alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MUSICK et al. v. RATH SALES CO., Inc., et al.

No. 4591.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Dec. 1, 1933.

Theus, Grisham, Davis & Leigh, of Monroe, for' appellants.

J. B. Dawkins, of Monroe, for appellees.

TALIAFERRO, Judge.

This suit is in forma pauperis.

' Charles L. Musick, stm of plaintiffs, was injured while working for and in the employment of defendant Rath Sales Company, Incorporated. His right to compensation was conceded and a lump-sum settlement or compromise was agreed upon, and, after being *109approved by tbe court, be was paid the amount due him thereunder in full satisfaction for his injuries. It developed that at that time the son was a minor, not emancipated. His parents instituted this suit to recover additional compensation for the boy’s injuries and for medical expenses, and to annul the lump-sum settlement because of his minority.

The lower court found that the boy was a minor when the settlement was signed by him and annulled it, but rejected plaintiffs’ demand for additional compensation and medical expenses for the reason that defendants had. paid the full amount to which the son was entitled for the injuries to him, but cast defendants for all costs of suit. Defendants appealed from this judgment.

Plaintiffs evidently have acquiesced in the judgment rejecting their money demands. It is conceded that the only controverted question presented by this appeal is as to the correctness of the trial court’s judgment condemning defendants for the court costs. Defendants stoutly resist this part of the judgment, and, we think, properly so.

Article 549 of the Code of Practice states that in every ease the costs shall be paid by the party cast, except where compensation is allowed or tender has been made, as provided by law.

In the present case the real, serious demand of plaintiffs was for more compensation for their son. This demand was specifically rejected by the lower court, and is not now urged here. The attack on the lump-sum settlement was merely incidental to the main demand, and the success of plaintiffs in having it annulled, after losing the suit in all other respects, was of no importance. Within the purview of article 549 of the Code of Practice, plaintiffs were cast in the suit.

The judgment of the lower court, in so far as it easts defendants for costs, is annulled and reversed; in all other respects it is affirmed.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">TAM Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of JOEL JACQUEZ, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>National Liability &amp; Fire Insurance Company, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Ulysses Bernard Leverett, J.), entered March 20, 2014. The order denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is modified by providing that defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs. </p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>Plaintiff correctly argues that the affidavit submitted by defendant in support of its cross motion did not sufficiently set forth a standard office practice or procedure that would ensure that its letters scheduling plaintiff's assignor for independent medical examinations had been properly mailed (<a href="../2008/2008_04072.htm" target="_blank"><i>see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co.</i>, 50 AD3d 1123</a> [2008]). Thus, defendant did not demonstrate its entitlement to summary judgment.</p><p>However, contrary to plaintiff's contention, plaintiff failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, as the affidavit plaintiff submitted in support of its motion failed to establish that the claim at issue had not been timely denied (<a href="../2015/2015_04787.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Viviane Etienne Med. Care, P.C. v Country-Wide Ins. Co.</i>, 25 NY3d 498</a> [2015]), or that defendant had issued a timely denial of claim that was conclusory, vague or without merit as a matter of law (<a href="../2010/2010_08933.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Westchester Med. Ctr. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.</i>, 78 AD3d 1168</a> [2010]; <a href="../2011/2011_51292.htm" target="_blank"><i>Ave T MPC Corp. v Auto One Ins. Co.</i>, 32 Misc 3d 128</a>[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51292[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2011]).</p><p>Accordingly, the order is modified by providing that defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.</p><p>Pesce, P.J., Aliotta and Solomon, JJ.</p><br>Decision Date: September 27, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


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. § 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Team Nation Holdings Corporation (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





(i) the accompanying report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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




Date: November 15, 2010
By:
/s/ Daniel J. DuffyDaniel J. DuffyPrincipal Financial Officer





This certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 436 Introduced in House (IH)]

                                    

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 436

  To require the head of any Federal agency to differentiate between 
  fats, oils, and greases of animal, marine, or vegetable origin, and 
 other oils and greases, in issuing certain regulations, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 1995

Mr. Ewing (for himself, and Mrs. Danner) introduced the following bill; 
 which was referred to the Committee on Commerce and, in addition, to 
     the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the head of any Federal agency to differentiate between 
  fats, oils, and greases of animal, marine, or vegetable origin, and 
 other oils and greases, in issuing certain regulations, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. DIFFERENTIATION AMONG FATS, OILS, AND GREASES.

    (a) In General.--In issuing or enforcing any regulation or 
establishing any interpretation or guideline relating to a fat, oil, or 
grease under any Federal law, the head of any Federal agency shall 
differentiate between--
            (1)(A) animal fats and oils and greases, and fish and 
        marine mammal oils, within the meaning of paragraph (2) of 
        section 61(a) of title 13, United States Code; or
            (B) oils of vegetable origin, including oils from the 
        seeds, nuts, and kernels referred to in paragraph (1)(A) of 
        such section; and
            (2) other oils and greases, including petroleum.
    (b) Considerations.--In differentiating between the class of fats, 
oils, and greases described in subsection (a)(1) and the class of oils 
and greases described in subsection (a)(2), the head of the Federal 
agency shall consider differences in the physical, chemical, 
biological, and other properties, and in the environmental effects, of 
the classes.
                                 <all>
```
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 Quarterly Report of China Vitup Health Care Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 (the Report), I, Yan Zheng, Chief Financial 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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  November 13, 2009 /s/ Yan Zheng Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Tony C. GRUBBS, Appellant. Tony C. GRUBBS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. WD 41688, WD 42761.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 7, 1990.

Janet M. Thompson, Columbia, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Robert V. Franson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before KENNEDY, P.J., and SHANGLER and GAITAN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from conviction of stealing under section 570.030, RSMo 1986. This appeal is consolidated with appeal *922from denial, after evidentiary hearing, of Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

The denial of post-conviction relief is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
|    |                                                                                                                               |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Boise Inc. and BZ Intermediate Holdings LLC; and |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this 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 report. |

|                                                      |
|------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                      |  |  |  |
| /s/    SAMUEL K. COTTERELL       |   | /s/    SAMUEL K. COTTERELL |   |
| Samuel K. CotterellChief Financial OfficerBoise Inc. |   | Samuel K. CotterellChief Financial OfficerBZ Intermediate Holdings LLC |   |
**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**





The
      undersigned, Asher Zwebner, the Interim Chief Executive Officer and Chief
      Financial Officer of PCMT Corporation (the “Company”), certifies, under the
      standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his
      knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter
      ended June 30, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that
      Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and
      results of operations of the Company.




Date:
      August 4, 2008




By: 
      /s/


Name: 
      Asher Zwebner


Title: Interim
      Chief Executive Officer and
      Chief
      Financial Officer






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






-
      11
      -
EXHIBIT 32.2


         WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CFO PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


     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 Insynq, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the period ending May 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, M. Carroll Benton,
Principle Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, solely for the purposes of
complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of our knowledge, that:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section13(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 as of May 31, 2004 and for the periods then ended

                                            /s/ M. Carroll Benton
                                            -----------------------
                                            M. Carroll Benton
                                            Prinicple Accounting and
                                            Financial Officer
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I, Paul Lovito,  Chairman,  President and Chief Executive  Officer of
         Raptor Investments,  Inc., certify that:

         1. The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the annual
         period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
         Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("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 Raptor Investments, Inc. and will be retained by
         Raptor Investments, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
         Commission or its staff upon request.

         /S/PAUL LOVITO
         Paul Lovito
         Chairman, President and Chief executive Officer
         April 8, 2004
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION 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
hereby certifies in their capacity as an officer of Kerzner International Limited
(the Company) that the Annual Report of the Company
on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2002 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company for
such period.

|Date: June 30, 2003 |  | /s/ Solomon Kerzner    
|------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                    |  | Solomon Kerzner        
|                    |  | Chief Executive Officer
|Date: June 30, 2003 |  | /s/ John R. Allison    
|                    |  | John R. Allison        
|                    |  | Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4025 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                Private Calendar No. 11
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4025

                          [Report No. 104-813]

            For the relief of the estate of Gail E. Dobert.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 4, 1996

  Mr. Forbes introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

                           September 20, 1996

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
            For the relief of the estate of Gail E. Dobert.

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

SECTION 1. PAYMENT.

    (a) Payment Authorized.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall make a 
lump sum payment to the estate of Gail E. Dobert (social security 
account number 082-52-7101).
    (b) Amount of Payment.--The payment authorized by subsection (a)--
            (1) shall be equal to twice the gross annual pay of Ms. 
        Dobert at the time of her death;
            (2) shall be payable out of amounts in the Treasury not 
        otherwise appropriated;
            (3) shall not be subject to income taxes; and
            (4) shall be in full satisfaction of all claims against the 
        United States in connection with the death of Ms. Dobert.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON AGENT AND ATTORNEY FEES.

    Not more than a total of 10 percent of the payment authorized by 
section 1 shall be paid to or received by any agent or attorney for 
services rendered in connection with obtaining such payment, any 
contract to the contrary notwithstanding. Any person who violates this 
section shall be fined not more than $1,000.
                                     

                                                Private Calendar No. 11

104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4025

                          [Report No. 104-813]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

            For the relief of the estate of Gail E. Dobert.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 20, 1996

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed
```
**Exhibit
31.1**
  **CERTIFICATION**
  I, S. Scott
Crump, certify that:
  1.  I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Stratasys, Inc. (the
“registrant”);
  2.  Based on
my knowledge, this 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 report;
  3.  Based on
my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this 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 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)) [language intentionally omitted pursuant to SEC
exemptive order in SEC Release No. 34-50754] 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 report is being prepared;
  (b)  [language
intentionally omitted pursuant to SEC exemptive order in SEC Release No.
34-50754];
  (c)  Evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this 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
  (d)  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 the 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 controls over financial
reporting.
  ****Date: March 14,
2005
    By:
    /s/ S. Scott
  CrumpS.
      Scott Crump
      President
      and Chief Executive Officer