alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(173 La. 467)

#### SNYDER WAGON CO. v. CAMPBELL ICE CREAM CO.

No. 30614.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 3, 1931.

Lee & Gilmer, of Shreveport, for Hall.

Thatcher, Browne, Porteous & Myers, of Shreveport, for receiver.

BRTJNOT, J.

A receiver for the defendant company was duly appointed and qualified, and thereafter 'the receiver conducted the business .of the corporation as a going concern for about two years, when all of the assets of the company were sold for the sum of $92,500. The receiver filed a provisional account showing privileged claims amounting to $79,516.82, and the sum of $11,592.90, which he proposed to distribute among the ordinary creditors in accordance with the statement of their respective accounts annexed to his application.

R. N. Hall, an ordinary creditor, was listed on the receiver’s account as entitled to the sum of $156,52 in the proposed distribution. Hall opposed the homologation of the provisional account only in so far as his claim amounting to $952.39 was concerned. Except as opposed by Hall, the account was regularly homologated. Hall’s opposition to the account was tried, and the trial resulted in a judgment in favor of the opponent for $850.91, with 5 per cent, per annum interest thereon from January 22, 1929, and ordering the receiver to amend his tableau of distribution accordingly. From this judgment the receiver appealed.

R. N. Hall has moved to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that the only sum in dispute is $952.32, and, therefore, this court is without jurisdiction ratione materise to entertain the appeal. The prayer of the motion is that the case be transferred to the Court of Appeal, or in the alternative, that the appeal be dismissed.

In cases such as this, if the fund to be distributed exceeds $2,000 exclusive of interest, this court has jurisdiction of the appeal. Section 10 of article 7 of the Constitution 1921 fixes the appellate jurisdiction of this court. The pertinent part of the section follows: “It shall have appellate jurisdiction in civil suits where the amount in dispute, *or the fund to be distributed, irrespective of the amount therein claimed,*shall exceed two thousand dollars exclusive of interest,” etc. (Italics by the court.)

This is a civil suit and the amount to be distributed exceeds $2,000 exclusive of interest. The motion to dismiss the appeal is therefore overruled.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             739
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             394
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                  1625
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       5362
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                          29750
<ALLOWANCE>                                        677
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   39323
<DEPOSITS>                                       30662
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                105
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              774
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           774
<OTHER-SE>                                        6744
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                   39323
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   2949
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  370
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    27
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  3388
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                  20
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1092
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             2296
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      (58)
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   9
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   1640
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1305
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       888
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.88
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.68
<LOANS-NON>                                        316
<LOANS-PAST>                                      2035
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    87
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                     69
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   852
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       33
<RECOVERIES>                                        98
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  802
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               802
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
|   **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 Cannabis Science, Inc., (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard Cowan, Chief Financial 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, to my knowledge:

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 results of operations of the Company.

By: */s/ Richard Cowan*Richard CowanChief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting OfficerNovember 19, 2012

 

               |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### Chris Worm, Respondent, *v.*Nicholas Di Menna & Sons, Inc., Appellant, and City or New York, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

January 10, 1957.

*204*Emil V. Pilz*and *Thomas B. Treacy*for appellant.

*Charles J. Heffernan*and *Irving Ginsberg*for Chris Worm, respondent.

*Peter Campbell Brown, Corporation Counsel (Fred Iscol, Seymour B. Quel*and *Ruth Levinson*of counsel), for City of New York, respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Plaintiff failed to establish that the alleged negligence of defendant Nicholas Di Henna & Sons, Inc., was the proximate cause of his damage. With respect to that part of the judgment which dismissed plaintiff’s complaint as against defendant City of New York, appellant is not a party aggrieved and has no standing to appeal therefrom *(Fitzgerald*v. *Greenbaum,*270 App. Div. 1026).

The judgment as against defendant Nicholas Di Henna & Sons, Inc., should be unanimously reversed on the law and facts, with costs to that defendant, and complaint against it dismissed, with costs. Appeal from judgment insofar as it dismisses plaintiff’s complaint against defendant City of New York dismissed, without costs.

Pette, Hart and Di Gtovanna, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the 3/31/97
Form 10-K and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          18,335
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,642
<ALLOWANCES>                                        59
<INVENTORY>                                      1,759
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,256
<PP&E>                                           6,931
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,877
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  58,086
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,838
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        44,618
<OTHER-SE>                                    (29,279)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    58,086
<SALES>                                         96,897
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               100,887
<CGS>                                           78,331
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   94,041
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (183)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,029
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,983
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,852
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,852
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .36
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Mark Eckstein, an Attorney, Resignor.

Fourth Department,

December 21,1990

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Mark Eckstein,*respondent *pro se.*

*Gerard M. LaRusso*for petitioner.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The above-named attorney was admitted to practice by this court on February 22, 1977 and is currently in good standing. He has submitted an affidavit requesting that this court accept his resignation from the practice of law in New York State. His affidavit states that he currently resides in Rhode Island where he is also admitted to practice, is employed as Executive Director of the Rhode Island Ethics Commission, that there are no complaints or charges pending against him and that he cannot afford to pay the attorney registration fee in New York.

*305We grant the application and direct that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys.

Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Boomer, JJ., concur.

Resignation accepted and name stricken from roll of attorneys.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Theodore S. Hart, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, New York 'County,

November 28,1956.

Barr, *Robbins & Palmer*for petitioner.

*Arthur J. X. Hines*for Wolcott P. Robbins and another, respondents.

*Joseph V.*O’Leary, special guardian for Jenifer Robbins and others, infants, respondent.

*303William T. Collins, S.

Theodore Stuart Hart died testate on January 1, 1951. His last will and testament admitted to prohate in this court January 12, 1951 provided that one half of the adjusted gross estate be held in trust for his wife. Income was payable to her until her death. On her death the principal of this trust fund was to be divided into 14 parts. One of the 14 parts was to be held in trust for a brother-in-law, income to be paid to him during his life, on his death income then payable to his wife; on her death principal to be paid to their two children if then surviving — if deceased, to their distributees. Another fourteenth part was to be held in trust in the same manner for the same parties except that in this instance the sister-in-law would enjoy the first life estate to be succeeded by her husband and on the death of the survivor the principal to be paid as above to their two children.

In each instance the absolute ownership of one fourteenth of the property is suspended for the life of the widow, the brother-in-law or sister-in-law’s and then the latter’s spouse — three lives. This is clearly a violation of section 11 of the Personal Property Law and section 42 of the Real Property Law.

However, the widow’s life estate is valid as are the second life estates for the brother-in-law and sister-in-law. The invalid third life estate of the sister-in-law and brother-in-law respectively may be excised from the prior valid estates. *(Matter of Fischer,*307 N. Y. 149; *Matter of Lyons,*271 N. Y. 204; *Matter of Silsby,*229 N. Y. *396; Matter of Wilcox,*194 N. Y. 288; *Kalish*v. *Kalish,*166 N. Y. 368.)

The next question concerns the disposition of the principal on the termination of the valid life estates. The disposition provided by the will is to two remaindermen if they are surviving on the termination of the illegal trust. Survivorship being a condition the remainder interests are contingent and may not be accelerated. *(Matter of Fischer,*supra; *Matter of von lsenburg,*306 N. Y. 847; *Matter of Durand,*250 N. Y. 45.) Since the disposition of the remainders provided by the will falls with the void life estates, the remainder must be treated as intestate property of testator. On the respective deaths of the secondary life beneficiaries the corpus of the secondary trusts must pass as intestate property of the testator.

The eight questions posed in article 16 of the petition are answered in the affirmative.

Submit decree on notice.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 131622 & (24) Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices

v SC: 131622 COA: 266310 Wayne CC: 99-006418-01 ERIC HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is DENIED. The application for leave to appeal the May 17, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to re lief under MCR 6.508(D).

s1023 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.

October 31, 2006

Clerk
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1347

AN ACT

To amend the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act to modify 

the date as of which certain tribal land of the Lytton 

Rancheria of California is deemed to be held in trust 

and to provide for the conduct of certain activities on 

the land.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 1347 ES

1 SECTION 1. LYTTON RANCHERIA OF CALIFORNIA. 

2 Section 819 of the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act 

3 (Public Law 106–568; 114 Stat. 2919) is amended—

4 (1) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘Notwith5 standing’’ and inserting the following: 

6 ‘‘(a) ACCEPTANCE OF LAND.—Notwithstanding’’; 

7 (2) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘The 

8 Secretary’’ and inserting the following: 

9 ‘‘(b) DECLARATION.—The Secretary’’; and 

10 (3) by striking the third sentence and inserting 

11 the following: 

12 ‘‘(c) TREATMENT OF LAND FOR PURPOSES OF CLASS

13 II GAMING.—

14 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), 

15 notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 

16 Lytton Rancheria of California may conduct activi17 ties for class II gaming (as defined in section 4 of 

18 the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 

19 2703)) on the land taken into trust under this sec20 tion. 

21 ‘‘(2) REQUIREMENT.—The Lytton Rancheria of 

22 California shall not expand the exterior physical 

23 measurements of any facility on the Lytton 

24 Rancheria in use for class II gaming activities on 

25 the date of enactment of this paragraph. 
3

•S 1347 ES

1 ‘‘(d) TREATMENT OF LAND FOR PURPOSES OF

2 CLASS III GAMING.—Notwithstanding subsection (a), for 

3 purposes of class III gaming (as defined in section 4 of 

4 the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2703)), the 

5 land taken into trust under this section shall be treated, 

6 for purposes of section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regu7 latory Act (25 U.S.C. 2719), as if the land was acquired 

8 on October 9, 2003, the date on which the Secretary took 

9 the land into trust.’’. 

Passed the Senate November 5, 2007. 

Attest:

Secretary. 
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1347

AN ACT

To amend the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act to 

of certain activities on the land.be held in trust and to provide for the conduct the Lytton Rancheria of California is deemed to modify the date as of which certain tribal land of
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 27 (Friday, February 8, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 7525]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-2373]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Economic Analysis


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Correction

AGENCY: Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Department of Commerce.
    This notice corrects the notice published on February 1, 2008, 
Volume 73, Number 22, page 6114. The following items are corrected and 
replaced--
    Title: Biomedical Research and Development Price Index (BRDPI) 
Survey.
    OMB Control Number: 0608-0069.
    All other information stated in the February 1, 2008 notice remains 
effective.

    Dated: February 5, 2008.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-2373 Filed 2-7-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-06-P
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 21

- 00010

- CV
Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC v. Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas; and Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas
On Appeal from the 200th District Co urt of Travis County , Texas

Trial Court Cause No. D

- 1

- GN

- 19

- 008429

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the t rial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant. We further order this decision certified below for observance. November 10 , 2022
811 A.2d 458

#### JOHN RECK AND BARBARA RECK, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TAXATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Argued December 2, 2002

Decided December 19, 2002.

*Charles M. Costenbader,*argued the cause for appellants *(McCarter & English,*attorneys; *Michael A. Guariglia*and *Margaret C. Wilson,*on the briefs).

*Patrick DeAlmeida,*Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent *{David Samson,*Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; *Michael J. Haas,*Assistant Attorney General, of counsel).

*55PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed, substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Stern’s opinion of the Appellate Division, reported at 345 *N.J.Super.*443, 785 A.2d 476 (2001).

LONG and VERNIERO, JJ., dissenting.

We would reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division substantially for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Tax Court. *Reck v. Director, Div. of Taxation,*18 *N.J.Tax*598 (Tax 2000).

For affirming — Chief Justice PORITZ and Justices COLEMAN, LaVECCHIA, ZAZZALI and ALBIN — 5.

For reversing — Justices LONG and *YERNIERO*— 2.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02434-WYD-MEH

CARL GENBERG,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEVEN S. PORTER,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on November 3, 2011.

Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amended Caption for First Amended

Complaint and Jury Demand [filed November 1, 2011; docket #11] is granted in part and denied

in part. The Court accepts Plaintiff’s proposed corrected pleading found at docket #13, and directs

the Plaintiff to file with the Court the Corrected First Amended Complaint and Jury Demand

(without the word, “proposed,” in the title) on or before November 7, 2011. Upon its filing,

Defendant shall file an answer or other response to the Corrected First Amended Complaint in

accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).

Case 1:11-cv-02434-WYD-MEH Document 14 Filed 11/03/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-K/A of First Citizens Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company") for theyear ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best knowledge and belief of the signatory, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

                                           /s/ Katie S. Winchester                                           Chief Executive Officer                                            Date: July 27, 2005