alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[No. 34214.

Department Two.

April 24, 1958.]

#### Walt Hinz, *Respondent,*v. G. A. Lieser *et al., Appellants,*R. A. Nienaber *et al., Respondents.*
      *1*

*Ralph B. Potts,*for appellants.

*Roy F. Trolson,*for respondent Hinz.

Reported in 324 P. (2d) 829.

Per Curiam.

Defendants appeal from a money judgment based upon plaintiff’s claim to a. real-estate .agent’s, cpmmission.

The primary question is whether defendants, as vendors, made certain representations regarding the acreage of an irregular tract of land involved in the transaction. The vendees (additional defendants and respondents) refused to complete the purchase, because they claimed the tract was approximately fifteen acres less than the represented acreage. Upon conflicting evidence, the trial court resolved the issue against defendants.

Defendants challenged the sufficiency of the evidence at the conclusion of plaintiff’s case. They waived this challenge when they proceeded to introduce evidence on their own behalf. *LeMaine v. Seals,*47 Wn. (2d) 259, 287 P. (2d) 305 (1955), and cases cited.

*206Defendants assign error to findings of fact Nos. 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10. Rule: on Appeal 43, 34A Wn. (2d) 47, as amended, effective January. 2, 1953, provides in part:

> “No error assigned to any finding or findings of fact made or refused, will be considered unless so much of the finding or findings as is claimed to be erroneous *shall be set put verbatim in the brief.” ,*

The challenged findings of fact are not set forth in defendants’ 'brief. This failure to comply with the provisions of the rule makes the findings the established facts of the case, *McKennon v. Anderson,*49 Wn. (2d) 55, 57, 298 P. (2d) 492 (1956); *In re Youngkin,*48 Wn. (2d) 425, 428, 294 P. (2d) 423 (1956).

It is urged, however, that finding of fact No. 5 (which is really the crucial finding of fact in the case) is sufficiently paraphrased in the assignment of error that the requirement of the rule is met. Assuming, without deciding, that this is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of Rule 43, we find there is competent evidence in the record to support the trial court’s finding of fact No. 5. We will, therefore, not disturb this finding of fact nor the judgment based thereon. *Bremerton School Dist. 100-C v. Hibbard,*51 Wn. (2d) 226, 317 P. (2d) 517 (1957); *Croton Chemical Corp. v. Birkenwald, Inc.,*50 Wn. (2d) 684, 314 P. (2d) 622 (1957).

The judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           3,512,413
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,949,342
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,572,593
<PP&E>                                           2,852,276
<DEPRECIATION>                                     857,721
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,689,182
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,309,978
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            78,741
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,445,509
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,689,182
<SALES>                                          8,923,120
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,923,120
<CGS>                                            6,526,492
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,526,492
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,173,508
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  67,998
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (776,880)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         9,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (785,880)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (785,880)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.10)




</TABLE>
#### DEMASI v. WHITNEY TRUST & SAVINGS BANK*

No. 14872.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

June 10, 1935.

H. S. & J. H. Morrison,- of New Orleans, for appellant. '

Milling, Godehaux, Saal & Milling, of New Orleans, for appellee.

*

 Rehearing granted June 24, 1935.

PER CURIAM.

This matter comes before us on motion to dismiss the appeal because of alleged acquiescence in the judgment appealed from. The contention seems to be that, although plaintiff’s wife, when she testified as a witness, stated that she had not withdrawn any of the fund on deposit to her credit, she has since made affidavit that, as a’ matter of fact, she did withdraw everything which defend'ant contends was withdrawn,-

We think it advisable not to dismiss the appeal, but to allow the matter to be presented on the merits. If there is new evidence, or if, in-fact, there is any evidence which we think should- be again considered by the district court, we will, when the matter is presented on the merits, then consider the question of whether the whole case should be remanded-to the district court.

For the reasons assigned, it is ordered, adjudged,' and decreed that the motion to dismiss the appeal be, and it is, overruled.

Motion to dismiss overruled.
|What's New · 
   What's Next · 
   Site Map · 
   A-Z Index ·
   Careers ·
   RSS ·
   All Videos ·
   Current FAQs |  | Search  Advanced Search | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------- | 

Aboutthe Fed
    News& Events
    MonetaryPolicy
    BankingInformation& Regulation
    PaymentSystems
    EconomicResearch& Data
    Consumer Information
    CommunityDevelopment
    ReportingForms
    Publications


skip to content 
 Home Economic Research & Data Statistical Releases and Historical Data
 DDP Print
   Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization - G.17 Current Release
  Release Dates
  Monthly Supplement
  Annual Revision
  Historical Data
  About
  Announcements
Technical Q&As
 Current Release  (250 KB PDF)
(ASCII)  Table 8 Industrial Capacity  Item
Average annual rate
Fourth quarter to fourth quarter
Annual rate
Monthly rate2012July1972-79
1980-88
1989-94
1995-2012




2011Q4
20122009
2010
2011
2012
Q1
Q2
Q3Total industry
3.1
1.9
2.3
2.3
-.7
-1.9
.8
1.5
1.1
1.4
1.5
1.6
.1Manufacturing[1]
3.3
2.2
2.5
2.4
-2.8
-2.4
.1
1.4
.9
1.3
1.5
1.5
.1Mining
.7
.1
-.7
.3
5.0
-.2
2.7
2.2
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.2
.2Utilities
4.2
2.1
1.8
2.3
1.2
4.5
3.2
2.4
2.2
2.1
2.3
2.5
.2Selected high-technology industries
19.6
17.3
15.6
18.8
3.0
.3
10.4
3.1
13.7
8.3
3.7
.7
.1Manufacturing[1] ex. selectedhigh-technology industries
2.6
1.3
1.6
1.0
-3.1
-2.6
-.4
1.3
.3
1.0
1.3
1.5
.1Stage-of-process groupsCrude
1.6
.4
-.5
.4
3.1
-.4
2.0
1.6
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.7
.1Primary and semifinished
3.0
1.4
2.5
2.7
-1.0
-1.2
.3
.1
.5
.3
.1
.0
.0Finished
3.9
3.3
2.7
2.3
-3.5
-2.3
.9
3.5
1.9
3.0
3.5
3.7
.3   Return to table    Return to top
   Home Economic research and data
 Accessibility Contact Us Disclaimer  Linking Policy FOIA
 PDF Reader
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 10Federal Reserve Bank of: Kansas CityFilings received during the week ending October 17, 2009FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodBANCFIRST CORPORATION                                                                                                   * 3A3BancFirst Corporation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of First Jones Bancorporation, Inc., parent of First State Bank, both in Jones, Oklahoma.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 11/13/2009FARMERS AND MERCHANTS NATIONAL BANK OF ASHLAND, THE                                                                     MemberThe Farmers & Merchants National Bank of Ashland, Ashland, Nebraska (to be known as The Farmers & Merchants Bank of Ashland, Ashland, Nebraska), to retain its membership in the Federal Reserve System following its conversion from a national to a state charter.Newspaper: Not applicableFederal Register: Not applicableLINDSAY STATE COMPANY                                                                                                   CICNotification by the Bonita M. Hegemann Irrevocable Trust, Newman Grove, Nebraska, and its trustees, Bonita M. Hegemann, Lindsay, Nebraska; and James B. Hegemann, Newman Grove, Nebraska; to acquire control of Lindsay State Company, parent of Bank of Lindsay, both in Lindsay, Nebraska. Notice by Lindsay State Company, Lindsay, Nebraska, to redeem 38.5 percent of its outstanding common stock.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: 11/03/2009STOCKMENS FINANCIAL CORPORATION                                                                                         * 3A3Stockmens Financial Corporation, Rapid City, South Dakota, to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Valentine Bancorporation, Valentine, Nebraska,and thereby indirectly acquire First National Bank of Valentine, Valentine, Nebraska.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: Not available
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 9 , 2024
.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 24

- 00342

- CV

TBL GROUP, INC. , Appellant
V.
ENHANCED SMALL BUSINESS INVESTMENT COMPANY LP , Appellee
On Appeal from the 234th District C ourt Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2024

- 03658

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from a judgment signed April 25, 2024. On June 17, 2024, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1 (a) (1 ) . The motion is granted.
We dismiss the appeal

. PER CURIAM
Panel c onsists of Chief Justice Christop her and Justices Spa in and Poissant.
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

No. 83181


# FILE ZANE MICHAEL FLOYD, Appellant,
vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; CHARLES DANIELS, DIRECTOR, NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; AND IHSAN AZZAM, CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, Res • ondents.
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is an appeal from a district court order refusing to grant a preliminary injunction. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Adriana Escobar, Judge. Appellant Zane Michael Floyd argues that the district court incorrectly applied the appropriate legal standard in denying relief. 1 Respondents argue that this appeal should be dismissed as moot, as the district court denied the relief Floyd sought in dismissing his complaint for injunctive relief. We agree that this appeal is moot. See Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A. v. All. Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308, 314 (1999) ("Generally, an appeal from the grant of a preliminary injunction

'Floyd also requested a temporary restraining order below, though he does not argue this matter on appeal, and we need not address it. See Sicor, Inc. v. Sacks, 127 Nev. 896, 900, 266 P.3d 618, 620 (2011) (observing that a temporary restraining order is not appealable). Pursuant to NRAP 34(f)(1), we have determined that oral argument is not warranted in this appeal.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 4101.* 

# 72-becomes moot when the trial court enters a permanent injunction, because

the former merges into the latter."); Manzonie v. State ex rel. De Ricco, 81 Nev. 53, 55, 398 P.2d 694, 695 (1965) ("[I]n view of the dismissal of the complaint, the existence of which is necessary to permit the granting of an injunction, the question of the propriety of an injunction became moot.").

Floyd argues that the appeal should nevertheless be entertained as the issues it raises are capable of repetition, yet evading review. Cf. Univ. & Crnty. Coll. Sys. of Nev. v. Nevadans for Sound Gov't, 120 Nev. 712, 720, 100 P.3d 179, 186 (2004) (Even when an appeal is moot, however, this court may consider it when the matter is capable of repetition, yet evading review."). We disagree. Floyd's claims are well-suited for review in the appeal from the district court's order dismissing the complaint for injunctive relief, currently pending under Docket No. 84081.

Accordingly, we ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.

J. Stiglich Hardesty

J. J. Cadish Silver

J. Herndon

2 SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A QS*,

### cc: Hon. Adriana Escobar, District Judge Federal Public Defender/Las Vegas Attorney General/Carson City Clark Hill PLC Attorney General/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA ( 0) I947A <40m 

### 3
EXHIBIT 21









A.G. EDWARDS, INC.



REGISTRANT'S SUBSIDIARIES





The following listing includes the registrant's directly‐owned subsidiaries and indirectly-owned subsidiaries (certain subsidiaries which are not significant are omitted from the listing), all of which are included in the
consolidated financial statements:



Name of Company
Place of Incorporation/Organization
Subsidiary ofA.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. (Edwards)
Delaware
RegistrantA.G. Edwards Technology Group, Inc.
Missouri
EdwardsAGE Commodity Clearing Corp.
Delaware
RegistrantA.G. Edwards Life Insurance Company
Missouri
RegistrantEdwards Development Corporation
Missouri
RegistrantA.G. Edwards Trust Company (Missouri)
Missouri
RegistrantA.G. Edwards Trust Company FSB
Federal Charter
RegistrantA.G.E. Properties, Inc. (Properties)
Missouri
RegistrantA.G.E. Realty Corp.
Missouri
PropertiesA.G.E. Redevelopment Corporation
Missouri
PropertiesGULL-AGE Capital Group, Inc.
Delaware
RegistrantAGE Investments, Inc.
Delaware
RegistrantA.G. Edwards Capital, Inc.
Delaware
RegistrantAGE Capital Holding, Inc.
Delaware
RegistrantAGE International, Inc.
Delaware
RegistrantA.G. Edwards & Sons (UK) Limited
United Kingdom
AGE InternationalCPI Qualified Plan Consultants, Inc.
Delaware
Registrant
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-20620

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DOMINGUEZ MORALES-MARTINEZ, also known as Lazaro Morin-Morales, 

also known as Dominguez Morales, also known as Juan Antonio MorinMorales, also known as Dominguez Morales Martinez, also known as Antonio 

Morin Mireles, also known as Juan A. Morin Mireles, also known as Pedro 

Esquivel,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CR-245-1

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Dominguez Morales-Martinez has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 15, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-20620 Document: 00512735689 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/15/2014
No. 13-20620

Cir. 2011). Morales-Martinez has filed a response and a motion for the 

appointment of new counsel. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Morales-Martinez’s 

response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, Morales-Martinez’s 

motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 13-20620 Document: 00512735689 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/15/2014
Exhibit 32.1










CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002







The undersigned officer of Pizza Inn, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 27, 2010, and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Form 10-K”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.











Date: September 16, 2010

By:
/s/  Charles R. Morrison

President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel; Training Program on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.                     

*Date:*                         October 27, 2008.                     

*Time:*                         2 p.m. to 4 p.m.                     

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                     

*Place:*                         Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814, (Telephone Conference Call).                     

*Contact Person:*                         Sathasiva B. Kandasamy, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 5b01, Bethesda, MD 20892-9304, (301) 435-6680,                         *skandasa@mail.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 23, 2008. 

Jennifer Spaeth, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E8-23094 Filed 9-30-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### BRAZIER v. LANCELOT LODGE NO. 38, KNIGHTS OF PYTHIAS.

No. 1824.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

May 5, 1938.

Walter Lemann, of Donaldsonville, for appellant.

George R. Blum and Sam A. LeBlanc, Jr., both of Donaldsonville, for appellee.

SACHSE, Judge ad hoc.

Argument in the present case was consolidated with argument in the case of Brazier v. Pride of Donaldsonville Tabernacle No. 40, La.App., 180 So. 874, this day decided.

The issues raised by this case differ from the issues of the Pride of Donald-sonville Tabernacle No. 40 Case only in the following particulars:

Brazier, the plaintiff, was also the chief officer or Chancellor Commander of the defendant organization and Thomas H. Tasker was the Vice Chancellor Commander.

Brazier caused the defendant to be served through himself and also through the Vice Chancellor Commander. Counsel for appellant points out that Brazier could not represent himself as plaintiff and the association as defendant at one time. • While this seems to follow logically enough, it should also be noted that the mere fact that he held office in the defendant organization should not deprive him of his right to collect whatever might have been justly due to him by the association. He caused the *second*ranking officer to be served. The citation served upon Tasker in no way suggests that service was also being made in some other way, and so it does not appear that Tasker was in any sense lulled into inaction by the mistaken belief that another would come to the defense of the association. We think, therefore, that the association was duly served and cited and cannot properly claim that it has been deprived of its property without due process of court. We therefore must also overrule the plea of unconstitutionality filed in this case.

The plea of prescription' also filed in this case must likewise stand or fall upon the allegation that the association had “repeatedly from March 1, 1933, up to the present time” admitted the indebtedness and promised to pay. We cannot, of course, know the nature of the proof offered on this score, but in the absence of some affirmative showing that the court acted without evidence or without sufficient evidence, we feel *878constrained to affirm the judgment of the district court.

It is therefore ordered that the judgment appealed from be affirmed, at appellant’s cost.

DORE and OTT, JJ., concur.

LE BLANC, J., recused.