alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### G., H. & S. A. R’y Co. v. T. B. Bibb.

(No. 3804.)

Appeal from Val Verde County.

*(Transferred from Austin.J*

P. H. Ward, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 272. *Damage to land by diverting surface water upon it; measure of; case stated.*Appellee recovered judgment against appellant for $1,000 damages for negligently and unskilfully constructing its road-bed, so as to cause his land to be overflowed by surface water, thereby destroying his growing crops and injuring his land. *Held:*The charge of the court was materially erroneous as to the measure of damages. In such case, the true measure of damages is the injury which the land and other property sustains from the successive overflows when they occur. In such case, the rule that .the difference between the market value of the land immediately before and immediately after the injury complained of is the *331measure of damage, is not the correct one. [R’y Co. v. Helsley, 62 Tex. 593; R’y Co. v. Tait, 63 Tex. 223; R. R. Co. v. Johnson, 6 Tex. Law Rev. 86.] As announced in the above cited cases, the rule is apparently in conflict with the decisions of this court. [W. & W. Con. Rep. § 445; 2 W. Con. Rep. §§ 288, 489, 662.] Upon close examination of the cases, however, there is no conflict between the decisions of the supreme court and of this court upon this subject. When the injury to the land is permanent, the true measure of damage is that stated by this court in the cases above cited, that is, the difference between the market value of the land before* and after the injury. When the injury is not permanent, the true measure of damage is that stated by our supreme court in the cases above cited.

March 3, 1887.

Eeversed and remanded.
583 A.2d 350

#### WAYNE PROWITZ v. RIDGEFIELD PARK VILLAGE. KATHLEEN DUNLEAVY v. RIDGEFIELD PARK VILLAGE.

March 30, 1990.

Petition for certification granted. (See 237 *N.J.Super.*435, 568 A.2d 114)
#### Western Union Tel. Co. v. F. R. Lively et al.

(No. 3000.)

Appeal from Montague County.

*(Transferred from Austin.)*

J. M. O’Neill and R. P. Willing, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

January 19, 1891.

Opinion by

Will-son, J.

§ 192. *Judgment by default; special damages not recoverable unless, etc.*Appellees recovered judgment by default against appellant for $500, damages for failure to transmit and deliver a telegram for them to one House. *Held:*The damages claimed are special, such as would •not naturally and proximately result from a breach of the contract — not such as would reasonably be in the contemplation of appellant. To entitle appellees to a judgment for such damages, it devolved upon them to both allege and prove that, at the time of delivering the telegram to be transmitted, appellant had knowledge that a failure to transmit and deliver the same might result in causing such special damages to appellees. [Tel. Co. v. McKinney, 2 App. C. C., §§ 645, 646.] It is not so alleged in the petition, and the judgment is therefore erroneous.

Reversed and remanded.
BRIGADIER GENERAL CLARENCE P. TALBOTClarence Prescott Talbot was born in Rockford, Iowa, in 1897. He graduated from high school in Rochelle, Ill., and attended the University of Illinois.
In December 1917, he enlisted in the Aviation Section of the Signal Enlisted Reserve Corps, and on June 4, 1918, was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Air Service Reserve. He was honorably discharged Jan. 9, 1919.
On July 1, 1920, he received a Regular commission as a second lieutenant of Air Service, was immediately promoted to first lieutenant and assigned as a student to the Air Service Observation School at Fort Sill, Okla. Upon graduated in December 1921, he became an instructor in Air Service tactics at the University of Illinois, and in July 1922 was appointed as Assistant Professor of Military Science and Tactics there.
General Talbot was transferred in October 1923 to the Fourth Observation Squadron at Wheeler Field, Hawaii. Three years later he entered the Air Corps Technical School at Chanute Field, Ill., completed the armament course in March 1927, and was assigned to the 88th Observation Squadron at Wright Field, Ohio. In July 1927, he was named armament officer of the Air Corps Advanced Flying School at Kelly Field, Texas, and a year later became an instructor there.
In August 1930, General Talbot was appointed an instructor for the Air Corps Reserve unit at Salt Lake City, Utah. He entered the Air Corps Tactical School at Maxwell Field, Ala., in August 1934, graduated a year later and entered the Command and General Staff School at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., from which he graduated in June 1936. He then assumed command of the 88th Reconnaissance Squadron at Hamilton Field, Calif.; in September 1939 became supply officer for the First Wing of that station; and in January 1941 was named assistant chief of staff for supply of the Fourth Air Force there.
General Talbot was transferred to the China-Burma-India theater of operations in November 1943 as assistant chief of staff for supply of the 14th Air Force. In July 1944, he assumed command of the China Air Service Command. He became a member of the China Theater Regular Army Screening Board in January 1946, and the following April was named commander of the Shanghai Port Command, serving until May 1946.
In June 1946, General Talbot was named deputy commander of the Port of Alameda, Calif., and in March 1947 became commander. In May 1947, he was assigned as deputy commander of the Sacramento, Calif., Air Materiel Area, with station at McClellan Field, Calif. He was appointed Chief of Program Monitoring at Air Materiel Command headquarters, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, in November 1950. He was reassigned as deputy commander of the Sacramento Air Materiel Area in April 1952.
His decorations include the Legion of Merit, Bronze Star Medal and Air Medal. He is rated a command pilot, combat observer, and aircraft observer.
(Current as of April 1952)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           3,525
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,632
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,473
<PP&E>                                           4,301
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 938,697
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          347,017
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,191,862
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,499,952)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   938,697
<SALES>                                         85,264
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                85,264
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  192,403
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,480
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (117,619)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (117,619)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)


</TABLE>
Order entered April 22 , 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05

- 21

- 00010

- CR No. 05

- 21

- 0001 4

- CR
NICHOLAS DAVID CHAMBERS , Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee
On Appeal from the 29 6th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 296

- 80112

- 2018 & 296

- 8011 4

- 2018
O RDER
T he reporter ’ s record , requested on January 11 and due on Januar y 30, 2021 , has not been filed. W e notified court reporter Ja net Dugger on February 3, 2021 , directing her to file the reporter ’s record by March 5, 2021. When she did not do so, we then ordered Ms. Dugger to f ile the reporter ’ s record by April 5, 2021. To date, she has not filed the reporter ’ s record or responded t o the C o urt ’ s communications.We ORDER Janet Dugger to file the reporter ’ s record by May 3, 2021 . We
caution Ms. Du gger that the failure to do so will result in the C o urt taking whatever actions it deems appropriate to ensure these appeals proceed in a mor e timely fashion, which may inc lude ordering Ms. Dugger not sit until the reporter ’ s record in these appeals is filed.
We DI RECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable John Roach, Jr. Presiding Judge, 296th Judi cial District Court; to cou rt r eporter Janet Dugger, 296th Judi cial District Court; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
#### SOTAVENTO CORPORATION *v.*MORNINGSIDE PARTNERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

(AC 23204)

Lavery, C. J., and Dranginis and Peters, Js.

Argued May 1

officially released May 20, 2003

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
##### 



Engagement
  Fees




---



##### 



Senior Term Notes
 Portion of Structuring FeeMilestone
    
    Earned and Payable1.
    
    a) Execution of this
Agreement, b) first draft of
presentation materials
regarding the Notes for
submission to the Rating
Agencies, and c)
commencement of financial
model to be used for Rating
Agency evaluation purposes.
It is agreed upon by all
parties that this milestone
has been completed as of
September 20, 2006.
    
    
    1.
    
    
    7.5 bps of an anticipated
program amount of
$300MM2.
    
    Completion of
negotiations between JCF and
Fortis regarding a term
sheet for Notes to be
submitted to Rating Agencies
and potential note
insurers1 (it is
agreed upon by all parties
that further work on this
step will not be initiated
until further notice by
JCF).
    
    
    2.
    
    
    2.5 bps of an anticipated
program amount of
$300MM3.
    
    Completion of
presentation materials
regarding the Notes for
submission to the Rating
Agencies (it is agreed upon
by all parties that further
work on this step will not
be initiated until further
notice by JCF).
    
    
    3.
    
    
    5 bps of an anticipated
program amount of
$300MM4.
    
    Completion of initial
version of financial model
utilized to obtain a rating
for the Notes from the
Rating Agencies2
(it is agreed upon by all
parties that further work on
this step will not be
initiated until further
notice by JCF).
    
    
    4.
    
    
    5 bps of an anticipated
program amount of
$300MM5.
    
    Placement Date
    
    
    5.
    
    
    Balance of Structuring Fee
(80 bps of the program
amount)
  
 1
    
    This term sheet will be subject to revision
in order to reflect the results of negotiations with each of the potential
note insurers and the Rating Agencies.2
    
    The financial model will be subject to
revision in order to reflect the results of negotiations with the bond insurer
and the Rating Agencies.




---



##### 



Senior Warehouse Notes
 Termination Payment
  Bond Insurer Expense Reimbursement
 Timing of Payment
  Termination of Engagement




---



##### 



Other Agreements
 Indemnification
 Expenses provided, however
  Preparation of the Offering Memorandum
 Approval of Offering Memorandum




---



##### 



Preparation of Offering Material
 Other Services
 Information; Confidentiality




---



##### 



Cooperation
 Governing Law




---



##### 



Advice
 No Provision to Purchase or Finance
 Relationship Between the Parties
 Exclusivity
 Other Notes Issuances




---



##### 



Miscellaneous
 Survival
 Use of Name
 Headings
 Counterparts
 Potential Conflicts




---



##### 



Joinder of Co-Managers




---



##### 



Very truly yours,FORTIS CAPITAL CORP.By: /s/ M.A.N. VAN LACUMName: M.A.N. van LacumTitle: DirectorBy: /s/ MILTON ANDERSONName: Milton AndersonTitle: Managing Director




---



##### 



Indemnification Agreement




---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 



Very truly yours,CF LEASING LTD.By: /s/ DENNIS J. TIETZName: Dennis J. TietzTitle: Director
exv4w3






Exhibit 4.3




PA-




Series A Preferred Stock




INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

INTERMOUNTAIN COMMUNITY BANCORP

Authorized to issue 30,040,000 Shares of Stock, consisting of 29,040,000 shares of Common Stock with no Par Value and

1,000,000 shares of Preferred Stock designated as 27,000 shares of Series A Preferred Stock




of Series A Preferred Stock of Intermountain Community Bancorp




20__




	 	 	 
	 

	 	 
	Curt Hecker, President/CEO

	 	Dale Schuman, Secretary






SEE REVERSE FOR RESTRICTIONS ON TRANSFER




 









 







RESTRICTIONS ON TRANSFER:



THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT ARE NOT SAVINGS ACCOUNTS, DEPOSITS OR
OTHER OBLIGATIONS OF A BANK AND ARE NOT INSURED BY THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION OR ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY.



THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT HAVE NOT BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE
SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED (THE “SECURITIES ACT”), OR THE SECURITIES LAWS OF ANY
STATE AND MAY NOT BE TRANSFERRED, SOLD OR OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF EXCEPT WHILE A
REGISTRATION STATEMENT RELATING THERETO IS IN EFFECT UNDER SUCH ACT AND APPLICABLE STATE
SECURITIES LAWS OR PURSUANT TO AN EXEMPTION FROM REGISTRATION UNDER SUCH ACT OR SUCH
LAWS. EACH PURCHASER OF THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT IS NOTIFIED THAT
THE SELLER MAY BE RELYING ON THE EXEMPTION FROM SECTION 5 OF THE SECURITIES ACT PROVIDED
BY RULE 144A THEREUNDER. ANY TRANSFEREE OF THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS
INSTRUMENT BY ITS ACCEPTANCE HEREOF (1) REPRESENTS THAT IT IS A “QUALIFIED INSTITUTIONAL
BUYER” (AS DEFINED IN RULE 144A UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT), (2) AGREES THAT IT WILL NOT
OFFER, SELL OR OTHERWISE TRANSFER THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT EXCEPT
(A) PURSUANT TO A REGISTRATION STATEMENT WHICH IS THEN EFFECTIVE UNDER THE SECURITIES
ACT, (B) FOR SO LONG AS THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT ARE ELIGIBLE FOR
RESALE PURSUANT TO RULE 144A, TO A PERSON IT REASONABLY BELIEVES IS A “QUALIFIED
INSTITUTIONAL BUYER” AS DEFINED IN RULE 144A UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT THAT PURCHASES FOR
ITS OWN ACCOUNT OR FOR THE ACCOUNT OF A QUALIFIED INSTITUTIONAL BUYER TO WHOM NOTICE IS
GIVEN THAT THE TRANSFER IS BEING MADE IN RELIANCE ON RULE 144A, (C) TO THE ISSUER OR (D)
PURSUANT TO ANY OTHER AVAILABLE EXEMPTION FROM THE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE
SECURITIES ACT AND (3) AGREES THAT IT WILL GIVE TO EACH PERSON TO WHOM THE SECURITIES
REPRESENTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT ARE TRANSFERRED A NOTICE SUBSTANTIALLY TO THE EFFECT OF
THIS LEGEND.
583 A.2d 343

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CHARLES BROTHERTON.

March 20, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
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 Coastal Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2004 (the "Report"), I, Catherine N. Wylie, 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.
 
 
 
 
 
 Dated: 4/30/04       By  /s/ Catherine N. Wylie
 Catherine N. Wylie
 Chief Financial Officer
 
 
 (A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Coastal Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained by Coastal Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.)
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1371 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1371

To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to provide 
producers on a farm with greater flexibility in selecting the crops to 
               be planted on the base acres of the farm.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 7, 2007

   Ms. Baldwin (for herself, Mr. LaHood, Mr. Pence, and Mr. Walz of 
  Minnesota) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                        Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to provide 
producers on a farm with greater flexibility in selecting the crops to 
               be planted on the base acres of the farm.

    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 ``Farming Flexibility Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. PRODUCTION OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES FOR PROCESSING ON COVERED 
              COMMODITY BASE ACRES.

    Section 1101 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 
(7 U.S.C. 7911) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subsection:
    ``(i) Production of Fruits or Vegetables for Processing.--
            ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), 
        producers on a farm, with the consent of the owner and other 
        producers on the farm, may reduce the base acres for any 
        covered commodity for the farm if the reduced acres are used 
        for the planting and production of fruits or vegetables for 
        processing.
            ``(2) Reversion to covered commodity base acres.--Any 
        reduced acres of a farm devoted to the planting and production 
        of fruits or vegetables during a crop year under paragraph (1) 
        shall be included in base acres for the covered commodity for 
        the subsequent crop year, unless the producers on the farm make 
        the election described in paragraph (1) for the subsequent crop 
        year.
            ``(3) Recalculation of base acres.--
                    ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), if 
                the Secretary recalculates base acres for a farm, the 
                planting and production of fruits or vegetables for 
                processing under paragraph (1) shall be considered to 
                be the same as the planting, prevented planting, or 
                production of the covered commodity.
                    ``(B) Authority.--Nothing in this subsection 
                provides authority for the Secretary to recalculate 
                base acres for a farm.''.
                                 <all>
```
578 A.2d 1229

#### IN THE MATTER OF ANTHONY F. MALFITANO, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

September 18, 1990.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having reported to the Court, recommending that ANTHONY F. MALFITANO of JERSEY CITY, who was admitted to the Bar of this State in 1970, be suspended from the practice of law for one year for his violations of *RPC*1.1(b) (exhibiting a pattern of client neglect), *RPC*1.3 (failing to act with due diligence), *RPC*1.1(a) (gross negligence), *RPC*1.4 (failing to communicate with clients), *RPC*8.4(c) (misrepresentation to a client), and *RPC*8.1(b) (failing to respond to or otherwise cooperate in ethics proceedings);

And the Court having reviewed the record and having heard oral argument;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that the report and recommendation of the Disciplinary Review Board are hereby adopted and ANTHONY F. MALFITANO is hereby suspended from the practice of law for one year and until the further Order of the Court, effective immediately; and it is further

ORDERED that the Decision and Recommendation of the Disciplinary Review Board, together with this order and the full record of the matter, be added as a permanent part of the file of said ANTHONY F. MALFITANO as an attorney at law of the State of New Jersey; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of his suspension; and it is further

.ORDERED that respondent comply with Administrative Guideline No. 23 of the Office of Attorney Ethics dealing with suspended attorneys; and it is further

*195ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Ethics Financial Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred.
News United States Air Force
 Spangdahlem AB earns installation excellence awardPublished May 10, 2016
                        
                        By DoD News, Defense Media Activity
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany, was named the Air Force recipient of the 2016 Commander in Chief's Annual Award for Installation Excellence, Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced May 10.Spangdahlem AB, commanded by Col. Joseph D. McFall, will receive a commemorative commander in chief's award trophy and flag and a congratulatory letter from the president.The Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia, led by Air Force Brig. Gen. Allan E. Day, also earned the honor.Other installation winners include U.S. Army Garrison Fort Campbell, Kentucky; Marine Corps Logistics Base Barstow, California; and Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Washington.The Commander in Chief's Annual Award for Installation Excellence recognizes the outstanding and innovative efforts of the people who operate and maintain U.S. military installations. The five recipients of this highly competitive presidential award were selected for their exemplary support of Defense Department missions.Excellent installations enable better mission performance and enhance the quality of life for military men and women and their families. Each winning installation succeeded in providing excellent working, housing, and recreational conditions.award 



Spangdahlem AB 



Germany 



excellence 



DOD 



USAFE
#### ASHOK MAZUMDAR *v.*ABHA MAZUMDAR

(AC 23098)

Lavery, C. J., and Dranginis and Flynn, Js.

Submitted on briefs March 21

officially released April 8, 2003

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.