alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
227 La. 139

#### STATE ex rel. Dr. John G. HARZ, M. D. v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS.

No. 39688.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 14, 1955.

Gordon B. Hyde, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.

Henry B. Curtis, City Atty., Edgar Corey, Asst. City Atty., New Orleans, for defendant-appellee.

McCALEB, Justice.

Plaintiff brought this suit to restrain the City of New Orleans from interfering with his operation of a retail drug business on premises situated in an “A” residential dis*539trict under the Comprehensive Zoning Law of the City of New Orleans (Ordinance No. 11,302 C.C.S., as amended). Upon rejection of his demand, after a hearing on the merits, he appealed to this court hut, before the transcript was lodged, applied for remedial writs, contending that the remedy by appeal was inadequate as the City was threatening to close his business before the matter could be heard. A writ of certiorari was granted and thereafter the matter was ■submitted for our decision on a rule nisi.

After fully considering plaintiff’s complaints, which we found to be without merit, we recalled the writ of certiorari and discharged the rule to show cause. See State ex rel. Harz v. City of New Orleans, 216 La. 849, 44 So.2d 889. Meanwhile, the appeal taken by him had been filed and the case, after being placed on our preference docket by motion of his counsel, has been called for argument and submitted for decision.

It suffices to say that, since the merits of -the case have been passed upon by this ■court on the writ of certiorari, the matter is res adjudicata and presents nothing for review.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001023767
<NAME> MC INFORMATICS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,026,815
<ALLOWANCES>                                    71,061
<INVENTORY>                                     47,693
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,381,614
<PP&E>                                         405,260
<DEPRECIATION>                                  43,808
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,216,570
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,782,788
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,995,349
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,291,571
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,665,751
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,922,812
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,973,363
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,382,429)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,383,629)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,383,629)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.11)


</TABLE>
B.7. Selected Measures of Financial Performance of Agricultural and Other Small Banks

Percent

Distribution of net income as a Average rate Rate N

share of average equity at of return of return 

agricultural banks on equity to assets 

25 percent Agri- Other Agri- Other A

Negative 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 and cultural Small cultural small cu

Period All banks income percent percent percent percent percent over banks Banks banks banks ba1994...... 100.0 1.5 5.9 31.4 40.1 16.9 3.3 .9 11.8 12.5 1.2 1.1 1995...... 100.0 1.4 5.7 37.1 39.6 13.4 2.3 .6 11.2 12.1 1.2 1.2 1996...... 100.0 2.1 5.6 33.4 41.6 14.2 2.6 .5 11.4 12.3 1.2 1.2 1997...... 100.0 1.6 5.9 34.5 39.7 14.2 3.1 1.1 11.4 12.3 1.2 1.2 1998...... 100.0 2.0 8.7 35.6 35.5 13.4 3.5 1.3 11.3 11.7 1.2 1.2 1999...... 100.0 2.9 7.9 34.8 33.3 14.2 4.9 1.9 11.8 11.9 1.2 1.1 2000...... 100.0 2.4 8.9 35.3 33.5 13.8 4.2 1.8 11.7 11.4 1.2 1.1 2001...... 100.0 3.1 12.6 37.6 28.6 13.1 3.7 1.3 10.8 10.4 1.1 1.0 2002...... 100.0 3.0 10.7 35.1 31.4 13.5 4.6 1.7 11.5 10.6 1.2 1.1 2003...... 100.0 2.7 12.2 36.6 29.3 12.9 4.4 1.8 11.2 10.7 1.2 1.1 2004...... 100.0 2.1 10.0 34.9 31.4 13.8 5.8 2.0 11.5 10.5 1.2 1.1 2000: Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 11.7 11.4 1.2 1.1 2001: Q1... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 2.8 2.8 .3 .3  Q2... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 5.6 5.4 .6 .5  Q3... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 8.2 7.9 .9 .8  Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 10.8 10.4 1.1 1.0 2002: Q1... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 3.0 2.9 .3 .3  Q2... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 6.0 5.6 .6 .6  Q3... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 8.9 8.3 .9 .8  Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 11.5 10.6 1.2 1.1 2003: Q1... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 3.0 2.9 .3 .3  Q2... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 6.0 5.6 .6 .6  Q3... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 8.9 8.5 .9 .8  Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 11.2 10.7 1.2 1.1 2004: Q1... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 2.9 2.7 .3 .3  Q2... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 6.1 5.5 .6 .5  Q3... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 8.9 8.0 .9 .8  Q4... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 11.5 10.5 1.2 1.1 2005: Q1... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 3.0 2.9 .3 .3  Q2... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 5.9 5.6 .6 .6  Q3... n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 9.0 8.3 .9 .8  Note. Agricultural and other banks are defined in the introduction to section B; small banks have less than $500 million in assets. Total primary anavailable at the end of the period specified) are measured as a percentage of total assets. Quarterly data are cumulative through the end of the quarte n.a. Not available.27
{C0558459.1 } 

Law Offices of 

Sulloway & Hollis, P.L.L.C. 

Concord, N.H. 03302 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Belinda Curtis, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston, 

 Defendant. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 1:08-cv-104 

 

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

 

Pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff Belinda Curtis 

and defendant Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston ("Liberty Life") hereby stipulate that 

the plaintiff's claims against Liberty Life in this matter be dismissed with prejudice. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 BELINDA CURTIS 

 By Her Attorneys, 

 BRENNAN, CARON, LENEHAN & IACOPINO 

DATED: April 20, 2009 By: /s/ William J. Quinn, Esq. 

William J. Quinn, Esq. 

Bar No. 10050 

85 Brook Street 

Manchester, NH 03104 

(603)668-8300 

 e-mail: wquinn@bclilaw.com 

Case 1:08-cv-00104-SM Document 12 Filed 04/20/09 Page 1 of 2
-2-

{C0558459.1 } 

Law Offices of 

Sulloway & Hollis, P.L.L.C. 

Concord, N.H. 03302 

LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF 

BOSTON 

 By Its Attorneys, 

 SULLOWAY & HOLLIS, P.L.L.C. 

DATED: April 20, 2009 By: /s/ William D. Pandolph, Esq. 

 William D. Pandolph, Esq. 

 Bar No. 5579 

 9 Capitol Street 

 P.O. Box 1256 

 Concord, NH 03302-1256 

 (603)224-2341 

 e-mail: wpandolph@sulloway.com 

Case 1:08-cv-00104-SM Document 12 Filed 04/20/09 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Albert Kuperman

v. Civil No. 06-cv-00420-JL

NH Department of

Corrections, et al.

 O R D E R

The respondent’s Motion for Bench Trial (document no. 43) is

granted. The plaintiff/petitioner did not object to the

Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (document no. 6),

adopted by Judge DiClerico's order of March 14, 2007 (document

no. 21), limiting the claims in this case to “official capacity”

claims for injunctive relief. The plaintiff cites no authority

for the proposition in his objection that he is nonetheless

entitled to nominal or punitive damages, and none exists. See,

e.g., Hopkins v. Saunders, 199 F.3d 968, 977-78 (8th Cir. 1999)

(collecting cases holding that nominal damages are barred by

Eleventh Amendment immunity); Biggs v. Meadows, 66 F.3d 56, 61

(4th Cir. 1995) (collecting cases holding that punitive damages

are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity).

The limitation of the claims in this case to equitable

claims also has ramifications for any fee award under 42 U.S.C.

1997e(d)(1).

Case 1:06-cv-00420-JL Document 52 Filed 01/07/09 Page 1 of 2
2

The clerk shall remove this case from the jury trial

calendar and schedule a status conference (in court or by

telephone based on counsel's preference) at counsel's early

convenience. 

SO ORDERED.

 

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: January 7, 2009

cc: Nancy Sue Tierney, Esq.

Danielle Leah Pacik, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00420-JL Document 52 Filed 01/07/09 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

In re 

 Frederick V. McMenimen, III Chapter 7 

 Debtor Case No: 12-10713-JMD 

 

 William K. Harrington, United States Trustee 

 Plaintiff 

 

 v. Adv. Proc. 12- 

 Frederick V. McMenimen, III 

 Defendant 

_________________________________ 

 Mark P. Cornell, Chapter 7 Trustee 

 Interested Party 

 

 AFFIDAVIT OF COUNSEL REGARDING ADVERSARY FILING FEE 

 I, Geraldine Karonis, hereby depose and state under oath as follows: 

1. I am the Assistant U.S. Trustee for the Office of the United States Trustee for the 

District of New Hampshire. On behalf of the Office of United States Trustee for the District of 

New Hampshire, I caused to be filed on November 29, 2012, an Adversary Proceeding seeking to 

deny the Debtor’s discharge under 11 U.S.C. '727. 

2. On information and belief, when the United States is the Plaintiff in an action brought 

under 11 U.S.C. §727, no filing fee is due. See Appendix to 28 U.S.C. §1930, Bankruptcy Court 

Miscellaneous Fee Schedule. 

Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this 29th day of November, 2012. 

/s/ Geraldine Karonis 

Geraldine Karonis BNH 01853 

Assistant U.S. Trustee 

Office of the United States Trustee 

1000 Elm Street, Suite 605 

Manchester, NH 03101 

(603) 666-7908 

Email: Geraldine.L.Karonis@usdoj.gov

Case: 12-01120-JMD Doc #: 1-3 Filed: 11/29/12 Desc: Affidavit Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1877 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1877

 To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide that certain sexual 
 crimes against children are predicate crimes for the interception of 
                communications, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 16, 2001

Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut (for herself, Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr. 
 Green of Wisconsin, Mr. Shows, Mr. English, Ms. Norton, and Ms. Hart) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide that certain sexual 
 crimes against children are predicate crimes for the interception of 
                communications, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Child Sex Crimes Wiretapping Act of 
2001''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS IN THE 
              INVESTIGATION OF SEXUAL CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN.

    (a) Child Pornography.--Section 2516(1)(c) of title 18, United 
States Code, is amended by inserting ``section 2252A (relating to 
material constituting or containing child pornography),'' after ``2252 
(sexual exploitation of children),''.
    (b) Transportation for Illegal Sexual Activity.--Section 2516(1) of 
title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 3 of this Act, is 
amended--
            (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (o);
            (2) by inserting after paragraph (o) the following:
                    ``(p) a violation of section 2422 (relating to 
                coercion and enticement) or section 2423 (relating to 
                transportation of minors) of this title, if, in 
                connection with that violation, the sexual activity for 
                which a person may be charged with a criminal offense 
                would constitute a felony offense under chapter 109A or 
                110, if that activity took place within the special 
                maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United 
                States; or''; and
            (3) by redesignating paragraph (p) as paragraph (q).

SEC. 3. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT ELIMINATING DUPLICATIVE PROVISION.

    Section 2516(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking the first paragraph (p); and
            (2) by inserting ``or'' at the end of paragraph (o).
                                 <all>
```
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

MAR 20, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-10521

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 06-00084-CV-J-32-MCR

JACKSON-SHAW COMPANY, 

a Texas corporation, 

Plaintiff–Appellant, 

versus

JACKSONVILLE AVIATION AUTHORITY, 

a body politic and corporate, 

Defendant–Appellee. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(March 20, 2009)

Before BIRCH and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN, District Judge. *

 Honorable Edward Korman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New

*

York, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:

Jackson-Shaw Company appealed from a final judgment, after a bench trial,

in favor of the Jacksonville Aviation Authority (“JAA”) on Jackson-Shaw’s suit

seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. In its Complaint, JacksonShaw alleged that a development agreement (“Agreement”) between the JAA and

a private entity, Majestic Realty Company (“Majestic”), violated article VII, 1

section 10 of the Florida Constitution. Specifically, Jackson-Shaw alleged that the

Agreement made the JAA a “joint owner” with Majestic and required the JAA to

pledge to Majestic its public credit, both of which are prohibited by article VII,

section 10 of the Florida Constitution. We certified to the Florida Supreme Court 2

the questions of whether the provisions of the Agreement made the JAA a “joint

owner” or required it to pledge to Majestic its public credit. The Florida Supreme

Court answered in the negative. Jackson-Shaw Co. v. Jacksonville Aviation

Auth., 2008 Fla. LEXIS 2398 (Dec. 18, 2008). Accordingly, because the

Agreement did not violate the Florida Constitution, the final judgment of the

 The Agreement at issue in this case is between the JAA and Woodwings East 1

Development, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company formed by Majestic.

 The Florida Constitution permits us to certify a question to the Florida Supreme Court if 2

it “is determinative of the cause and for which there is no controlling precedent of the supreme

court of Florida.” Fla. Const. art. V, § 3(b)(6); see also Stevens v. Battelle Memorial Inst., 488

F.3d 896, 904 (11th Cir. 2007). 

2
district court is

AFFIRMED 

3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 07-cr-238-01-JD

Timothy Demontier

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no.

20) filed by defendant is granted.

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10

days. The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting

a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), for the

reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: June 11, 2008

cc: Jessica C. Brown, Esq.

Mark A. Irish, Esq.

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:07-cr-00238-JD Document 21 Filed 06/11/08 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

The MacMillin Company, Inc.

v. Civil No. 07-cv-177-JM

New England Surface Preparation, Inc.

O R D E R

Defendant moves for dismissal for lack of personal

jurisdiction over it based upon an alleged failure to properly

serve it fourteen days before the return date - prior to removal. 

The parties have filed a flurry of arguments, none of which need

to be considered.

For 150 years New Hampshire law has been that “except when

the party appears for the sole purpose of making objection to the

authority of the court to proceed,” the mere appearance of a

party is sufficient to confer jurisdiction on a New Hampshire

court. March v. Eastern Railroad Company, 40 N.H. 548, 583

(1860). Under New Hampshire practice:

[a] Special Appearance is filed on the same

form as a General Appearance, with the

exception that the word “Special” is added to

the title.

Wiebusch, New Hampshire Practice Civil Practice and Procedure, 

§ 15.18 (2d Ed. 1997). The record certified from the Cheshire

Case 1:07-cv-00177-JM Document 18 Filed 09/12/07 Page 1 of 2
2

County Superior Court, Document 4, p. 2, is a copy of defendant’s

general appearance on June 5, 2007. The word special does not

appear. In short, prior to removal the defendant had waived any

objection to improper service and conferred jurisdiction on the

New Hampshire court. This court did not lose personal

jurisdiction by the removal, but rather retains the personal

jurisdiction over defendant conferred by that general appearance.

The motion to dismiss (Document no. 9) is denied.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: September 12, 2007

cc: Naomi L. Mooney, Esq.

Frank P. Spinella, Jr., Esq.

Ralph R. Woodman, Jr., Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00177-JM Document 18 Filed 09/12/07 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

William Bourque

v. Civil No. 06-cv-090-JM

Town of Hampton, et al.

O R D E R

 Local Rule 7.1(a)(1) provides in part: 

all motions must contain the word “motion” in

the title . . . . Objections to pending

motions and affirmative motions for relief

shall not be combined in one filing. 

Despite the clear language of this rule, plaintiff has buried the

following motion in the middle of his objection to the motion for

summary judgment: 

that the Court decline to rule on the within

motion until discovery is concluded, as

important depositions of the material

witnesses are scheduled to take place in

March, 2007. 

While this motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) was not filed

properly, it is granted and I have held off ruling. March is now

over and the important depositions are presumably complete. 

Plaintiff is ordered to file any addendum to this objection

by April 15, 2007. Any reply by defendant is due on May 1st. 

Case 1:06-cv-00090-JM Document 12 Filed 04/04/07 Page 1 of 2
2

Since that will leave only fifteen days to trial, I will assess

then whether the trial date is to be continued. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: April 4, 2007

cc: Scott F. Gleason, Esq.

 Thomas J. Gleason, Esq.

 William G. Scott, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00090-JM Document 12 Filed 04/04/07 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6921

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus AHMED YOUNG, a/k/a Touche, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CR-97-404-A, CA-00-916-AM) Submitted: November 8, 2001 Decided: November 15, 2001 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ahmed Young, Appellant Pro Se. LeDora Knight, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Ahmed Young seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) andhis motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Young , Nos. CR-97-404-A; CA-00-916-AM (E.D. Va. Dec. 27, 2000; filed May 17, 2001; entered May 18, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED