alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Sullivan *vs.*Dollins.

*Jlppeal from Franklin.*

The presumption in the Supreme Court is, that the clerk of the circuit was satisfied of the right of the attorney to use the name of the appellant, to an appeal bond,, before he accepted such bond.

The authority'of an attorney to execute an appeal bond, will only be enquired into when it is questioned by affidavit.

This was a motion made to dismiss the appeal, for reasons which are fully stated in the opinion.

S. Breese, for the motion.

W. B. Scates, contra.

Opinion by Treat, C. J.:

The appeal bond in this case is executed in the name of the appellant “by II. B. Montgomery, his attorney.” A motion is made to dismiss the appeal, because the authority of the attorney does not appear. The motion will be denied. The presumption here is that the clerk of the Circuit Court was satisfied of the right of the attorney to use the name of the appellant before he accepted the bond. This Court Vill not enquire into his authority until it is questioned by affidavit. Campbell *17
      *vs.*State Bank, 1 Scammon, 423. In this class of cases the Court will require the proof of the authority to be exhibited, on the filing of an affidavit, stating the belief of the appellee, or his attorney, that the bond was signed without legal authority-

*Motion denied.*
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

 

**SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT**

 

 

|   | 1. | HAPL Leasing Co., Inc., a New York corporation |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | 2. | Hometown Threads, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | 3. | Hirsch Business Concepts, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | 4. | Sedeco, Inc., a Texas corporation |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------|

 

|   | 5. | SSE Acquisition Corp., a Delaware Corporation |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------|

 

|   | 6. | Graphic Arts Acquisition Corp. , a Delaware Corporation |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------|
#### Shaweker et al. *v.*Spinell.

*424(No. 23378

Decided June 8, 1932.)

*Messrs. Hart, Koehler, Blumenstiel & Strong,*and *Messrs. Wilkin, Fisher <& Limbach,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Mr. J. G. Mitchell,*for defendant in error.

Arlen, J.

In this case the plaintiff, A. T. Spinell, brought an action for damages against the defendants, Earl K. Shaweker and Fred A. Bowers, who are practicing physicians and surgeons, alleging that upon February 20, 1930, the defendants performed an operation known as hysterectomy upon his wife, Rose Spinell, and that she died on the same day.

Plaintiff alleged facts sufficient to charge malpractice, and then set forth that by reason of such facts he had been deprived of the society, companionship and consortium of his wife, and prayed damages therefor. The answer of each defendant admitted the death, but denied any negligence.

At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s testimony, the defendants moved the court to arrest the testimony and to instruct the jury to return a verdict for the defendants, which motion the court granted. The judgment rendered by the trial court upon this verdict was reversed by the Court of Appeals of Tuscarawas county, on the ground that the court erred in sustaining the motion to direct a verdict in favor of the defendants.

There is in this record nothing to establish that there *425was any instant of time between the performance of the operation and the death of the wife. No such averment was made in the petition. It is true that a husband has a cause of action for damages arising out of loss of services resulting from an operation upon his wife. 21 Ruling Case Law, 397. All elements of damage which arise solely from the wrongful death are excluded as a ground of recovery. *Sherlag*v. *Kelley,*200 Mass., 232, 86 N. E., 293, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.), 633, 128 Am. St. Rep., 414. It is only where death is not instantaneous that the husband may recover for loss of his wife’s services, between the time of the performance of the malpractice and the death of the wife. 21 Ruling Case Law, 398; 19 L. R. A. (N. S.), 633, note, and cases cited; *Green*v. *Hudson River Rd. Co.,*28 Barb. (N. Y.), 9; *Wyatt*v. *Williams,*43 N. H., 102; *Grosso*v. *Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Rd. Co.,*50 N. J. Law, 317, 13 A., 233; *Womack*v. *Central Railroad & Banking Co.,*80 Ga., 132, 5 S. E., 63.

Hence the Court of Appeals was in error upon this record in reversing the judgment of the court of common pleas.

*Judgment reversed and judgment of the court of common pleas affirmed.*

Maeshael, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Day, Kinkade and Stephenson, JJ., concur.
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 24- 0126

_________________ MEL COOK, LOEY KNAPP, JAMES WALTERS, DAVID MCKINLEY, SUSAN EVANS, PAT GRONINGER, and TERRI GRONINGER,

Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. BERTA ’ S FARM, LLC,

Defendant and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ The record was filed for purposes of this appeal on April 16 , 2024 . The opening brief is now overdue. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Appellant shall prepare, file , and serve the opening brief on appeal no later than June 28 , 2 024 . F ailure to file the brief within that time will result in dismissal of this appeal with prejudice and without further notice. The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all parties .

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 28 2024

05/28/2024
Case Number: DA 24-0126
#### Albert B. Gross and Others, Respondents, v. Michael J. Leo, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Ho opinion.
Yo~ THE CL&.k OF, 

~-OF CR IMI/\Jid_ ~"1--PPEI\L$ DF'Tet~ts AtJsn:-J,TK. 

~ 0 t"\1"~" AI V' f L"d t!:l f';\J\J - iJ '., 

-A 8buT lt-l£ -eND or M !« T GENt A Lbbtlret@o/f!V8f5t:::CJW~'­

w·ifleti r JNCWDc:-(;); t, A Mcmc:N Po~ MAJtAJ7XA .. £tJI or- CeJVIJ5CL 

d~'~t#LLY FtLEb IN z_q"!l:!: DfSTJelcr ~T, P:ALo PiAlTZJ, co-vNl'(, 

. T-E~ ~N ~BER JlTiir Ztllttft=XitiBfiAii); Z; 17»o (z,) L£TIER6 

" ,. h "' ;J . ID Tt-lt 1\&N£ .NAN£J) ~T ~K£1) G><.ttiB'iTS (5 ."\NN c I 

f· ~et-ER. ·RectTVEO -N,k/'JOWLEObblvt&JT ll{AT lifm P.-4C~e tfA.D 

16' ££N RfC..£1 veD BY Y oV f( OFf=1 C£ M Wti-11 AC/l ON MI\S E-£J9V 

mk"b\.1 RaARD WG TliE MOll o-tJ , 

l1if ~\'f(iE GODN6EL FOR Ol-i=END£~s 11\l ~o ME IHA-1 "fouR.. 

~- .AMJ2)\- (JR_l')ER.. Tt:tt ~OI,rJTMENI eri=-COU!J.S-EL FOR w~ ~~ DF 

'HAB£1\~ COI<-Pvs c;;NJ AA'( PAR.nwLi\1<. cAS£ ~ (E;AA~, c; lllci~s) 

I_ NV\ UNABL£ 1D ~TI'\1N DOLUJA.£JJT.S ID 5UtPoR..r- MY CLA/111(, 

Wlt!d-\ {S TRUE /\f..J.6 W65TAIIA-L 1 l?fHJt; f\ \JiDL..-A1lo.tJ o-F l=DVRTH 

·M'ltNOMEJJ-1 -PR.cllECt\ ONS PROJ!f)E:{) ISY THE. Co.NSTlllFTlON 

CF lliC UNfTt:D S~Tt:s B'JL.L DP Rl6+tl5, 

f\i£ U.S. SUFREM-E ~T Mt\~ RUL£f> THAT tN.Di~t)JT,!l\IC{V(cG(?-

t\1tb DE.fEN~ Rt:blvvRf: cov.Ns.-c:L- Fr>R wR rr rrF f+A&A~ CDR:Pv~f 

Tt\eRE:FbR.E T tv N1JT' W/\NTlD PRCC££t>, PRo S£1 0N f\ NEW 

-~ a«Ns. PRa::-EED\NG B'AS£.D 6V'J NEW RULftJG:.:, MD 

Lt\'W OCCO~\~~ Af1=1::k. .NV'{ O'Rl61fJ,Al_ ~flJCftTIDN FoR., 

WRtr OF ·t-h\IS£1\:; ~RJ; , 
I i-IA\It: v..J~\TIBJ !MNY i\~J£Y.s .AtJD L£.6i-AL .A\~ 0R®fZ1nflJS 

AND gt£rJ utJ E0tc£~sf=VL- OB IAt!J W 6 R'-Ef'~::ENTATlDAI ON f"Ro BD.\.V 

&A~ iS 1 f~o PftR. NON~ HAvE t{-Ab Tltf FRDF"£SSit>tJ.PxL C.:?JVRT-£6 y TD 

2V£N RE~PO!Ji) lV )/JQVIRY. 

IS ll-!~R£ A Rf:CJ){<D I CAJJ D«!A:\N Ff~M YD?)R. Qi2tzt.C.C: OF AUFiLl Nl1 ~ BY .Mt.. M·D Ttl E. STAW S oF 11+£/V\ , . -ALL DJ2 ;vV( Affi_tCf\110JJ .S 

RJwc: B'EEJJ'' DctJ t&t> w tTttouT w~ trreJ R£cerR. t>'' w Lntiiur /'\JJY 6DR.. rOtcr E><Pr-At-JffOVJJ vJ H '{ J 'lHA-T l /11\ t 6. hfT U>te..f<.t-CT Pn'ri&L&VLS bR. 

Et<.P.~s, , 

It~ 11-!(6' {('lf-TN.ICE: i PAl-O PtN!D ~ 1¥ CAUr:c- 1Lf72L -A, 1 

ffkJe A CL-f\-IM THAT l{fO ALI<EkPY St&J CA6e;5 CN2fC.~tJE.D t .. ..J 

't'oVR CDt>RT' l), S ·. D \s * \ CT ~ M .D -n-i£ 51)f>R8V\-~ CDt.he-T FoR. 

\ 0£Nl1c.AL Gtr<:d)M 5\1\1\JCCS I 

. .f CAJJ N-OT Ul'-l!)t;R£1Mb trJttY .1 AM t-tMlNb. St) MDCli DIPF-tCLU'{ 

OBTr\\".!NG R£~; t Gtlou..D 1\1-crr- 16t. RE-b(Ud"2tO w tU~t:: D5VJV6£L 

Wtif.N nit 19\ LJtT t:-l-E S c-tnrt Ttf.£ bl'-:ffi:C AN I) r"ts ii-At-J DL W 6. Of' .N\ t , 

N~ C:A1..J :r wr=v~\) o-N£ , 

J¢: 1 \~i( 7 9, q {p(p -ofp 

()RJ6!NM- ~Tf?,_.~c.!411o-N
Other

1879.56
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 736 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 736

  To delay enforcement of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 
 until such time as Congress appropriates funds to implement such Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 30, 1995

 Mr. Linder (for himself, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Funderburk) introduced 
   the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House 
                               Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To delay enforcement of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 
 until such time as Congress appropriates funds to implement such Act.

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

SECTION 1. NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT IMPLEMENTATION.

    The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg et 
seq.) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating section 13 as section 14;
            (2) by inserting after section 12, the following new 
        section 13:

``SEC. 13. FEDERAL FUNDING.

    ``(a) In General.--The Attorney General shall make grants to the 
States sufficient to implement this Act.
    ``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out this section.''; 
and
            (3) by amending section 14--
                    (A) in paragraph (1)--
                            (i) in subparagraph (A), by striking 
                        ``or'';
                            (ii) by striking ``and'' at the end of 
                        subparagraph (B), and inserting ``or''; and
                            (iii) by adding the following new 
                        subparagraph:
                    ``(C) 180 days after the date on which Congress 
                appropriates funds pursuant to section 13(b); and''; 
                and
                    (B) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
            ``(2) with respect to any State not described in paragraph 
        (1), the later of--
                    ``(A) January 1, 1995; or
                    ``(B) 180 days after the date on which Congress 
                appropriates funds pursuant to section 13(b).''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Pacific Gas and Electric Company for
the quarter ended September 30, 2010 (Form 10-Q), I, Christopher P. Johns, President of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:



| | (1) | the Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Pacific Gas and Electric
Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |                     
| |  | --------------------
| |  | CHRISTOPHER P. JOHNS
| |  | CHRISTOPHER P. JOHNS
| |  | President           

November 4, 2010



---

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Pacific Gas and Electric Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 (Form 10-Q), I, Sara A. Cherry, Vice
President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, that:



| | (1) | the Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Pacific Gas and Electric
Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |                                                    
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------
| |  | SARA A. CHERRY                                     
| |  | SARA A. CHERRY                                     
| |  | Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer

November 4, 2010
#### Brooks Roe Dollinger v. State.

No. 25404.

October 24, 1951.

*398Hon. Jack Harrison, Judge Presiding.

*Kenneth W. Bing,*Velasco, for appellant.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, a fine of $50.00.

Bill of Exception No. 1 complains that the state was permitted to cross examine appellant’s wife as to whether she had been charged with a felony. It is appellant’s contention that such question was improper because it was beyond the scope of her direct examination. With this contention we cannot agree.

“From the statute and the decisions of this court and the Supreme Court, there can be no question but that the rule is that when the husband who is on trial introduces his wife to testify in his behalf, and she does so, that she is subject to cross-examination and impeachment just like any other witness, save and except that new incriminating evidence cannot be brought out from her against the *accused,*nor can wholly immaterial matter be brought out for impeachment of her any more than it can be from any other witness.” Roberts v. State, 74 Tex. Cr. R. 150, 168 S.W. 100.

It will be noted that the question concerning a former felony charge against the witness touched her credibility and was not “evidence against the accused.”

Bill of Exception No. 2 complains of the overruling of appellant’s motion for new trial based upon newly discovered evidence. The sworn statement mentioned in the bill relates to a matter entirely foreign to the only issue before the court, i.e., the state of intoxication of the defendant, he having admitted *399that he was driving. Therefore, the trial court acted properly in overruling the motion.

Finding no error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-869

_____________________________

DION ROMERO MIXSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

James H. Daniel, Judge.

May 3, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and LEWIS and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Greg Caracci, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Julian E. Markham, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Case 2:09-cv-12950-DML-VMM Document 200 Filed 01/11/2010 Page 1 of 1
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4338

To provide relief for domestic producers of tailored wool apparel from

increased imports of such apparel from Canada.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 1, 1996

Mr. LAFALCE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To provide relief for domestic producers of tailored wool

apparel from increased imports of such apparel from Canada.

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

3 SECTION 1. RENEGOTIATION OF QUANTITIES OF WOOL AR4 TICLES ELIGIBLE FOR TARIFF PREFERENCE

5 LEVELS.

6 By not later than January 1, 1998, the President

7 shall take the necessary steps to renogotiate with Canada

8 the annual quantity limitations of tailored wool apparel

9 assembled in Canada from fabric or yarn produced or ob10 tained in a country other than a NAFTA country, that
2

•HR 4338 IH

1 is eligible for preferential tariff treatment under Appendix

2 6.B.1 to Annex 300–B of the NAFTA, to reflect current

3 conditions in the wool apparel industry located in Canada

4 and the United States, including the ability of tailored

5 wool apparel producers to obtain supplies of wool fabric

6 within the territories of Canada and the United States.

7 SEC. 2. AVAILABILITY OF SAFEGUARD PROCEDURES.

8 For purposes of part 1 of subtitle A of title III of

9 the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementa10 tion Act (19 U.S.C. 3351 and following)—

11 (1) the term ‘‘Canadian article’’ shall be

12 deemed to include tailored wool apparel assembled in

13 Canada from fabric or yarn produced or obtained in

14 a country other than a NAFTA country, that is eli15 gible for preferential tariff treatment under Appen16 dix 6.B.1 to Annex 300–B of the NAFTA; and

17 (2) subsection (d)(2) of section 302 of the

18 North American Free Trade Agreement Implemen19 tation Act (19 U.S.C. 3352(d)(2)) shall not apply to

20 articles described in paragraph (1).

21 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

22 As used in this Act—

23 (1) the term ‘‘NAFTA’’ means the North

24 American Free Trade Agreement approved by the

25 Congress under section 101(a) of the North Amer-
3

•HR 4338 IH

1 ican Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (19

2 U.S.C. 3311(a)); and

3 (2) the term ‘‘NAFTA country’’ has the mean4 ing given that term in section 2(4) of the North

5 American Free Trade Agreement Implementation

6 Act (19 U.S.C. 3301(2)).

Æ
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 on Form 10-Q of Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line
Company, LP (the "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Richard N. Marshall, as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that (i) the Report fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended; and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.





/s/   RICHARD
N. MARSHALL


Richard
N. Marshall


Senior
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer





May 11,
2009











This
Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and shall not be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any
general incorporation language contained in such filing.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documents
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version 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.
#### J. C. Earp v. State.

No. 25206.

March 14, 1951.

Rehearing Denied (Without Written Opinion) May 16, 1951.

Hon. Ned Price, Judge Presiding.

*J. O. Duncan,*Gilmer, for appellant.

*R. S. Burruss,*County Attorney, Tyler, and *George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

WOODLEY, Judge.

Appellant was convicted for the sale of whiskey in a dry area, and his punishment assessed by the jury at 90 days in jail and a fine of $500.

Motion for new trial was overruled on September 18, 1950, *111and the 90 days allowed thereafter for filing the statement of facts and bills of exception expired on December 18, 1950.

The statement of facts and the lone bill of exceptions appearing in the record show to have been filed on December 21, 1950, and therefore after the expiration of the time allowed by law and by the court’s order.

Appellant, by affidavit of his counsel, contends that the statement of facts was delivered to the trial judge on December 6, 1950, and that through no fault of appellant or his counsel the filing was delayed beyond the time provided therefor. He contends that it is within the discretion of this court, under such facts, to reverse the case on the theory that appellant has been deprived of a statement of facts without fault or negligence on his part.

If we should agree with appellant’s contention that the delay in filing the statement of facts and bill of exception was not due to fault or laches of himself or his attorney, but was the result of causes beyond his control, this court would be authorized to consider the statement of facts as though filed in time. See Bailey v. State, 149 Tex. Cr. R. 429, 195 S.W. 2d 361.

The bill of exception is directed to a remark of the county attorney in his closing argument and is insufficient in that it fails to show that the argument, if in fact erroneous, was not made in reply to argument of appellant’s counsel.

There are no objections or exceptions to the court’s charge, and the requested charges were properly refused.

The evidence shows the sale of whiskey to the complaining witness in the county shown by the proof to be dry.

If the statement of facts and bill of exception are entitled to consideration, they show no error and the judgment must be affirmed. If not considered, the same result must follow. In neither case would we be justified in reversing the judgment upon the theory advanced by appellant.

Opinion approved by the court.