alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### E. M. McINTURFF v. ST. LOUIS UNION TRUST COMPANY et al.

(Filed 20 May, 1931.)

1. Negligence A c — In this case held: owner was not liable for alleged negligence of lessee.

The owner of a hotel is not liable in damages for the alleged negligence of its lessee causing injury to the latter’s employee arising solely in the management of the leased premises.

2. Master and Servant O g — Contributory negligence of employee held to bar recovery in this case.

The negligent act of a night employee at a hotel in opening an elevator gate left slightly ajar, and, assuming that the elevator was in place, without looking, stepping into the open shaft to his injury, is held negligence on the part of the employee barring his right to recover.

3. Tox>ts C b — Release signed by plaintiff is bar to action in the absence of fraud or mistake.

A release from liability for a personal injury, signed by the injured party for consideration, is a bar to an action for damages in the absence of fraud or mistake.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Oglesby, J.,*at December Term, 1930, of BuNCombe.

Civil action to recover damages for an alleged negligent injury sustained by plaintiff wben lie pushed back an elevator door in the Battery Park Hotel, which had been left slightly open, and, without looking, thinking the elevator was there, stepped forward to turn on the lights and fell a distance of fifteen feet, through the elevator shaft, to the concrete floor below and was injured.

The evidence shows that plaintiff was employed by the lessees of the hotel and not by the defendants. He was in charge of the work he was doing as night-watchman. It was further in evidence that, after returning to work, the plaintiff accepted $150, and released the defendants from any and all liability.

The court also held that the negligence of which the plaintiff complains was his own, or at least it was not attributable to the defendants, owners of the hotel, and nonsuited the case at the close of plaintiff’s evidence. Plaintiff appeals, assigning errors.

*E. M. Mclnturjf in propria, persona and John H. Cathey on brief for plaintiff.*

*Merrimon, Adams & Adams for defendants.*

Stacy, C. J.

The case was properly dismissed, first, upon the ground that the defendants were not responsible to plaintiff for the open elevator *17shaft *(Tucker v. Yarn Mill Co.,*194 N. C., 756, 140 S. E., 744; *Biggs v. Ferrell,*34 N. C., 1), second, because the negligence of whidb. the plaintiff complains was his own *(McLean v. Hardwood Co.,*200 N. C., 312; *Ingram v. R. R.,*181 N. C., 491, 106 S. E., 565), and, third, for the reason that the release signed by plaintiff, in the absence of fraud or mistake, is a bar to his right to recover against the present defendants. *Aderholt v. R. R.,*152 N. C., 411, 67 S. E., 978; *Butler v. Fertilizer Works,*193 N. C., 632, 137 S. E., 813.

Affirmed.
II 

Calendar No. 234 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3454 

To clarify the rights of Indians and Indian Tribes on Indian lands under 

the National Labor Relations Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 10, 2022 

Mr. MORAN introduced the following bill; which was read the first time 

JANUARY 18, 2022 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To clarify the rights of Indians and Indian Tribes on Indian 

lands under the National Labor Relations Act. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Tribal Labor Sov5 ereignty Act of 2022’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF EMPLOYER. 

7 (a) NLRA AMENDMENT.—Section 2 of the National 

8 Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 152) is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3454 PCS

1 (1) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘or any In2 dian Tribe, or any enterprise or institution owned 

3 and operated by an Indian Tribe and located on its 

4 Indian lands,’’ after ‘‘subdivision thereof,’’; and 

5 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(15) The term ‘Indian Tribe’ means any Indian 

7 Tribe, band, nation, pueblo, or other organized group or 

8 community which is recognized as eligible for the special 

9 programs and services provided by the United States to 

10 Indians because of their status as Indians. 

11 ‘‘(16) The term ‘Indian’ means any individual who 

12 is a member of an Indian Tribe. 

13 ‘‘(17) The term ‘Indian lands’ means— 

14 ‘‘(A) all lands within the limits of any Indian 

15 reservation; 

16 ‘‘(B) any lands title to which is either held in 

17 trust by the United States for the benefit of any In18 dian Tribe or Indian or held by any Indian Tribe or 

19 Indian subject to restriction by the United States 

20 against alienation; and 

21 ‘‘(C) any lands in the State of Oklahoma that 

22 are within the boundaries of a former reservation (as 

23 defined by the Secretary of the Interior) of a feder24 ally recognized Indian Tribe.’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3454 PCS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This Act and the amend2 ments made by this Act shall take effect on the day after 

3 the date of enactment of this Act. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 234 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3454 

A BILL 

To clarify the rights of Indians and Indian Tribes 

tions Act. on Indian lands under the National Labor RelaJANUARY 18, 2022 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES -OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 I, Mark A. Houser, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this
annual report on Form 10-K/A of Belden & Blake Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this annual report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual
report; 4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for
the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to
the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented
in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting. Date: March 30, 2006

/s/ Mark A. HouserMark A. Houser, Chief Executive Officer andChairman of the Board of Directors
### Proposed Provision: B5.9. Beginning for those newly eligible in 2025, reconfigure the special minimum benefit: (a) A year of coverage is defined as a year in which 4 quarters of coverage are earned. (b) At implementation, set the PIA for 40 years of coverage equal to 125 percent of the monthly Aged Federal poverty level (about $1,462 in 2022). For those with 20 or fewer years of coverage, phase up linearly from 0 percent of the poverty level for 10 years of coverage to 100 percent of the poverty level. For those having between 20 and 40 years of coverage, phase up linearly from 100 percent of the poverty level at 20 years of coverage to 125% of the poverty level for 40 or more years of coverage. (c) For newly eligible workers in 2025 and 2026, index the applicable poverty level using the CPI index, to the year prior to eligibility. Then, for newly eligible workers in 2027 and later, index the PIA per year of coverage by wage growth for successive cohorts. (d) Disabled workers have a somewhat similar minimum benefit, with work requirements scaled based on the number of years of non-disabled potential work.

back
Exhibit 32.2
Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Section 906”), theundersigned officer of Activant Solutions Inc., a Delaware corporation (the“Company”), does hereby certify that, to the best of such officer’s knowledge(i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2004(the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (ii) theinformation contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Activant Solutions Inc. and will be retained by Activant SolutionsInc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.
By:   /s/ GREG PETERSEN 08/13/04 Greg Petersen DateSenior Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer
#### ARTHUR DAVIDSON v. McDONALD SERVICE COMPANY, Inc.

(Filed 14 May, 1930.)

Appeal by defendant from *Sink, Special Judge,*at February Special Term of MeckleNburg. No error.

*824
      *B. G. Watkins and Jobn M. Robinson for plaintiff.*

*Ralph V. Kidd and C. H. Gover for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

The defendant’s assignments of error present no sufficient cause for reversing tbe judgment or granting a new trial.

No error.
#### JAMES L. HANNA and LILLIE G. HANNA v. J. W. TIMBERLAKE, Trustee, et al.

(Filed 23 November, 1932.)

Appeal and Error E g — Affidavit for appeal in forma pauperis must contain averment that counsel lias advised that there is error.

The affidavit for appeal m *forma pauperis*must contain an averment that appellant is advised by counsel learned in the law that there is error of law in the decision appealed from, C. S., 649, and the matter is jurisdictional and where the affidavit is defective in this respect the appeal will be dismissed. As to whether the clerk may authorize an appeal *in forma pauperis*where the trial court has fixed ajipeal bond, *qucere?*

Appeal by plaintiff, Lillie Gf. Hanna, from *Warliclc, J.,*at Chambers in Charlotte, 30 August, 1932. From G-astoN.

*557Civil action to restrain foreclosure sale under power contained in deed of trust.

From judgment dissolving temporary restraining order, entered 30 August, 1932, the plaintiff gave notice of appeal. Appeal bond fixed at $100. Thereafter, 5 October, 1932, on affidavit which omits to aver appellant “is advised by counsel learned in the law that there is error of law in the decision of the Superior Court in said action,” the clerk of the Superior Court signed an order allowing plaintiff to appeal *in forma pauperis.*

Motion by appellees to dismiss appeal.

*J. L. Iiamme for plaintiff.*

*Cherry & Hollmuell for defendants.*

Per Curiam.

The Court is without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, and the same will be dismissed on authority of *Honeycutt v. Watkins,*151 N. C., 652, 65 S. E., 762.

The attempted appeal is *in forma pauperis,*and the affidavit, filed more than ten days after entry of judgment, is defective, in that, it does not contain the averment, required by C. S., 649, that appellant “is advised by counsel learned in the law that there is error of law in the decision of the Superior Court in said action.” This is a jurisdictional requirement. *Riggan v. Harrison, ante,*191; *Russell v. Hearne,*113 N. C., 361, 18 S. E., 711; *S. v. Gatewood,*125 N. C., 694, 34 S. E., 543.

Furthermore, it may be doubted whether the clerk had authority to authorize an appeal *in forma pauperis,*even upon proper affidavit and certificate of counsel filed in apt time, in the face of the order by the judge fixing the appeal bond at $100. As to this point, however, we make no definite ruling. The question is not presently presented. *S. v. Divine,*69 N. C., 390; *S. v. Harris,*114 N. C., 830, 19 S. E., 154.

Appeal dismissed.
**Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONI, Terrance J. Lillis, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D requiredto be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of PrincipalLife Income Fundings Trust 2007-8 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other informationrequired to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report isincluded in the Exchange Act periodic reports;  4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in thisreport under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Actperiodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicingagreement(s) in all material respects; and  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be includedin this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in suchreports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Citibank, N.A. and Bankers Trust Company, N.A.Date: March 27, 2008   /s/ Terrance J. Lillis   Terrance J. Lillis  Chief Financial Officer- Retirement and Investor Services
## Detailed Single Year Tables

- Individual Provisions
- Payroll Taxes (including maximum taxable)

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						E2.11: Eliminate the taxable maximum in years 2029 and later. Phase in elimination by taxing all earnings above the current-law taxable maximum at: 2.48 percent in 2025, 4.96 percent in 2026, and so on, up to 12.40 percent in 2029. Provide benefit credit for earnings above the current-law taxable maximum that are subject to the payroll tax, using a secondary PIA formula. This secondary PIA formula involves: (1) an "AIME+" derived from annual earnings from each year after 2024 that were in excess of that year's current-law taxable maximum; and (2) a formula factor of 5 percent on this newly computed "AIME+".**

### Financial Estimates for the OASDI Trust Fund Program

### Summarized Estimates
## Summary Measures and Graphs

- Individual Provisions
- Payroll Taxes (including maximum taxable)

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						E3.12: Beginning in 2031, apply 2 percent payroll tax rate on earnings over the wage-indexed equivalent of $400,000 in 2017 (about $696,600 in 2031), with the threshold wage-indexed after 2031. Provide proportional benefit credit for additional earnings taxed, based on the payroll tax rate applied to the additional earnings divided by the full 12.4 percent payroll tax rate.**

|  |  |
|--|--|
Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual Balance 

in 75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

-2.00% -4.34% 1.89% 1.65% -0.11% -2.69%

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2009 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actuary, Social Security

August 31, 2009

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Payroll Taxes (including maximum taxable)

Proposed Provision: Beginning in 2010, make all earnings subject to the payroll tax and credit them for 

benefit purposes.

Present Law Change From Present Law in Results with this provision

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Year

Percent

Cost rates with this provision

Cost rates under present law

Income rates with this provision

Income rates under present law

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

 (assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Year

Percent

Present law With this provision
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Financial Data Schedule
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000880634
<NAME> HYMEDIX INC
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> 4

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          51,381
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  226,649
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    235,746
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               568,768
<PP&E>                                         838,569
<DEPRECIATION>                                 810,279
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 769,044
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,274,051
<BONDS>                                      1,035,753
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     30,572
<COMMON>                                         5,713
<OTHER-SE>                                 (7,514,292)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   796,044
<SALES>                                        919,441
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,783,331
<CGS>                                          606,004
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,447,984
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             341,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,039,162)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,039,162)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,039,162)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.21)


</TABLE>
#### R. N. MITCHELL, Administrator, v. HAROLD ATKINS.

(Filed 20 October, 1926.)

Evidence — Negligence—Automobiles—Collisions.

Where involved in the issue of negligence, the question arises as to the position upon the highway of plaintiff’s and defendant’s automobiles at the time of a collision, it is competent for a witness to testify where he saw them immediately after the occurrence,, when there is further evidence that their position had not been since changed.

Appeal by defendant from *Galvert, J.,*at February Term, 1926, of FbankliN. No error.

*377The death of plaintiff’s intestate was caused by injuries received by bim in a collision, at a curve on the highway between Ealeigh and Wake Forest, between a Ford coupe, which he was driving, and a bus, owned by defendant and operated for him by his employee, in the transportation of passengers. The jury answered the issues in accordance with the contentions of plaintiff, and assessed his damages at $10,000. From judgment upon the verdict, defendant - appealed to the Supreme Court.

*W. H. Yarborough, Ben T. Holden, and Biggs & Broughton for plaintiff.*

*Mills & Mills,and Winston, Winston & Brassfield for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

Defendant’s objections at the trial to testimony of witnesses as to the conditions observed by them, upon their arrival at the scene of the wreck, soon after the collision, were properly overruled. This testimony was competent; there was evidence that neither the automobile nor the bus had been moved between the time of the collision and the arrival of the witnesses upon the scene. Their relative positions on the roadside, after the collision, was evidence as to the manner in which the Ford coupe and the bus were being operated immediately before the collision. Plaintiff alleged that the driver of the bus was negligent in that he was operating the bus on the left side of the highway at an excessive rate of speed, and that this negligence was the proximate cause of the injury. There was evidence to sustain this allegation. There was no error, in refusing defendant’s motion for judgment as of nonsuit. There was sharp conflict in the evidence upon both the issues as to negligence and to contributory negligence. His Honor properly submitted both issues to -the jury. There are no exceptions to his charge. The judgment must be affirmed, the trial having been had without error of law. The judgment is affirmed. There is

No error.
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Actuarial Publications |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|

| www.socialsecurity.gov | Home  FAQs  Contact Us  Search | **Search**  |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|

| Solvency provisions | Summary Measures and GraphsUpdated May 3, 2006   |
|---------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|

| Trust Fund Investment in Equities | Description of Proposed Provision:      Invest 40 percent  of the Trust Funds in equities (phased in 2006-2020), assuming an ultimate 3 percent real rate of return on equities, the same as the assumed ultimate yield on the special-issue Social Security trust fund bonds |
|-----------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                   |

*Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions        of the 2005 Trustees Report*

|  |  |
|--|--|

|        |
|--------|
|   | Privacy Policy      | Website Policies        & Other Important Information      | Site Map |