alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### VANCE SASSER and Wife, LULA SASSER, v. R. W. BULLARD.

(Filed 15 October, 1930.)

Husband and Wife F a — In this action brought by husband and wife it is held: demurrer for misjoinder of parties and causes was properly sustained.

Where a civil action for damages is brought by a husband and wife for an alleged assault against them both, for alleged false arrest of the male plaintiff and abuse of process in swearing out a peace warrant against him and Ms false imprisonment, the defendant’s demurrer ou the ground of misjoinder of parties and causes of action is properly sustained and the case dismissed, the several causes of action not affecting *563all the parties to the action as required by O. S., 507, and O. S., 2513, authorizing a married woman to bring suit for damages for personal injuries without the joinder of her husband.

Appeal by plaintiffs from *Grady, J.,*at February Term, 1930, of CuMBERLAND.

Civil action to recover damages: First, for an alleged assault upon both plaintiffs; second, for an alleged false arrest of the male plaintiff; third, for an alleged malicious abuse of process in swearing out a peace warrant against the male plaintiff; and, fourth, for an alleged false imprisonment of the male plaintiff.

From a judgment sustaining a demurrer, interposed on the ground of a misjoinder both of parties and causes of action, and dismissing the action, the plaintiffs appeal.

*A. M. Moore for plaintiffs.*

*Robinson, Downing & Downing for defendant.*

Stacy, O. J.

That there is a misjoinder, both of parties and causes of action, is apparent on the face of the complaint, since 0. S., 2513, authorizes a suit by a married woman to recover damages for personal injuries without the joinder of her husband *(Kirkpatrick v. Crutchfield,*178 N. C., 348, 100 S. E., 602), and the several causes of action, united in the present complaint, do not “affect all the parties to the action,” as required by C. S., 507.

Where this dual misjoinder occurs, as in the instant case, and a demurrer is accordingly interposed, the decisions are to the effect that the demurrer should be sustained and the action dismissed. *Shuford v. Yarborough,*198 N. C., 5, 150 S. E., 618; *Bank v. Angelo,*193 N. C., 576, 137 S. E., 705; *Roberts v. Mfg. Co.,*181 N. C., 204, 106 S. E., 664; *Thigpen v. Cotton Mills,*151 N. C., 97, 65 S. E., 750.

The case of *Shore v. Holt,*185 N. C., 312, 117 S. E., 165, is not at variance with our present holding.

Affirmed.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16D0050. DANTE FREDRICK v. THE STATE.

In 2012, Dante Fredrick pled guilty to two counts of theft by deception and

three counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Fredrick subsequently

filed a “Motion in Arrest of Judgment,” asking that his guilty plea convictions be

vacated. The trial court denied the motion on October 31, 2014. On August 11, 2015,

Fredrick filed an application for discretionary appeal from the trial court’s order in

the Supreme Court, which transferred the case to this Court.

1

 We lack jurisdiction.

A discretionary application must be filed within 30 days of entry of the order

sought to be appealed. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (d). The requirements of OCGA § 5-6-

35 are jurisdictional, and this Court cannot accept an application for appeal not made

in compliance therewith. See Hill v. State, 204 Ga. App. 582 (420 SE2d 393) (1992).

Fredrick submitted his application 284 days after entry of the order denying his

motion in arrest of judgment. His application is therefore untimely and we lack

jurisdiction to consider it. Accordingly, this application is hereby DISMISSED.

1 The Supreme Court noted that although Fredrick also attached a July 14, 2015

interlocutory order entered in a habeas action, his arguments do not address that

order. 

October 09, 2015
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

10/09/2015
#### Alice Van Wagonen, Respondent, v. The New York Cement Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kenyatta Garner, Appellant.

[771 NYS2d 894]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Brenda Soloff, J.), rendered on or about June 20, 2002, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within 30 days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

*125Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan and Friedman, JJ.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-12-00348-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.N. AND A.N., CHILDREN,

From the 74th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011-1171-3

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Department of Family and Protective Services filed a petition to terminate 

Armando Nevarez’s parental rights to his two children, S.N and A.N. A jury found that 

Nevarez’s parental rights should be terminated, and the trial court entered judgment in 

accordance with the jury verdict. We affirm.

Nevarez’s appointed counsel filed an Anders brief asserting that he has diligently 

reviewed the appellate record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The procedures in Anders are applicable to 

appeals from judgments terminating the parent-child relationship. In re E.L.Y., 69 

S.W.3d 838, 842 (Tex. App.─Waco 2002, no pet.).
In the Interest of S.N. and A.N. Page 2

In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [PanelOp.] 

1978), counsel has discussed why, under controlling authority, there are no reversible 

errors in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel has informed this Court that he provided 

Nevarez with a copy of the Anders brief and informed Nevarez of his right to obtain a 

copy of the appellate record. Counsel has also advised Nevarez of his right to file a pro 

se brief or response. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 

510 n.3. More than an adequate period of time has passed, and Nevarez has not filed a 

pro se response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all the 

proceedings, ... decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." See Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. at; accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An 

appeal is "wholly frivolous" or "without merit" when it "lacks any basis in law or fact." 

McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n. 10 (1988). After a review of the entire 

record in this appeal, we determine the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. 

State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial 

court's judgment.

Counsel's request that he be allowed to withdraw from representation of 

Nevarez is granted. Additionally, counsel must send Nevarez a copy of the opinion and 

notify him of his right to file a petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court. See In re 

K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 68 n.3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.).
In the Interest of S.N. and A.N. Page 3

AL SCOGGINS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Affirmed; motion granted

Opinion delivered and filed November 29, 2012

[CV06]
#### George H. Richardson, Appellant, v. Jonathan Levi and others, Respondents.

— Judgment reversed, a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. Opinion by

Herrick, J.
- Home
      - Grants          - Project Grants
        - Technical Assistance Grants
        - Curriculum Adaptation & Training Grant
        - Strategic Initiatives Grants
        - Education Support Program
        - Funding Toolkit 
      - News
      - Grantee Spotlights
      - Priority Investment Areas          - Court Pandemic Response and Recovery Grant Program 
      - Grant Management
      - About SJI          - Board of Directors
        - Executive Director
        - Past Members
        - SJI Budget 

                  - Home
                  - Grants                      - Project Grants
                    - Technical Assistance Grants
                    - Curriculum Adaptation & Training Grant
                    - Strategic Initiatives Grants
                    - Education Support Program
                    - Funding Toolkit 
                  - News
                  - Grantee Spotlights
                  - Priority Investment Areas                      - Court Pandemic Response and Recovery Grant Program 
                  - Grant Management
                  - About SJI                      - Board of Directors
                    - Executive Director
                    - Past Members
                    - SJI Budget 

### Supporting the Nation's Judicial System & the Public it Serves

#### 					NEWS				

## The FY 2023 4th Quarter SJI Board Meeting

The FY 2023 4th Quarter SJI Board meeting was held on September 18, 2023, at the Supreme Court of Kansas. The Board was joined by Stephanie Smith, State Court Administrator and Chief Justice Marla Luckert. Included below are images from the Kansas Judicial Center and the Kansas State Capital.

### 

                    - aee3f3b5-e55d-46e5-8bba-e451d46827ab  (98 kB)
                    - 20cf3de2-b3c6-4fbe-9f61-b1851442bde1  (82 kB)
                    - c9be7a7f-b978-4a17-8d35-f113f755e4de  (99 kB)
                    - c9be7a7f-b978-4a17-8d35-f113f755e4de-1  (99 kB)
                    - 20cf3de2-b3c6-4fbe-9f61-b1851442bde1-1  (82 kB)
                    - aee3f3b5-e55d-46e5-8bba-e451d46827ab-1  (98 kB)

#### LATEST NEWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS

                  -  Sixteen State Courts Participate in Groundbreaking Workshop for Racial Justice Education  Read More**   
                  -  New Resource: The Rural Justice Collaborative Digest for June 2024  Read More**   
                  -  SJI Board Awards FY 2024 Third Quarter Grants  Read More**   
                  -  SJI Executive Director, Jonathan Mattiello, Congressional Briefing Panelist on Capitol Hill  Read More**   

#### CONTACT US

          contact@sji.gov
                       Tel: 703.660.4979

#### HEADQUARTERS

                       State Justice Institute
                       12700 Fair Lakes Circle, Suite 340
                       Fairfax, VA 22033         

Website design by Segue Technologies, Inc.

            -  ** 
            -  **  **
Wright Note Addendum



 Exhibit 10.13 
 Good morning, Jamey. 
 I hope you getting to sleep in today! 
 I did not get an email from you, but I am just about to leave here, so don’t trouble with a resend. 
 Could you bring a printed copy of the
agreement with you and we will use this email as the Promissory. 
 PROMISSORY NOTE 
 This note evidences a debt of eighty thousand dollars ($80,000) owed by Home School, Inc, a Delaware ‘C’ Corporation to Jamey Wright of Jacksonville, FL. It is the balance of the purchase price of one
hundred and twenty thousand dollars ($120,000) pursuant to the Asset Purchase Agreement signed this day. This note also acknowledges receipt of the forty thousand dollar ($40,000) payment in good funds. 
 This debt shall bear an interest rate equal to 1,000 shares of stock per month it is outstanding, paid in advance, without regard to the size of the outstanding
principal balance. For example, the first 1,000 shares are due on signing. The next 1,000 shares would be due on March 1, 2008 if any portion of the debt remains unpaid. The third 1,000 shares on April 1, 2008 if any portion still remains
unpaid, and so on until the debt is extinguished in full. 
 The debt shall be repaid with all due speed and no prepayment penalty shall adhere if Home
School, Inc. repays it sooner than anticipated. 
 The debt is intended to have a duration of three months, but shall not exceed nine months in duration.

 In the event of default, Jamey Wright shall have the right to retain all funds and shares paid, and shall not release control of the URL
www.homeschoolreviews.com until the debt is extinguished. So long as the debt is not in default, he shall, however, continue to cooperate in all efforts technical and commercial to transition the site to the ownership of Home School, Inc.

 Signed this day, January 30, 2008 
  

					
	 /s/ Thomas Morrow
	 		 	 /s/ Jamey Wright

	Thomas Morrow, CEO Home School, Inc	 		 	Jamey Wright
A94A2052.

#### ACREE OIL COMPANY v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.

(474 SE2d 770)

Decided August 8, 1996.

*Adams, Clifton & Sanders, Alton M. Adams, Stewart, Melvin & Frost, Frank Armstrong III,*for appellant.

*Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, George P. Shingler, Deputy Attorney General, Hulsey, Oliver & Mahar, Thomas L. Fitzgerald, R.*
      *449
      *David Syfan,*for appellee.

*448Birdsong, Presiding Judge.

In *Dept. of Transp. v. Acree Oil Co.,*266 Ga. 336 (467 SE2d 319), the Supreme Court reversed our ruling in *Acree Oil Co. v. Dept. of Transp.,*216 Ga. App. 586 (455 SE2d 590) as to the admissibility of certain evidence of business losses in this particular condemnation case. The Supreme Court having held that the trial court “did not abuse its discretion by excluding Aeree Oil’s speculative evidence of its business losses,” *Dept. of Transp.,*266 Ga. at 337 (2), we hereby vacate our ruling on that point and we affirm the judgment below, there being no other discernible enumerations of error requiring reconsideration.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Blackburn and Ruffin, JJ, concur.*
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5356 Filed: 12/23/19 Entered: 01/13/20 13:41:09 Page 1 of

2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5356 Filed: 12/23/19 Entered: 01/13/20 13:41:09 Page 2 of

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE
PERIOD ENDING JANUARY 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                         987,127
<SECURITIES>                                   150,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,629,922
<ALLOWANCES>                                   100,000
<INVENTORY>                                  5,751,061
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,508,140
<PP&E>                                       4,748,589
<DEPRECIATION>                                 728,534
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,048,364
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,352,036
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,425
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,983,669
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                21,048,364
<SALES>                                      7,128,063
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,128,063
<CGS>                                        5,646,745
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,646,745
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,156
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             160,919
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                160,702
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (589,298)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                750,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   160,702
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02


</TABLE>
12

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 5448    Filed: 01/22/20    Entered: 01/22/20 15:20:07    Page 1 of3

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 5448    Filed: 01/22/20    Entered: 01/22/20 15:20:07    Page 2 of3

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 5448    Filed: 01/22/20    Entered: 01/22/20 15:20:07    Page 3 of3
EX-35.1
(logo) GMAC Mortgage

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (Item 1123)

GMAC Mortgage, LLC

MSM2007-1XS

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of GMAC Mortgage, LLC, as servicer
(the "Servicer") pursuant to the applicable servicing agreement, does hereby
certify that:

1.      A review of the Servicer's activities during the period covered by the
Issuing Entity's report on Form 10-K and of the Servicer's performance under
the applicable servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.

2.      To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in
all material respects throughout such period.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this
17th day of March 2008.


By: /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
Name: Anthony N. Renzi
Title: Executive Vice President


GMAC Mortgage, LLC
1100 Virginia Drive
Ft. Washington, PA 19034
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           2,365
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   43,789
<ALLOWANCES>                                       647
<INVENTORY>                                     22,558
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                71,375
<PP&E>                                          33,554
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,171
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 125,311
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,642
<BONDS>                                          2,279
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           147
<OTHER-SE>                                      74,363
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   125,311
<SALES>                                         51,855
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                51,855
<CGS>                                           38,737
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   38,737
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,442
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 336
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    340
<INCOME-TAX>                                       146
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                194
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       194
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01



</TABLE>
Amendment to Cash-Settled Restricted Share Unit Agreement



 Exhibit 10.47 
 AMENDMENT TO 
 CASH-SETTLED RESTRICTED SHARE UNIT AGREEMENT 
 GRANTED TO PHILLIP A. GOBE 
 The
Cash-Settled Restricted Share Unit Agreement providing for the grant of cash-settled Restricted Share Units to Phillip A. Gobe on May 30, 2007 under the Energy Partners, Ltd. 2006 Long Term Stock Incentive Plan is hereby amended in the
following respects: 
  

	 	1.	Section 5 is amended by adding the following sentence at the end thereof: 

 “Anything in the Plan or this Agreement to the contrary notwithstanding, you shall be deemed to have terminated employment for purposes of the Plan and this Agreement if and only if you have experienced a
‘separation from service’ within the meaning of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the regulations thereunder.” 
  

	 	2.	Section 6 is amended by adding the following sentence at the end thereof; 

 “To the extent any payment is subject to the 6-month delay, such payment shall be paid immediately after the end of such 6-month period (or the date of your death, if earlier).” 
  

	 	3.	Exhibit A is amended to read in its entirety as follows: 

 “Exhibit A 
 “Change of Control” means a change in the ownership or effective control of the
Company, or in the ownership of a substantial portion of the assets of the Company, within the meaning of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the regulations thereunder.” 
  

									
	ENERGY PARTNERS, LTD.	 		 		 	
				
	By:	 	/s/ John H. Peper	 		 	Date: 11/13/08
		 	 John Peper
 Executive Vice President
	 		 		 	

 I HEREBY AGREE TO THIS AMENDMENT TO MY CASH-SETTLED RESTRICTED SHARE UNIT AGREEMENTS 
  

					
		 		 	
			
	/s/ Phillip A. Gobe	 		 	Date: 11/19/08
	Phillip A. Gobe
Exhibit 15




Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
  The Board of Directors
 Cellcom Israel Ltd:
  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-141639) on Form S-8 of Cellcom Israel Ltd. of our report dated March 6, 2012, with respect to the consolidated statements of financial position of Cellcom Israel Ltd. And subsidiaries (“the Company”), as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, and the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, changes in equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three year period ended December 31, 2011, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2011, which report appears in the December 31, 2011 annual report on Form 20-F of Cellcom Israel Ltd.
  Cellcom Israel Ltd. acquired Netvision Ltd. during 2011, and management excluded from its assessment of the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2011, Netvision Ltd.’s internal control over financial reporting associated with total assets of NIS 886 million and total revenues constituting of NIS 381 million included in the consolidated financial statements of the Company as of and for the year ended December 31, 2011. Our audit of internal control over financial reporting of the Company also excluded an evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting of Netvision Ltd.
   Our report refers to the fact that the consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2011 have been translated into United States dollars (“dollars”) solely for the convenience of the reader. The consolidated financial statements expressed in New Israeli Shekels have been translated into dollars on the basis set forth in Note 2D to the consolidated financial statements..
  
 Somekh Chaikin
 
 Certified Public Accountants (Isr.)
 Member Firm of KPMG International
 
 Tel Aviv, Israel
 
 March 6, 2012