alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### G., C. & S. F. R’y Co. v. R. L. Dunman.

(No. 6443.)

Appeal from Coleman County.

J. W. Terry, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 99. *Railways; injuries to stock; measure of damages for; evidence of value of animal held inadmissible.*This was a suit for damages brought by Dunman against the railway company, in which he charged the company with negligently operating its train and running the same against a Hereford bull, the property of plaintiff, fatally *148disabling it and rendering it totally valueless, to his damage $250. Defendant’s answer consisted simply of a general denial. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $225, as the value of his damages, and $15.30 interest; plaintiff remitting the $15.30 in the lower court. The main question at issue, as developed on the trial, was the value of the bull. There was no market for such animals in Coleman county. In such a state of case evidence may be admitted as to the price at the nearest market, as was done in this case; and when no market value can be shown, the intrinsic qualities of the thing, its uses, and any facts which would naturally affect the minds of parties buying and selling, in determining the price to be asked or given, are relevant to the question of value. [1 Civil Cas. Ct. App., § 1141; 2 Civil Cas. Ct. App., § 398.] There was evidence adduced as to the market value of such animals in several of the counties where there was a market for such animals. The verdict and judgment were for an amount in excess of the prices from either of those places where there was a market. Over defendant’s objections, one Lewis, a witness for plaintiff, was permitted to testify that plaintiff’s bull would have brought $250 from any one that wanted a bull. “He might have brought more. I know of no offer having been made for him.” In the absence of a market value, the true measure of damage for killing an animal by a railroad is not what value the owner or a third person might put upon it, but what it was intrinsically worth, considering the value of its services in the uses to which it was put, etc. [1 Civil Cas. Ct. App., §§ 861, 1147.] The evidence of the witness Lewis, as above quoted, was incompetent and inadmissible, and constitutes reversible error, in view of the conflict in the legitimate evidence on this material issue of the value of the animal. Again, the charge of the court upon the measure of the damages was *boo*general and indefinite. The jury should have been instructed with regard to the *149rules which should govern them in arriving at the market and intrinsic value of the animal. [1 Civil Cas. Ct. App., §§ 250, 1147, 1148, and authorities cited.]

April 30, 1890.

Reversed and remanded.
## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

ERRATA

July 7, 2005

Appeal No. 04-1191 and 04-1192

Rasmusson v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.

Decided: June 27, 2005 Precedential Opinion

Change the opinion as follows:

• On page 7, line 17, replace “628 F. 2d 1327, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1980)” with “628

F.2d 1322, 1332 (CCPA 1980)”
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, 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

January 29, 2010 

y0125 

Order 

 

January 29, 2010 

139286(74) 

_________________________________________ 

In re Estate of ALEXANDER CLARK, III, 

Deceased. 

_________________________________________ 

JULIE CLARK, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v SC: 139286 

 COA: 282000 

Oakland Probate Ct: 

RICHARD SIRIANI, Personal Representative of 2006-305129-DE 

the Estate of ALEXANDER CLARK, III, 

FREDERICK CLARK, and ROBERT CLARK, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s October 26, 

2009 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
#### NEIGHBORHOOD SHIPPING, INC. v. A & B INDUSTRIES OF MORGAN CITY, INC. and Chubb Group of Insurance Companies.

No. 2011-C-1167.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 16, 2011.

In re Neighborhood Shipping, Inc.;— Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Mary, 16th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 110,517; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CA 1651.

Denied. Untimely. See Louisiana Supreme Court Rule X, Section 5.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         129,437
<SECURITIES>                                   140,551
<RECEIVABLES>                                   84,987
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,359
<INVENTORY>                                     39,445
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               418,078
<PP&E>                                          56,281
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,549
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 455,810
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           65,037
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       356,644
<OTHER-SE>                                      34,129
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   455,810
<SALES>                                        181,376
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               181,376
<CGS>                                           76,558
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   76,558
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                72,343
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 38,662
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,918
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             24,744
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    24,744
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE ex rel. Demetrius THOMAS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-2505.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 4, 2011.

In re Thomas, Demetrius; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 2, No. 243,675; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,-821-KH.

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JULY 31, 1998 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,820
<SECURITIES>                                       562
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,925
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    119,714
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          85,127
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,236
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 281,994
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           83,033<F1>
<BONDS>                                            500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           293
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   281,994
<SALES>                                          6,140
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                61,693
<CGS>                                            3,643
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   65,473
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (154)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,852
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,478)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,478)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,478)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.22)
<FN>
<F1>THE COMPANY UTILIZES AN UNCLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET PRESENTATION. THIS FORMAT
WAS FOLLOWED BASED ON THE PREMISE THAT THE VIDEOCASSETTE RENTAL INVENTORY
REPRESENTS ASSETS USED BY THE COMPANY TO GENERATE CURRENT OPERATING INCOME, AND
MANAGEMENT BELIEVES THAT TO CLASSIFY ALL OF THESE COSTS AS NONCURRENT WOULD BE
MISLEADING TO THE READERS OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT
INDICATE THE LEVEL OF ASSETS EXPECTED TO BE CONVERTED INTO CASH IN THE NEXT
YEAR AS A RESULT OF THE RENTALS OF VIDEOCASSETTES.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, William H. Mitchell, certify that:
 1 I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ViewpointCorporation;  2 Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;  3 Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;  4 The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internalcontrol over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;
(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, orcaused such internal control over financial reporting to bedesigned under our supervision, to provide reasonable assuranceregarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes inaccordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and
(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors:
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.     Dated: November 15, 2004 By: /s/ WILLIAM H. MITCHELL       William H. MitchellChief Financial Officer
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 183 (Wednesday, September 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 57825]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23687]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7182]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Artifacts From Auschwitz-Birkenau''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000, I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Artifacts from Auschwitz-Birkenau,'' 
imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, 
are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a 
loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine 
that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Los 
Angeles Museum of the Holocaust, Los Angeles, CA, from on or about 
October 14, 2010, until on or about October 13, 2014, and at possible 
additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the 
national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these 
Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: September 16, 2010.
Ann Stock,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2010-23687 Filed 9-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
#### STATE ex rel. Nathan HOLMES v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2011-KH-0220.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 2, 2011.

In re Holmes, Nathan; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. F, No. 467-136; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-1602.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; *State v. Thomas,*08-2912 (La.10/16/09), 19 So.3d 466; *State ex rel. Melinie v. State,*93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.
#### Ft. W. & R. G. R’y Co. v. M. & C. Kell.

(No. 6963.)

Appeal from Somervell County.

Cooper & Estes and B. M. Estes, counsel for appellant.

Poindexter & Padeleord, counsel for appellees.

June 25, 1890.

Opinion by

Will-son, J.

§150. *Condemnation proceedings; value of land; valuation for taxes not evidence of; charge of court.*This is a proceeding by appellant to condemn right of way for its railway over appellees’ land. Appellees’ damages were assessed at $1,500, and judgment was rendered accordingly. Evidence showing at what valuation appellees had rendered their land for taxation was immaterial, and was properly excluded from the consideration of the jury. [3 Civil Cas. Ct. App., § 111.]' But, even if there was error in excluding such evidence, it was harmless, for it is not claimed by appellant in his brief that the judgment is excessive.

There is no material error in the charge of the court. No additional instructions were requested by appellant. If the charge given was not as full as appellant desired it to be, additional instructions supplying the omissions should have been requested.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1286 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1286

  To amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Washington-
        Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 1, 2007

 Mr. Hinchey (for himself, Mr. Castle, Mr. Larson of Connecticut, Mr. 
  Moran of Virginia, Mr. Oberstar, Ms. Schwartz, Mr. Serrano, and Mr. 
   Snyder) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Washington-
        Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail.

    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 ``Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary 
Route National Historic Trail Designation Act''.

SEC. 2. ADDITION TO NATIONAL SCENIC AND NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAILS.

    Section 5(a) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1244(a)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(26) Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National Historic 
Trail.--
            ``(A) In general.--The Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary 
        Route National Historic Trail, a corridor of approximately 600 
        miles following the route taken by the armies of General George 
        Washington and Count Rochambeau between Newport, Rhode Island, 
        and Yorktown, Virginia, in 1781 and 1782, as generally depicted 
        on the map entitled `WASHINGTON-ROCHAMBEAU REVOLUTIONARY ROUTE 
        NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL', numbered T01/80,000, and dated July 
        2006.
            ``(B) Map.--The map referred to in subparagraph (A) shall 
        be on file and available for public inspection in the 
        appropriate offices of the National Park Service.
            ``(C) Administration.--The trail shall be administered by 
        the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with--
                    ``(i) other Federal, State, tribal, regional, and 
                local agencies; and
                    ``(ii) the private sector.
            ``(D) Land acquisition.--The United States shall not 
        acquire for the trail any land or interest in land outside the 
        exterior boundary of any federally-managed area without the 
        consent of the owner of the land or interest in land.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 31.1
                                  CERTIFICATION

      I, Harold F. Zagunis, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of Sequoia
Mortgage Funding Corporation, a Delaware corporation, hereby certify that:

      1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on
Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of the
Bonds for periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of Sequoia
Mortgage Funding Corporation;

      2.    Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state
a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

      3.    Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
required to be provided to the trustee by the indenture, for inclusion in these
reports is included in these reports;

      4.    Based on my knowledge and upon the annual compliance statement
included in the report and required to be delivered to the trustee in accordance
with the terms of the indenture, and except as disclosed in the reports, the
servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement; and

      5.    The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the report
provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in
compliance with the Uniform Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar
procedure, as set forth in the indenture, that is included in these reports.

Date: March 31, 2005

/s/ Harold F. Zagunis
----------------------------------------
Signature
Name: Harold F. Zagunis
Title: Chief Financial Officer and Secretary