alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Mo. Pac. R’y Co. v. J. A. & E. T. Lawler.

(No. 3587.)

Appeal from Hill County.

*{Transferred from Austin.J*

Abney & Pendleton, counsel for appellant.

B. D. Tarlton, counsel for appellees.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 19. *Liability of railroad for hilling stoch in locality where it is unlawful for stoch to run at large; plaintiff must prove gross negligence on part of defendant, when; case stated.*Appellees recovered judgment against appellant for damages for two of their hogs which had been killed by appellant’s train. The hogs were killed in a locality where the law known as the stock law had been adopted, which law prohibited the running at large of .hogs, goats and sheep. [R. S. arts. 4592-4610, inclusive.] At the place where the hogs were killed the railroad .track was not fenced. The trial court charged the jury, substantially, that notwithstanding the- stock law was in force in that locality, if the employees of appellant negligently killed the hogs, appellant was liable for the damage. *Held*error. Under the facts of this case, to render the'railroad company liable for such'damage; it devolved upon appellee to prove *gross*negligence on the part of the company’s employees resulting in the killing of the hogs. In The I. & G. N. R. R. Co. v. Cocke, 64 Tex. 151, the animals, were' killed in a city where an ordinance was in force making it unlawful for them to run at large, and the court says: “If there be a valid ordinance- of the city in force at the time and place where the injury *39occurs, by which the running at large of animals is made unlawful, then the entry of the animals upon a railway track, or other- inclosed land, is a trespass. In such case a railway company is not liable to owners for injury done by its cars to animals entering upon its track unless the conduct of its employees amounts to gross negligence; for under such circumstances railway companies are entitled to presume that all persons will comply with the law which forbids the owner to permit'his animals to run at large; hence are excused from the exercise of that care which will be necessary if the owner complies with the law, — are excused from the exercise of such care as they would exercise were it lawful for the animals to be at large, and therefore expected to be so.”

November 11, 1885.

§ 20. *Gross negligence; definition, of.*Gross negligence is thus defined: “Negligence cannot be considered ‘gross,’ unless evidenced by an entire failure to exercise care, or by the exercise of so slight a degree of care as to justify the belief that the person on whom the care was incumbent was indifferent to the interest and welfare of others.” [I. & G. N. R. R. Co. v. Cocke, *supra,*citing Shear. & Red. on Neg. § 18, p. 600.]

Eeversed and remanded.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1339 

To make residents of Puerto Rico eligible for the earned income tax credit. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 6, 2007 

Mr. FORTUN ̃O introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To make residents of Puerto Rico eligible for the earned 

income tax credit. 

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 ‘‘Puerto Rico Economic 

5 Stimulus Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PUERTO RICO RESIDENTS ELIGIBLE FOR EARNED 

7 INCOME TAX CREDIT. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 32 of the Internal Rev9 enue Code of 1986 (relating to earned income) is amended 

10 by inserting at the end the following new subsection: 

11 ‘‘(n) RESIDENTS OF PUERTO RICO.— 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1339 IH

1 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of residents of 

2 Puerto Rico, this section shall be applied— 

3 ‘‘(A) by substituting ‘United States or 

4 Puerto Rico’ for ‘United States’ in subsections 

5 (c)(1)(A)(ii)(I) and (c)(3)(C), 

6 ‘‘(B) by substituting ‘nonresident alien in7 dividual (other than a resident of Puerto Rico)’ 

8 for ‘nonresident alien individual’ in subsection 

9 (c)(1)(D), and 

10 ‘‘(C) by substituting ‘gross income (com11 puted without regard to section 933)’ for ‘gross 

12 income’ in subsections (a)(2)(B) and 

13 (c)(2)(A)(i). 

14 ‘‘(2) PHASE-IN OF CREDIT.— 

15 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The credit allowable 

16 under this section by reason of this subsection 

17 shall not exceed the applicable percentage of the 

18 amount of credit which would otherwise be al19 lowable under this section (without regard to 

20 this paragraph). 

21 ‘‘(B) APPLICABLE PERCENTAGE.—The ap22 plicable percentage shall be determined as fol23 lows: 

‘‘In the case of any taxable 

year beginning in— 

The applicable percentage is— 

2008 ......................................................................................... 20

2009 ......................................................................................... 40

2010 ......................................................................................... 60


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1339 IH

‘‘In the case of any taxable 

year beginning in—

The applicable percentage is—

2011 ......................................................................................... 80

2012 and thereafter ................................................................. 100.’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

3 December 31, 2007. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
Second Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement with Joint Escrow Instructions



 Exhibit 10.50 
  
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE 
 AGREEMENT WITH JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS 
  
 This SECOND AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT WITH JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS (the “Amendment”) is made as of August 15, 2003 by and between UNIFIED WESTERN GROCERS, INC., a California corporation (the
“Seller”), and THE ALAMO GROUP, INC., a California corporation (the “Buyer”), who agree as follows: 
  
 1. Recitals. This Amendment is made with reference to the following facts and circumstances: 
  
 (a) The Seller and the Buyer are parties to a Purchase and Sale Agreement With Joint Escrow Instructions made as of June 19,
2003, an Addendum to Purchase and Sale Agreement With Joint Escrow Instructions made as of June 25, 2003, and a First Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement With Joint Escrow Instructions made as of July 31, 2003 (collectively, the
“Agreement”). 
  
 (b) The Seller and the Buyer desire to
amend the Agreement to extend the “Cancellation Period” (as defined in the Agreement) during which the Buyer may elect to cancel all or a portion of the transaction and during which the Seller may elect to sell some or all of the Category
B Locations (as defined in the Agreement) to a third party. 
  
 2.
Amendment. The first sentence of Section 7.1 of the Agreement is amended to read as follows: 
  
 Buyer will have the option, in its sole discretion, to cancel the transaction contemplated hereby and terminate this Agreement as to all
(but not less than all) of the Category A Locations and/or all (but not less than all) of the Category B Locations by the giving of written notice of cancellation at any time following the opening of the Escrow and on or before August 22, 2003 (the
“Cancellation Period”). 
  
 3. Agreement Remains in Effect.
Except as amended by this Amendment, the Agreement remains unmodified and in full force and effect. 
  
 The parties have caused this Amendment to be duly executed by their respective duly authorized officers or agents as of the date first set forth above.

  

	 UNIFIED WESTERN GROCERS, INC.,
 a California corporation
	 	 	 	 THE ALAMO GROUP, INC.,
 a
California corporation

					
	 By:
	 	 /s/    ROBERT M. LING,
JR.        

	 	 	 	By:	 	 /s/    DONALD F.
GAUBE        


	 	 	 Robert M. Ling, Jr.
	 	 	 	 	 	 Donald F. Gaube

	 	 	 Executive Vice President and
	 	 	 	 	 	 President

	 	 	 Corporate Secretary
	 	 	 	 	 	 
					
	 By:
	 	 /s/    GARY C.
HAMMETT        

	 	 	 	By:	 	 /s/    MICHAEL J. NEPODAL


	 	 	 Gary C. Hammett
	 	 	 	 	 	 Michael J. Nepodal

	 	 	 Vice President - Real Estate
	 	 	 	 	 	 Secretary
583 A.2d 320

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOHN MAZUREK.

February 13, 1990.

Petition for certification denied. (See 237 *N.J.Super.*231, 567 A.2d 277)
<PAGE>




                                                                    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 Annual Report of Land O'Lakes, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 20, 2006 (the "Report"), I, Daniel Knutson,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 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:  March 20, 2006
                                                 By: /s/ Daniel Knutson
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Daniel Knutson
                                                     Senior Vice President
                                                     and Chief Financial Officer



                                       4
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 92 (Wednesday, June 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5627]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      URGING A ``YES'' VOTE ON THE AMERICAN OVERSEAS INTERESTS ACT

  (Mrs. CHENOWETH asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Speaker, today the House resumes work on 
legislation designed to take our Nation's foreign affairs operations 
out of the dark days of the cold war and into the sunshine of the 21st 
century.
  H.R. 1561--the American Overseas Interests Act--recognizes that we 
won the cold war. It reorganizes our foreign affairs agencies, cuts 
spending, and refocuses our resources to priorities that support 
American interests.
  The bill eliminates three agencies that our cold war victory has 
rendered obsolete--the Agency for International Development, the U.S. 
Information Agency, and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
  It cuts spending by nearly $3 billion over 2 years--and by $21 
billion over 7 years--while supporting our allies and punishing our 
opponents.
  A vote in favor of this bill is a vote to downside the Federal 
Government and to cut foreign aid. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
voting ``yes'' on final passage of the American Overseas Interests Act.

                          ____________________
```
#### Short & Co. v. W. A. Threadgill.

(No. 5036.)

Appeal from McLennan County.

*(Transferred from Austin.)*

Harrison & Munroe, counsel for appellants.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 267. *Contract; letters and telegrams held to constitute a; duty of court in such case; case stated.*Appellants brought this suit to recover of appellee damages for the breach of an alleged contract. Verdict and judgment for appellee. The facts constituting the alleged contract are as follows: On December 18, 1881, appellee, by letter *325offered to sell appellants from five to ten car-loads of corn at thirty-six cents per bushel. December 19th appellants answered that they wmuld take six car-loads and to ship same immediately. On same date appellants wrote appellee a letter confirming the telegram as to six car-loads of the com, and intimating that they might also take the other four car-loads. On the 20th December appellants by telegram informed appellee that they would take *ten*instead of *six*car-loads of the corn, and on the same day wrote to appellee to the same effect. On December 23d appellee wrote to appellants expressing some dissatisfaction on account of shortage in former dealings, and said he would not bind himself to any certain amount of corn, but also said, if everything proved satisfactory, he would do what he could to get all appellants wanted, and, unless he was notified in three days, would proceed to ship according to instructions. Appellants, on 24th day of same month, replied at length, claiming a contract for shipment of the ten cars of corn had been made at a certain price, and sent final shipping instructions and settled the shortage difference. To the terms of this letter appellee acquiesced, and on- January 2, 1885, telegraphed appellants, “Loading two cars for you to-day.” *Held:*The letters aud telegrams above mentioned evidence a contract between the parties for the sale and purchase of ten cai'-loads of corn. “A proposal for a coxitract may be made in person, by agexit, by telegraph, or by letter; axxd an assent to it may be given in the same maixxxer. If the propositioxx is made by letter and sent by mail, the persoxx making the offer may retract by a subsequent letter which reaches the opposite party at axxy time before an answer of acceptance is written and put in the xxxail. But as soon as such answer is put into the mail the contract is closed as to both parties. An acceptance by letter takes effect from the time when it was mailed, and not from the time of its receipt by the other party.” [1 Wait’s Ac. & Def. p. 86.] Ixx this instance the telegrams and letter’s constituted a written contract between the parties, *326and it was the duty of the court to so instruct the jury. It was error to submit the issue, as to whether or not said writings constituted a contract, to the decision of the jury. The issue was one of law and not of fact, and should have been decided by the judge.

February 26, 1887.

Reversed and remanded.
#### O. F. Briggs v. Geo. E. Lane, Jr.

(No. 891, Op. Book No. 2, p. 153.)

Appeal from Falls County.

Opinion by

Quinan, J.

§ 960. *Amendment; officer's return upon an attachment.*An attachment was levied by the sheriff upon some furniture but in his return upon the writ he omit*540ted to state the furniture was levied upon as the property of the defendant in the writ. The sheriff was permitted, to amend his return in this respect. *Held,*that it was within the discretion of the court to permit the sheriff to amend his return, and it was properly exercised. It could work no injury to the defendant to state that the furniture was his property. [Hill v. Cunningham, 25 Tex. 25.]

June 2, 1880.

§ 961. *Attachment; affidavit for, as to amount due; interest.*It is not a fatal objection to the affidavit for an attachment that it does not state the amount of interest due upon the plaintiff’s demand. If it states the principal sum due, that is sufficient. The legal interest being a legal incident to the plaintiff’s demand, that would follow as a matter of course. [Wright v. Ragland, 18 Tex. 289; Barbee v. Holder, 24 Tex. 225; Morgan v. Johnson, 15 Tex. 569; Primrose v. Roden, 14 Tex. 1.]

§ 962. *New trial; action of court granting a, not revisable.*Even if a new trial has been erroneously granted, the error is not the subject of revision on appeal, except, perhaps, in a strong case. [Sweeney v. Jarvis, 6 Tex. 36; Hughes v. Maddox, 6 Tex. 90.] And certainly not where, as in this case, there is no statement of facts. [Parrott v. Underwood, 10 Tex. 48.]

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           6,485
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  123,689
<ALLOWANCES>                                    86,900
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                47,521
<PP&E>                                         106,499
<DEPRECIATION>                                  69,497
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 156,639
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,143
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,044
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   156,639
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               135,604
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  109,710
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,541
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,982
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,451
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,531
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,531
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.70
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 184 (Thursday, September 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 57953]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23917]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System.

TIME AND DATE: 3:00 p.m., Tuesday, September 21, 2010.
    The business of the Board requires that this meeting be held with 
less than one week's advance notice to the public, and no earlier 
announcement of the meeting was practicable.

PLACE: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C 
Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    1. Implications of Dodd-Frank Reform Act for System Organization 
and Staffing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Smith, Director, or Dave 
Skidmore, Assistant to the Board, Office of Board Members at 202-452-
2955.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at 
approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a 
recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications 
scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at 
http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not 
only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other 
information about the meeting.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 21, 
2010.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2010-23917 Filed 9-21-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: May 13Published May 13, 2016
                        
                        By Air Force TV
                
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)** -- This look around the Air Force takes us to a memorial for explosive ordnance disposal technicians at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida; discusses the B-21 naming contest; and commemorates four decades of the U-2 in South Korea. Hosted by Staff Sgt. Traci Keller.
For previous episodes, click here for the Air Force TV page.
Related links:
- New names enshrined at annual EOD memorial event
- AF selects B-21 naming contest finalists
- 5th RS celebrates 40 years of heritage, U-2 operationsEglin AFB 



Florida 



EOD 



memorial 



B-21 



Stealth Bomber 



U-2 



Dragon Lady 



South Korea 



ATAF
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

April 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132128(33) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132128 

 COA: 270511 

Genesee CC: 05-015946-FH 

SHERROD DARREL PIGEE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s January 31, 

2007 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

p0416 

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. 

April 24, 2007 

 Clerk
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0635 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. SAUL JAMES DOOLING,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including May 19, 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 10 2023

04/10/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0635
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: Sept. 13Published Sept. 13, 2016
                        
                        By Tech. Sgt. Holly Roberts-Davis
                        
                        
                        Air Force TV
                
                
**FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)** -- On this look around the Air Force combined U.S. and South Korean forces conducted a display of airpower and Airmen in Bulgaria participated in a new joint NATO air policing operation. Hosted by Tech. Sgt. Holly Roberts-Davis.
For previous episodes, click here.ATAF 



Osan AB 



South Korea 



Bulgaria 



NATO 



F-15 



B-1B
583 A.2d 342

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JONATHAN GRAY ILG.

March 20, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.