alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### PATIN v. T. L. JAMES & CO. et al. (JOHNSON, Intervenor).

No. 3149.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit

Nov. 25, 1949.

Ashton L. Stewart, Baton Rouge, for appellant.

Huckabay, Seale & Kelton, Baton Rouge,, for defendant.

Joseph W. Starring, Baton Rouge, for intervenor.

PER CURIAM.

Both plaintiff and defendants have applied for a rehearing.

In his application for rehearing, Horace Patin, tutor, complains of our ruling that the minor Raymond Patin was only partially dependent on the decedent Joe Johnson. We have carefully reconsidered the case and have carefully reconsidered the briefs, both the original briefs and applicant’s brief, on the application. We do not find any error committed by us. The application for rehearing on behalf of Horace Patin, tutor, is refused.

In their application for rehearing, the defendants, T. L. James & Co., Inc., and its insurer, the National Surety Corporation, contend that we erred (1) in holding that the claim of the mother of decedent, Sophie Braud Johnson, did not foreclose the claim of the minor, Raymond Patin, and (2) in holding that Raymond Patin was a member of decedent’s, Joe Johnson’s, family.

The complaint of applicants relative to the first assignment of error seems to be levelled at our reversing our former ruling in Lunkin v. Triangle Farms, 24 So.2d 213, and relying on the case of Hamilton v. Consolidated Underwriters, La.App., 21 So.2d 432, for the present decision. We have again examined the record, together with the briefs, and we must say that it appears to us that the reasons given in the *59Hamilton case are sounder in law and principle than ours in the Lunkin case.

The applicants also complain about our statement relative to the Williams v. Jahncke Service, Inc., La.App., 38 So.2d 400, and have furnished us with a certified copy of the application for writs of certiorari to the Orleans Court of Appeal, wherein it is shown that the writ is based entirely on other matters. Regardless of our error committed in our opinion in believing that the application for the writ was based on the question of “other dependents” being foreclosed by a dependent parent entitled to compensation, we now choose to follow the Hamilton case, supra.

With regard to the second assignment of error, we do not find any merit. We feel that our holding is correct for the reasons stated in the opinion.

The application of defendants is refused. Both applications for rehearing are refused.
#### GRIFFITH v. WYATT LUMBER CO., Inc.

No. 6231.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

March 4, 1941.

Wood & Wood of Leesville, for appellant.

J. S. Pickett, of Many, for appellee.

DREW, Judge.

This is a compensation suit in which the lower court rendered a judgment of non-suit against the plaintiff for the reason he instituted his suit against a corporation for which he was not working at the time of the alleged accident and injury. Plaintiff is prosecuting this appeal from that judgment.

There is no doubt in our minds as to the correctness of the judgment of the lower court.

The undisputed facts are as follows:

On July 1, 1938, the Wyatt Lumber Company, Incorporated, sold, transferred and delivered to the Wyatt Lumber Manu-^ facturing Company, Incorporated, a tract of real estate containing 200 acres in Sabine Parish, Louisiana, together with all buildings, hardwood mill, and pine sawmill located thereon. The transferee posted signs in and about the mills calling attention to the change in ownership.

Plaintiff alleged he was injured in an accident while feeding a planer machine in one of the mills which was involved in the above transfer, and that the accident occurred on August 2, 1938. The record also shows that plaintiff had only been working at the mill for about two weeks before the alleged accident. When plaintiff testified in chief, he was asked by his counsel for whom he was working on August 2nd, the day of the alleged accident and injury. He replied: “Wyatt Lumber Manufacturing Company — my pay slip at home shows that.” Under leading questions by his attorney, he attempted to change his testimony by saying it was just a slip of the tongue. He answered the question correctly in the first instance, for it is certain plaintiff was working for the Wyatt Lumber Manufacturing Company, Incorporated, and had never worked for the Wyatt Lumber Company, Incorporated. He has clearly sued the wrong corporation and the judgment of non-suit on his demands was clearly a correct one under the circumstances.

The judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed, with costs.
EX-4.41



 Exhibit 4.41 

SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT 

TO THE EXCLUSIVE TECHNICAL CONSULTING AND SERVICE AGREEMENT 

This Supplementary Agreement (“Supplementary Agreement”) is made and entered into on 25 April, 2013 (“Effective
date”) in Shanghai, the People’s Republic of China, by and between: 
 Party A: Shanghai Zhengtu Information Technology Co., Ltd. 

Address: 2/FL, Building No.29, 396 Guilin Road, Shanghai, the People’s Republic of China 

Party B: Shanghai Giant Network Technology Co., Ltd. (Old Name: Shanghai Zhengtu Network Technology Co., Ltd.) 

Address: Room 708, Building No.29, 396 Guilin Road, Shanghai, the People’s Republic of China 

WHEREAS, 
  

	1.	Party A and Party B entered into the Exclusive Technical Consulting and Service Agreement (the “Original Agreement”) on September 7, 2006 in Shanghai. According to the Original Agreement, Party B
agrees that, unless with prior written approval from Party A, Party B shall not hire any third party to provide to Party B any technical support listed in Attachment I of the Original Agreement or any similar technical support; 


 

	2.	Party B has reached an agreement with Shanghai Zhengju Information Technology Co., Ltd. (“Zhengju Information”) that Party B shall be responsible for the operation of The World of Xianxia which was
developed by and the intellectual property rights of which was held by Zhengju Information. Party B shall also be responsible for the operation of Elsword and Allods Online which were imported from and authorized by overseas entities.


 NOW, THEREFORE, adhering to the principles of equality and mutual benefit, and after friendly negotiations, the Parties confirm as
follows: 
  

	1.	Party A agrees Party B to hire Zhengju Information to provide Party B with technical support listed in Attachment I of the Original Agreement or other similar technical support, relating to World of Xianxia, Elsword and
Allods Online. Party B shall sign the World of Xianxia, Elsword and Allods Online Exclusive Technical Consulting and Service Agreement with Zhengju Information. 

  

	2.	Party B guarantees and promises that Party A shall have the right to request Party B and Zhengju Information at any time to terminate the World of Xianxia, Elsword and Allods Online Exclusive Technical Consulting and
Service Agreement and any other relevant agreements, without incurring any legal liability 

  

	3.	This Supplementary Agreement shall become effective immediately upon sealed by the Parties. 

  

			
	 Party A: Shanghai Zhengtu
 Information
Technology Co., Ltd.
	  	 Party B: Shanghai Giant Network

Technology Co., Ltd.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6179 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6179

To prohibit the use of funds for the 2022 and 2026 World Cup until the 
 date on which Policy 604-1 of the United States Soccer Federation is 
                              reinstated.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 8, 2021

  Mr. Gaetz introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the use of funds for the 2022 and 2026 World Cup until the 
 date on which Policy 604-1 of the United States Soccer Federation is 
                              reinstated.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR THE 2022 AND 2026 WORLD CUP.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal funds may be 
appropriated or otherwise made available to provide support for the 
2022 and 2026 World Cup, including support for a host city, a 
participating State or local agency, the United States Soccer 
Federation, the Confederation of North, Central American and Caribbean 
Association Football (CONCACAF), or the Federation Internationale de 
Football Association (FIFA), until the date on which Policy 604-1 of 
the United States Soccer Federation is reinstated.
                                 <all>
```
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6181 

To reaffirm that certain land has been taken into trust for the benefit 

of the Samish Indian Nation, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 8, 2021 

Mr. GALLEGO (for himself, Mr. AGUILAR, Mr. SABLAN, Mr. GOMEZ, Mr. 

SOTO, Mr. COLE, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Mr. RUIZ, Ms. MCCOLLUM, 

Mrs. TORRES of California, Mr. LAMALFA, and Mr. CA ́RDENAS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 

Resources 

A BILL 

To reaffirm that certain land has been taken into trust 

for the benefit of the Samish Indian Nation, and for 

other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Samish Indian Nation 

5 Land Reaffirmation Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6181 IH

1 SEC. 2. REAFFIRMATION OF TRUST LAND STATUS AND AC2 TIONS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The decision dated November 9, 

4 2018, and the actions taken by the Bureau of Indian Af5 fairs Northwest Regional Director to approve the applica6 tion of the Samish Indian Nation to take approximately 

7 6.70 acres of land into trust as described in the decision 

8 for the benefit of the Samish Indian Nation are ratified 

9 and confirmed. 

10 (b) APPLICATION.—This Act shall apply to all claims 

11 (including claims challenging the validity of title or the 

12 effectiveness of any action of the Secretary acquiring and 

13 taking land into trust) pending on the date of the enact14 ment of this Act or filed on or after the date of the enact15 ment of this Act. 

16 (c) RETENTION OF FUTURE RIGHTS.—Nothing in 

17 this Act alters or diminishes the right of the Samish In18 dian Nation from seeking to have any additional land 

19 taken into trust by the United States for the benefit of 

20 the Samish Indian Nation. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6221 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 155 Main Avenue West in Winsted, Minnesota, 

as the ‘‘James A. Rogers Jr. Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 6221 EH

1 SECTION 1. JAMES A. ROGERS JR. POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 155 Main Avenue West in 

4 Winsted, Minnesota, shall be known and designated as the 

5 ‘‘James A. Rogers Jr. Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘James A. Rogers Jr. 

10 Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 14, 

2022. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6221 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostJr. Post Office’’. Winsted, Minnesota, as the ‘‘James A. Rogers al Service located at 155 Main Avenue West in
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk March 4, 2013

s0225 

# Order

March 4, 2013

146137

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146137

COA: 305480

Wayne CC: 10

- 000372

- FH

DANIEL BRATHER COLEMAN,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 16, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

V IVIANO

, J., not participating.
<table>
                                     EXHIBIT 12.2
                           SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
                   COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                (Dollars in millions)
<caption>

                                                                                    Nine
                                                                                  months
                                                                            September 30,
                               1998      1999      2000      2001      2002         2003
                             --------  --------  --------  --------  --------   --------

                         <c>       <c>       <c>       <c>       <c>        <c>
Fixed Charges:

Interest                         $ 81      $ 62      $ 72      $ 70      $ 47       $ 36

Interest portion of
  annual rentals                    4         3         4         3         2          1
                             --------  --------  --------  --------  --------   --------
Total fixed charges
  for purpose of ratio           $ 85      $ 65      $ 76      $ 73      $ 49       $ 37
                             ========  ========  ========  ========  ========   ========
Earnings:

Pretax income from
  continuing operations          $287      $383      $390      $377      $391       $265
Add: Total fixed charges
  (from above)                     85        65        76        73        49         37
                             --------  --------  --------  --------  --------   --------
Total earnings for
  purpose of ratio               $372      $448      $466      $450      $440       $302
                             ========  ========  ========  ========  ========   ========
Ratio of earnings
  To fixed charges               4.38      6.89      6.13      6.16      8.98       8.16
                             ========  ========  ========  ========  ========   ========



</table>
#### City Real Estate Company and Edward R. Nichols, Plaintiffs, v. Samuel Greenwood and Others, Defendants. Ætna Elevator Company, Appellant; Arthur H. Meyers, as Receiver, etc., Respondent.

Order of the County Court of Kings county affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. — No opinion. Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-12-00254- CV

Connois seur Encounters Com pany, I nc. d/b /a Th e Wine Cellar at Bee Cave , Appellan t
v. Texas Alcoholic Bever age Com m ission and Alan Steen, Adm inis trat or, Appellees

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 200 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -GN-1 2-0 0388 , H ONO RAB LE SCO TT H . JENK INS, J UDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A ND U M O PI N I O N
Connoisseur Encounter s C o mpany , Inc. d/b/a The Wine Cellar at Be e Cave has informed this Court that the parties have r esolved the underly ing case and has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss it. Counsel for Connoisseur Encounter s states that she has confe rre d with counsel for Texas Alcoholic Be vera g e Commi ssion and Alan S t ee n , Administrator, who do not oppose this mot ion. We gr ant the motion and dismiss the appe al. SeeTex. R. App. P . 42.1(a)
.

__________________________________________ J eff Rose, J ustice Be fore Chief Justice Jones, J ustices Rose and Goodw in Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion Filed: Nove mber 7, 2013
#### In re: William M. SCHMIDT and Gareth G. Schmidt, Debtors, Patricia Trunnels, Appellant, v. William M. Schmidt and Gareth Schmidt, husband and wife, Appellees.

No. 01-35783.

BAP No. MT-00-01349-BrPMo.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 8, 2002.

Decided Nov. 15, 2002.

Before TROTT, T.G. NELSON, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER *

The judgment of the bankruptcy appellate panel is AFFIRMED for the reasons *887set forth in the memorandum disposition of the bankruptcy appellate panel filed on July 9, 2001. Because the parties failed to submit excerpts of the adversary proceeding to the bankruptcy appellate panel, it was unable to determine whether the factual findings of the bankruptcy court were clearly erroneous. We have reviewed the entire transcript of the adversary proceeding, and we conclude that the bankruptcy court did not clearly err1 in its factual findings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

*

 This order is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of *887this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. *Peklar v. Ikerd (In re Peklar),*260 F.3d 1035, 1037 (9th Cir.2001).
ex10-3.htm


Exhibit 10.3


 




Offer of Employment 


for


William S. Watters, P.E.















Position: Mine Manager, COO Ruby Gold Inc.  Once RGI is independent, promotion to CEO and a seat on the Board of Directors







Reporting to: Mr. Perry Leopold







Office and Site Location: Ruby Mine and Office in Nevada City, CA







Effective Date: March 3, 2014







Monthly Rate: Starting at $12,000/ month 1st year; automatic pay increase of $1,000/month in each of years 2, 3, 4 and 5 so that salary is $16,000/month by year 5.







Allowance for Med/Den: Expensed at actual cost.







Vehicle: Company truck or SUV.  Use of personal truck to be expensed at 120% of IRS mileage rate.







Cell Phone: Personal cell phone billing portion related to RGI business to be expensed at cost.







Expense Reimbursement: In addition to medical, auto and cell phone expenses, Mr. Watters will be entitled to reasonable expenses incurred for professional organizations related to the mining industry.  These expenses will be for membership dues, meetings and associated activities.







Vacation: 4 weeks per year, prorated over the first year of employment.  Two weeks are planned during the summer of 2014.







Severance: A severance payment for non-voluntary termination, due to circumstances unrelated to job performance, will be paid as follows: Severance Payment = (48-A) x the monthly salary, or 6 times the monthly salary, whichever is greatest.  (Where A equals the cumulative number of months already worked).







Signing Bonus: NBRI will issue to William Watters, 100,000 NBRI shares as a signing bonus.







Trade Shows, Conventions and Professional Development: Mr. Watters may attend trade shows, conventions and professional development programs providing they are appropriate for his job function, and can be scheduled to not interfere with important and critical work related responsibilities.  All expenses directly related to attendance of these events will be paid by the company.







Acceptance: I agree to accept the employment terms stated above between William Watters and Ruby Gold Inc.  The starting date will be March 3, 2014.

















  /s/ Perry Leopold                                                                                               /s/ William S. Watters                                                    




Perry Leopold, President, Ruby Gold, Inc.                                                                                                     William S. Watters, P.E.


 


 


Date:  February 16, 2014__________________
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton

ANNE GRIFFIN MILLER

v. Record No. 2627-95-1 MEMORANDUM OPINION * PER CURIAM COUNTY OF JAMES CITY MAY 14, 1996 AND CITY OF WILLIAMSBURG

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION (Arnold H. Abrons; Abrons, Fasanaro & Sceviour, on brief), for appellant. (Robert A. Rapaport; Knight, Dudley, Clarke & Dolph, on brief), for appellee.

Anne Griffin Miller ("claimant") contends that the Workers' Compensation Commission erred in finding that she failed to prove that her reactive airways disease was caused by her employment. Upon reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the commission's decision. Rule 5A:27. A claimant must prove the existence of an occupational disease by a preponderance of the evidence. Virginia Dep't of State Police v. Talbert , 1 Va. App. 250, 253, 337 S.E.2d 307, 308 (1985). "Whether a disease is causally related to the employment and not causally related to other factors . . . is a finding of

fact." Island Creek Coal Co. v. Breeding , 6 Va. App. 1, 12, 365

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.2 S.E.2d 782, 788 (1988). Unless we can say as a matter of law that claimant's evidence sustained her burden of proof, the commission's findings are binding and conclusive upon us. Tomko v. Michael's Plastering Co. , 210 Va. 697, 699, 173 S.E.2d 833, 835 (1970). An occupational disease is one "arising out of and in the course of employment." Code § 65.2-400(A). "A disease shall be deemed to arise out of the employment" when the evidence establishes six elements. Code § 65.2-400(B). Elements (1) and (6) require evidence showing "[a] direct causal connection between the conditions under which work is performed and the occupational disease" and that the disease "had its origin in a risk connected with the employment and flowed from that source as a natural consequence . . . ." Code § 65.2-400(B)(1) and (B)(6). The commission found that claimant failed to establish a compensable occupational disease under the requirements of Code § 65.2-400. The record is devoid of any medical opinions to support claimant's assertion that her employment caused her condition. At best, Dr. Thomas L. Munzel, claimant's treating pulmonary specialist, opined that her employment aggravated her reactive airways disease. A disease that is merely aggravated by the employment does not establish causation and is not an occupational disease. Ashland Oil Co. v. Bean , 225 Va. 1, 3-4, 300 S.E.2d 739, 740 (1983).3 Based upon the absence of any persuasive medical evidence that claimant's work environment caused her restrictive airways disease, claimant did not prove as a matter of law a compensable occupational disease pursuant to the requirements of Code § 65.2-400. Thus, the commission did not err in denying her application based upon a finding that she did not prove that her condition was caused by her employment or that it had its origins in a work connected risk. Accordingly, we affirm the commission's decision. Affirmed.