alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
A96A1223.

#### GEORGIA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. BURCH et al.

(476 SE2d 62)

Andrews, Judge.

In this declaratory judgment action concerning an automobile liability policy exclusion, the trial court found Georgia Farm Bureau was required to provide on behalf of Mr. Burch up to $25,000 in coverage for injuries to Tammy Robertson. Farm Bureau claims its policy requires it to provide only $15,000 in coverage. We agree and reverse.

*750Decided September 13, 1996.

*Fain, Major & Wiley, Charles A. Wiley, Jr., Kim M. Jackson,*for appellant.

*Garland & Milam, Richard G. Milam, Smith, Welch & Studdard, E. Gilmore Maxwell, Hawkins & Parnell, William H. Major III, Robert D. Brooks, Darrel L. Hopson,*for appellees.

The material facts are not in dispute. Farm Bureau issued a $25,000 liability policy to Ms. Robertson’s mother. Ms. Robertson lived with her mother and was listed on the declarations sheet as an additional driver. She allowed Mr. Burch to drive her car, and she rode with him. He had an accident which, she claims in a lawsuit against him, caused her to suffer injuries. The Farm Bureau policy contains an exclusion which limits coverage for “bodily injury ... to ‘you’ [the named insured] or any family member ... (2) to the extent the limits of liability of this coverage exceed the limits of liability required by law. . . .” At the time of this accident, Georgia law required liability limits of $15,000 for bodily injury to or death of one person in one automobile accident. OCGA §§ 33-34-4; 40-9-2.

On these facts, Farm Bureau’s exclusion operates to limit its coverage obligation to $15,000. Ms. Robertson’s only contention is that the exclusion violates public policy. It does not. *Spivey v. Safeway Ins. Co.,*210 Ga. App. 775, 778 (3) (437 SE2d 641) (1993). Even if we found the exclusion contrary to public policy, it would be enforceable as to amounts in excess of the statutory minimum coverage. *Stepho v. Allstate Ins. Co.,*259 Ga. 475, 477 (2) (383 SE2d 887) (1989). The judgment of the trial court is reversed and this case remanded with direction to enter judgment on behalf of Farm Bureau.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Pope, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.*
Amendment to Revolving Secured Line of Credit Promissory Note



 Exhibit 4.1 
 AMENDMENT TO 
 RESOLVING SECURED LINE OF CREDIT PROMISSORY NOTE 
 This Amendment entered into as of July 28, 2009 by and between the undersigned Borrower (the “Borrower”) and NEW YORK COMMERCIAL BANK, successor in
interest to ATLANTIC BANK (the “Bank”). 
 WHEREAS, the Bank extended a revolving line of credit to the Borrower as evidenced by an
Amended and Restated Revolving Secured Line of Credit Promissory Note dated March 6, 2006 in the principal balance of Six Million Dollars ($6,000,000) and subsequently increased to Eight Million Dollars ($8,000,000) by amendment dated
March 22, 2007 (the “Note”), (all documents and agreements executed by the Borrower in connection with the Note are hereinafter referred to as the “Loan Documents”), 
 WHEREAS, the Borrower has requested, and the Bank has agreed, to make certain amendments to the Note. 
 NOW THEREFORE, the parties, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows: 
  

	1.	Any term not defined herein shall have the same meaning as in the Note. 

  

	2.	Section 1. is amended by changing the “Maturity Date” to May 1, 2010. 

  

	3.	Section 2. is amended by changing the “Interest Rate” to “Benchmark Rate” plus 50 basis points. 

  

	4.	The Borrower hereby represents and warrants to the Bank that: 

  

	 	(a)	Each and every one of the representations and warranties set forth in the Loan Documents is true as of the date hereof and with the same effect as though made on the date hereof,
and is hereby incorporated herein in full by reference as if fully restated herein in its entirety. 

  

	 	(b)	No Default or Event of Default and no event or condition which, with the giving of notice or lapse of time or both, would constitute such a Default or Event of Default, now exists
or would exist. 

  

	5.	Except as set forth herein and amended and modified hereby, the Note and Loan Documents have not been amended or modified and remain in full force and effect.


  

	6.	Borrower waives any offset defense or counterclaim Borrower may now have or may have had in the future with regard to the Note and Loan Documents. 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be executed and delivered on the date first written above. 







 ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW 
 Amendment to Amended and Restated Revolving Secured Line of Credit 
     Promissory Note 
 As of July 28, 2009 
 Page -2- 
  

			
	Borrower:
	MEDALLION FUNDING CORP.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Brian S. O’Leary

	Print Name:	 	Brian S. O’Leary
	Title:	 	Chief Operating Officer

  

			
	Accepted By:	 	 NEW YORK COMMERCIAL BANK,
 as successor in interest to Atlantic Bank


  

			
	By:	 	 /s/ Christopher Lynch

		 	Christopher Lynch
		 	Vice President
#### Mary A. Foster, Appellant, v. James Easton and others, Respondents.

Case stricken from the calendar. Opinion

*Per Curiam.*
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.                  

###### Commission on Civil Rights

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of the Health Disparities Subcommittee of the Illinois Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 8 a.m. and adjourn at 10 a.m. on February 22, 2010, at 55 W. Monroe St., Chicago, IL 60603. The purpose of the meeting is to plan for the Committee's report on Health Disparities in Chicago. The meeting will consist of approximately five local health disparities experts discussing issues regarding the project.

                    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by March 22, 2010. The address is 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60603. Persons wishing to e-mail their comments, or to present their comments verbally at the meeting, or who desire additional information should contact David Mussatt, Director, 312-353-8311, TDD/TTY 312-353-8324, or by e-mail:                     *dmussatt@usccr.gov.*

Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

                    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site,                     *http://www.usccr.gov,*                     or to contact the Midwestern Regional Office at the above e-mail or street address.                

The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

Dated in Washington, DC, January 19, 2010.

Peter Minarik,

Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.

[FR Doc. 2010-1345 Filed 1-22-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
Exhibit (32.1)


  Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
                          Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. s.1350


Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. s.1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned President
and Chief Executive Officer and Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of State Financial Services Corporation (the "Corporation"), hereby
certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the
Corporation for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.


                                           /s/ Michael J. Falbo
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Michael J. Falbo
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer


                                           /s/ Daniel L. Westrope
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Daniel L. Westrope
                                           Senior Vice President and Chief
                                             Financial Officer

                                           Date: August 12, 2003
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. AD10-11-000]

                    Take notice that on May 26, 2010, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff will convene a technical conference related to the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Frequency Regulation Compensation in the Organized Wholesale Power Markets, as previously announced.[1] 

The discussions at the conference, which is open to the public, may address matters at issue in the following Commission proceedings:

Docket No. ER09-1049-000, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.

Docket No. ER09-1126-000, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.

Docket No. ER07-1372-000, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.

                    For more information, please contact Tatyana Kramskaya, 202-502-6262,                     *tatyana.kramskaya@ferc.gov;*                     or Eric Winterbauer, 202-502-8329,                     *eric.winterbauer@ferc.gov.*

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                                                     *Notice of Technical Conference re Frequency Compensation in the Organized Wholesale Power Markets,*75 FR 23,759, as supplemented by                         *Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference re Frequency Compensation in the Organized Wholesale Power Markets,*                         issued April 27, 2010.                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2010-13271 Filed 6-1-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### Thomas M. Richie, as Survivor, etc., Respondent, v. George C. Bedell, Appellant.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, without prejudice to subsequent proceedings. Opinion by

Vann, J.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

August 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 130053(21) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 130053 

 COA: 260334 
 Wayne CC: 01-001774 

DAVID RANDALL HAWKE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s order of May 

30, 2006 is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

d0821 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

August 29, 2006 

 Clerk
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

 

**WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK**

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATEANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

            I, H. John Berens, an authorized officer of Washington Mutual Bank (the “Servicer”), do hereby certify to WaMu AssetAcceptance Corp. (the “Depositor”), pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of January 1, 2007 (as amended, the “Servicing Agreement”) by and between the Depositor, the Servicer, LaSalle Bank, NationalAssociation, as Trustee, and Christiana Bank & Trust Company, as Delaware Trustee,  the following with respect to Washington Mutual Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates WMALT Series 2007-HY1 Trustfor the 2007 fiscal year (the “Relevant Year”): 

1.  A review of the activities of the Servicer during the Relevant Year and of performance under the Servicing Agreement has been made under mysupervision.

2.  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in allmaterial respects throughout the Relevant Year.

Dated as of March 1, 2008.

 
| /s/ H. John Berens Name:  H. John Berens Title:    Senior Vice President |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BAKER 

&

HOSTE TL E R L LP ATTOR NE YS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

 

APPENDIX A 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2843-1 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:07:38 Page 1

of 2
-PPLJOHEPXO,FSSZ-BOFJO$PGGFZ1BSL
OPUIJOHJTMFGUTUBOEJOHBGUFSUIF5VCCTGJSFUPSFUISPVHIUIFOFJHICPSIPPEPO0

	IUUQTXXXTPOPNBNBHDPNDPGGFZQBSLFMFHZTBOUBSPTBXSJUFSSFDBMMTTQJSJUMPTUOFJHICPSIPPE


"QQFOEJY"

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2843-1 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 18:07:38 Pag

of 2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4081 Filed: 10/03/19 Entered: 10/03/19 10:06:31 Page 1 of

2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4081 Filed: 10/03/19 Entered: 10/03/19 10:06:31 Page 2 of

2
#### Nathan Neufeld v. J. P. Doig.

*Sales.*

This court affirms the judgment for the plaintiff in an action to recover for goods sold and delivered.

[Opinion filed January 16, 1891.]

Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Kirk Hawes, Judge, presiding.

*520Messrs. Blum & Blum, for appellant-.

Mr. Frank W. Coombs, for appellee.

*Per*Curiam,.

This is an appeal from a judgment for $60.63 against appellant for goods alleged to have been sold to him by appellee. The case was submitted to the court without a jury, and the only issue is one of fact and relates to the question whether the goods were ordered by appellant and sold upon his credit, or whether they were sold to a corporation of which he was the chief officer.

There is a conflict in the evidence, but we are inclined to say that the preponderance is against appellant. However that may be, the evidence fully supports the finding of the trial judge who had the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses, and thus more intelligently determining the truth of the matter, than it is possible for a reviewing court to do.

The judgment of the Superior Court will be affirmed.

*Judgment affii'med.*
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of
Florham Consulting Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kellis Veach, Chief Financial Officer, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 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.





A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Florham Consulting
Corp. and will be retained by Florham Consulting Corp. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




/s/  Kellis
      VeachKellis
      VeachChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Accounting and Financial
Officer)





March 31,
2010
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 4278

_____________________________
L OUISE M ARIE L UNING , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Russell Healey , Judge

. October 15, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
B.L. T HOMAS , R OWE , and O STERHAUS , JJ., concur

.

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

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Kathleen Stover, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofNew England Realty Associates Limited Partnership (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ronald Brown, thePresident and a Director of the Partnership’s General Partner, NewReal, Inc.,certify, pursuant to 18.U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Partnership.

 

 

|   |   | /s/ RONALD BROWN                                                                                                                    |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Ronald Brown  Principal Executive Officer  (President and Director of  the Partnership’s General Partner,  NewReal, Inc.) |

 

August 7, 2009

 

This certificationaccompanies each Report pursuant to SS906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002and shall not, except required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemedfiled by the Company for the purposed of SS 18 of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by SS 906 has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
#### Lena M. Allen, Respondent, v. Nelson Miller and Others, Appellants.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

NOTICE PARTIES

PG&E Corporation

c/o Pacific Gas & Electric Company

Attn: Janet Loduca, Esq.

77 Beale Street

P.O. Box 770000

San Francisco, CA 94105

Keller & Benvenutti LLP

Attn: Tobias S. Keller, Esq.

Jane Kim, Esq.

650 California Street, Suite 1900

San Francisco, CA 94108

The Office of the United States Trustee for Region 17

Attn: James L. Snyder, Esq.

Timothy Laffredi, Esq.

450 Golden Gate Avenue, 5th Floor, Suite #05-0153

San Francisco, CA 94102

Milbank LLP

Attn: Dennis F. Dunne, Esq.

Sam A. Khalil, Esq.

55 Hudson Yards

New York, NY 10001-2163

Milbank LLP

Attn: Paul S. Aronzon, Esq.

Gregory A. Bray, Esq.

Thomas R. Kreller, Esq.

2029 Century Park East, 33rd Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

Attn: Stephen Karotkin, Esq.

 Jessica Liou, Esq.

 Matthew Goren, Esq.

767 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10153-0119 

Bruce A. Markell

Fee Examiner

541 N. Fairbanks Court

Suite 2200

Chicago, IL 60611-3710

Scott H. McNutt

Attorney for the Fee Examiner

324 Warren Road

San Mateo, CA 94402

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4255-6 Filed: 10/17/19 Entered: 10/17/19 15:02:41 Page 1

of 1