alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### M. P. R’y Co. v. R. L. Turner.

(No. 3401.)

Appeal from Tarrant County.

Opinion by

Delaney, J.

. §815. *Superintendent of railroad; authority of, to hind company; authority of, cannot he disputed, when; contract not within statute of frauds; excessive judgment; case stated.*At the request of appellant’s superintendent, appellee, who was an undertaker at Port Worth, furnished a burial casket, etc., and prepared the dead body of one Cole for burial, etc. Cole was an employee of appellant who had been injured and died in its service, and the usage and custom of appellant was to provide for the burial of employees killed while in its service. Appellee had filled such orders for appellant on previous occasions and received pay therefor. At the instance of said superintendent, appellee drew a check upon the brother of deceased for the amount due for the casket, etc., which check was protested. Appellee brought this suit to recover $258, the amount alleged to be due him for said casket, etc. He recovered judgment for $285, and costs. *Held:*1. The superintendent of appellant had authority to bind appellant for the debt sued for. [W. & W. Con. Rep. § 392.] Similar orders had been filled by appellee upon contracts made by its superintendent, and the services had been paid for by appellant. It is therefore too late to dispute the authority of the superintendent. [Tex. & Pac. R’y Co. v. Nicholson, 61 Tex. 491.] 2. The contract was not within the statute of frauds. The credit was not given to Cole, the brother of the deceased, but to appellant upon the order of its agent. Indeed, the casket, etc., had been furnished and work done by appellee before he knew of the existence of said brother of deceased. And although the superintendent, for some purpose of his own, directed appellee to draw upon said Cole for the debt, which was done, that did not change the character of the contract. [3 Pars. Con. 24.] *7213. The judgment is excessive. Appellee claimed only $258 in his petition, and could not recover beyond this amount. The judgment is reversed and rendered for the proper amount.

May 13, 1885.

Reversed and rendered.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 189 (Thursday, September 30, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 60477]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24574]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[WY-923-1310-FI; WYW146099]


Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease 
WYW146099, Wyoming

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as 
amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a petition for 
reinstatement from U.S. Ore Corp. for the renewal of oil and gas lease 
WYW146099 for land in Fremont County, Wyoming. The petition was filed 
on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due since the date the 
lease terminated under the law.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, Julie L. 
Weaver, Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at (307) 775-6176.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The lessee has agreed to the amended lease 
terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $5 per acre, or fraction 
thereof, per year and 16\2/3\ percent, respectively. The lessee has 
paid the required $500 administrative fee and $163 to reimburse the 
Department for the cost of this Federal Register notice. The lessee has 
met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in 
Sections 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 
U.S.C. 188), and the BLM is proposing to reinstate lease WYW146099 
effective June 1, 2010, under the original terms and conditions of the 
lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above. The BLM 
has not issued a valid lease to any other interest affecting the lands.

Julie L. Weaver,
Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication.
[FR Doc. 2010-24574 Filed 9-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
#### Margaret JACK, Administratrix of the Estate of Robert Bell Jack, deceased, Appellant, v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Appellee.

No. 13923.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

April 21, 1960.

See also 22 F.R.D. 318.

Howard L. Philippart, Jr., Detroit, Mich., for appellant.

Buell Doelle, of Lacey, Jones & Doelle, Detroit, Mich., for appellee.

Before MARTIN, MILLER and WEICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In an action brought in the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan by the appellant as Administratrix of the Estate of her husband, Robert Bell Jack, for damages on account of the death of the husband, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant Travelers Insurance Company, a consent judgment in the amount of $39,655 was entered in favor of the appellant. This judgment acknowledged a Workman’s Compensation lien in the amount of $7,241.33 in favor of the Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, the Workmen’s Compensation insurance carrier, which had paid that amount in workmen compensation benefits and funeral expenses, as provided by the Workmen’s Compensation Act, Comp.Laws Mich.1948, § 411.1 et seq. This amount was impounded in Court.

In an exchange of letters between the compensation insurance carrier and appellant’s attorney before the action was filed, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company agreed to refrain from entering the action in the District Court through its own attorneys, and “would receive fully our compensation interest as evident at the time of such case settlement.” It was not a party to the action. Following the settlement it insisted upon receiving the full $7,241.33 without reduction by reason of any of the expenses of the recovery.

Appellant thereupon moved in the District Court action for an apportionment of the expenses of recovery, including attorney fees, in the total amount of $13,980.22 between her and the compensation insurance carrier, which motion the District Judge overruled. This appeal followed.

The District Judge pointed out that the compensation insurance carrier was not a party of record in the recovery action, and since the appellant had agreed that the carrier would receive its full compensation interest, the appellant *737had no valid claim under the provisions of Section 15, Michigan Statutes Annotated, 17.189, Comp.Laws Mich.Supp. 1956, § 413.15, for an apportionment of the expenses of recovery.

We agree with the ruling of the District Judge. The judgment is affirmed.
#### STATE ex rel. Gary Wayne WOODS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-2034.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2011.

In re Woods, Gary Wayne — Plaintiff; Applying for Motion to Enforce this Court’s action dated September 7, 2010, Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 300,156; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KH 10-00824.

Denied. Moot.
#### George Sawday TELLAM, D.P.M. and Ankle & Foot Associates, Petitioners, v. Paul S. MUMFORD and Susan Mumford, his wife, Respondents.

No. 1D11-1343.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 27, 2011.

Stephen M. Masterson of Smith, Brooks, Masterson, Tallahassee, for Petitioners.

Richard C. Watson of Rahaim, Watson, Dearing & Moore, P.A., Jacksonville, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM.

We quash the trial court’s order and remand for a hearing to determine whether respondents’ claim rests on a reasonable basis and whether the notice of intent to initiate litigation was in compliance with the reasonable investigation requirement of sections 766.201-766.212, Florida Statutes (2009). *See Martin Mem’l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Herber,*984 So.2d 661, 663-64 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (“ ‘[w]hen one of the parties files a motion under section 766.206, the trial court *must*determine whether the opposing party’s claim ... “rests on a reasonable basis” and whether the notice of intent to sue ... is “in compliance with the reasonable investigation requirements of ss 766.201-766.212.” ’ ” (quoting *Duffy v. Brooker,*614 So.2d 539, 544-45 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993))).

Petition granted.

BENTON, C.J., HAWKES, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
EX-10.2







Exhibit 10.2




SENIOR MANAGEMENT BONUS PLAN




Effective January 1, 2009




     The Senior Management Bonus Plan (the “Plan”) provides bonuses to certain members of the
Company’s senior management team. Such bonuses are based 50 percent upon the Company’s annual gross
revenues and 50 percent upon the Company’s EBITDA123R / (loss), which is calculated based upon the
Company’s accounting practices, consistently applied and upon GAAP standards applicable to the
Company.



     The Company’s Compensation Committee will identify eligible members of senior management and
establish gross revenue and EBITDA goals for the upcoming plan year on an annual basis. The
Company’s Board of Directors and the Compensation Committee of the Board reserve the right to
modify, terminate or suspend this plan at any time in the Board or Committee’s sole discretion.





	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	Percentage of
	 	 	 	Annual Gross
	 	 	 	Revenue and
	Percentage of Goal Annual	 	 	EBITDA123R/
	Gross Revenue and	 	 	(Loss) portion of
	EBITDA123R / (Loss)	 	 	Target Bonus
	Less than 75%
	 	 	 	0	%
	75% to < 85%
	 	 	 	20	%
	85% to < 100%
	 	 	 	50	%
	100% to < 110%
	 	 	 	100	%
	110% to < 120%
	 	 	 	110	%
	120% to < 130%
	 	 	 	120	%
	130% to < 140%
	 	 	 	130	%
	140% to < 150%
	 	 	 	140	%
	150% to < 160%
	 	 	 	150	%
	160% to < 170%
	 	 	 	160	%
	170% to < 180%
	 	 	 	170	%
	180% to < 190%
	 	 	 	180	%
	190% to < 200%
	 	 	 	190	%
	Over 200%
	 	 	 	200	%
#### Ladon M. GREEN, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION and Walter A. McNeil, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Respondents.

No. 1D10-2802.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 6, 2010.

Ladon M. Green, pro se, Petitioner.

Sarah J. Rumph, General Counsel, Florida Parole Commission, Tallahassee, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks to compel the Circuit Court for Duval County to act on a petition for writ of habeas corpus which is pending in case number 99-CF-013692. Because petitioner claims entitlement to immediate release, we find that the matter has been pending in the lower tribunal for an unreasonable length of time. Accordingly, we direct the circuit court to promptly review the petition and deny it if it does not show entitlement to relief, issue an order to show cause if it does make such a showing, or transfer it if it was filed in the improper forum. Such action shall be taken within 15 days of issuance of mandate in this cause. If an order to show cause is issued, the court shall promptly rule upon the petition upon filing of the response and the reply, if any.

PETITION GRANTED.

BENTON, THOMAS, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
855 A.2d 758

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. William H. MacINTYRE, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted Jan. 13, 2004.

Decided Aug. 18, 2004.

Janna Rae Steinruck, for Com. of Pa.

Kurt A. Gardner, Ephrata, James Jude Karl, for William H. MacIntyre.

Before CAPPY, C.J., and CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN, SAYLOR, BAER, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 18th day of August, 2004, the order of the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas is reversed insofar as it declared the Registration of Sexual Offenders Act unconstitutional, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. *See Commonwealth v. Williams,*574 Pa. 487, 832 A.2d 962 (2003); *Commonwealth v. Maldonado,*576 Pa. 101, 838 A.2d 710 (2003).

Justice EAKIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
#### STATE ex rel. James M. DOYLE v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-669.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 25, 2011.

In re Doyle, James M.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 254,880; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45/419-KH.

Denied.
#### Shelita BAILEY v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS for the LOUISIANA TECHNICAL COLLEGE SYSTEM.

No. 2012-C-0596.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2012.

In re Bailey, Shelita; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 518,728; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CA 1295.

Denied.
#### STATE ex rel. Elton COWART v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-0650.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 4, 2011.

In re Cowart, Elton; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 99-5664; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 08-WR-979.

Denied.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Terry BOYD, et al.

No. 2010-KK-2774.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 4, 2011.

In re Boyd, Terry; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. E, No. 490-531; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-1345.

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                5
       
<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                     JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                               149,028
<SECURITIES>                                         100,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                      2,132,221
<ALLOWANCES>                                         177,456
<INVENTORY>                                          681,549
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   3,046,292
<PP&E>                                             3,386,084
<DEPRECIATION>                                     1,498,497
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     6,176,506
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              1,888,283
<BONDS>                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                              30,173
<OTHER-SE>                                         3,007,048
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       6,176,506
<SALES>                                            3,205,535
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   3,205,535
<CGS>                                              2,033,144
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      2,033,144
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   1,344,672
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    37,492
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (188,589)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           1,876
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (190,465)
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (190,465)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (0.07)

        

</TABLE>
ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE OF THE
                  SERVICER FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997

<PAGE>

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE OF THE
SERVICER FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997

CERTIFICATE OF THE PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION
 ASSISTANCE AGENCY

                  This certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 9.07 of that
certain Indenture, dated as of April 1, 1997, between The National Collegiate
Trust 1997-S1 and State Street Bank and Trust Company (the "Indenture").
Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings set forth
in the Indenture.

                  The undersigned, as the duly elected President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency
("PHEAA"), the Servicer for The National Collegiate Trust 1997-S1 (the
"Servicer"), a public corporation and a governmental instrumentality of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, does hereby certify as follows:

                           1. a review of the activities of the Servicer, and
                           the Servicer's performance under the Servicing
                           Agreement for the previous twelve months ending
                           December 31, 1997 has been made under my supervision;
                           and

                           2. to the best of my knowledge, based on such review,
                           the Servicer has or has caused to be performed all of
                           its obligations under the Servicing Agreement
                           throughout the previous twelve months ending December
                           31, 1997 and no Default has occurred under the
                           Servicing Agreement.

                                   THE PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION
                                   ASSISTANCE AGENCY


                                   By: /s/ Michael H. Hershock
                                       -----------------------------
                                   Name:   Michael H. Hershock
                                   Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 146 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 146

    To provide Capitol-flown flags to the families of deceased law 
                         enforcement officers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2007

   Mr. Gene Green of Texas introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To provide Capitol-flown flags to the families of deceased law 
                         enforcement officers.

    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 ``Law Enforcement Officers Flag 
Memorial Act''.

SEC. 2. CAPITOL-FLOWN FLAGS FOR FAMILIES OF DECEASED LAW ENFORCEMENT 
              OFFICERS.

    (a) Authority.--
            (1) In general.--The family of a deceased law enforcement 
        officer may request, and the Attorney General shall provide to 
        such family, a Capitol-flown flag, which shall be supplied to 
        the Attorney General by the Architect of the Capitol. The 
        family shall pay the cost of such flag, including shipping.
            (2) Effective date.--Paragraph (1) shall take effect on the 
        date on which the Attorney General establishes the procedure 
        required by subsection (b).
    (b) Procedure.--Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Attorney General shall establish a procedure 
(including any appropriate forms) by which the family of a deceased law 
enforcement officer may request, and provide sufficient information to 
determine such officer's eligibility for, a Capitol-flown flag.
    (c) Applicability.--This Act shall only apply to a deceased law 
enforcement officer who died on or after the date of enactment of this 
Act.
    (d) Definitions.--In this Act--
            (1) the term ``Capitol-flown flag'' means a United States 
        flag flown over the United States Capitol in honor of the 
        deceased law enforcement officer for whom such flag is 
        requested; and
            (2) the term ``deceased law enforcement officer'' means a 
        person who was charged with protecting public safety, who was 
        authorized to make arrests by a Federal, State, or local law 
        enforcement agency, and who died while employed by such an 
        agency or after retiring in good standing from such an agency.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.18

                            Form of Promissory Note


$  ___________                                 Seattle, Washington -  __________

On demand after date we promise to pay to the order of


                       ________________________________

________________________________________________________________________ Dollars

Payable at above - with interest from date at the rate for 90-day certificate of
deposit for $100,000 or more set each Monday by Seafirst Bank minus 25 basis
points.

                                       FISHER COMPANIES INC.

                                       _______________________________________
                                       Glen P. Christofferson - Vice President
No. 330      Due On Demand
<PAGE>

At December 31, 1999, the Company was indebted under loans to directors or to
entities in which such directors have a direct or indirect interest or serve in
some capacity, in the following amounts: (i) Mr. Phelps K. Fisher, $182,000;
(ii) Mr. Donald G. Graham, Jr., $1,716,000 to an estate of which he is the
executor and two trusts of which he is a trustee, and $4,000 to a corporation of
which he is an officer and a director; and (iii) Jacklyn F. Meurk, $150,000
jointly with her spouse. Additionally, the Company is indebted to Mrs. Donald G.
Graham, the mother of Mr. Donald G. Graham, Jr., in the amount of $2,904,000 and
to Mrs. Susan Hubbach, the mother of Mrs. Carol Fratt, in the amount of $34,000.
Such loans were documented by promissory notes substantially similar to the form
of promissory note set forth in this exhibit.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
     In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Brigham Exploration Company (the“Company”) on Form 10-K, for the period ended December 31, 2004 (the “Report”), I, Ben M. Brigham,Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman of the Board of the Company, hereby certify that:
(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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: March 31, 2005 /s/ Ben M. BrighamBen M. BrighamChief Executive Officer
Order entered October 6 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 15
- 00718
- CV RSL FUNDING, LLC , ET AL. , Appellant s

V. RICKEY NEWSOME, Appellee On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 14
- 14580
- L



### O RDER
We GRANT appellee’s October 5, 2015 unopposed second motion for an extension of time to file a brief. Appellee shall file a brief by OCTOBER 9, 2015 . We caution appellee that no further extension of time will be gra nted in this accelerated appeal absent extraordinary circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE