alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Marc Weill v. J. B. Fontanel.

*Master and Servant—Wrongful Discharge—Wages—Former Recovery —Pleading—A mendinen t.*

A servant wrongfully discharged before the end of his term, has but one cause of action far the recovery of wages, though a choice of remedies, and the following of either to judgment is a bar to the others.

[Opinion filed April 3, 1889.]

In error to the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon John P. Altgeld, Judge, presiding.

Mr. B. M. Shaffner, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. A. H. Chetlain, for defendant in error.

*616Gaby, J.

The appellee employed the appellant for one year and discharged him in the middle of the first month. This is an action alleging the discharge to have been wrongful. The appellee pleaded a former recovery of the whole of the first month’s wages, before a justice, in bar of the action. The special plea of former recovery was, if good, a full defense to the appellee’s demands, and therefore a bar to the whole action, and the demurrer being overruled, the judgment final for appellee for costs was a proper judgment without regard to the other issues in the case. People v. Weber, 92 Ill. 288. One good defense is enough. 1 Ch. Pl. 589; McClure v. Williams, 65 Ill. 390.

Whether the truth of the plea is- confessed by demurrer or proved on trial makes no difference. The plea was intended to present the defense which was sustained, and specifically mentioned at the end of the opinion of McAllister, J., in Jones v. Dunton, 7 Ill. App. 580. But by a mistake in dates it is impossible to refer the litigation averred in the plea to the contract now sued upon. This' court adheres, to the decision last cited, and holds that there is nothing in the contract between these parties to distinguish it from the one which rvas the subject of the litigation there.

Under a contract for services for a term, if the servant is wrongfully discharged he has but one cause of action, though a choice of remedies, and the following of either to judgment is a bar to all others! As the former recovery is not well pleaded, the judgment for the appellee on demurrer is reversed and the cause remanded. By an amendment of the plea, or under the general issue at trial, the defense, if true, will be a bar to the action.

*Reversed and remanded.*
#### Willard E. Masten, Appellant, v. Jane E. Reilly and others, Respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Learned, P. J.
## Ratio of OASDI Taxable Payroll to GDP —        2023 OASDI Trustees Report

| Single-Year Tables | Historical | Projected |
|--------------------|------------|-----------|

----

Footer menu
#### EUGENE G. MORRIS, JR., v. J. H. WRAPE.

(Filed 11 April, 1951.)

Appeal and Error § 40e—

The verdict of the jury upon controverted issues of fact is conclusive in the absence of prejudicial error of law committed in the trial of the cause.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Sharp, Special Judge,*October Term, 1950, of RaNdolph.

No error.

This was an action to recover broker’s commission alleged to be due for sale of defendant’s real property.

Issues were submitted to and answered by the jury as follows:

*“1.*Did the defendant agree to pay the plaintiff the sum of $500.00 as a realtor’s commission to sell the Mills property for him, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: No.

*“2.*If so did the plaintiff procure E. C. Bruton as a purchaser, ready, willing and able to purchase the Mills property on defendant’s terms? Answer: No.

*463“3. In wbat amount, if any, is tbe defendant indebted to the plaintiff ? Answer: No.”

From judgment on the verdict plaintiff appealed.

*Smith <& Walker for plaintiff, appellant.*

*Miller & Moser for defendant, appellee.*

DeviN, J.

The plaintiff assigns error in the ruling of the trial court in the admission of certain testimony, and in the court’s charge to the jury in the particulars specified. We have examined each of these assignments of error and are unable to perceive harm to the plaintiff as result of any of the rulings complained of.

Though the evidence was sharply contradictory, this was submitted to the jury fairly, and the applicable principles of law arising thereon correctly stated. G.S. 1-180; *Gibbs v. Armstrong, ante,*219, 63 S.E. 2d 551. The issues of fact raised by the pleadings and the testimony were decided by the jury against the contentions of the plaintiff, and the result will not be disturbed.

No error.
#### CHARLES W. COCHRAN, JR., and Wife, LOUISE K. COCHRAN, v. JAMES B. ROWE.

(Filed 28 November, 1945.)

Appeal and Error §§ 4, 30e—

As a general rule this Court will not hear an appeal when the subject matter of the litigation has been settled between the parties or has ceased to exist, and the only matter to be decided is the disposition of the costs. While there are well recognized exceptions to this rule, where the subject of the litigation — the right of plaintiffs to the immediate possession of certain premises — has been disposed of by the surrender of same by defendant to plaintiffs, there is no exception.

Appeal by defendant from *Phillips, J.,*at April Term, 1945, of MecskleNburg. Appeal dismissed.

*McDougle & Ervin for plaintiffs, appellees.*

*Tillett & Campbell and Idrienne E. Levy for defendant, appellant.*

Per Curiam.

Plaintiffs move in this Court to dismiss the defendant’s appeal on the ground that the subject matter of the litigation has been disposed of and that nothing remains but a moot question and an adjudication of the costs.

It appears that this was a summary ejectment proceeding under G. S., 42-26, *et seq.,*and that judgment was rendered below, based upon the verdict of the jury, decreeing that the plaintiffs were entitled to the *646immediate possession of tbe described premises. No question of damages or arrears of rent was presented.

It is admitted that since the judgment below was' entered the defendant has surrendered possession of the premises to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are now in complete possession thereof.

As a general rule this Court will not hear an appeal when the subject matter of the litigation has been settled between the parties or has ceased to exist, and the only matter to be decided is the disposition of the costs. While there are well recognized exceptions to this rule, they have no application here. *VanDyke v. Ins. Co.,*174 N. C., 78, 93 S. E., 444; *Herring v. Pugh,*125 N. C., 437, 34 S. E., 538; *Elliott v. Tyson,*117 N. C., 114, 23 S. E., 102; *Elliott v. Tyson,*116 N. C., 184, 21 S. E., 106; *Russell v. Campbell,*112 N. C., 404, 17 S. E., 149; McIntosh, Practice *&*Procedure, 775. Here the subject of the litigation — the right of plaintiffs to the immediate possession of the premises — has been disposed of by the surrender of the premises by the defendant to the plaintiffs. No other question was raised in the trial below, and the judgment appealed from merely awarded possession to the plaintiffs.

We think the plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the appeal should be allowed, and it is so ordered.

Appeal dismissed.
Form TRANSC

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

California Northern Bankruptcy Court

In re Debtor(s):

PG&E Corporation

Case No.: 19−30088 DM 11

Chapter: 11

NOTICE OF FILING OF TRANSCRIPT

AND DEADLINES RELATED TO RESTRICTION AND REDACTION

A transcript of the proceeding held on December 11, 2019 was filed on December 12, 2019. The following deadlines

apply:

The parties have until Thursday, December 19, 2019 to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of

this transcript. The deadline for filing a request for redaction is Thursday, January 2, 2020.

If a request for redaction is filed, the redacted transcript is due Monday, January 13, 2020.

If no such notice is filed, the transcript may be made available for remote electronic access upon expiration of the

restriction period, which is Wednesday, March 11, 2020, unless extended by court order.

To review the transcript for redaction purposes, you may purchase a copy from the transcriber,

Jason Gottlieb

Attn: Jason Gottlieb, Dir. of Tran. Ops.

7227 N 16th St. #207

Phoenix, AZ 85020

or you may view the document at the clerk's office public terminal.

Dated: 12/16/19 For the Court:

Edward J. Emmons

Clerk of Court

United States Bankruptcy Court

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5085-1 Filed: 12/12/19 Entered: 12/12/19 13:04:07 Page 1

of 1
#### YELLOW CAB COMPANY v. J. V. KAMOS.

(Filed 19 November, 1930.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Moore, J.,*at March Term, 1930, of Rich-MOND.

Civil action and cross-action for damages arising out of a collision between plaintiff’s Chrysler sedan and defendant’s Buick automobile, which occurred on Highway No. 20 near the town of Rockingham, N. C., with the owner of each ear alleging negligence on the part of the driver of the other.

The jury awarded the defendant $26 on his counterclaim, after finding that the collision was due to the negligence of plaintiff’s driver. Plaintiff appeals, assigning errors.

*814
      *F. Donald Phillips for plaintiff.*

*Fred W. Bynum for defendant.*

Pee Cueiam.

No substantial error appears on the record, hence the verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.
| (1)   | Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2012, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2012, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                 |   |                                     |   |
|----------------------|--------|------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date: August 9, 2012 | By:    | /s/ Peter Hellwig         |   |
|                 |   | Peter Hellwig                            |   |
|                 |   | Principal Financial OfficerStakool, Inc. |   |
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED APRIL 7, 2023

NO. 03-22-00820-CV

Phillip "Baby Shark" Scott, Appellant

v.

Comal County Magistrate Andrew Leonie, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND THEOFANIS

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE THEOFANIS

Having reviewed the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. 

Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Because appellant is indigent 

and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
EXHIBIT 32.1



GENAERA CORPORATION



CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Genaera
Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Roy C. Levitt, M.D., President and Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify, 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 Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|                                     
|/s/    ROY C. LEVITT                 
|                                     
|Roy C. Levitt, M.D.                  
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|                                     
|March 25, 2004
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

No. 84840



# FILE JUN 2 4 2022 CORRY THOMAS BARNETT, A/K/A COREY THOMAS BARNETT, Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK, Respondent, and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION This pro se original petition for a writ of mandamus seeks to compel the district court to order the production of certain records. Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) (writ relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law and the petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that writ relief is warranted). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

, J. Stiglich Parraguirre

Hardesty

### cc: Corry Thomas Barnett Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (01 I7A .015,0D 

### 2
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5760 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5760

 To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of 
 Defense to provide seven person firing parties in the funeral honors 
                   details for World War II veterans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 20, 2014

  Mr. Barber introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of 
 Defense to provide seven person firing parties in the funeral honors 
                   details for World War II veterans.

    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 ``Funeral Honors for World War II 
Veterans Act''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY FOR INCLUSION OF SEVEN PERSON FIRING PARTIES IN 
              FUNERAL HONORS DETAILS PROVIDED BY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 
              FOR WORLD WAR II VETERANS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1491(c) of title 10, United States Code, 
is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``In the 
case of a veteran who served on active duty in the armed forces during 
World War II, the funeral honors detail may include a seven person 
firing party.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to deaths occurring after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Carlos Omar Casillas aka Carlos Omar 

Casillas Padilla, Appellant

No. 06-17-00154-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 8th District Court of 

Hopkins County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

1725965). Memorandum Opinion delivered 

by Justice Burgess, Chief Justice Morriss 

and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Carlos Omar Casillas aka Carlos Omar Casillas Padilla, has 

adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED NOVEMBER 8, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
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





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Pacific Copper
Corp. (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge,
that:





The
annual Report on Form 10-K (Amendment No. 1) for the year ended October 31, 2009
(the “Form 10-K”) of the Company fully complies with the requirement of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information
contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated: Febraury
5, 2010





Andrew
      Brodkey, CEO(Chief
      Executive Officer of Pacific Copper
Corp.)





Dated:
Febraury 5, 2010





Rakesh
      Malhotra, Chief Financial Officer(Chief
      Financial Officer of Pacific Copper
Corp.)





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

###### Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

      ( print page 6005)    
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10203 State Bank of Aurora, Aurora, Minnesota (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of State Bank of Aurora (Receivership Estate); The Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.

The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.

Effective February 1, 2016 the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.

Dated: February 1, 2016.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Robert E. Feldman,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2016-02135 Filed 2-3-16; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
#### The Journal Company, Respondent, v William W Thompson, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Learned, P. J.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 32489]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13703]



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



DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES



National Institutes of Health




National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed 

Meetings



    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 

meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 

provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 

U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 

disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 

patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 

associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 

constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.



    Name of Committee: National Institute of General Medical 

Sciences Initial Review Group, Minority Programs Review Subcommittee 

A.

    Date: June 28-29, 2010.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Bethesda Marriott, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Mona R. Trempe, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 

Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical 

Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Drive, Room 

3AN12, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-3998, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#25515740485540484a6548444c490b4b4c4d0b424a53"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6b1f190e061b0e06042b060a020745050203450c041d">[email protected]</span></a>.



(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, 

Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and 

Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and 

Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental 

Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, 

Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS)



    Dated: June 2, 2010.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-13703 Filed 6-7-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P




</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### STATE v. BILL SCOGGINS.

(Filed 10 December, 1930.)

Appeal by defendant from *Moore, J.,*at April Term, 1930, of Polic.

Criminal prosecutions tried upon indictments charging tbe defendant (1) with baying and keeping in bis possession spirituous or vinous liquors for tbe purpose of sale (C. S., 3379) and with transporting tbe same (C. S., 3411(b), and (2) with resisting an officer in violation of C. S., 4378.

From an adverse verdict on both indictments, and judgments of eighteen months on tbe roads on each indictment, to run concurrently, tbe defendant appeals, assigning errors.

*Attorney-General Brum/mitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.*

*Quinn, Hamrick & Harris and J. S. Dockery for defendant.*

Pee CubiaM.

A careful examination of tbe records reveals no reversible error committed on trial. Tbe cases are simple and involve no new question of law. It would serve no useful purpose to set out tbe evidence.

No error.
#### EASTERN COTTON OIL COMPANY v. NEW BERN OIL AND FERTILIZER COMPANY, JOHN S. WESKITT, W. J. SWAN and H. G. SWAN.

(Filed 15 March, 1933.)

(For digest see *Oil Co. v. Fertilizer Co., ante,*362.)

Appeal by defendants from *Parker, J.,*at December Term, 1932, of PeequimaNS.

Affirmed.

Prom judgment overruling their plea in abatement, and denying their motion for the removal of the action to the Superior Court of Craven County, for trial, the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court.

*Tazewell Taylor and McMullan & McMullan for plaintiff.*

*L. I. Moore for defendants.*

Connor, J.

The questions presented by this appeal are identical with the questions presented by the appeal docketed in this Court as No. 17.

The judgment is affirmed on the authority of the decision in that appeal. See opinion in *Oil Co. v. Fertilizer Co., ante,*362.

Affirmed.