alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### CITY OF NAPLES v. MORRIS.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

March 23, 1954.

Rehearing Denied May 4, 1954.

Mellor & Watson,'Fort Myers, for appellant. .

Sheppard & .Woolslair, Fort .Myers/for appellee.

ROBERTS, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from a summary final decree in favor of plaintiff-appellee entered in a suit to quiet title filed by him against the City of Naples, defendant below and appellant ‘here.

The plaintiff deraigned his title to the land in controversy through conveyances from The Naples Company, the owner of record, and the heirs of a former owner of record, which conveyances were made with reference to the original plat recorded in the public records of the county in which it was located. The City, in defense, alleged that plaintiff and other grantees of The Naples Company had purchased property in this particular subdivision, relying on an unofficial plat thereof prepared by The Naples Company and used by the City of Naples Tax Assessor for tax assessment purposes; that the particular portion in controversy had not been assessed for taxes by the City of Naples; that plaintiff knew that other purchasers from The Naples Company purchased in reliance on the unofficial map; that plaintiff recognized the unofficial map by requesting the City to vacate a street shown on the unofficial map but not shown on the original plat with reference to which the conveyance to him was made, which the City did; and that plaintiff was estopped to claim any land- other than that shown on the unofficial map. This contention cannot be sustained.

It is well settled that the principles of estoppel may he applied in defense of a title, but not to establish one. Kerivan v. *906Fogal, 156 Fla. 92, 22 So.2d 584, 586; citing Stone v. Culver, 286 Mich. 263, 282 N.W. 142, 119 A.L.R. 512, as follows:

> “The purpose of the rule that title • may not be created by estoppel is to prevent the uncertainty of titles which would arise if * * * parol evidence •of an estoppel could be introduced to show that' the paper title is not what it appears to be. The rule is not applicable * * * (where) the estoppel serves to defend and not to destroy the apparent paper title.”

The other questions presented have been considered, and no error has been found.

Accordingly, the decree appealed from should be and it is hereby affirmed.

TERRELL, SEBRING, and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANESOXLEY ACT OF 2002/SEC

RULE 13A-14(B)



Paul R. Hays and Keith A. Butler hereby certify that:



|1. |  | They are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of Synbiotics Corporation.
|-- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. |  | The Form 10-K report of Synbiotics Corporation that this certification accompanies fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
|-- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|3. |  | The information contained in the Form 10-K report of Synbiotics Corporation that this certification accompanies fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of Synbiotics Corporation.
|-- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: June
15, 2005



/s/    PAUL R. HAYSPaul R. Hays/s/    KEITH A. BUTLERKeith A. Butler
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Alton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 9, 2010

y0830 

# Order

September 9, 2010

140804

CITIZENS FOR ENVIRONM ENTAL INQUIRY, a non-profit corporation, and BYRON DELONG, THOMAS HARKLEROAD, WILLIAM LEWIS, JOHN PLATH, JEAN VE SELENAK, and CHARLES WINTERS, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 140804 COA: 286773 Ingham CC: 08-000114-AW
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, Defendant-Appellee,

and

MID-MICHIGAN ENERGY , LLC, WOLVERINE
POWER SUPPLY COOPER ATIVE, INC., and CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY, Intervening Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 9, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02498-BNB

DANIEL L. HOFF,

Plaintiff,

v.

COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS MEDICAL DEPARTMENT,

WARDEN TRAVIS TRANI, Arrowhead Cor. Fac.,

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TOM CLEMENTS, Colorado Department of Corrections,

Defendants.

 

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT NEW MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915

Plaintiff, Daniel L. Hoff, initiated this action while he was a prisoner in the custody

of the Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC). On October 27, 2011, the court

entered an order granting Mr. Hoff’s motion seeking leave to proceed in forma

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Because he was a prisoner, Mr. Hoff was

ordered to pay an initial partial filing fee within thirty days and to make monthly filing fee

payments until the filing fee was paid in full. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2). Mr. Hoff

has not paid the initial partial filing fee within the time allowed. However, on October 17,

2011, Mr. Hoff filed a notice of change of address indicating that he soon would be

released from prison and, based on a search using the inmate locator feature on the

DOC’s website, it appears that Mr. Hoff has been released from custody and no longer

is a prisoner.

Mr. Hoff’s continuing obligation to pay the filing fee is to be determined, like any

Case 1:11-cv-02498-LTB Document 11 Filed 12/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
nonprisoner, solely on the basis of whether he qualifies for in forma pauperis status. 

See DeBlasio v. Gilmore, 315 F.3d 396, 399 (4th Cir. 2003) (“A released prisoner

should not have to shoulder a more difficult burden than the average indigent plaintiff in

order to continue his lawsuit.”). In order to make this determination, the court will

require Mr. Hoff to submit a new motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 on the court’s nonprisoner in forma pauperis motion

form. Alternatively, Mr. Hoff may elect to pay the $350.00 filing fee. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that, within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, Mr. Hoff

either pay the entire $350.00 filing fee or submit a Motion and Affidavit for Leave to

Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Hoff shall obtain the court-approved Motion and

Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, along with the applicable

instructions, at www.cod.uscourts.gov. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that if Mr. Hoff fails to comply with this order within the

time allowed, the action will be dismissed without further notice.

DATED December 8, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02498-LTB Document 11 Filed 12/08/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
#### PFEIL v. CAMP.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Dismissed without opinion.
EXHIBIT 32.2


                            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 quarterly  report of 24Holdings Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period  ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission  (the  "Report"),  I, Kirk M. Warshaw,  Chief Financial
Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Dated: April 24, 2008

/s/ Kirk M. Warshaw
----------------------------
Kirk M. Warshaw
Chief Financial Officer


A signed  original of this  certification  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.
UNIVERSAL CONSULIIING RESOURCES,LLC

H

Page 4 of 6

Statment Period

O′′01ハ8 through O′′ 08

 P PA OA 47

Endosures o

Ac∞unt Nulnber

Withdrawals and]Debits‐ COntinued

Other Debits

5。

5,CX10.00

Wire Tlansfer Fee

Wire Tlpe:Wire Out Date:080411 Time:1520 Et

Tbn:20O8041100223138 Senrice R.ef00356g BnfCitizeng State Bank ID:90628 Bnf BkArkansas B

Ankers' Bank ID:082001200 Pmt Det:Ffc D*i"-U*t tt fiffiffi#"J.F

Wire Tlansfer Fee

Wire Tlpe:Book Out Date:08M18 Time:1127 Et

Tbn:2008041800137926

Bnf:American Century Holdings, ID:69001820290

Wire Tbansfe! Fee

Wire Tlansfer Fee

Wire Tbansfer Fee

Wire Tbansfer Fee

Wire Tbaasfer Fee

Wire Tlansfer Fee

Wire lype:lrtl Out Date:$$MZZ fime:1840 Et Tbn:200804220020il23 Senrice R€fA19982

EnfArcanum Equity F'und Llc LD:25L4446-A*5 Bnf Bk-Deutgche Bink Ag ID:061968/AcWtiZZ

Wire Tbansfer Fee

Wire Tbansfer Fee

Wire Thansfer Fee

Wire Tlansfer Fee

Wire T!'pefntl Out Date:080423 Time:1800 Et

Tbn-20080.42300196768 Senrice n€f,g1g7g4

Bnfi.{rcanum Equiry Fund LIc tDeSiaaa6as s

Enf Bt:DeutscL6 Bink nt mioerseffiriil";dr

Wire Tbansfer Fee

Wire Thansfer Fee Ifire T]pe:Intl Out Date:080425 Time:IzglE;t

Thn:2008O42500166012 Senriee n€ffr230t BnfiArcanum Equity Fund Uc ID:2SlargeOEg

B nf B kO euts ch6 B inh iD-toaat tTdg 

-Frnf be[,F"nd" Fo, Surety Besources

Wire Tbansfer Fee

Wire Tbansfer Fee

Wire Tbansfer Fee

Wire Tbansfer Fee

Funds Tbansfer Debit

Fdes Nfl 0006121 NbkSSOG

Funds Tbansfer Debit

Fdes Nfl 0006121 Mk6SWb

Wire Tbansfer Fee

GOVERNMENT

EXHIB:T

7

903704020065731

903704110223138

903704110123397

903704110123398

903704180137926

903704180118754

903704180076865

903704180076866

903704180118755

903704210070969

903704210070970

903704220206423

903704220104020

90370422∞82240

903704220104021

903704220082241

903704230196768

903704230107367

903704230107368

903704250166012

903704250124798

903704250124799

903704280049287

903704280049288

945004291210372

945004291210374

903704300011597

25.00

5。

7,000.00

25.00

12.00

5.∞

5。

12.00

5.00

500,000.00

45.00

10.00

5。

00

500,Oo000

45.00

5.00

2∞,000.00

45.00

5。

12.00

5.∞

500,000。

100.00

5。

POSted AmOunt(3) DeSCription Reference

04/02

04/11

04/11

04/11

04/18

04/18

04/18

04/18

04/18

04/21

04/21

04/22

04/22

04/22

04/22

04/22

23

04/23

04/23

“

/25

04/25

04/25

04/28

04/28

04/29

04/29

04/30

BOA― UCR0000312

Case No. 1:11-cv-02106-PAB-CBS Document 78-7 filed 10/24/13 USDC Colorado pg 1 of

1
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
                                                                    ------------


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                       ----------------------------------


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus
constituting part of the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No.'s 33-55990 and
33-68250) and in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No.'s 33-10742, 33-
15712, 33-24444, 33-55992, 33-85908, 33-61103 and 333-18363) of Synbiotics
Corporation of our report dated February 21, 1997 appearing on page 15 of this
Form 10-KSB.



PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP

San Diego, California
March 28, 1997



                                      -1-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02584-RPM

KEVIN STRINGER

RYAN O’NEILL;

JOQUIN MARTINEZ;

CHRISTOPHER ANDERSON; and

WILLIAM LEGER, III, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

____________________________________________________________________________

ORDER FOR HEARING CONCERNING KEVIN STRINGER

____________________________________________________________________________

On September 17, 2012, a Stipulated Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice

of Plaintiff Kevin Stringer under FRCP 41(a)(2) [44] was filed by William Muhr, who entered his

appearance on the same day as co-counsel for the plaintiffs, who are also represented by L.

Daniel Rector. On the same day, Kimberly Everette filed a response opposing dismissal signed

by Kimberly Everette, an attorney who has previously appeared in this civil action as counsel for

the plaintiffs [46]. On September 26, 2012, William Muhr filed a motion for leave to file a reply to

Kim Everette’s response [48] and tendered a reply [48-1]; and on September 27, 2012, Kimberly

Everette filed a response to that motion to file a reply [49]. Upon review of these papers, it is

now

ORDERED that a hearing will be held at a time to be scheduled and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Kevin Stringer, William Muhr, L. Daniel Rector and Kimberly

Alford Everette are required to be present at the hearing at which the Court will determine the

status of Kevin Stringer as a plaintiff in this civil action and his legal representation.

Dated: September 27th, 2012.

Case 1:11-cv-02584-RPM Document 50 Filed 09/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

 BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

_________________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02584-RPM Document 50 Filed 09/27/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 9, 2010 

y0830 

Order 

 

September 9, 2010 

140804 

CITIZENS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INQUIRY, a 

non-profit corporation, and BYRON DELONG, 

THOMAS HARKLEROAD, WILLIAM LEWIS, 

JOHN PLATH, JEAN VESELENAK, and 

CHARLES WINTERS, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v SC: 140804 

 COA: 286773 

Ingham CC: 08-000114-AW 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

QUALITY, 

Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

MID-MICHIGAN ENERGY, LLC, WOLVERINE 

POWER SUPPLY COOPERATIVE, INC., and 

CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY, 

Intervening Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 9, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Daniel Lehrfeld, certifythat:

 

1.  I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form10-K of Photonic Products Group, Inc.;

 

2.  Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer andI are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated Subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

 

5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer andI have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.

 
| Date: April  7, 2005 |                     |
|----------------------|--------------------------|
|                 |                     |
|                 | /s/ Daniel  Lehrfeld     |   |
|                 | Daniel  Lehrfeld         |
|                 | Chief Executive  Officer |

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Michael Lacrosse

v. Civil No. 08-cv-00342-JL

Town of Salem, et al.

O R D E R

The Preliminary Pretrial Conference was held in chambers on

November 19, 2008.

The Discovery Plan (document no. 6) is approved as

submitted.

Plaintiff’s counsel represented that the plaintiff’s suit

(despite the allegation regarding a lack of probable cause) does

not include malicious prosecution, false arrest, or false

imprisonment. The claims are excessive force and attendant

supervision/training claims.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: November 19, 2008

cc: Lawrence A. Vogelman, Esq.

Catherine M. Costanzo, Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00342-JL Document 8 Filed 11/19/08 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


     To the Stockholders and Board of Directors of Lifeline Systems, Inc.

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
     of Lifeline Systems, Inc. on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-40684, 33-58632, 33-
     79294, 33-59499, 333-03949, 333-03953, and 333-03951) of our report dated
     February 10, 1997, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements
     and financial statement schedule of Lifeline Systems, Inc. as of December
     31, 1996 and 1995 and for each of the three years in the period ended
     December 31, 1996, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form
     10-K.



                                         /s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
                                         ----------------------------
                                         Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.

     Boston, Massachusetts
     March 26, 1997
##### 



EXHIBIT 23.1 REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of
Factory Card & Party Outlet Corp.
Naperville, Illinois We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of
Factory Card & Party Outlet Corp. and subsidiary (the Company) as of July 31,
2004, and the related condensed consolidated statements of operations for the three-month and six-month periods ended July 31, 2004 and August
2, 2003, and of cash flows for the six-month periods ended July 31, 2004 and
August 2, 2003. These interim financial statements are the responsibility of
the Companys management. We conducted our reviews in accordance with standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States). A review of interim financial
information consists principally of applying analytical procedures and making
inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is
substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with the
standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the
objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial
statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. Based on our reviews, we are not aware of any material modifications that
should be made to such condensed consolidated interim financial statements for
them to be in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States of America. We have previously audited, in accordance with standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheet of
Factory Card & Party Outlet Corp. and subsidiary as of January 31, 2004, and
the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders equity, and
cash flows for the 52 weeks ended January 31, 2004 (not presented herein); and
in our report dated
April 5, 2004, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated
financial statements. In our opinion, the information set forth in the
accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet as of January 31, 2004 is
fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the consolidated
balance sheet from which it has been derived. /s/  Deloitte & Touche LLPChicago, IllinoisAugust 31, 2004
RESOLUTION OF THE COMPENSATION AND EXECUTIVE PERSONNEL

                    COMMITTEES OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF

                            EDISON INTERNATIONAL AND

                       SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

                           Adopted: February 17, 2000

                               RE: Plan Deviation


     WHEREAS,  Alan J.  Fohrer has been  elected as chief  executive  officer of
Edison Mission Energy; and

     WHEREAS, it has been proposed that the benefits that would be payable under
the  nonqualified  executive  benefit  plans of the  companies  in the event Mr.
Fohrer's  employment is  terminated  prior to age 55 as a result of his death or
disability  be  determined  as if he had attained age 55, and the members of the
Committees having conferred thereon;

     NOW,  THEREFORE,  BE IT RESOLVED,  that the nonqualified  executive benefit
plans of the companies in which Mr. Fohrer  participates  shall be  administered
and applied with respect to him as provided above.

Charles D. Miller
---------------------------------
Charles D. Miller
Chairman of the Committees


M. D. McDonald
---------------------------------
M. D. Mcdonald
Counsel