alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Nuckolls v. Gaut.

1. Animals — Trespassing Cattle—-Crops —Fences.—In Colorado the owner of crops cannot recover damages done thereto by trespassing cattle, unless such crops are at the time of the trespass inclosed by good and sufficient fences.

2. Instructions—Conflict Between.—In order that a conflict between different instructions shall be ground for reversal,- it must appear that such conflict may have injured the party complaining.

*Error to County Court of Carfield County.*

Action for damage to crops done by trespassing cattle, brought by G. N. Gaut against Emmett Nuckolls. Ver*362diet and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

Messrs. Taylor, Ashton & Taylor, for plaintiff in error.

Chief Justice Helm

delivered the opinion of the court.

In this state ‘ ‘ the owners of crops can only recover damages done thereto by the trespasses of cattle when the same are, at the time of the trespass, inclosed by good -and sufficient fences.” *Morris v. Fraker,*5 Colo. 425. The case cited holds that in the particular mentioned the principle of the common law is inapplicable here. If, since that opinion was written (about ten years ago), the circumstances and conditions have so changed as to justify a return to the common-law rule on the subject, the legislature should so declare. Until such legislative declaration is made we shall apply the doctrine of *■stare decisis.*The instructions correctly state the law in this respect. Besides, this part of the charge was given at the instance and request of plaintiff in error, and hence he should not be heard to complain.

The instruction given at the request of defendant in error, to the effect that, if the fence law had not been adopted in Garfield county by a popular vote, it did not govern the case, also states a correct legal proposition. The announcement of this proposition, even were it unnecessary, did not produce such an inconsistency in the charge as would vitiate the verdict. It is not true, as counsel contend, that a conflict between different instructions given is necessarily a ground for reversal. It must appear that such conflict might have injuriously affected the party complaining.

Not having the evidence before us, we must presume that it was sufficient, under the law as pronounced by the court, to warrant the jury in returning the verdict they did. Defendant in error may, for aught we know, *363have had a good and sufficient fence, or the evidence may have shown that plaintiff in error wilfully and deliberately drove his cattle upon the premises of defendant in error for the purpose of inflicting the resulting injury. The judgment is affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
#### Bill Prince v. State.

No. 25716.

February 20, 1952.

Hon. Walter S. Pope, Jr., Judge Presiding.

*A. R. Archer, Jr.,*and *George W. Overshiner*(of Counsel: *Archer, Bryant & Overshiner),*Abilene, for appellant.

*Wm. K. Tippen,*County Attorney, Abilene, and *George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted for the sale of beer in a dry area, to-wit, Taylor County, Texas, and assessed a fine of $500.00 and one year in jail.

The complaint and information in the case properly present the issue of the dry status of Taylor County. In the progress of the trial defendant declined to waive proof and admit the dry status of the county. The county attorney twice brought up the question of proof and eventually he called the county clerk and had certain records of the commissioners’ court identified and they were referred to as petition, election returns, etc. These do not appear in the statement of facts and there is no proof supporting the court’s charge to the jury that it is a dry county.

For this reason the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-01-1998
<CASH>                                           4,870
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,696
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     92,689
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               102,867
<PP&E>                                          90,363
<DEPRECIATION>                                  50,134
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 143,411
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           52,651
<BONDS>                                         40,277
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,830
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,800
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   143,411
<SALES>                                        151,172
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               151,172
<CGS>                                           98,945
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   98,945
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,814
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,131
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (165)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,296
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,296
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.39
        

</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 23 (Monday, February 4, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 6547]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-1957]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6074]

Notice of Proposal To Extend the Memorandum of Understanding 
Between the Government of the United States of America and the 
Government of the Kingdom of Cambodia Concerning the Imposition of 
Import Restrictions on Khmer Archaeological Material

    The Government of the Kingdom of Cambodia has informed the 
Government of the United States of its interest in an extension of the 
Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of the United States 
of America and the Government of the Kingdom of Cambodia Concerning the 
Imposition of Import Restrictions on Khmer Archaeological Material 
which entered into force on September 19, 2003.
    Pursuant to the authority vested in the Assistant Secretary for 
Educational and Cultural Affairs, and pursuant to the requirement under 
19 U.S.C. 2602(f)(1), an extension of this Memorandum of Understanding 
is hereby proposed.
    Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2602(f)(2), the views and recommendations of 
the Cultural Property Advisory Committee regarding this proposal will 
be requested.
    A copy of the Memorandum of Understanding, the designated list of 
restricted categories of material, and related information can be found 
at the following Web site: http://exchanges.state.gov/culprop.

    Dated: January 25, 2008.
C. Miller Crouch,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
 [FR Doc. E8-1957 Filed 2-1-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          24,894
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  250,864
<ALLOWANCES>                                    18,373
<INVENTORY>                                    205,562
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               557,900
<PP&E>                                       6,174,100
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,639,917
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,385,620
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          335,521
<BONDS>                                      2,384,520
<COMMON>                                        43,507
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,098,229
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,385,620
<SALES>                                        511,007
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               545,810
<CGS>                                          307,782
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  320,457
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                84,826
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              41,880
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,958
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,658
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,658
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .20<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20
        
<FN>
<F1> Reflects basic earnings per share.
</FN>

</TABLE>
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.6 


The 2020 bonus plan for our executive officers determines bonuses by the extent to which two financial performance goals and various business performance objective are met. In particular, it provides for the calculation of a percentage of which up to 75 percentage points is determined by the extent to which the two financial performance goals have been met through the Company’s actual performance, and up to 25 percentage points is determined by the extent to which, in the evaluation of the Management Development, Nominating and Governance Committee of our Board of Directors (the "Committee"), business performance objectives have been met. 
Threshold, target and maximum performance achievement levels have been established for each financial performance goal and each is assigned a percentage weight, with the weight of both performance goals totaling 100%. Based on the actual achievement level and the weight assigned to each financial performance goal, a weighted percentage score for the goal is determined, the resulting scores are summed and multiplied by 75%. The business objectives are assigned a percentage in the aggregate, which is multiplied by 25%. The two resulting percentages are added. The Committee has discretion to decrease by as much as 10 percentage points or increase by as much as 10 percentage points the resulting percentage (the “Bonus Pool Percentage”), but the Bonus Pool Percentage will not exceed 100%. 
A bonus pool is established equal to the sum of the maximum bonus of each executive officer (in the case of the CEO, for example, three times his base salary) multiplied by the Bonus Pool Percentage. The resulting bonus pool is allocated to each executive officer as approved by the Committee, except that an individual executive officer’s bonus may not exceed his maximum bonus. The entire bonus pool need not be awarded. 
The individual financial performance goals, as generally described, and their weightings are: ROE (calculated as adjusted net operating income divided by beginning shareholders’ equity excluding Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)) (60%); and new insurance written (40%), except that new insurance written during any month is included only to the extent such volume is projected to generate, as of such month in which it is written, a lifetime return that exceeds our hurdle rate in effect at the time. The subjects addressed by the business performance objectives are: preserving and expanding the role of MGIC and mortgage insurance in housing finance policy, managing and deploying capital to optimize creation of shareholder value, and expanding and developing the talents of co-workers.
Exhibit (32)

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Owens Corning (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006 (the Report), I, Michael H. Thaman, 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 to the best of my knowledge:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Michael H. Thaman  
|Chief Financial Officer

August 4, 2006
Exhibit (32)



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Owens Corning (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 (the Report), I,
David T. Brown, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ David T. Brown     
|Chief Executive Officer



May 3, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                        5          
<LEGEND>                         
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from CSL Lighting
Manufacturing Inc. and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    YEAR       
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               65,000
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1,608,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                        298,000
<INVENTORY>                                       3,492,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  5,085,000
<PP&E>                                            3,132,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                    2,128,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    6,421,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             4,290,000
<BONDS>                                           3,920,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                             12,000
<OTHER-SE>                                          396,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      6,421,000
<SALES>                                          12,386,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 12,386,000
<CGS>                                             8,456,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    14,307,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    439,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    212,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  440,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (2,360,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          1,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (2,360,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (2,360,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (2.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (2.18)
        


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk August 6, 2010

d0804 

# Order

August 6, 2010

140164(36)

HELIN YOUSIF, as Next Friend of RICHARD JOSEPH YOUSIF, a Minor, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140164 COA: 288302 Macomb CC: 2 007-002624-NI CITY OF STERLING HEIGHTS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Chief Justice, a sti pulation signed by counsel for the parties agreeing to the dismissal of defendant-a ppellant’s motion for reconsideration is considered, and the motion for reconsider ation is DISMISSED with prejudice and
without costs.
#### Frederick W. GREENFIELD, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Respondent.

No. 01-3006.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Nov. 1, 2002.

Before MAYER, Chief Judge, GAJARSA and DYK, Circuit Judges.

DYK, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

The Department of the Navy moves to summarily affirm the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board that denied Frederick W. Greenfield’s request for law enforcement officer (LEO) credit. Greenfield has not responded.

We previously stayed proceedings in this appeal pending a decision in a lead case involving the same issue, *Watson v. Department of Navy,*no. 00-3387. The court lifted the stay of proceedings after our decision in that lead case. *Watson v. Department of Navy,*262 F.3d 1292 (Fed.Cir. 2001), *cert, denied,*— U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 8176, 151 L.Ed.2d 700 (2002). In *Watson,*we held that the Board’s position-oriented approach to determining LEO *990credit was consistent with the statutes and regulations governing LEO eligibility and that the petitioners in that case had not shown that their service entitled them to LEO credit.

In the present case, the Board noted that Greenfield had stated that he performed the same duties as the officers in the *Watson*case, notwithstanding the difference in job titles (Greenfield was identified as a “lead police officer” and the employees in *Watson*were identified as police officers). The Board determined that Greenfield, like the employees in the *Watson*case, had failed to show entitlement to LEO credit.

In its motion, the Navy argues that this court’s decision in *Watson,*and Greenfield’s concessions concerning his duties, compels that we summarily affirm the Board’s decision in this case. We agree. *Joshua v. United States,*17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed.Cir.1994). In the present case, it is clear that summary disposition is warranted.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The Navy’s motion to summarily affirm is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
**PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES**Exhibit 11**COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS**(Unaudited; $ in millions except per share amounts)                           Nine Months Ended   Third Quarter  September 30,   2006  2005  2006  2005 Income from continuing operations $889.1   360.1   1,711.2   1,412.6 Income (loss) from discontinued operations  (1.1)  6.0   (17.7)  22.5              Net income $888.0   366.1   1,693.5   1,435.1 Preferred stock dividends  —   —   —   (6.8)             Net income applicable to common shares $888.0   366.1   1,693.5   1,428.3                               Basic:                Weighted average number of common shares outstanding*  202.5   197.2   202.3   193.7                  Diluted:                Weighted average number of common shares outstanding*  202.5   197.2   202.3   193.7 Weighted average common stock equivalents — stock options*  0.2   0.6   0.2   0.8 Weighted average common stock equivalents — restricted stock*  0.8   0.8   0.9   0.8 Weighted average conversion of mandatory convertiblepreferred stock*  —   4.1   —   6.9              Diluted weighted average number of common shares outstanding*  203.5   202.7   203.4   202.2                  Basic earnings per common share:                Income from continuing operations $4.39   1.83   8.46   7.26 Income (loss) from discontinued operations  (0.01)  0.03   (0.09)  0.11              Basic earnings per common share $4.38   1.86   8.37   7.37                               Diluted earnings per common share:                Income from continuing operations $4.37   1.78   8.42   6.99 Income (loss) from discontinued operations  (0.01)  0.03   (0.09)  0.11              Diluted earnings per common share $4.36   1.81   8.33   7.10               * Weighted average shares outstanding and earnings per common share for the quarter and nine months ended September 30, 2005, have beenadjusted to reflect the March 10, 2006, stock split. (Refer to Note 15, Shareholders’ Equity, to our unaudited September 30, 2006, ConsolidatedFinancial Information for further discussion.)