,900'';
            (2) by striking ``Wood River, Illinois,'' and inserting 
        ``the Ohio River in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,''; and
            (3) by striking ``maps identified as, `Vicinity Map, Lewis 
        and Clark Trail' study report dated April 1977'' and inserting 
        ``the map entitled Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail 
        Authorized Trail Including Proposed Eastern Legacy Extension, 
        dated April 2018, and numbered 648/143721''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) take 
effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
Argued and submitted February 17,

reversed and remanded for further proceedings March 10, 1999

#### In the Matter of Janice Bohna, Alleged to be a Mentally Ill Person. STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*JANICE BOHNA, *Appellant.*

(9806-66231; CA A102578)

976 P2d 575

Thomas A. Coleman filed the brief for appellant.

Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General, and Philip Schradle, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong, Judge, and Warren, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM

*31PER CURIAM

In this proceeding pursuant to ORS 426.005 through ORS 426.407, the state concedes that the trial court erred in failing to advise the allegedly mentally ill person of her rights under ORS 426.100(1). We accept the concession.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
#### BURCL v. HOSPITAL

No. 305PC

No. 146 (Fall Term)

Case below: 47 N.C. App. 127

Petition by plaintiff for reconsideration of the denial of discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 (See 301 N.C. 86) allowed 7 October 1980.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 220 (Wednesday, November 16, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 69439]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22647]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD01-05-100]


Drawbridge Operation Regulations: Connecticut River, CT

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a 
temporary deviation from the drawbridge operation regulations for the 
Amtrak Old Saybrook-Old Lyme Bridge, mile 3.4, across the Connecticut 
River, Connecticut. This deviation from the regulations allows the 
bridge to operate on a fixed schedule for bridge openings from November 
21, 2005 through December 22, 2005. This deviation is necessary in 
order to facilitate necessary scheduled bridge maintenance.

DATES: This deviation is effective from November 21, 2005 through 
December 22, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First 
Coast Guard District, at (212) 668-7195.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Old Saybrook-Old Lyme Bridge, at mile 
3.4, across the Connecticut River has a vertical clearance in the 
closed position of 19 feet at mean high water and 22 feet at mean low 
water. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are listed at 33 
CFR 117.205(b).
    The owner of the bridge, National Railroad Passenger Corporation 
(Amtrak), requested a temporary deviation from the drawbridge operating 
regulations to facilitate scheduled electrical bridge repairs. In order 
to complete the above repairs the bridge must open on a fixed bridge 
opening schedule.
    This deviation to the operating regulations allows the Old 
Saybrook-Old Lyme Bridge to operate from November 21, 2005 through 
December 22, 2005, as follows:
    From Monday through Friday, the bridge shall open on signal at 8:15 
a.m., 12:15 p.m., and 2:15 p.m., daily. From 4 p.m. through 8 a.m. the 
bridge shall open on signal after a four-hour advance notice is given 
by calling the number posted at the bridge.
    On Saturday and Sunday, the bridge shall open on signal at 8 a.m., 
10 a.m., 1 p.m., and 4 p.m., daily. From 4 p.m. through 8 a.m. the 
bridge shall open on signal after a four-hour advance notice is given 
by calling the number posted at the bridge.
    The bridge shall open on signal for commercial vessels at any time 
after a four-hour advance notice is given by calling the number posted 
at the bridge.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c), this work will be performed 
with all due speed in order to return the bridge to normal operation as 
soon as possible. This deviation from the operating regulations is 
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: November 4, 2005.
Gary Kassof,
Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 05-22647 Filed 11-15-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
Case 1:06-cv-15073-AKH Document 5 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32

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

      In connection with the Annual Report of Winthrop Residential Associates I,
A Limited Partnership (the "Partnership"), on Form 10-KSB for the annual period
ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the
date indicated below, hereby certifies 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) or 15(d) of the
Securities and 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 Partnership.

Date: March 29, 2005                                     /s/ Michael L. Ashner
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Michael L. Ashner
                                                         Chief Executive Officer


Date: March 29, 2005                                     /s/ Thomas Staples
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Thomas Staples
                                                         Chief Financial Officer


                                       32
Case 1:07-cv-03369-AJP     Document 12      Filed 05/23/2007     Page 1 of 1
Case 1:06-cv-15062-AKH Document 2 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                                                5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from the contained quarterly 10-Q and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                                             1

<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                               Jul-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                                  Aug-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                                    Apr-30-2000
<CASH>                                                            1,744,343
<S>
<SECURITIES>                                                         41,222
<RECEIVABLES>                                                        70,062
<ALLOWANCES>
<INVENTORY>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                  2,544,952
<PP&E>                                                           52,755,860
<DEPRECIATION>                                                   23,340,537
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                   41,813,538
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                             1,559,798
<BONDS>
<COMMON>                                                          2,178,297
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>
<PREFERRED>
<OTHER-SE>                                                       29,242,936
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                     41,813,538
<SALES>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                  8,147,692
<CGS>
<TOTAL-COSTS>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                  6,635,544
<LOSS-PROVISION>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                  469,996
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                   1,241,528
<INCOME-TAX>                                                        456,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                 785,528
<DISCONTINUED>
<EXTRAORDINARY>
<CHANGES>
<NET-INCOME>                                                        785,528
<EPS-BASIC>                                                          0.37
<EPS-DILUTED>


</TABLE>
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and coll ateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### APR 8 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

EDWARD VAUGHN KELLER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. WILLIAM ALBRIGHT,

Defendant-Appellee. No. 97-4205 (Dist. of Utah) (D.C. No. 94-CV-579-S)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
BeforeBALDOCK , EBEL , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges. After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ourt therefore honors the parties’ requests and orders the cause s ubmitted without oral argument.-2-

This court has conducted a de novo review of the parties’ appellate briefs and contentions, the district court’s Memorandum De cision, and the entire record on appeal. Based upon that de novo review, we affirm for substantially those reasons set out in the district court’s thorough Me morandum Decision dated November 17, 1997. The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the District of Utah is hereby AFFIRMED
. ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 163 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 163

  To prevent catastrophic failure or shutdown of remote diesel power 
    engines due to emission control devices, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 16, 2019

 Mr. Sullivan (for himself and Ms. Murkowski) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment 
                            and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prevent catastrophic failure or shutdown of remote diesel power 
    engines due to emission control devices, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Alaska Remote Generator Reliability 
and Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. REVISION OF REGULATIONS REQUIRED.

    (a) In General.--The Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency shall revise section 60.4216(c) of title 40, Code of Federal 
Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act), by 
striking ``that was not certified'' and all that follows through 
``compared to engine-out emissions'' and inserting ``must have that 
engine certified as meeting at least Tier 3 PM standards''.
    (b) Emissions and Energy Reliability Study.--Not later than 1 year 
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with the Secretary of 
Energy, shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 
of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 
Representatives a report assessing options for the Federal Government 
to assist remote areas in the State of Alaska in meeting the energy 
needs of those areas in an affordable and reliable manner using--
            (1) existing emissions control technology; or
            (2) other technology that achieves emissions reductions 
        similar to the technology described in paragraph (1).
                                 <all>
```
#### MOLLIE PHILLIPS v. WHITE SWAN LAUNDRY, INC.

(Filed 12 April, 1967.)

Negligence § 37f—

Evidence tending- to show that defendant slipped and fell to her injury on a thin sheet of ice over the sidewalk in front of the door leading to defendant’s place of business, and that the fall occurred early on the morning after a snow and sleet storm, *held*insufficient to be submitted to the jury on the issue of defendant’s negligence.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Lupton, J.,*September, 1966 Session, WilKes Superior Court.

The plaintiff, Mollie Phillips, instituted this civil action against the defendant, White Swan Laundry, Inc., to recover damages for the personal injuries she sustained when she stepped and fell on a thin coating of ice over the sidewalk in front of the door leading into the defendant’s laundry. The fall and injury occurred on the early morning of January 2, 1964 in the Town of Elkin. The plaintiff alleged the defendant was negligent in permitting a “thin and almost impossible to see” coat of ice to remain on the sidewalk, creating a dangerous and hazardous condition, at or near the entrance to its place of business.

The evidence disclosed that snow and sleet fell throughout the Elkin area on January 1. During the night the temperature was below freezing and as a result, ice froze on the sidewalk in front of the defendant’s place of business, creating a condition hazardous to defendant’s customers.

The defendant, by answer, denied negligence, alleging that because of the weather conditions streets and sidewalks were slick and dangerous all over town;' that the sidewalk where plaintiff fell was kept and maintained by the Town of Elkin; that plaintiff could and should have taken precaution to avoid injury and her failure in that respect caused or contributed to her injury.

At the close of the evidence the Court entered judgment of involuntary nonsuit. The plaintiff excepted and appealed.

*Charles M. Neaves, Moore & Rousseau by Larry S. Moore, for plaintiff appellant.*

*W. G. Mitchell, for defendant appellee.*

Pee Cueiam.

The evidence disclosed that snow and sleet fell throughout the area the day before the plaintiff sustained her injury. During the night, freezing temperatures had caused the town’s sidewalks to become coated with a thin sheet of ice. The evidence failed to show the defendant was in control of or responsible for the *117condition of the weather or of the sidewalk where the plaintiff fell. In cases of the character here disclosed, liability for injury attaches only where responsibility of the defendant for the dangerous condition is shown by the evidence. Failure to show negligence on the part of the defendant required nonsuit. The judgment is

Affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Katy Industries,
Inc. (the registrant) for the period ended March 31, 2007;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
 (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 those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    [Omitted in reliance on SEC Release No. 33-8238; 34-47986 Section III.E];(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; and(d)
    
    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
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
 Date: August 17, 2007
    By:
    /s/ Anthony T. Castor IIIAnthony T. Castor IIIChief Executive Officer