alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### THE DE MOTT HOMES AT SALEM, INC., ETC., RESPONDENT, v. CITY OF MARGATE CITY, ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS.

Argued February 5, 1948

Decided February 19, 1948.

For the appellant, *Winne & Barita (Walter G. Winne,*of counsel).

For the respondents, *Perskie & Perskie (Joseph B.*Perskie, of counsel).

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein is affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Eastwood in the Supreme Court.

*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Bodine, Donges, Wachenfeld, Burling, Wells, Dill, Freund, McLean, Schettino, JJ. 10.

*For reversal*— The Chief Justice, Heher, JJ. 2.
#### CITY OF MIAMI *v.*FALLEN.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Dismissed without opinion. •
#### Herbert WIMBERLY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division B.

Jan. 28, 1955.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 22, 1955.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2009-7013 

GLOVER NORVELL, 

Claimant-Appellant, 

v. 

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

F. Leslie Bessenger, III, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, 

L.L.P., of Atlanta, Georgia, argued for claimant-appellant. With him on the brief was 

Doris Johnson Hines, of Washington, DC. Of counsel was Ronald L. Smith, of 

Washington, DC. 

Scott D. Austin, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for 

respondent-appellee. With him on the brief were Michael F. Hertz, Deputy Assistant 

Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Martin F. Hockey, Jr., Assistant 

Director. Of counsel on the brief were Michael J. Timinski, Deputy Assistant General 

Counsel, and Y. Ken Lee, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, United States 

Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC. 

Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

Judge Lawrence B. Hagel
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

 

 2009-7013 

GLOVER NORVELL, 

 Claimant-Appellant, 

v. 

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 

 Respondent-Appellee. 

 Judgment

ON APPEAL from the United States Court of Appeals 

for Veterans Claims 

in CASE NO(S). 06-2145. 

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 

Per Curiam (MAYER, RADER, and MOORE, Circuit Judges ) 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

DATED October 6, 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

Jan Horbaly, Clerk
Exhibit 24(b)


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


As independent accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
of our report included in this Form 10-K into the Company's
previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8 for the
Anuhco, Inc. 1992 Incentive Stock Plan, File No. 33-51494, the
American Carriers, Inc. 1983 Incentive Stock Option Plan, File No.
2-86915, and the Stock Option Agreement by and between Anuhco, Inc.
and C. Ted McCarter, effective May 31, 1995, File No. 33-62553.


                                /s/ Arthur Andersen, LLP
                                ARTHUR ANDERSEN, LLP


Kansas City, Missouri

March 11, 1996




</PAGE>
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Andrew K. Kurowski, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Schenectady County,

February 28, 1957.

*McNab & McNab*for Carl 0. Kurowski, proponent.

*Hubbell & Davis*for Agnes P. Davis, contestant.

*196Archibald C. Wemple, J.

The respective attorneys for the proponent and the contestant filed supporting affidavits with pertinent citations of law.

The court has obtained from the court reporter a copy of the minutes and carefully read the same. The documents in this case, including the objections filed, minutes, affidavits and verdict amply bear out the fact that this contest was without merit. The will in question was drafted by an attorney at law, Duncan S. McNab, Esq., and witnessed by him and his father, Walter S. McNab, Esq., both of whom are highly respected members of the Schenectady County Bar. The record is bereft of any evidence that the mental condition of the testator was impaired by illness or otherwise. The will was carefully read to the testator by the draftsman. In addition, there was some explanation in the Polish language by one of the sons, of the terms of the will.

There is nothing to show any impropriety and certainly no showing of pressure, domination or undue influence affecting the testamentary act.

The contestant, before the trial, made an exhaustive examination of the witnesses to the will, the proponent and his brother, and obtained adequate information upon which to determine whether or not the will was valid, and whether or not the testator signed the will as his voluntary testamentary act. The contestant could and should have satisfied herself in the course of the examination before trial.

Under the circumstances outlined above, this court awards costs in the amount of $340 to the proponent against the contestant, Agnes P. Davis. The said costs should not be charged against the estate, but should be borne by the unsuccessful litigant who has chosen the forum of the trial court to pursue her claim after she had sworn information which would have satisfied a reasonable person that the will was a natural and valid instrument.
#### Charles Caudle, Respondent, *v.*City of New York, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

November 29, 1956.

*942
      *Peter Campbell Brown, Corporation Counsel (Abraham Satran*of counsel), for appellant.

*John A. Murray*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

No reasonable excuse for the failure to prosecute the action with diligence was shown. In the circumstances, the denial of the motion to dismiss for failure to proceed with diligence was an improvident exercise of discretion (H*yde & Sons*v. *Roller Derby Skate Co.,*1 A D 2d 942).

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. Appeal from order dated April 17, 1955 dismissed.

Hoestadter, Aurelio and Tilzer, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, etc.
#### UNITED FRUIT COMPANY, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and Herman G. Hoff, Respondents.

No. 75-3639.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 11, 1977.

Shelly M. Barto, C. Brooks Morris, New Orleans, La., for petitioner.

William J. Kilberg, Sol. of Labor, U. S. Dept, of Labor, Laurie M. Streeter, Harry L. Sheinfeld, Washington, D. C., for Dept, of Labor.

Eldon E. Fallon, New Orleans, La., for Herman Hoff.

Thomas W. Thorne, Jr., New Orleans, La., Noble Eden, Metairie, La., for other interested parties.

Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and HILL and FAY, Circuit Judges.

JAMES C. HILL, Circuit Judge:

United Fruit Company, a self insured employer, presently appeals to this Court, seeking review of an order of the Benefits Review Board, United States Department of Labor. In that order, the Benefits Review Board reversed the order of the administrative law judge which rejected the claim for disability benefits of Herman *1225Hoff, pursuant to the provisions of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 44 Stat. 1424, as amended, 33 U.S.C.A. 901 *et seq.*(hereinafter referred to as the Act).

In its order, the Benefits Review Board held that the claimant Hoff was entitled to disability benefits. United Fruit Company seeks to appeal from that ruling. However, the order also remanded the case to the administrative law judge in order that the nature and extent of the claimant’s disability and the possible liability of the special second injury fund could be determined.

The Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, has moved this Court to dismiss the petition of United Fruit Company for review of the order of the Benefits Review Board contending that a final ofder has not been rendered in the cause and hence the order is not reviewable under Section 21(c) of the Act. 33 U.S.C.A. § 921(c) (Supp. II 1972). We agree.

Section 21(c) of the Act, in pertinent part, provides as follows:

> Any person adversely affected or aggrieved by a final order of the Board may obtain a review of that order in the United States court of appeals for the circuit in which the injury occurred, by filing in S.uch court within sixty days following the issuance of such Board order a written petition praying that the order be modified or set aside.

Following the precedent of our Circuit as well as others, we hold that the petition must be dismissed for lack of a final order. *Strachan Shipping Co.*v. *Davis,*No. 75-4017 (5th Cir. March 17, 1975); *Gulfport Shipbuilding v. Vallot,*334 F.2d 358 (5th Cir. 1964); *Sun Shipbuilding*v. *Benefits Review Board,*535 F.2d 758 (3rd Cir. 1976); *Terminal Shipping Company et al.*v. *Spence et al.,*No. 75-2267 (4th Cir. Feb. 17, 1976); *Todd Shipyards Corporation et al. v. Allan et al,*No. 75-3442 (9th Cir. May 14, 1976).

By ordering dismissal of this appeal as premature, the order complained of being interlocutory, we do not hold that such order may not be subject to review upon appropriate appeal from a final order.

DISMISSED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Brandon Hargroves, Appellant.

[745 NYS2d 579]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), rendered July 26, 2000, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony is granted, the indictment is dismissed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for the purpose of entering an order in its discretion pursuant to CPL 160.50.

The police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop and detain a group of young black males, including the defendant, on the basis of the complainant’s report that he had been beaten and robbed by a “group of male blacks,” one of whom, the codefendant Lavar Hargroves, was wearing an orange coat or jacket. *582Even if the jacket worn by one member of the group that included the defendant can be considered orange rather than red and blue, this general description was not sufficient to permit the police to detain and then exhibit the defendant, among others, to the complainant. We further note that the group was walking towards the crime scene and did not flee when stopped by the police. Thus, the police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop and detain the defendant and the hearing court should have granted that branch of the omnibus motion which was to suppress the identification testimony *(see People v Gethers,*86 NY2d 159, 162; *People v Dubinsky,*289 AD2d 415, 416; *People v Riddick,*269 AD2d 471; *People v Yiu C. Choy,*173 AD2d 883, 884).

Under the particular circumstances of this case, including the fact that at the trial the complainant was unable to identify either the defendant or any of the codefendants as his assailants, we are constrained to dismiss the indictment *(see People v Rossi,*80 NY2d 952, 954; *People v Folk,*284 AD2d 476, 477; *cf. People v Perkins,*189 AD2d 830, 833).

In light of this determination, we need not reach the defendant’s remaining contentions. Florio, J.P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Crane, JJ., concur.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

FLEXITEEK AMERICAS, INC. 

and FLEXITEEK INTERNATIONAL AS,

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v. 

PLASDECK, INC. and 

PLASTEAK, INC., 

Defendants-Appellants, 

 

and 

ANDRE BATISTA, 

Defendant. 

____________________ 

2009-1501 

______________________

 

 Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Florida in No. 08-CV-60996, Judge 

James I. Cohn. 

______________________ 

JUDGMENT 

______________________ 

S. Tracy Long, Santucci, Priore & Long, P.L., of 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida, argued for plaintiffs-appellees. 

Bruce H. Wilson, of Akron, Ohio, argued for 

defendants-appellants. Of counsel on the brief was J. 

Clark Dixon, Camillo, Snowden and de Almeida, P.A., of 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Of counsel was Douglas de 

Almeida. 

______________________ 
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (BRYSON, SCHALL, and PROST, Circuit 

Judges). 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

November 2, 2010 __/s/ Jan Horbaly_______________ 

 Date Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 08-cr-149-01-SM

Hong Bach Nguyen

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 9) is

granted. Trial has been rescheduled for the May 2009 trial period. Defendant shall

file a Waiver of Speedy Trial Rights not later than February 2, 2009. 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

the defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation taking into

account the exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Case 1:08-cr-00149-SM Document 10 Filed 01/29/09 Page 1 of 2
2

Final Pretrial Conference: May 12, 2009 at 4:00 PM 

Jury Selection: May 19, 2009 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

January 29, 2009 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Counsel of Record

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00149-SM Document 10 Filed 01/29/09 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02543-RPM 

 

CAROL LEYNER and 

ROBERT LEYNER, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY 

INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, 

Defendant. 

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

THIS MATTER, coming before the Court on Plaintiffs Carol Leyner and Robert Leyner, 

and Defendant Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company’s Stipulated Motion for Dismissal 

With Prejudice, and the Court being fully advised in the premises, 

HEREBY DISMISSES this entire action, with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs 

and attorney fees. 

DONE this 6th day of April, 2012. 

s/Richard P. Matsch 

Richard P. Matsch, Senior Disrict Judge 

Case 1:11-cv-02543-RPM Document 18 Filed 04/06/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya

Civil Action No. 11–cv–02457–PAB–KMT

ASHANTI BLACK,

Plaintiff,

v. 

DR. JAMES THALKEN, DDS #15173,

SHARON PHILLIP, Nurse Practioner, and

DR. WORMER, Physician, 

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER

ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA

In light of the Notice of Acceptance of Service filed by Defendant Dr. James Thalken (Doc. No.

61), “Defendant Dr. James Thalken’s Combined Motion to Strike Answer and to Quash

Defective Service of Process” (Doc. No. 48) is GRANTED. The “Answer” filed on September

7, 2012 (Doc. No. 44) is STRICKEN. Plaintiff’s “Motion for New Service of Process on Dr.

James Thalken, DDS” (Doc. No. 56) is DENIED as moot. The motions hearing set for October

10, 2012, is VACATED.

Dated: October 10, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02457-PAB-KMT Document 62 Filed 10/10/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                         10.2(q)


May 14, 2001

Mr. Peter Moritz
111 Sutter Street
San Francisco, CA  94104



Dear Peter:

The following outlines the terms of your employment with Modem Media in
your new role in East Norwalk beginning on or before June 20, 2001.


 .   Your title will be Vice President, Business Development, reporting to Bob
    Allen. A description of the roles and responsibilities of this position will
    be forthcoming under separate cover no later than your start date of June
    20, 2001.

 .   Your base salary for this assignment will remain at your current rate of
    $235,000.00 annually. You will be eligible to receive an annual bonus the
    details of which will be outlined in a new incentive compensation bonus
    scheme. You will participate in the Performance Management Planning process,
    scheduled for July 1, 2001.

 .   You will receive reimbursement for relocation expenses to a maximum of
    $20,000.00. Please see the attached documentation on what is reasonable and
    customary. You will be reimbursed for expenses upon receipt of an expense
    report outlining expenses incurred with receipts. Some of these expenses may
    be taxable income to you if they do not qualify as expenses non-taxable
    relocation expenses as outlined as per IRS regulations. Those expenses would
    then be grossed-up and recognized as ordinary income on your W-2 earnings
    statement for 2001.

Peter, if you have any questions, please give me a call.

Best Regards,

/s/ Rose Zory
    Senior Director, Human Resources

Accepted By:/s/ Peter Moritz
**Exhibit32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Inconnection with the annual report of Photonic Products Group, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Daniel Lehrfeld, Chief Executive Officerof the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, theconsolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented andconsolidated results of operations of the Company for the periods presented.
| Dated: March 29, 2007 |
|-----------------------|
|                  |
|                  |
|                  | /s/ Daniel  Lehrfeld |   |
|                  | Daniel Lehrfeld |
|                  | Chief Executive Officer |

 

Thiscertification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Sections 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.

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02534-RPM-CBS 

MELISSA CHAVEZ, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

CREDIT MANAGEMENT, LP, a Nevada limited partnership, 

 Defendant. 

 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE 

 THE COURT having reviewed the Notice of Dismissal with Prejudice pursuant 

to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and being fully advised in the premises, DOES HEREBY 

ORDER that this case is Dismissed with Prejudice, with each party to pay her or its own 

attorney’s fees and costs. 

 BY THE COURT: 

October 24, 2011 s/Richard P. Matsch 

__________________ ____________________________________ 

DATE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:11-cv-02534-RPM-CBS Document 7 Filed 10/24/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
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




In
connection with the annual report of Photonic Products Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Joseph J. Rutherford,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:




(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented
and consolidated results of operations of the Company for the periods
presented.




Dated:  March
31, 2009





/s/ Joseph J. RutherfordJoseph
      J. RutherfordChief
      Executive Officer




This
certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.




A signed
original of this written statement required by Sections 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission, or its staff, upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MICROPOLIS CORPORATION AS OF
AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 29, 1995 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-29-1995
<CASH>                                          27,896
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   38,676
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,427
<INVENTORY>                                     59,777
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               124,355
<PP&E>                                         135,689
<DEPRECIATION>                                  81,544
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 180,393
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           58,398
<BONDS>                                        113,102
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           15,580
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,173
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   180,393
<SALES>                                        211,264
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               211,264
<CGS>                                          205,628
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  205,628
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                86,743
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,961
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (85,349)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,061)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (84,288)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (84,288)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (5.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (5.46)
        

</TABLE>
Case 1:11-cv-02512-LTB Document 3 Filed 10/03/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02512-LTB Document 3 Filed 10/03/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02512-LTB Document 3 Filed 10/03/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3