alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### AZALEA HOMES, Inc., and St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Company, Petitioners, v. Esko MAKELA and Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

Supreme Court of Florida. En Banc.

Jan. 18, 1955.

Barton & Enwright, St. Petersburg, for petitioners.

Stuart B. Warren, St. Petersburg, Burnis T. Coleman and Rodney Durrance, Tallahassee, for respondents.

THOMAS, Justice.

The respondents presented to this Court a motion to dismiss the petition for certio-rari on the ground that it was not filed *“within sixty days from the date of the *** * *order** * * *to be reviewed”*as required by Rule 28, 30 F.S.A.

The petition was filed here 6 July 1954 to review an order entered 6 May 1954, sixty-one days earlier.

In Carlile v. Spofford, Fla., 65 So.2d 545, we held that a notice of appeal would vest jurisdiction in this Court, if filed on Monday when the time for appealing expired the Sunday before. Even were we to assume that the rule announced in that case should be applied to petitions for certiorari, we are not disposed to extend it so that such a petition, filed on Tuesday when the sixtieth day fell on the preceding Monday, would be entertained on the theory that Monday was a legal holiday inasmuch as the fourth of July fell on Sunday.

The provisions of Sec. 683.01, Florida Statutes 1953, and F.S.A., are not applicable. In the statute many “legal holidays”, including Independence Day, are designated, all followed by semicolons and after the last semicolon is the provision “and in cities or towns where carnival associations are organized for the purpose of celebrating the same, the day in each year known as Shrove Tuesday, shall for all *purposes*whatsoever *as regards*the presenting for payment or acceptance and of the protesting and giving notice of dishonor of *negotiable instruments,*be treated and considered as *public*holidays.” (Italics supplied.)

We comment on the construction because at a glance it would appear that the “purposes” specified would apply only to Shrove Tuesday in communities where that holiday is recognized. That such a construction, strained as it would be, could not aid the petitioners is demonstrated by referring to the next paragraph of the section. There it is provided that “Whenever any *legal*holiday shall fall upon a Sunday, the Monday next following shall be deemed a public holiday for all and any of the *purposes aforesaid”*(Italics supplied.) Sec. 683.01, supra. The only “purposes” before *452expressed in the first paragraph deal with negotiable instruments.

We conclude that no logical construction of the two paragraphs of the section justifies our holding that if one of the legal holidays, excluding, of course, those that come upon a specified day of the week, falls on Sunday, the following day thereupon becomes a holiday extending the time for the filing of a petition for certiorari to the following Tuesday.

The motion to dismiss is granted.

MATHEWS, C. J., and TERRELL, SEBRING, ROBERTS, DREW and BUFORD, JJ., concur.
#### Mrs. Joyce T. BURLEY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mrs. Azelia B. CHASE et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 8236.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Dec. 1, 1954.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 4, 1955.

Theus, Grisham, Davis & Leigh, Monroe, for appellants.

Hunt & Morris, Rayville, for appellee.

HARDY, Judge.

This is a suit by Mrs. Joyce T. Burley for damages in the nature of personal injury sustained as the result of an automobile collision. The defendants are Mrs. Euzelia (Azelia) B. Chase and Manufacturers Casualty Insurance Company, liability insurer of Mrs. Chase. After trial there was judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendants, in solido, in the sum of $3,000, from which defendants have appealed.

This is a companion suit which was consolidated for trial and purposes of appeal with that of Mrs. Ethel P. Chase et al. v. Mrs. Joyce T. Burley et al., No. 8235 on the docket of this court, which has this day been decided. The facts involved are fully set forth in the opinion of the court in the above numbered and entitled case, *76*So.2d 587.

It follows that the only issue here involved concerns the quantum of damages allowed plaintiff. The claims for medical treatment and attention, repairs to the automobile and loss of wages amounting to the total sum of $825.50 are established without question. This leaves the sum of $2,174.50 which was evidently fixed by the district judge as, the allowance for pain, suffering and facial disfigurement claimed by, plaintiff.

It- is established that Mrs. Burley sustained a fractured nose and knee injury, *594the latter being the source of some pain and inconvenience but having no serious nor lasting effects. While the nose fracture appears to have satisfactorily healed, the testimony establishes the fact that there is a slight disfigurement resulting from a ridge along one side of plaintiff’s nose. We think it evident that this disfigurement, though slight in nature, would constitute a continuing source of embarrassment and concern to a young woman 23 years of age. It is noted that plaintiff’s attending physician testified that he had suggested plastic surgery to remove this slight disfigurement. While it appears that this suggestion was made for the sake of benefit to plaintiff’s condition of worry and nervousness resulting from the slight disfigurement, rather than as a matter of medical necessity, we think it is appropriate that the same be taken into consideration in fixing an award of damages.

Under the circumstances we cannot conclude that the award made was excessive, and for the reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is affirmed at appellant’s cost.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 157

To provide that December 7 each year shall be treated for all purposes

related to Federal employment in the same manner as November 11.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 3, 2001

Mr. QUINN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Government Reform

A BILL

To provide that December 7 each year shall be treated for

all purposes related to Federal employment in the same

manner as November 11.

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

3 That December 7 each year shall be treated for all pur4 poses related to Federal employment in the same manner

5 as November 11.

Æ
1 Initially, Graham characterized her complaint as a

petition for habeas corpus; however, Magistrate Judge Muirhead,

in a Report and Recommendation adopted by this court, construed

this action as one under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Report and

Recommendation, Doc. No. 9, at 23.) Moreover, Magistrate Judge

Muirhead also dismissed Graham’s claim that the NHSP’s urine

testing procedure was in violation of the Fourth and Eighth

Amendments of the United States Constitution. (Id. at 23-24.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Kristyn Graham

v. Case No. 07-CV-295-PB

Warden, New Hampshire State

Prison for Women, et al.

O R D E R

Kristyn Graham, formerly an inmate at the New Hampshire

State Prison for Women (“NHSPW”) in Goffstown, New Hampshire,

filed an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, wherein she claims

that she was subjected to inadequate medical care and inhumane

prison conditions in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the

United States Constitution.1

 Graham names Dan Belligeron, Head

Nurse and Medical Department Supervisor; Kathy Fontaine,

employee; and Jean Chapman, Nurse, as defendants in her

inadequate medical care claim. She names Joanne Fortier, Acting

Warden, as defendant in her inhumane confinement conditions

Case 1:07-cv-00295-PB Document 80 Filed 06/02/09 Page 1 of 2
2

 In this order, defendants are collectively referred to as

“NHSP” for convenience. 

-2-

claim.2 NHSP has filed a motion for summary judgment. 

In a previous order, (Doc. No. 79), I outlined my reasoning

as to why I understood Graham’s claims to be moot, but since the

parties did not brief that issue, I stated that “absent a filing

from Graham showing cause as to why her claims are not moot, this

matter will be dismissed thirty (30) calendar days from the date

of this ruling.” Graham has not filed any documents, and

therefore, the NHSP’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 69)

is granted.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

June 2, 2009

cc: Kristyn Graham, pro se

James W. Kennedy, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00295-PB Document 80 Filed 06/02/09 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Nicholaus Samora

v.

Angela Poulin, et al.

No. 07-fp-79

O R D E R

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted,

but pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended, the filing fee must

be paid as follows: the sum of $23.80 is due no later than May

20, 2007. In addition, 20% of each preceding month’s income

credited to plaintiff’s account to be remitted by the New

Hampshire State Prison when the amount in the account exceeds

$10.00 until the sum of $350.00 has been paid. Failure to pay

the fee as ordered will result in dismissal of the action without

prejudice. In all other respects plaintiff’s request for in

forma pauperis has been granted.

This case has been assigned civil number 07-cv-79-PB.

SO ORDERED.

Date: April 3, 2007

cc: Nicholaus Samora, pro se

Bonnie S. Reed, Financial Administrator

New Hampshire State Prison, Inmate Accounts

Case 1:07-cv-00079-JM Document 5 Filed 04/03/07 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

David Hagar

v. Case No. 05-cv-344-SM

State of Maine, et al.

O R D E R

After due consideration of the objection filed, I herewith approve the Report

and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Muirhead dated November 1, 2005, for the

reasons set forth therein. Plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is hereby

dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

SO ORDERED.

December 22 , 2005 _________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: David A. Hagar, pro se

Case 1:05-cv-00344-SM Document 9 Filed 12/22/05 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-172-01-SM

Douglas Heath

O R D E R

Defendant Heath’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and trial

is granted (document 14). Trial has been rescheduled for the September 2007

trial period. Defendant Heath shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later

than July 9, 2007. On the filing of such waiver, his continuance shall be

effective. 

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), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: August 27, 2007 at 11:30 a.m.

Jury Selection: September 5, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:06-cr-00172-SM Document 29 Filed 06/26/07 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

June 26, 2007

cc: Bjorn Lange, Esq.

Helen Fitzgibbon, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00172-SM Document 29 Filed 06/26/07 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Gary DeWayne Johnson

v. Case No. 07-cv-161-PB

Opinion No. 2009 DNH 065

Robert Thyng

O R D E R

On January 6, 2009, I made the preliminary ruling that Gary

DeWayne Johnson’s claim against Robert Thyng was barred by the

Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a),

because Johnson had not exhausted all of his administrative

remedies prior to bringing his lawsuit challenging prison

conditions. Johnson did not complete level three of the prison

grievance process, filing a grievance with the Commissioner of

the New Hampshire Department of Corrections. In sum, I found

that Johnson’s Emergency Grievance did not satisfy level three of

the grievance process. I also determined that while fear of

retaliation at any one level of a grievance process may excuse a

prisoner from complying with that level of the process, it does

not excuse a prisoner from complying with subsequent levels of

the process if he is not inhibited from pursuing relief at those

Case 1:07-cv-00161-PB Document 132 Filed 05/08/09 Page 1 of 3
-2-

levels. See Hemphill v. New York, 380 F.3d 680, 690 (2d Cir.

2004). I found substantial evidence in the record to support

that Johnson’s failure to complete level three of the grievance

process was not due to a fear of retaliation. In fact, Johnson

admitted that he did not file a grievance with the Commissioner

because he believed it would be futile. However, futility is not

an excuse for failure to comply with the PLRA exhaustion

requirement. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 739 (2001); 

Medina-Claudio v. Rodriguez-Mateo, 292 F.3d 31, 35 (1st Cir.

2002).

 Following my preliminary ruling, I allowed Johnson the

opportunity to perform additional research and file a ten-page

post-trial brief. Since that time, Johnson has submitted

multiple memoranda. I have reviewed these memoranda and I agree

with Johnson that I should have relied on the NCF Inmate Manual

rather than the Concord, New Hampshire State Prison Manual for

the Guidance of Inmates. I have reviewed the NCF Inmate Manual,

however, and determined that it does not substantively change my

analysis or conclusion. I have found no other reason to change

my earlier analysis or conclusions.

For the foregoing reasons, the preliminary ruling I

announced orally at the January 6, 2009 trial will be enforced. 

The Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Post Trial Memorandum of

Law (Doc. No. 128) and Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 129) are denied

Case 1:07-cv-00161-PB Document 132 Filed 05/08/09 Page 2 of 3
-3-

as moot. The clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

May 8, 2009

cc: Gary Dewayne Johnson, pro se

Danielle Leah Pacik, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00161-PB Document 132 Filed 05/08/09 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 32.1

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  each  of the  undersigned  officers  of
Stewardship Financial Corporation (the "Company"), certifies that:

(1)      the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended
         June 30, 2006 (the "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements  of
         Section  13(a)  or  15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 (15
         U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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



Dated: August 14, 2006                       /s/ Paul Van Ostenbridge
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Paul Van Ostenbridge
                                             Chief Executive Officer


Dated: August 14, 2006                       /s/ Julie Holland
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Julie Holland
                                             Senior Vice President and Treasurer

         This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C.  Section
1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.


                                       33
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1374

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

600 Calumet Street in Lake Linden, Michigan, as the ‘‘Philip E. Ruppe

Post Office Building’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 3, 2001

Mr. STUPAK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Government Reform

A BILL

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 600 Calumet Street in Lake Linden, Michigan,

as the ‘‘Philip E. Ruppe Post Office Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. PHILIP E. RUPPE POST OFFICE BUILDING.

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

5 Postal Service located at 600 Calumet Street in Lake Lin6 den, Michigan, shall be known and designated as the

7 ‘‘Philip E. Ruppe Post Office Building’’.

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United
2

•HR 1374 IH

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

2 be deemed to be a reference to the Philip E. Ruppe Post

3 Office Building.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-65-01-SM

Noel Boufford

O R D E R

Defendant Boufford’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 18). Trial has been rescheduled for the July 2007

trial period. Defendant Boufford shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not

later than June 15, 2007. On the filing of such waiver, his continuance shall be

effective. 

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), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: June 27, 2007 at 2:30 p.m.

Jury Selection: July 10, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:07-cr-00065-SM Document 19 Filed 06/04/07 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

June 4, 2007

cc: James W. Dennehy, Esq.

Mark Irish, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00065-SM Document 19 Filed 06/04/07 Page 2 of 2
AO 458 (Rev. 10/95) (NH 1707) Appearance

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

To the Clerk of this court and all parties of record:

Enter my appearance as counsel in this case for

Pamela Taber-McCarthy

I certify that I am admitted to practice in this court.

APPEARANCE

Case Number: 1:08-cv-00096-PB

March 22,2008 [/s/] Edward C. Mosca

Date Signature

Edward C. Mosca 9353

Print Name

27 Webster Street

Bar Number

Address

Manchetser NH 03104

City

603-628-3695

State Zip Code

edmosca@comcast.net

Phone Number

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Email Address

I hereby certify that this Appearance was served on the following persons on this date and in the manner

specified herein:

Electronically Served Through ECF:

[Names of Filing Users]

Kevin E. Buchholz, Esquire

Conventionally Served:

[Name and Address of Non-Filing Users]

Kathleen Steraenberg, Esquire

27 Webster Street

Manchester, NH 03104

March 22, 2008

Date

[/s/] Edward C. Mosca

Signature

Case 1:08-cv-00096-PB Document 3 Filed 03/22/08 Page 1 of 1
----

| (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. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ Walter S. Woltosz                                                                             |   |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Walter      S. WoltoszChief      Executive Officer(Principal      Executive Officer)July      15, 2010 |   |   |
|                                                                                                   |   |   |
|                                                                                                   |   |   |
| /s/ Momoko A. Beran                                                                               |   |   |
| Momoko      A. BeranChief      Financial Officer(Principal      Financial Officer)July      15, 2010   |   |   |
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT to 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES –OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of EFJ, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Michael E. Jalbert, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

1.                       The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

2.                       The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed inthe Report.

 
|   | /S/ Michael E. Jalbert         |
|--------|--------------------------------|
|   | Michael E. Jalbert             |
|   | Chief Executive Officer        |
|   | (Principal Executive  Officer) |

 

April 30,2008

 

*A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.*

 

----
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 8, 2024

No. 04-23-00982-CV

IN RE RYDER INTEGRATED LOGISTICS, INC. and Arthur McDaniels Moore, Relators

Original Proceeding1

ORDER

Relators filed a petition for writ of mandamus on November 11, 2023. On April 29, 2024, 

relators filed an agreed motion to dismiss the mandamus petition, informing this court that a 

settlement had been reached between the parties in the underlying matter.

After consideration, the court GRANTS the motion. Accordingly, relators’ petition for writ 

of mandamus is DISMISSED. 

It is so ORDERED on May 8, 2024.

_____________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 8th day of May, 2024.

_____________________________

Luz Estrada, Chief Deputy Clerk

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2023-CI-03928, in the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, 

the Honorable John Gabriel presiding.