alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Charles D. Stevens, Appellant, v. Newton Crane Respondent.

St. Louis Court of Appeals,

*March*24, 1891.

Practice, Appellate. It is the duty of this court to follow the application by the supreme court of its own declaration of the law, when there is a seeming conflict between the declaration and the application thereof thus made.

*Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court.*— Hon. Daniel Dillon, Judge.

Transferred to the Supreme Court.

*W. B. Thompson,*for appellant.

*E. W. Pattison,*for respondent.

Rombauer, P. J.

The plaintiff sues for breach of contract, and lays his damages in the petition at §3,000. Upon the trial he gave evidence tending to show a *276right of recovery to the extent of $1,900.05 and interest, provided his theory of the law was correct. The suit was instituted January 21, 1885, and tried on the thirteenth day of May, 1890, and it thus appears that, according to the claim made by plaintiff’s evidence, including interest up to the date of trial, a recovery of $2,505.78 would have been warranted. The plaintiff did recover a verdict and judgment for, $66, from which he appeals. The plaintiff now moves for a transfer of the cause to the supreme court on the ground that the amount in dispute is in excess of the jurisdiction of this court.

“ The amount in dispute, by which the jurisdiction of the appellate court is determined, is not necessarily fixed by the amount of the judgment appealed from *(State ex rel. v. Court of*Appeals, 87 Mo. 569), nor by the amount claimed on the cause of action sued upon *(Kerr v. Simmons,*82 Mo. *269),*but by the amount that remains in dispute between the parties, on the appeal, and subject to determination by the appellate court of the legal questions raised on the record; to ascertain which the appellate court is not confined to an examination of the judgmént only, or the pleadings in the case, but may look into the whole record.” *State ex rel. v. Lewis,*96 Mo. 148. The same view was taken by this court in *Matthews v. Danahy,*25 Mo. App. 354, and by the supreme court in the later cases of *Anchor Milling Co. v. Walsh,*97 Mo. 287, and *Wolff v.*Matthews, 98 Mo. 246.

Applying the law thus stated by the supreme court to the facts of this case, and it would seem that the amount placed in dispute by this appeal, at the date of the verdict and judgment was $2,439.75,- the difference between $66, the amount of actual recovery, and $2,505.78, the greatest possible amount of recovery warranted by the plaintiff’s evidence, and that hence this court has final appellate jurisdiction. On the other hand, applying the law as the supreme court has applied *277it in the case of *State ex rel. v. Lewis, supra,*and it would seem that the supreme court has jurisdiction. In a case of seeming conflict between the declarations of law made by the supreme court, and their application by that court to the point in judgment, it is our duty to give effect to the latter, on the theory that the supreme court best knew what its declaration meant. It is ordered that the plaintiff’s motion be sustained and the cause transferred to the supreme court.

All the judges concur.
Exhibit 10(c)

Contract No. 117183

 

NATURAL GAS PIPELINE COMPANY OF AMERICA (Natural)

TRANSPORTATION RATE SCHEDULE FTS AGREEMENT DATED March 16, 2000

UNDER SUBPART G OF PART 284 OF THE FERC'S REGULATIONS

 

1.	SHIPPER is: THE PEOPLES GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY, a LDC.

2.	(a)	MDQ totals: 85,000 MMBTU per day.

	(b)	Service option selected (check any or all):

	[ ] LN	[ ] SW	[ ]NB

3.	TERM: April 1, 2000 through April 30, 2003.

4.	Service will be ON BEHALF OF: [X] Shipper or [ ]Other:

5.	The ULTIMATE END USERS are customers within any state in the continental U.S.; or (specify state)________________________________________________.

6.	[ ] This Agreement supersedes and cancels a _____________ Agreement dated ___________.

[X]	Service and reservation charges commence the latter of:

(a) April 1, 2000, and

(b) the date capacity to provide the service hereunder is available on Natural's System.

[ ]	Other:_____________________________________________
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 159 (Friday, August 15, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 48004]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18797]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i> 11288 and <greek-i> 11289]


Wisconsin Disaster Number WI-00013

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 8.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for the State of Wisconsin (FEMA-1768-DR), dated 06/14/
2008.
    Incident: Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding.
    Incident Period: 06/05/2008 through 07/25/2008.
    Effective Date: 07/29/2008.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 09/15/2008.
    EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date: 03/13/2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for the State of Wisconsin, dated 06/14/2008 is hereby 
amended to extend the deadline for filing applications for physical 
damages as a result of this disaster to 09/15/2008.
    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Herbert L. Mitchell,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-18797 Filed 8-14-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-M
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No. 333-133184 onForm S-1 and the Registration Statement No. 333-136297****on Form S-1 of Neiman Marcus, Inc. andsubsidiaries and in the related Prospectus Supplements filed pursuant to Rule 424(b) ofour reports dated October 20, 2009, with respect to the consolidatedfinancial statements and schedule of Neiman Marcus, Inc. and subsidiariesand the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of NeimanMarcus, Inc. and subsidiaries included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)for the year ended August 1, 2009.

 

 

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

 

Dallas, Texas

October 20, 2009

 

----
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JOSEPH R. AUGUST and D. ANGEL AUGUST, Appellant s ,

v.

BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC,

A Delaware Limited Liability Company, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 3868

[ December 31, 2020 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Jaimie Goodman , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2013

- CA

003892

- XXXX

- MB

.

Bruce K. Herman of The Herman Law Group, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.

Morgan L. Weinstein of Va n Ness Law Firm, PLC, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee

.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

W ARNER
, C ONNER and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 23.1











CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM











Chyron Corporation


Melville, New York








We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-01861, 333-152205 and 333-167086) of Chyron Corporation of our report dated March 23, 2011, relating to the consolidated financial statements, which appears in this Form 10-K.








/s/ BDO USA, LLP





BDO USA, LLP





Melville, New York





March 23, 2011
Exhibit 32(a)



PEOPLES ENERGY CORPORATION AND CONSOLIDATED AFFILIATES



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 combined Quarterly Report of Peoples Energy Corporation (the "Company"), The Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company ("Peoples Gas") and North Shore Gas Company ("North Shore Gas") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas M. Patrick, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Peoples Gas and North Shore Gas, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. 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 result of operations of the Company, Peoples Gas and North Shore Gas.



|/s/ THOMAS M. PATRICK |  |  | February 9, 2004
|--------------------- |  |  | ----------------
|                      |  |  | Date            

Thomas M. Patrick
Chairman of the Board, 
President and Chief Executive Officer of
Peoples Energy Corporation



|/s/ THOMAS M. PATRICK |  |  | February 9, 2004
|--------------------- |  |  | ----------------
|                      |  |  | Date            

Thomas M. Patrick
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of
The Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company



|/s/ THOMAS M. PATRICK |  |  | February 9, 2004
|--------------------- |  |  | ----------------
|                      |  |  | Date            

Thomas M. Patrick
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of
North Shore Gas Company
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE 

CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING 

EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR. 

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

The State, Respondent, 

v. 

David Gerrard Johnson, Petitioner. 

Appellate Case No. 2014-001506 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS 

Appeal From Florence County 

Thomas A. Russo, Circuit Court Judge 

Memorandum Opinion No. 2015-MO-067 

Heard October 8, 2015 – Filed December 2, 2015 

CERTIORARI DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY 

GRANTED 

Appellate Defender Susan Barber Hackett, of Columbia, 

for Petitioner. 

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy 

Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant 

Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior 
Assistant Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, all of 

Columbia, and Solicitor Edgar Lewis Clements III, of 

Florence, all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: We granted certiorari to review the court of appeals' opinion in 

State v. Johnson, Op. No. 2014-UP-167 (S.C. Ct. App. filed April 9, 2014). We 

now dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. 

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., 

concur.
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted August 31, 2011 *

Decided August 31, 2011

Before

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

No. 11

‐ 1632

NATHAN GILLIS,

Plaintiff

‐ Appellant

,

v.

RICK RAEMISCH, et al.

, Defendants

‐ Appellees

. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Western District of

Wisconsin.

No. 09

‐ cv

‐ 245

‐ bbc

Barbara B. Crabb,

Judge

.

O R D E R

Nathan Gillis, a Wisconsin inmate, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

claiming that prison officials punished him in retaliation for reporting guard brutality and

acted with deliberate indifference to unconstitutional prison conditions. Gillis later asked

the court to “arrange” an inspection of the prison so he could document certain conditions

for his deliberate

‐ indifference claim, and the court denied the request. In subsequent filings,

Gillis complained that prison officials set overly severe restrictions on a visit he proposed NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

* After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See F ED

. R. A PP

. P.

34(a)(2)(C).No. 11

‐ 1632 Page 2

for an inspector he himself had hired, but a magistrate judge found nothing wrong with the

prison’s handling of the matter. Later, the district court granted summary judgment for the

defendants, and Gillis appeals. We affirm.

Gillis’s brief on appeal rehashes his claims of retaliation and deliberate indifference,

as well as his contention that the district court erroneously “refused” his request for an

inspection. But he barely raises any legal challenge to the court’s decision. See F ED

. R. A PP

.

P. 28(a)(9); Anderson v. Hardman

, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001). Generously construing his

brief, we discern one issue. He argues that the court improperly discredited his allegations

by determining that he “failed to submit proposed findings of fact sufficient to put critical

issues into dispute.” Gillis, however, misapprehends the court’s statement. The court was

commenting not on Gillis’s credibility, but merely his failure to produce evidence raising a

genuine dispute over whether his rights were violated, as was his burden at summary

judgment. See F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 56(c)(1); McAllister v. Price

, 615 F.3d 877, 881 (7th Cir. 2010).

A FFIRMED

.
UNITED STATES
  SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
  WASHINGTON, D.C.  20549



  FORM 8-K



  CURRENT REPORT,
  PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF
  THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



  DATE OF REPORT: June 11, 1999


  CHYRON CORPORATION
  (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)



  New York
  (State or Other Jurisdiction
  of Incorporation)


  1-9014
  (Commission File Number)

  11-2117385
  (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)


  5 Hub Drive
  Melville, New York
  (Address of Principal Executive Offices)

  11747
  (Zip Code)

  Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (516) 845-2000


           Item 5.  Other Events and Exhibits

           Pursuant to Rule 135c promulgated under the Securities Act of
  1933, as amended, the Registrant files, under cover of this 8-K, the text
  of a public notice released by the Registrant on June 10, 1999. The text of
  such notice can be found as an exhibit attached hereto.

           Exhibits       Description

              1           Press Release of the Registrant, dated June 10,
                          1999.


  SIGNATURES

      Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
  Registrant has duly caused this report on Form 8-K to be signed on its
  behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.


  CHYRON CORPORATION


  By: /s/ Dawn Johnston
  Name:    Dawn Johnston
           Title:   Senior Vice President and
           Chief Financial Officer


  Date: June 11, 1999
Exhibit 35
                                   ----------



                       COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                              OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                     ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                   CWALT, INC.
                        ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2006-11CB
              MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-11CB


      The undersigned does hereby certify that the undersigned is an officer of
Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
(the "Master Servicer"), and does hereby further certify pursuant to Section
3.16 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the
"Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the Agreement
has been made under my supervision; and

(ii) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
throughout such calendar year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                    Dated: March 14, 2007
-----------------

Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance
[Letterhead of KPMG LLP]
                                                                    EXHIBIT 15.1




                          Independent Auditors' Report



     The Board of Directors
     Payless Cashways, Inc.:


     We have  reviewed  the  accompanying  condensed  balance  sheets of Payless
     Cashways,  Inc.  as of August 28,  1999 and August 29, 1998 and the related
     condensed  statements  of  operations  and cash flows for the  thirteen and
     thirty-nine week periods then ended. These condensed  financial  statements
     are the responsibility of the Company's management.

     We conducted our reviews in accordance  with  standards  established by the
     American  Institute of Certified  Public  Accountants.  A review of interim
     financial   information   consists   principally  of  applying   analytical
     procedures to financial  data and making  inquiries of persons  responsible
     for financial and accounting  matters.  It is  substantially  less in scope
     than an audit  conducted in accordance  with  generally  accepted  auditing
     standards, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding
     the financial statements taken as a whole.  Accordingly,  we do not express
     such an opinion.

     Based on our reviews,  we are not aware of any material  modifications that
     should be made to the accompanying  condensed financial statements for them
     to be in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

     We have previously  audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
     standards,  the balance sheet of Payless Cashways,  Inc. as of November 28,
     1998 and the related  statements of operations,  shareholders'  equity, and
     cash flows for the fiscal year then ended (not  presented  herein);  and in
     our report dated January 15, 1999, we expressed an  unqualified  opinion on
     those financial  statements.  In our opinion,  the information set forth in
     the accompanying  condensed balance sheet as of November 28, 1998 is fairly
     presented,  in all material respects, in relation to the balance sheet from
     which it has been derived.



     /s/KPMG LLP

     Kansas City, Missouri
     September 14, 1999
**DAVIS ACCOUNTING GROUP P.C.**

***A Certified Public Accounting Firm***

**1957 West Royal Hunte Drive, Suite 150, Cedar City, Utah 84720**

**(435) 865-2808****•****FAX (435) 865-2821**

 

 

Mr. Zhenyong Liu, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Orient Paper, Inc.

Nansan Gongli, Nanhuan Rd, Xushui County, Baoding City

Hebei Province, PRC 072550

 

Dear Mr. Liu,

 

**CONSENT OF REGISTERED INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File No. 333-163340) and Form S-8 (File No. 333-150394) of Orient Paper, Inc., (the “Company”) of our report on the financial statements of the Company as its registered independent auditors dated March 19, 2009, as of and for the periods ended December 31, 2008, and 2007.  Further, our report on the financial statements of the Company as its registered independent auditors dated March 19, 2009, as of and for the period ended December 31, 2008, appears in the Annual Report on Form 10-K as of December 31, 2009, of Orient Paper, Inc.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

/s/ Davis Accounting Group P.C.

 

Davis Accounting Group P.C.

 

Cedar City, Utah,

March 26, 2010.
#### HUMPHREY v. NEW ORLEANS PUBLIC SERVICE, Inc. AMBEAU v. SAME.

No. 14911.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

May 27, 1935.

Geo. M. Brooks and Maurice R. Woulfe, both of New Orleans, for appellants.

Ivy G. Kittredge *and*M. A. Woodruff, both of New Orleans, for appellee.

*357WESTERFIELD, Judge.

Tlie plaintiffs in these two cases were injured as the result of a collision between a combination ambulance and hearse and a street car owned by the defendant, New Orleans Public Service, Inc. The accident occurred in the intersection of Tulane and Claiborne avenues. The plaintiff Jaubert Am-beau was driving the ambulance, and the plaintiff Lawrence Humphrey was a passenger. Each plaintiff sued for $300 as damages for physical injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of defendant’s servant. The cases were consolidated below and tried upon the same record. There was judgment in favor of defendant dismissing both suits, and plaintiffs have appealed.

The sole charge of negligence imputed to defendant is that its motorman in charge of its street car, at the time of the accident, entered the intersection “at a rapid and reckless speed on the red light traffic signal in violation of traffic ordinance #13,702 of the Commission Council Series of the City of New Orleans, which City Ordinance is hereby specially pleaded as part of this petition.” The voluminous record is made up of testimony offered for the purpose of proving that defendant’s motorman did or did not violate the traffic ordinance, and, in the briefs of counsel, that question and no other is discussed. The ordinance, however, is not attached to the petition, and was not introduced in evidence. Under the circumstances, it cannot be considered because courts do not take cognizance of municipal ordinances. City of New Orleans v. Calamari, 150 La. 737, 91 So. 172, 22 A. L. R, 106; Louisiana Digest, vol. 3, verbo “Evidence,” § 11, page 121.

It does not appear from the record that the street car was operated at a reckless or excessive speed. As a matter of fact, the preponderance of the evidence is to the effect that a moderate, if not unusually slow, speed, as the conductor testified, was maintained in the intersection. The driver of the ambulance testified that he saw the street car approaching the intersection when some distance away. At the speed the street ear was traveling, it would appear that the accident was due to the imprudence of the ambulance driver, but in any event, we find no negligence on the part of the motorman in charge of defendant’s street car.

For the reasons assigned, the judgments appealed from will be affirmed.

Judgments affirmed.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6382 

To nullify the order of the Mayor of the District of Columbia imposing 

a vaccine entry requirement for certain establishments and facilities, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 12, 2022 

Mr. GAETZ (for himself, Mrs. GREENE of Georgia, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. 

DUNCAN, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. MASSIE, Mr. BIGGS, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. 

CLYDE, Mr. NORMAN, Mr. ROY, Mrs. LESKO, Mrs. BOEBERT, Mr. 

CLOUD, Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, Mr. GIBBS, Mr. 

BISHOP of North Carolina, Mr. BROOKS, and Mr. SCHWEIKERT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To nullify the order of the Mayor of the District of Columbia 

imposing a vaccine entry requirement for certain establishments and facilities, 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. NULLIFICATION OF VACCINE ENTRY REQUIRE4 MENT OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

5 Order 2021–148 of the Mayor of the District of Co6 lumbia (December 22, 2021) and any successor or subVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:28 Jan 14, 2022 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H6382.IH H6382

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6382 IH

1 stantially similar order of the Mayor of the District of Co2 lumbia shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS