alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EY GENERAL 

OF?i%XAS 

Mar& 8, 1957. 

Ronorable Warren 0. Tabor 

County Attorney 

Hockley County 

Levelland, Texas OPINION NO. (WW-54) 

RE: Creation of Special 

Hospital District by 

Commissioners' Court 

Dear Sir: within Hockley County. 

Your request for an opinion relates to the authority of 

the Commissioners' Court of Hockley County to create a Special 

Hospital District within the county. 

ionersn 

The Texas courts have repeatedly held that the CommissCourt is a court of limited jurisdiction and can only 

exercise such powers as are authorized by the Constitution and 

statutes of this State, either by express terms or by necessary 

implication. Sec. 18, Art. V, Tex. Const; Bland v. Orr, 90 Tex. 

492; 39 S.W. 558 (1887); Childress County v. State, 127 Tex. 

343; 92 S.W.2d, 1011 (1936); El Paso County v. Elam, 106 S.W.2d, 

393 (Tex. Civ.App. 1937). 

Attorney General's Opinion R-1507 (1948), a copy of 

which is enclosed, holds that the County Commissioners' Court of 

Bexar County is not authorized to create a Hospital or Health 

District covering the geographical limits of Bexar County. Subsequent to the release of this opinion, the Constitution of 

' Texas was amended so as to authorize the creation of county-wide 

hospital districts in counties having a populat;:; i; e;;;ss of 

190,000 inhabitants and in Galveston County. . , * Ix, 

Tex. Const. 

The foregoing Constitutional provision only authorizes 

the establishment of county-wide hospital districts in Galveston 

County and in those counties having a population in excess of 

190,000 inhabitants; moreover, there Is no Constitutional or 

statutory provision that would authorize the creation of a Special Hospital District in part of Hockley County or any other 

County in this State. Therefore, it is our opinion that Hockley 

County does not have authority to establish a Special Hospital 

District. 
Honorable Warren 0. Tabor, Page 2, mr-541 

SUMMARY 

The Commissioners' Court is a court of 

limited jurisdiction and is not authorized by 

the Constitution or statutes of this State, 

either expressly or by~necessary implication, 

to create a Special Hospital District within 

Hockley County. 

Yours very truly, 

WILL WILSON 

Attorney General 

By B' h+* -,+ 

B. A. Timmins, Jr. 

Assistant Attorney General 

BHT:jl 

Enclosure 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

H. Grady Chandler 

Chairman
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

DoD, Per Diem, Travel and Transportation Allowance Committee.

# ACTION:

 Notice of revised non-foreign overseas per diem rates.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Per Diem, Travel and Transportation Allowance Committee is publishing Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletin Number 256. This bulletin lists revisions in the per diem rates prescribed for U.S. Government employees for official travel in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands and Possessions of the United States. AEA changes announced in Bulletin Number 194 remain in effect. Bulletin Number 256 is being published in the                         **Federal Register**                         to assure that travelers are paid per diem at the most current rates.                    

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         November 1, 2007.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    This document gives notice of revisions in per diem rates prescribed by the Per Diem Travel and Transportation Allowance Committee for non-foreign areas outside the continental United States. It supersedes Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletin Number 255. Distribution of Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletins by mail was discontinued. Per Diem Bulletins published periodically in the                     **Federal Register**                     now constitute the only notification of revisions in per diem rates to agencies and establishments outside the Department of Defense. For more information or questions about per diem rates, please contact your local travel office. The text of the Bulletin follows:                
      ( print page 61120)          ( print page 61121)          ( print page 61122)          ( print page 61123)          ( print page 61124)    

Dated: October 23, 2007.

L.M. Bynum

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, DoD.

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[FR Doc. 07-5346  Filed 10-26-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

PEGGY PIERCE,

Appellant,

v.

JEFF KESTER, ROYALTY SUPPLY, INC., 

and ROYALTY WELL SERVICE, INC.,

Appellees.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-23-00242-CV

Appeal from the

143rd Judicial District Court

of Ward County, Texas

(TC# 22-04-25995-CVW)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before this Court is the parties’ joint motion to dismiss this appeal. The parties state they 

have reached a settlement agreement that includes the dismissal of this appeal, with all costs being 

taxed against the party incurring the same. 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1 provides the actions a court may take to dispose 

of an appeal on the motion of the appellant or by agreement of the parties. On the motion of 

appellant, the court may dismiss the appeal or affirm the appealed judgment or order. TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.1(a)(1). When parties file an agreement signed by all parties or their attorneys, the court may: 

“(A) render judgment effectuating the parties’ agreement; (B) set aside the trial court’s judgment 

without regard to the merits and remand the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in 
2

accordance with the agreement; or (C) abate the appeal and permit proceedings in the trial court 

to effectuate the agreement.” TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A)–(C). 

After reviewing the motion and settlement agreement, which we note has been signed by

attorneys for both parties, we conclude the substance of the agreement seeks a voluntary dismissal 

under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1). Therefore, the motion is granted, and the 

appeal is dismissed. Each party shall bear the costs of this appeal pursuant to their agreement and 

joint motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d). 

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

January 31, 2024

Before Alley, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.
#### SARAH HUGHES McCRANIE by her Next Friend, CHARLES H. McCRANIE v. ALBERT WILSON CROWDER.

(Filed 18 April, 1962.)

Appeal by defendant from *Gwyn, J.,*September *1961*Civil Term, ÁNSON Superior Court.

The plaintiff, by her father as next friend, instituted this civil action against the defendant to recover for personal injury and damage to her 1950 DeSoto automobile allegedly caused by the actionable negligence of the defendant who, by answer, denied negligence and by cross action alleged the collision between his Oldsmobile and the plaintiff’s DeSoto resulted from the plaintiff’s sole negligence which proximately caused his personal injury and damage to his vehicle.

The complaint alleged that plaintiff was driving west on Highway No. 74 in Anson County and “while attempting to malee a left turn from said highway approximately in front of the Peachland Public School, the defendant, also traveling west on said highway, negligently and recklessly drove his motor vehicle into the plaintiff’s motor vehicle, causing the plaintiff severe personal injury . . . and property damage.”

The defendant, by answer and counterclaim, alleged: "... suddenly and without warning an automobile was driven from a parking area on the north side of Highway No. 74 onto said highway and directly into the path of the defendant’s motor vehicle, so that it was necessary for him to turn onto the left-hand side of the highway to avoid a collision . . . when suddenly and without warning the motor vehicle being driven by the plaintiff, . . . turned to the left-hand side of the highway . . . into the path of the defendant’s vehicle, so that it was impossible for the defendant to avoid a collision, . . .”

Each party offered evidence tending to support the allegations made in his pleading. The court submitted issues of negligence, contributory negligence, and damages which the jury answered in favor of the plaintiff. From the judgment on the verdict, the defendant appealed.

*Brock & McLendon, By Walter E. Brock for plaintiff appellee.*

*Taylor, Kitchin & Taylor, By H. P. Taylor, Jr., for defendant appellant.*

Per Curiam.

The evidence of the parties was sharply conflicting. Each party claimed to have observed the rules of the road. Each claimed the other violated them. The jury resolved the conflict by ac*736cepting the plaintiff’s version and found the defendant’s negligence caused the accident. The record does not disclose any reason sufficient in law to disturb the result of the trial.

No error.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 3:10cv163/RS-EMT

JOE DAN NELSON, JR.; TIM WARD;

SARAH WARD; and MARY FRENCH,

Defendants.

_________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the Joint Report of Parties’ Planning Meeting (Doc. 14). The

attorneys have disregarded the guidance in the Initial Scheduling Order regarding the

discovery deadline and a trial date. Plaintiff’s counsel has failed to provide exact dates

of his other scheduling conflict.

IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall file an amended joint report not later than

October 22, 2010, with dates consistent with a discovery deadline of January 3, 2011,

and jury trial on May 9, 2011, or April 11, 2011.

ORDERED on October 13, 2010.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

JENNIE R. POWERS,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10cv21/RS-GRJ

APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES,

INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

AMENDED ORDER

Before me are Plaintiff’s Motion For Order Permitting Amendment Of Complaint To

Add One Additional Legal Theory Against Existing Defendant (Doc. 23) and Defendant’s

Memorandum In Opposition (Doc. 26). The deadline for amendment of pleadings was

August 2, 2010. Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 23) was filed August 31, 2010. Plaintiff’s proposed

amendment is not necessary for a complete resolution of Plaintiff’s claim of employment

discrimination and retaliation and would unnecessarily delay trial of that claim.

Plaintiff’s Motion For Order Permitting Amendment Of Complaint (Doc. 23) is

denied.

ORDERED on September 17, 2010.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
**
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

18U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18,United States Code), the Trustee of Marine Petroleum Trust (the “Trust”) does hereby certify, to its knowledge, that: 

TheQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2023 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Trust fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Trust as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.

 

/s/ Nancy Willis
Nancy WillisVice President on behalf of Argent Trust Company, not in its individual capacity but solely as the Trustee of Marine Petroleum TrustDated: November 13, 2023
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Trust and will be retainedby the Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

The foregoing certification is being furnished as anexhibit to the Form 10-Q pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) ofSection 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Trust, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. 
**
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE AUDITED
CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF PLANET411.COM INC. DATED JUNE 30, 2000 AND
JUNE 30,  1999,  RESPECTIVELY,  AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                 1,000

<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                           JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                             JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                            89
<SECURITIES>                                      31
<RECEIVABLES>                                    129
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 339
<PP&E>                                         1,457
<DEPRECIATION>                                   516
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,280
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,520
<BONDS>                                           14<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            285<F2>
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                          25
<OTHER-SE>                                      (565)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,280
<SALES>                                            7
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   7
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  4,486
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 2
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (4,481)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (4,481)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (4,481)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.14)<F3>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0<F4>


<FN>
<F1>
(1)  Advances from shareholders of undetermined maturity
<F2>
(2)  Redeemable preferred stock of subsidiary
<F3>
(3)  Due to an August  2000 1:3 reverse  stock split with  respect to the issued
     and outstanding  Exchangeable  Shares of Canco, the weighted average number
     of  outstanding  shares  of  Common  Stock  decreased  from  27,942,964  to
     11,212,966  for the  period  ended June 30,  1999,  to and  decreased  from
     49,370,084 to 32,640,086  for the year ended June 30, 2000.  This increased
     the basic loss per share from $0.04 to $0.09 for the first period, and from
     $0.09 to $0.14 for the second.
<F4>
(4)  Anti-dilutive
</FN>


</TABLE>
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

GARY ZULLO,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00030-SPM-AK

PESSO DISTRIBUTORS,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court upon the Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to

Reschedule Scheduling Conference. (Doc. 12). Having considered said motion, the Court is of

the opinion that it should be GRANTED, and the parties shall have through August 6, 2010, to

complete the scheduling conference.

DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of July, 2010. 

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000056362                         
<NAME>                        Knape & Vogt Manufacturing Company
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US$
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Jun-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 Oct-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         333,557
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  23,197,164
<ALLOWANCES>                                   721,000
<INVENTORY>                                    28,751,067
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               55,108,527
<PP&E>                                         88,612,949
<DEPRECIATION>                                 36,924,632
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 131,030,332
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          9,303,083
<BONDS>                                        35,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       11,762,138
<OTHER-SE>                                     61,768,123
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   131,030,332
<SALES>                                        40,371,133
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               40,371,133
<CGS>                                          31,084,300
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  31,084,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               6,928,539
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             594,740
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,699,747
<INCOME-TAX>                                   640,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,059,747
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,059,747
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.18
        


</TABLE>
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 18

- 00622

- CV
In the Interest of B. U. H., J. R. H., R. W. H., and P. L. H.
On Appeal from the 24th District Court of Victoria County , Texas Trial Cause No. 16

- 06

- 79619

- A

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, ha ving considered this cause on appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appell ee

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. December 3, 2020
<PAGE> 1

                            Exhibit 11
  
           COMPUTATION OF NET EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                                      


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             
                                Three Months Ended        Nine Months Ended
                                   September 30,            September 30,      
                              -----------------------  ----------------------- 
                                 1997         1996        1997        1996    
                              ----------- -----------  ----------- -----------
<S>                           <C>         <C>          <C>         <C>
EARNINGS
Net Earnings                  $ 1,348,283 $ 1,068,061  $ 4,259,304 $ 3,783,117 
                              =========== ===========  =========== ===========


PRIMARY EARNINGS PER SHARE
Weighted Average Number
 of Common Shares Outstanding   4,809,490   4,764,478    4,801,771   4,750,062
Common Share Equivalents          131,291     115,115       96,272     102,833
                              ----------- -----------  ----------- -----------

Weighted Average Common
 Shares Outstanding and
 Equivalents                    4,940,781   4,879,593    4,898,043   4,852,895 
                              =========== ===========  =========== ===========

PRIMARY EARNINGS PER    
SHARE                         $       .27 $       .22  $       .87 $       .78  
                              =========== ===========  =========== ===========


                
FULLY-DILUTED EARNINGS PER
SHARE
Weighted Average Number of
 Common Shares Outstanding      4,809,490   4,764,478    4,801,771   4,750,062
Common Share Equivalents          160,324     133,473      160,324     133,473
                              ----------- -----------  ----------- -----------

Weighted Average Common
 Shares Outstanding and
 Equivalents                    4,969,814   4,897,951    4,962,095   4,883,535
                              =========== ===========  =========== ===========

FULLY-DILUTED EARNINGS
PER SHARE                     $       .27 $       .22  $       .86 $       .77
                              =========== ===========  =========== ===========
</TABLE>
Case 1:06-cv-14859-AKH Document 3 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 15

- 00095

- CR

TIMOTHY AARON YZAGUI RRE

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No

. 2

Johnson County, Texas

Trial Court No. M201400604

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Timothy Aaron Yzaguirre appealed his conviction in the County Court at Law No.

2 of Johnson County. He has now filed a Motion to Withdraw Notice of Appeal

requesting this Court to dismiss his appeal. Yzaguirre and his attorney have signed the

motion.

Yzaguirre’s motion is granted, and this appeal is dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

.

42.2(a).

TOM GRAY

Chief JusticeYzaguirre v. State Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed March 26, 2015

Do not publish

[CR25]