alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
218 So.2d 817

#### Johnny L. THOMAS et al. v. CITY OF EUFAULA.

4 Div. 346.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Feb. 13, 1969.

Gray, Seay, Langford & Pryor Montgomery, for petitioners.

MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., Lloyd G. Hart, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Albert F. Simpson, Jr., Eufaula, opposed.

HARWOOD, Justice.

Petition of Johnny L. Thomas and others for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision in Thomas et al. v. City of Eufaula, 44 Ala.App. 643, 218 So.2d 813.

Writ denied.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and MERRILL and COLEMAN, JJ., concur.
#### Irving S. Kleet et al., Plaintiffs, *v.*Solomon James et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Suffolk County,

November 3, 1955.

*A. Edward Markowitz*and *Solomon Jocknowitz*for defendants.

*Holland & Radoyevich*for plaintiffs.

Howard T. Hogan, J.

Motion by the defendants for summary judgment in an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real estate. The complaint reveals that one Irving Kahn, purportedly acting for the defendants as ‘ *‘*agent, attorney at law and attorney in fact, entered into an agreement in writing with the plaintiffs ” to sell an interest in certain real property located in the town of Brookhaven, County of Suffolk. The answer denies the making of any agreement by the defendants and as a defense it pleads the Statute of Frauds — that no memorandum in writing was made by the defendants or “ by their lawful agent thereunto authorized by writing ”. The bill of particulars shows that in 1948 the defendants authorized Kahn to represent them in contracting for the sale and leasing of a portion of their property. It also shows that in October, 1954, an offer received by Kahn from one Prager was submitted by letter to the defendants and that one of the defendants, namely, Solomon James, on October 19, 1954, also by letter, advised Kahn that the defendants would sell their 71% interest in the property for $100,000, one-half cash. No further communication in writing between Kahn and the defendants is shown, but on January 21, 1955, an offer in writing by the plaintiffs, addressed to the defendants, was accepted by Kahn. The question is — was Kahn authorized in writing to enter into a contract for the sale of real property as required by section 259 of the Real Property Law? The answer is clear that Kahn was not so authorized. The situation is similar to that described in the old case of *Coleman*v. *Garrigues*(18 Barb. 60), wherein it was held that a broker who was employed to make a bargain for the sale of real estate had no authority to sign a contract *646of sale. As the papers submitted do not contain any writing or suggest the existence of any writing conferring upon Kahn the authority to act for the defendants as their agent, the defendants’ motion will be granted. “ The plaintiff may not defeat such a motion because he may have a good cause of action on a differently stated complaint ” *(Potolski Int.*v. *Hall’s Boat Corp.,*282 App. Div. 44, 48). Settle order on notice.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6220 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

100 3rd Avenue Northwest in Perham, Minnesota, as the ‘‘Charles P. 

Nord Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 9, 2021 

Mrs. FISCHBACH (for herself, Mr. HAGEDORN, Ms. CRAIG, Mr. PHILLIPS, Ms. 

MCCOLLUM, Ms. OMAR, Mr. EMMER, and Mr. STAUBER) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 100 3rd Avenue Northwest in Perham, Minnesota, as the ‘‘Charles P. Nord Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CHARLES P. NORD POST OFFICE. 

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

5 Postal Service located at 100 3rd Avenue Northwest in 

6 Perham, Minnesota, shall be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘Charles P. Nord Post Office’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6220 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

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

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Charles P. Nord Post 

5 Office’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           UT
<LEGEND>
     (THIS STATEMENT CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE SHEET, STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CASH FLOW, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS.)
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<CIK> 0000077231                        
<NAME> PENNSYLVANIA ENTERPRISES INC.                                       
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996  
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                   PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      257,309,000
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    11,107,000
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         61,735,000
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       36,827,000
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 366,978,000
<COMMON>                                       48,428,000
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      21,865,000
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            47,245,000
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 117,538,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          640,000
<PREFERRED>                                    15,848,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           125,000,000
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             4,500,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                      0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  14,720,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                      80,000
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                    0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                               0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 88,652,000
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  366,978,000
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      155,564,000
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           3,618,000
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     139,648,000
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     143,266,000
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        12,298,000
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             1,395,000
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 13,693,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       6,866,000
<NET-INCOME>                                   6,827,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                    991,000
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  5,836,000
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       8,583,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      4,837,000
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         15,413,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .69
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .68
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         429,551
<SECURITIES>                                   273,343
<RECEIVABLES>                               13,859,532
<ALLOWANCES>                                   714,387
<INVENTORY>                                  2,945,846
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            22,054,462
<PP&E>                                       8,407,790
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,310,605
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,079,808
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,639,582
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,456,492
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,983,734
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,079,808
<SALES>                                     12,307,071
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,307,071
<CGS>                                        8,664,242
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,664,242
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,372,722
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                14,105
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,940
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                445,516
<INCOME-TAX>                                   158,927
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            286,589
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   286,589
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.20


</TABLE>
Order entered February 25, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-00988-CR

No. 05-12-00989-CR

VICTOR MANUEL CRUZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F11-25901-W, F11-25902-W

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeals.

On February 15, 2013, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why 

appellant’s brief had not been filed. On February 20, 2013, we received appellant’s brief, 

together with an extension motion. Therefore, in the interest of expediting the appeals, we 

VACATE the February 15, 2013 order requiring findings. 

We GRANT the February 20, 2013 extension motion and ORDER appellant’s brief filed 

as of the date of this order.

/s/ DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: JIMMY LEE SWEED,

 Relator.

§

§

§

§

No. 08-15-00341-CR

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF

MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Jimmy Lee Sweed, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus against the 

Honorable Bonnie Rangel, Judge of the 171st District Court of El Paso County, Texas, alleging 

that Respondent has not ruled on a post-conviction motion filed in cause number 69262. We 

deny mandamus relief.

To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must meet two requirements. First, the 

relator must show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion. In re Prudential Insurance 

Company of America, 148 S.W.3d 124, 135 (Tex. 2004). Second, the relator must demonstrate 

that there is no adequate remedy by appeal. Id. at 135-36. Mandamus may issue to compel a 

trial court to rule on a motion which has been pending before the court for a reasonable period of 

time. See In re Shredder Co., 225 S.W.3d 676, 679 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2006, orig. proceeding); 

In re Hearn, 137 S.W.3d 681, 685 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding); In re 

Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). To obtain mandamus 

relief for such refusal, a relator must establish: (1) the motion was properly filed and has been 
- 2 -

pending for a reasonable time; (2) the relator requested a ruling on the motion; and (3) the trial 

court refused to rule. See Shredder Co., 225 S.W.3d at 679; Hearn, 137 S.W.3d at 685; Chavez, 

62 S.W.3d at 228. Relator has failed to establish that he is entitled to mandamus relief. 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

STEVEN L. HUGHES, Justice

December 11, 2015

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1994
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                           2,944
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   84,646
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,033
<INVENTORY>                                     61,811
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               151,852
<PP&E>                                         113,152
<DEPRECIATION>                                  62,620
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 311,715
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           81,819
<BONDS>                                         75,892
<COMMON>                                           135
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     173,560
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   311,715
<SALES>                                        373,391
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               373,391
<CGS>                                          275,784
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  275,784
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,719
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,502
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,851
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,133
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             25,570
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,718
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.08
        

</TABLE>
EX-35 (b)
(logo) CHASE



SUBSERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT


RE: J.P. Morgan Alternative Loan Trust (JPALT) 2006-A2: The Pooling and
Servicing Agreement by and among J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Corp. as
Seller, JPMorgan Chase & Co. as Seller, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Master
Servicer, JPMorgan Accpt Corp I as Depositor, JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA as
Custodian, U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as
Securities Administrator and JPMorgan Chase Bank NA as Servicer (the
"Agreement")

The undersigned, each a duly authorized officer of Chase Home Finance LLC
("CHF"), do hereby certify that:

(1) CHF is a Subservicer under the Agreement

(2) A review of the activities of CHF during the calendar year ending December
31, 2006 and of the performance of CHF under the Agreement has been made under
our supervision; and

(3) To the best of our knowledge, based on such review, CHF has fulfilled all
its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such
year.

Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned
in the Agreement.


Date: 02/28/2007

Chase Home Finance LLC,
as Subservicer

By: /s/ Kim Greaves
Name:   Kim Greaves
Title:  Senior Vice President
        Servicing Manager

By: /s/ Jim Miller
Name:   Jim Miller
Title:  Senior Vice President
        Default Servicing Manager
The Board of Directors
Citicorp:

We consent to the incoporation by reference of our report dated January 16, 1996
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Citicorp and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 1995 and 1994, the related consolidated statements of income,
changes in stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 1995, and 1994, in the Registration
Statement on Form S-4, and to the reference to our firm under the heading
"Experts" in the Registration Statement. Our report with respect to these
consolidated financial statements, which contains an added explanatory
paragraph, is included in the 1995 Citicorp Annual Report and Form 10-K.


February 5, 1997
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED SEPTEMBER 20, 2023

NO. 03

- 22

- 00100

- CV

Rosita Johnson , Appellant

v.

Raymond Nicholas Kimbrough , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 20TH DISTRICT COURT OF MILAM COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES BAKE R, K ELLY, AND THEOFANIS

REVERSED AND RE MAND ED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the order in a suit affecting the p aren t

- child rela t ionship signed by the

tr i a l court on January 5, 2022. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court

holds that there was reversible error in the court’s order . Therefore, t he Court reverses the trial

court’s order in a suit affecting the parent

- child rela t ionship and remands the case to the trial

court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. A ppell ee shall pay all costs relating to

this appeal, bot h in t his Court and in the court below.
<PAGE>   1
                    PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                   Exhibit 12

COMPUTATION OF TOTAL DEBT TO TOTAL CAPITALIZATION
(Unaudited; dollars in millions)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         March 31,       December 31,
                                                           2000           1999
                                                        ----------       ----------
<S>                                                     <C>              <C>
Short-term debt .................................       $    374.7          451.2
Current portion of long-term debt ...............            115.4          131.3
Long-term debt ..................................          2,173.9        2,172.5
                                                        ----------        -------

     Total debt .................................          2,664.0        2,755.0
Minority interests in subsidiaries ..............             99.1           96.3
Common shareholders' equity .....................          3,260.1        3,276.8
                                                        ----------        -------

     Total capitalization .......................       $  6,023.2        6,128.1
                                                        ==========        =======

Ratio of total debt to total capitalization .....             44.2%          45.0%
                                                        ==========        =======
</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.2.1**

**Certification ofPrincipal Financial OfficerPursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I, Cary J.Claiborne, certify that:

1.                 I have reviewedthis Annual Report on Form 10-K of Osiris Therapeutics, Inc.

2.                 Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.                 Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.                 The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)          Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating  to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

(b)         [Paragraph omitted inaccordance with SEC Release 34-47986]

(c)          Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(d)         Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.                 The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)          All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b)         Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: March 26,2007

|        |   | /s/ Cary J. Claiborne   |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |   | Cary J. Claiborne       |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
EXHIBIT 35.1
                  SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                        RESIDENTIAL FUNDING COMPANY, LLC
              RAAC SERIES 2006-SP2 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized officer of Residential Funding Company, LLC,
as servicer (the  "Servicer")  pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing  Agreement,
dated as of April 1, 2006 (as amended from time to time, the "Agreement"), among
Residential Asset Mortgage  Products,  Inc., as depositor,  Residential  Funding
Company, LLC (formerly Residential Funding Corporation), as master servicer, and
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as trustee, does hereby certify that:

1.   A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during the  period  covered by the
     Issuing  Entity's  report  on Form 10-K and of the  Servicer's  performance
     under the Agreement has been made under my supervision.

2.   To the  best of my  knowledge,  based  on such  review,  the  Servicer  has
     fulfilled  all of its  obligations  under  the  Agreement  in all  material
     respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By:  /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
     -------------------------
      Name: Anthony N. Renzi
      Title: Managing Director
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MA Y 30, 2019

NO. 03

- 18

- 00371

- CV

Ellen L. Adams and Steven Adams, Appellant s

v.

Bhavna Godhania and Vikas Godhania, Appellee s

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COU NTY
BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND KELLY
AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on April 26, 2018. Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error

in the trial court’s judgment . Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s judgment

. A pp ellant

shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.