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

(No.

Appeal from Hunt County.

Alexander *So*Clark, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 329. *Market value of growing crop; evidence admissible to prove.*It was not error to admit the evidence objected to by appellant as to the damage done to appellee’s crop. It is evident from appellee’s claim that it was for damages for the partial destruction of his matured but ungathered cotton crop. In arriving at an estimate of such damage it was competent for him to prove that the cotton destroyed would have made, when gather, ginned and baled, three average bales, and that the market value of said three bales would have been $40 each, less the expenses of gathering, ginning and baling, which would have been $10 per bale. Such evidence with reasonable certainty fixed the market value of the ungathered cotton which had been destroyed. If the cotton destroyed had not been matured at the time of its destruction, a conjectural estimate of what *580the crop would have produced would not have been sufficient or admissible evidence to prove market value. [White & W. Oond. Civil Cas., §§ 482, 3139; 2 W.Oond. Civil Cas., § 288.]

December 14, 1887.

§ 330. *Costs on appeal from justice’s to county court; how awarded when the judgment is reduced.*There is an error in the judgment in so far as it adjudges all the costs against appellant. This suit originated in the justice court, in which court a judgment for $150 was rendered against appellant. On appeal to the county court and upon a trial *de novo,*the justice’s judgment was reduced to the sum of $118.33£. This entitled appellant to recover the costs of the county court, unless for good cause stated in the record the county court should adjudge otherwise, and no cause is stated in the record in this case for adjudging all the costs against appellant. [R. S., arts. 1432-1434; 2 Willson’s Cond. Civil Cas., § 624.] The judgment is here reversed and reformed so as to adjudge the costs of the county court against appellee, and the costs of this appeal are also adjudged against appellee.

Reversed and reformed.
763 A.2d 819

#### Alfred Henry STACH, Respondent, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, Petitioner.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Jan. 5, 2001.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 5th day of January 2001, the petition for allowance of appeal is GRANTED, the order of the commonwealth court is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED for proceedings consistent with *Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation v. McCafferty, et al.,*563 Pa. 146, 758 A.2d 1155 (2000).
NO. 07-03-00121-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	AUGUST 14, 2003

	______________________________

	IN THE INTEREST OF BLAKE CLARK, A MINOR CHILD

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 286TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOCKLEY COUNTY;

	NO. 99-04-17,643; HONORABLE WILLIAM C. DODSON, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Pending before this Court is appellant David Lynn Clark’s motion by which he represents he desires to dismiss his appeal.  Without passing on the merits of the case, the motion is granted and the appeal is hereby dismissed.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1).  Having dismissed the appeal pursuant to appellant’s request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.

						Don H. Reavis

						    Justice
News United States Air Force
 NCO retraining application window open through Oct. 9Published Sept. 10, 2015
                        
                        By Debbie Gildea
                        
                        
                        Air Force Personnel Center Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas (AFNS) --**
                Eligible NCOs have through Oct. 9 to apply for retraining under Phase I of the fiscal year 2016 NCO Retraining Program, implemented Aug. 31.The two-phase program is used to balance and sustain the enlisted force, said Master Sgt. Christine Ward, the Air Force Personnel Center Enlisted Skills Management Branch superintendent. Phase I allows eligible Airmen to volunteer for another career field.During Phase I, Ward said that hundreds of eligible staff sergeant-selects through master sergeants in identified fields will be able to voluntarily apply for retraining into one of approximately 24 open fields this year. The list, available in the myPers enlisted retraining advisory, is updated in real time. The advisory identifies fields that people can train out of and fields that Airmen can train into. For more information see the "Type" column in the advisory.If retraining objectives are not met through the voluntary phase then Phase II, a mandatory retraining phase, may become necessary. Phase II is scheduled for Oct. 12-Nov. 13. Airmen who may be considered for mandatory retraining and who meet retraining eligibility criteria will be notified.To apply for NCO Retraining Program, Airmen must be on their second or subsequent enlistment, be a staff sergeant or staff sergeant-select through master sergeant. They must also have a minimum 5-skill level in their control Air Force specialty code, or a 3-skill level, for AFSCs where a 5-level does not exist. In addition, staff sergeants must have fewer than 12 years of active service as of Sept. 30, and technical and master sergeants may have no more than 16 years of active service by Sept. 30.Retraining applicants must have or be able to obtain at least 24 months of retainability upon completion of their new career field technical school, Ward said.Retraining information is available on the myPers retraining page. In addition, a live chat feature is available for Airmen on the NCO Retraining Program page. To chat live with a Total Force Service Center representative, go to the page and allow about 30 to 60 seconds to enable a representative to come online.For more information about Air Force personnel programs go to the myPers website. Individuals who do not have a myPers account can request one by following the instructions on the Air Force Retirees Services website.retrain 



AFPC 



NCO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0030

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL WELCH, 

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until May 9, 2022, to prepare, file, 

and serve the Appellant's opening brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

April 7 2022

04/07/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0030
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA OP 24
- 0213

_________________ JARED SUNDOWN HENDRICKSON ,

Petitioner,
v. JAMES SALMONSEN, WARDEN, Montana State Prison,

Respondent. O R D E R

_________________ Jared Sundown Hendrickson, via counsel, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, alleging he is entitled to additional credit for time served. Upon review of his Petition and attachments , we deem it appropriate to require a response. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that that the Attorney General or counsel for the Department of Corrections is GRANTED thirty days from the date of this Order in which to prepare, file, and serve a written response to the petition for a writ of habeas corpus together with appropriate documentary exhibits
. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to all counsel of record and to Jared Sundown Hendrickson personally.

Electronically signed by: Ingrid Gustafson Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 29 2024

04/29/2024

Case Number: OP 24-0213
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1081 

To further competition in the insurance industry. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 15, 2007 

Mr. DEFAZIO (for himself, Mr. TAYLOR, Mr. JINDAL, Mr. MELANCON, Mr. 

ALEXANDER, and Mr. JONES of North Carolina) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Financial Services, 

for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 

for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 

committee concerned 

A BILL 

To further competition in the insurance industry. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Insurance Industry 

5 Competition Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Act of March 9, 1945 (59 

8 Stat. 33; 15 U.S.C. 1011 et seq.) (commonly known as 

9 the McCarran-Ferguson Act) is amended— 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1081 IH

1 (1) in section 2(b) (15 U.S.C. 1012(b)), by— 

2 (A) inserting ‘‘as it relates to unfair meth3 ods of competition,’’ after ‘‘Commission Act, as 

4 amended,’’; and 

5 (B) striking ‘‘to the extent that such busi6 ness is not regulated by State law’’ and insert7 ing ‘‘The Federal Trade Commission Act, as it 

8 relates to areas other than unfair methods of 

9 competition, shall be applicable to the business 

10 of insurance to the extent that such business is 

11 not regulated by State law.’’; and 

12 (2) by striking section 3 (15 U.S.C. 1013). 

13 (b) FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT.—Section 6 

14 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 46) is 

15 amended by striking the third undesignated paragraph fol16 lowing subsection (i). 

17 SEC. 3. JOINT ENFORCEMENT POLICY STATEMENT. 

18 The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade 

19 Commission may issue joint statements of their antitrust 

20 enforcement policies regarding joint activities in the busi21 ness of insurance. 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEUDLE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT JUNE 30, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,149
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,748
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,274)
<INVENTORY>                                     21,859
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                46,169
<PP&E>                                          23,518
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (9,031)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  64,849
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,230
<BONDS>                                         10,514
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            59
<OTHER-SE>                                      30,206
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    64,849
<SALES>                                         71,869
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                76,806
<CGS>                                           50,807
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   57,416
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 634
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,296)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,223)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,073)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,073)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.36)
<FN>
<F1>PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL ACCOUNTS AND INVENTORY PROVISION INCLUDED IN TOTAL
COSTS.
</FN>


</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

March 27, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00149

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K.L.C., J.K.C., AND L.E.C.,

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14658B Honorable Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant seeks to appeal a partial summary judgment in a parental termination case. Although the trial court’s partial summary judgment determined that appellant committed three acts enumerated in section 161.001(1) of the Texas Family Code, which are acts permitting the

trial cou rt to terminate appellant’s parental rights, the trial court did not resolve whether termination is in the best interest of the children under section 161.001(3). Accordingly, the judgment is not a final, appealable judgment. See Houston Health Clubs, In c. v. First Court of Appeals , 722 S.W.2d 692, 693 (Tex. 1986); Northeast Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge , 400 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1966).

It is therefore ORDERED that appellant show cause in writing within fifteen days of the date of this order why this a ppeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. All other appellate deadlines are suspended pending our determination of whether we have jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 27th day of March, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATIONS OF

PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Richard A. Franco, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of DARA BioSciences, Inc. on Form 10-Q of DARA BioSciences, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act and that
information contained in such Quarterly Report of DARA BioSciences, Inc. on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of DARA BioSciences, Inc.



By:

/s/ Richard A. FrancoName:

Richard A. FrancoTitle:

President and Chief Executive OfficerDate:

May 9, 2011


I, Ann A. Rosar, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of DARA BioSciences, Inc. on Form 10-Q of DARA BioSciences, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act and that information contained in such Quarterly Report of DARA BioSciences, Inc. on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition
and results of operations of DARA BioSciences, Inc.



By:

/s/ Ann A. RosarName:

Ann A. RosarTitle:

Chief Accounting OfficerDate:

May 9, 2011
News United States Air Force
 Let the healing begin: Invictus Games kick offPublished May 9, 2016
                        
                        By Staff Sgt. Carlin Leslie
                        
                        
                        Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **ORLANDO, Fla. (AFNS) --**
                The thudding noise of helicopter blades cut through the air, bright-colored lights sliced through smoke and fans cheered to honor the more than 500 military competitors from 15 nations who gathered at the ESPN Wide World of Sports Complex here May 8 to compete in Invictus Games 2016. 
Staff Sgt. August O’Neill, representing the Air Force on Team U.S., kicked the events off by accepting the Invictus flag from first lady Michelle Obama and delivering the flag by being hoisted from a helicopter into the opening ceremony.
On July 15, 2011, while deployed to Camp Bastion, Afghanistan, O’Neill was shot through both legs while on a mission to rescue a team of Marines under fire and taking casualties.
After 3 1/2 years and 20 surgeries, O’Neill made the decision to have his left leg amputated above the knee. In late 2015, he returned to full duty and began training to return to his pararescue team of brothers. 
"If you can see others push through their pain and mobility issues and still get out here to play and come together as a team, it's very motivational," he said. "Mentally, it keeps you happy."
Competitors will participate in 10 different sporting events to include: archery, indoor rowing, cycling, powerlifting, track and field, wheelchair basketball and rugby, swimming, and wheelchair tennis.  
Also in attendance for opening ceremonies were dignitaries such as Britain’s Prince Harry and Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James. 
“These athletes are an inspiration to people worldwide and the Invictus Games gives them the stage and venue to show their resiliency and overcome adversity,” James said. “It has been an incredible honor to attend the games and meet with the athletes and families.” 
The Invictus Games 2016 will continue from May 8-12. Be sure to check out the competition and follow Team U.S. by visiting www.invictusgames.org. 
To see the bios of Air Force competitors, click here.wounded warriors 



Invictus Games 



ceremony 



sports
#### G., C. & S. F. R’y Co. v. Zack Dodson.

(No. 2819.)

Appeal from Cooke County.

*(Transferred from Austin.J*

J. W. Terry, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.

§ 394. *Duty of person approaching a railroad track to look and listen; judgment for damages not warranted Jby the evidence.*Suit by appellee against appellant for *467damages for killing a horse and injuring a buggy by colliding one of its trains therewith. Judgment in justice’s court for $125. Appellant appealed to the county court, where appellee recovered judgment for $75. Appellee in his own behalf testified as follows:

“ There was a large show sign on cotton platform near defendant’s track that obstructed the view. I knew that it was customary to run engines and trains across said street at said crossing. Was driving at an ordinary trot. Did not check or stop my horse at crossing, but drove on same in a trot. I did not look or listen for anything before driving on said track. Was not thinking of any train at time, at noon.”

O. Turner testified: “Was in buggy with plaintiff. We were going at a trot. Did not change our gait when we reached the railway crossing. Did not look or listen for any cars. Accident occurred in day-time.”

P. Duffy, conductor, testified: “Train was backing at rate of about three miles per hour. I was standing on north end of caboose. I signaled and did all I could to have train stopped as soon as I saw plaintiff’s danger. Did have the train stopped as soon as it could be done. Bell on locomotive was being rung.”

Andy Neiman testified: “Was about forty feet from place of accident when it occurred. Saw plaintiff going to drive across track. Saw train coming. Hallooed to plaintiff as loud as I could. Plaintiff did not seem to hear. My voice is good.”

*Held:*This evidence does not warrant the judgment. ‘ ‘ Every one about to enter upon a railway track must listen and look before attempting to cross, in order to avoid an approaching train, and not go carelessly into the place of possible danger. A failure to do this is not only an imperfect performance of duty, but an extreme failure of performance, which will bar the right to recover damages, if it contributed proximately to the injury inflicted by the train. Due care must appear on the part of him who sustains the injury, and this *468whether it was caused by a train going backwards or forwaixls.” [R’y Co. v. Bracken, 59 Tex. 71; Hoover v. R’y Co. 61 Tex. 503; 1 App. C. C. §§ 137, 860; 2 App. C. C. §§ 207, 208.]

November 28, 1888.

Reversed and remanded.
News United States Air Force
 Robinson tapped to be first female combatant commanderPublished March 21, 2016
                        
                        By Cheryl Pellerin
                        
                        
                        DOD News, Defense Media Activity
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                Defense Secretary Ash Carter has named a new commander for U.S. Northern Command to be confirmed by the Senate. If confirmed, the new Northern Command chief will be the first woman to lead a U.S. combatant command.Carter made the announcement to pick Gen. Lori J. Robinson during a media interview March 18. President Barack Obama has approved the choice and will nominate her to the Senate, the secretary said.Robinson now commands Pacific Air Forces and is the air component commander for U.S. Pacific Command.She’s also executive director of the Pacific Air Combat Operations staff at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam in Hawaii.PACAF is responsible for Air Force activities spread over half the globe in a command that supports more than 46,000 Airmen serving mainly in Japan, Korea, Hawaii, Alaska, and Guam.Robinson also is a senior air battle manager with more than 900 flight hours in the E-3B/C airborne warning and control system aircraft and the E-8C joint surveillance target attack radar system aircraft.The general, Carter said, “has very deep operational experience, is now running the air forces in the Pacific, which is a very challenging place for the Air Force and a very intense operational tempo.”Naming the first female combatant commander, Carter added, demonstrates “that we have coming along now a lot of female officers who are exceptionally strong. Lori certainly fits into that category.”PACOM 



Northcom 



senate 



DOD 



SecDEF
758 A.2d 656

#### In the Matter of Gregory Henry WHEELER.

No. 597 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Aug. 18, 2000.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 18th day of August, 2000, Gregory Henry Wheeler having been suspended from the practice of law in the State of New Jersey for a period of three years by Order of the Supreme Court of New Jersey dated March 14, 2000; the said Gregory Henry Wheeler having been directed on June 16, 2000, to inform this Court of any claim he has that the imposition of the identical or comparable discipline in this Commonwealth would be unwarranted and the reasons therefor; and no response having been filed, it is

ORDERED that Gregory Henry Wheeler is suspended from the practice of law in this Commonwealth for a period of three years, and he shall comply with all the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E.