alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The Users & Dealers Oil Co., Appellant, *v.*The Pure Oil Co., Appellee.

(Decided June 21, 1938.)

*Mr. Elmer McClain,*for appellant.

*Messrs. Meredith & Meredith,*for appellee.

By the Court.

This is an appeal on questions of law from a judgment of the Municipal Court of Lima, in a case pending therein, wherein the appellant, The Users & Dealers Oil Company, was plaintiff and the appellee, The Pure Oil Company, was defendant.

The sole question raised by the appeal is whether the Municipal Court of Lima may assess all jury costs against the plaintiff where the defendant sued on a counterclaim and the jury returned a verdict of no cause of action against both plaintiff and defendant.

Sections 11624 and 11627, General Code, contemplate that a defendant in an action brought against him for the recovery of money only may interpose any defense he may have to such action, and also set up any counterclaim or set-off he may have thereto, and that there *508shall be separate findings on the cause of action of the plaintiff and the counterclaim or set-off of the defendant, but only one judgment and that in favor of the party prevailing on the whole case; and in event there is a judgment in favor of plaintiff in such action costs shall be allowed plaintiff as a matter of right; and on the other hand, if there is a judgment in' favor of defendant in such action, whether by reason of a finding-against plaintiff on his cause of action or by reason of a finding that the counterclaim or set-off of the defendant equals or exceeds in amount the finding on the cause of action of the plaintiff, or by reason of the fact of a finding against plaintiff on his cause of action and a similar finding against the defendant on his counterclaim or set-off, the defendant is allowed costs as a matter of right. *Gordon*v. *Steinmetz,*71 Ohio St., 372, 73 N. E., 512.

In the instant case there was a finding against plaintiff on its cause of action and -a finding against the defendant on its counterclaim or set-off and therefore on the whole of the case the judgment in the case was in favor of the defendant. The judgment being in favor of the defendant, it was, under the provisions of Section 11627, General Code, above mentioned, entitled to have judgment against the plaintiff for all the costs in the case including costs of the jury. The judgment awarding the costs of the jury, in favor of defendant and against plaintiff was therefore not erroneous as to plaintiff.

The error of the court in taxing costs was in failing to tax all the costs against the plaintiff, but as the defendant has filed no cross-appeal the judgment of the Municipal Court will not be modified in this respect, but will be affirmed without modification.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Guernsey, P. J., Crow and Klinger, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Asia Interactive Media Inc. (the "Registrant") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 Registrant.














Dated:  March 31, 2011





By:       /s/ Ken Ng


Ken Ng


President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary, Treasurer, Director
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2358 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2358

 To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize additional leave 
   for members of the Armed Forces in connection with the birth of a 
                                 child.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 20, 2014

 Mr. Udall of Colorado (for himself and Mrs. McCaskill) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                             Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize additional leave 
   for members of the Armed Forces in connection with the birth of a 
                                 child.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Military Opportunities for Mothers 
Act'' or the ``MOM Act''.

SEC. 2. AVAILABILITY OF ADDITIONAL LEAVE FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED 
              FORCES IN CONNECTION WITH THE BIRTH OF A CHILD.

    Section 701(j) of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as paragraphs 
        (2) and (3), respectively;
            (2) by inserting after ``(j)'' the following new paragraph 
        (1):
    ``(1) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned, a 
member of the armed forces who gives birth to a child shall receive 42 
days of convalescent leave to be used in connection with the birth of 
the child. At the discretion of the member, the member shall be allowed 
up to 42 additional days in a leave of absence status in connection 
with the birth of the child upon the expiration of the convalescent 
leave, except that--
            ``(A) a member who uses this additional leave is not 
        entitled to basic pay for any day on which such additional 
        leave is used, but shall be considered to be on active duty for 
        all other purposes; and
            ``(B) the commanding officer of the member may recall the 
        member to duty from such leave of absence status when necessary 
        to maintain unit readiness.''; and
            (3) in paragraph (3), as redesignated by paragraph (1) of 
        this section, by striking ``paragraph (1)'' and inserting 
        ``paragraphs (1) and (2)''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE THIRD QUARTER 10-QSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH 10-QSB.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       6,759,118
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,214,663
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      9,890,466
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,178,332
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,214,663
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               990,572
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               243,273
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             861,335
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (114,036)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (114,036)
<DISCONTINUED>                               9,604,879
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 9,490,843
<EPS-BASIC>                                     430.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   430.63


</TABLE>
Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Gold Fields Limited (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul A. Schmidt, 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:



|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.
|- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: December 2, 2010



|                                       
|---------------------------------------
|/s/ P.A. Schmidt                       
|Paul A. Schmidt Chief
Financial Officer
#### MURPHY v. COASTAL PHYSICIAN GRP., INC.

No. 410A00

Case below: 139 N.C. App. 290

Joint motion by defendant and plaintiff to withdraw appeal allowed 5 April 2001.
ex10-2.htm










Exhibit 10.2





This Agreement is entered into as of May 20, 2014 by and between Larry Gantz (“LG”) and Generation Zero Group, Inc. (“GNZR”).







RECITALS:








	
  

	
A.

	
GNZR executed that certain promissory note (“NOTE”) dated as of November 4, 2011 in the principal amount of $50,000 with Equity Trust Company Custodian FBO Larry Gantz IRA 110591 LG as the Holder.








	
  

	
B.

	
LG is the beneficiary of the Holder and has the authority to instruct Holder’s actions with respect to the Note.








	
  

	
C.

	
Trust and GNZR desire to amend the Note and enter into certain agreements in connection with the execution and delivery of this Agreement.












NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:








	
  

	
1.

	
All past defaults under the Note shall be waived by the Trust.








	
  

	
2.

	
Payments on the Note shall be deferred until GNZR commences making payments under the senior secured notes (“Senior Notes”) which are secured by the URL www.find.com, mirroring all deferral and waivers by the holders of the Senior Notes.








	
  

	
3.

	
Except as modified by the terms of this Agreement, all other terms of the Note shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.

















IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.








	  	
Generation Zero Group, Inc.


	  	
 


	  	  
	
/s/ Larry K. Gantz

	
By /s/ Richard M. Morrell


	
Larry Gantz

	
       Richard M. Morrell, CEO

















Please return via fax to 704-631-4541 or to Tina Cheney, CFO @ tina.cheney@gmail.com.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1688 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1688

To amend title 10, United States Code, to extend the time limit for the 
  use of education assistance by members of the Selected Reserve and 
members of the reserve component supporting contingency operations and 
                       certain other operations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 25, 2007

   Mr. Casey introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 10, United States Code, to extend the time limit for the 
  use of education assistance by members of the Selected Reserve and 
members of the reserve component supporting contingency operations and 
                       certain other operations.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Higher Education Opportunity for Our 
National Guard and Reserve Soldiers Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF TIME LIMIT FOR USE OF EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE BY 
              MEMBERS OF THE SELECTED RESERVE AND MEMBERS OF RESERVE 
              COMPONENT SUPPORTING CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS AND CERTAIN 
              OTHER OPERATIONS.

    (a) Members of Selected Reserves.--Section 16133(a) of title 10, 
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``that is ten years after 
the date on which'' after ``on the date''.
    (b) Reserve Component Members Supporting Contingency Operations.--
Subsection (a) of section 16164 of title 10, United States Code, is 
amended to read as follows:
    ``(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the period during which 
a person entitled to educational assistance under this chapter may use 
such person's entitlement expires on the date that is ten years after 
the date on which the person is separated from the Selected Reserve or 
the Ready Reserve.''.
    (c) Inapplicability to Certain Persons.--The amendments made by 
this section shall not apply with respect to any person who is 
discharged or released from the Armed Forces under dishonorable 
conditions. For purposes of the administration of chapter 1606 or 1607 
of title 10, United States Code, with respect to any such person, the 
provisions of subsection (a) of section 16133 of such title or 
subsection (a) of section 16164 of such title, as applicable, as in 
effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act, shall 
apply to such person.
    (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply with respect to a person who is eligible for benefits under 
chapter 1606 or 1607 of title 10, United States Code, on January 1, 
2007, or becomes eligible for such benefits after that date.
                                 <all>
```
# Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

June 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice
132366 & (65)(69) Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan GUST PAPADELIS, NIKI PAPADELIS, TELLY’S GREENHOU SE AND GARDEN CENTER, INC., and TELLY’S NURSERY LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellees/ Cross-Appellants, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman,
Justices

v SC: 132366 COA: 268920 Oakland CC: 2005-067029-CZ CITY OF TROY, MARK STIMAC, and MARLENE STRUCKMAN, Defendants-Appellants/ Cross-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for leave to file brief amicus curiae is GRANTED. The application fo r leave to appeal the September 19, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals and the ap plication for leave to appeal as cross-appellants are considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1 ), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE in part the judgments of the Oakl and Circuit Court and the Court of Appeals to the extent that they hold that the Right to Farm Act, MCL 286.471 et seq. (RTFA), and the State Construction Code, MCL 125.1502a(f), exempt the plaintiffs from the defendant city’s ordinances governing the permitting, si ze, height, bulk, floor area, construction, and location of structures used in the plai ntiffs’ greenhouse operations. Assuming that the plaintiffs’ acquisition of additional la nd entitled them under the city’s zoning ordinance to make agricultural use of the north parcel (a point on which we express no opinion, in light of the defendant city’s failure to exhaust a ll available avenues of appeal from that ruling after the remand to the Oakl and Circuit Court in the prior action, see City of Troy v Papadelis (On Remand) , 226 Mich App 90 (1997)), the plaintiffs’ structures remain subject to applicable building permit, size, height, bulk, floor area, construction, and location requirements under the defendant city’s ordinances. The plaintiffs’ greenhouses and pole barn are not “incidental to the use for agricultural purposes of the land” on which they are lo cated within the meaning of MCL 125.1502a(f). As no provisions of the RTFA or any publis hed generally accepted agricultural and_______________________________________ __ 2

management practice address the permitting, si ze, height, bulk, floor area, construction, and location of buildings used for greenhouse or related agricultural purposes, no conflict exists between the RTFA and the defendant city’s ordinances regulati ng such matters that would preclude their enforcement under the fa cts of this case. We REMAND this case to the Oakland Circuit Court for further proceeding s not inconsistent with this order. In all other respects, the applications are DENIED , because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented shoul d be reviewed by this Court.

p0626 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.

June 29, 2007

Clerk
#### James YOCOM, Commissioner, Ky. Dept. of Labor & Custodian of Special Fund, et al., Appellants, v. Jack MEADOWS and Kentucky Workmen’s Compensation Board, Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 29, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 7, 1973.

Thomas L. Ferreri, Department of Labor, Frankfort, Atty. for Special Fund, for appellants.

Perry & Greene, Paintsville, for appel-lees.

Memorandum Opinion of the Court by

Justice OSBORNE,

Reversing.*

*

 Opinion ordered not to be published.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.4

                         Consent of Proposed Director

     The undersigned hereby consents to serve as a director of Aviation Group,
Inc. if the arrangement contemplated by the Arrangement Agreement dated as of
May 3, 2000 by and among Aviation Group, Inc., Aviation Group Canada Ltd. and
travelbyus.com Ltd. is consummated, and to be named as a potential director of
Aviation Group, Inc. in the Form S-4 Registration Statement for the arrangement
transaction.

                                    By:    /s/ JOHN H. CRAIG
                                           -----------------
                                    Name:  John H. Craig
                                    Date:  May 9, 2000
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. THOMAS BAILIFF.

March 18, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. THEODORE F. HOLDEN

Criminal Court for Davidson County

No. 2003-B-904

No. M2004-00570-CCA-R3-CD - Filed April 19, 2005

JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, J., dissenting.

I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the defendant did not open the door

to cross-examination concerning other felonies involving dishonesty. This defendant’s record is

extensive, and all but one of his thirteen convictions involve acts of dishonesty. The defendant’s

credibility was an issue when he chose to testify. For me, it is a close question of whether the

questions asked by the defendant’s attorney opened the door for further examination. By this I mean

it appears that defense counsel was clearly trying to convey the defendant’s record consisted only

of misdemeanor offenses. I trust the trial court heard the inflections in defense counsel’s voice that

he used to emphasize “misdemeanor” in his questioning. Although his questions contained true

statements, the inflections used in asking the questions by defense counsel could surely place an

undue emphasis on “misdemeanor,” creating a misimpression on a jury. I believe the cavalier

answers given by the defendant further opened the door when he answered, “I guess, yeah,” and

“O.K.” The defendant had an extensive criminal record. His first arrest was at age nineteen, and he

is now thirty-two. The record reveals that the defendant had never accumulated more than three

years of good conduct without being arrested. His answers to the specific questions by defense

counsel were answered in such a way that a jury could mistakenly believe that his brushes with the

law were so infrequent or minor that he had difficulty remembering them. I believe this line of

questions was designed to convey a false impression to the jury. Tennessee Rule of Evidence 609

envisions impeachment by the State of a criminal defendant if he or she chooses to testify. Here,

defense counsel sought to lessen the sting of the state’s impeachment or to steal the state’s thunder,

a permissible tactic. However, this permissible trial tactic must be employed with the utmost

caution or the door will be opened for the State to cross-examine on his entire record. Under the

facts of this case, I conclude the trial court was correct in ruling that the defendant opened the door

to further impeachment. Respectfully submitted,

______________________________

JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. SANDRA A. BURGOS.

July 10, 1985.

Petition for certification denied. (See 200 *N.J.Super.*6)
[No. 6347.

Decided November 21, 1906.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. James Rourk, Appellant.1

Appeal — Record—Statement oe Facts — Exceptions to Instructions. In the absence of a hill of exceptions or statement of facts showing all the instructions, and of any exceptions to the instructions given, error in instructions cannot he reviewed.

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Kitsap county, Yakey, J., entered February 17, 1906, upon a trial and conviction of the crime of cattle stealing.

Appeal dismissed.

*465*Sayre*& *Brinker,*for .appellant.

*C. D. Sutton (Thomas Stevenson,*of counsel), for respondent.

1

Reported in 87 Pac. 507.

Per Curiam.

This appeal is taken from a judgment of conviction for the crime of cattle stealing. Judgment was entered on the 17th day of February, 1906. Notice of appeal was served and-filed on March 20, 1906. No statement of facts has ever been served or filed, but long after the time had expired for filing a statement of facts, an effort was made to obtain an order extending the time for filing such statement, but the order was denied.

The only errors assigned are directed to the instructions which w'ere given by the court to the jury upon the trial. The transcript contains what purports to be instructions given upon the trial. But it does not appear that these were the only instructions given by the court, or that' any exceptions were taken to any of them. Under such circumstances, we cannot consider the questions presented. The appeal must, therefore, be dismissed.