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

(No. 3402.)

Appeal from Tarrant County.

Opinion by

Delaney, J.

§ 813. *Failure of railroad company to provide sufficient stock pens; damages recoverable in such case; didy of party to prevent injury to his property; case stated.*Appellees shipped from Milheim to Fort Worth, Texas, two hundred and forty head of cattle on appellant’s line of road. The train was delayed six hours, and the cattle, in consequence of such delay, arrived at Fort Worth after dark. Appellant’s cattle pens at Fort Worth were small, not being sufficiently large to hold all of appellees’ cattle. Appellant had promised to deliver the cattle at Fort Worth in daylight. When it was ascertained that they would not reach there until after dark, appellees requested the agent of appellant to procure the pens of another company at the depot which were large enough to hold the cattle. This request was refused, and the cattle were driven into the small pens of appellant until they were trampling each other to death, when appellees opened the gates and let them out. They endeavored to herd them during the night, but many of them escaped into the woods. Eleven head were entirely lost, and one was killed in the pen. They brought this suit *719to recover the value of the cattle lost and killed, $220; money expended in searching for the lost cattle, $65; and their own time lost in said search, $50, and recovered judgment for these amounts. *Held:*The damages claimed are not remote. The trial judge found as a fact that, “by reason of the failure of the defendant to provide sufficient pens at the point of destination of said cattle, it became necessary, in order to prevent considerable damage to said cattle, and to complete the unloading of said cattle, to turn them out on the commons in the night-time.” In Field on Damages, sec. 21, the rule is stated thus: “ It is the duty of a party to protect himself from the injurious consequences of the wrongful act of another, if he can do so by ordinary effort and care, or at moderate expense, for which effort and expense he may charge the wrong-doer. And when by the use of such means he may prevent loss, he can only recover for such loss as could not thus be prevented.” We have no doubt that appellees acted properly in turning their cattle out of the pens', and that the loss unavoidably resulting from their act was properly chargeable to the appellants.

May 11, 1885.

§ 814. *Notice of damage not required, when.*Appellants pleaded a special contract of affreightment, one of the conditions of which was, that appellees should give notice in writing, etc., of damage sustained, if any, before taking the cattle away from the place of delivery, etc., and that appellees had failed to give such notice. *Held:*The default of the appellant rendered it impossible for appellees to comply with this condition of the contract, even if they had desired to do so. And under the evidence, to allow appellant to insist upon this condition would be to enable it to stipulate against the consequences of its own misconduct, which would be contrary to law.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








I, Peter A. Nicholson, certify that:





1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) of RC2 Corporation; and





2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.








Date:  March 10, 2011


By: /s/ Peter A. Nicholson


Peter A. Nicholson


Chief Financial Officer
#### Haley Major GREEN v. Christopher Michael GREEN.

No. 2011-CJ-2242.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 2, 2011.

In re Green, Christopher Michael; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of West Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 20,192; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CU 0319.

Denied.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JU NE 15, 2018

NO. 03

- 17

- 00082

- CR

Dylan Scott Garrett, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PE MBERTON, AND BOURLAN D

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE BOURLAND

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the tr i a l court . Dylan Scott Garrett

has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Therefore, the Court grants the motion, allows

Dylan Scott Garrett to withdraw his notice of appeal, and dismisses the appeal. Because

appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
##### 



Exhibit 12 AMERICAN REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND SUBSIDIARIES
RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
(AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS) Years Ended December 31,2004
    
    
    2003
    
    
    2002
    
    
    2001
    
    
    2000Income from continuing operations before income taxes,
income or loss from equity investees and minority interest
    
    $
    101,240
    
    
    $
    62,594
    
    
    $
    78,673
    
    
    $
    71,169
    
    
    $
    77,502Fixed Charges:Interest Expense
    
    
    41,659
    
    
    
    18,654
    
    
    
    27,297
    
    
    
    36,577
    
    
    
    20,057Amortized capitalized expenses related to indebtedness
    
    
    2,559
    
    
    
    320
    
    
    
    191
    
    
    
    178
    
    
    
    222Estimated interest within rental expense
    
    
    128
    
    
    
    122
    
    
    
    124
    
    
    
    103
    
    
    
    100Earnings as defined
    
    $

    145,586
    
    
    $

    81,690
    
    
    $

    106,285
    
    
    $

    108,027
    
    
    $

    97,881Fixed Charges ( including capitalized items):Interest Expense
    
    $
    41,659
    
    
    $

    18,654
    
    
    $

    27,297
    
    
    $

    36,577
    
    
    $

    20,057Amortized capitalized expenses related to indebtedness
    
    
    2,559
    
    
    
    320
    
    
    
    191
    
    
    
    178
    
    
    
    222Estimated interest within rental expense
    
    
    128
    
    
    
    122
    
    
    
    124
    
    
    
    103
    
    
    
    100Fixed charges as defined
    
    $
    44,346
    
    
    $
    19,096
    
    
    $
    27,612
    
    
    $
    36,858
    
    
    $
    20,379Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    3.3
    
    
    
    4.3
    
    
    
    3.8
    
    
    
    2.9
    
    
    
    4.8
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 184 (Thursday, September 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57976-57977]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23873]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs


Designation of Service Area for Confederated Tribes of the Warm 
Springs of Oregon

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces approval by the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
(BIA) of an expansion in service area for

[[Page 57977]]

the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs of Oregon, Warm Springs, Oregon 
(Warm Springs Tribe) for financial assistance and social service 
programs.

DATES: The BIA approval was effective on July 7, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Linda K. Ketcher, Supervisory 
Social Worker, at (202) 513-7610.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Warm Springs Tribe submitted to BIA a 
request with supporting documentation to modify its service area under 
25 CFR 20.201. The Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs has approved the 
request based on an evaluation of the information provided. This 
modification will expand the service area for the Warm Springs Tribe to 
include Hood River County (Oregon). The Tribe will provide services for 
eligible Indian clients in the new service area by setting up bi-weekly 
office hours at Hood River County.

    Dated: August 26, 2010.
Larry Echo Hawk,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2010-23873 Filed 9-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-4J-P
#### Pacu RIVERA-RIVERA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D10-2516.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

July 22, 2011.

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Kathryn Rollison Radtke, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Douglas T. Squire, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm without discussion, Pacu Rivera-Rivera’s convictions for robbery with a firearm, false imprisonment with a firearm, aggravated assault with a firearm, attempted robbery, aggravated battery with a firearm, and false imprisonment with a weapon. However, double jeopardy principles preclude Rivera’s separate convictions for battery and simple assault. As to the battery conviction, the State correctly concedes error, as the battery was subsumed by the greater offense of aggravated battery. *See Skriver v. State,*861 So.2d 1290 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). For the reason explained in *Latimer v. State,*44 So.3d 1239 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010), we also vacate the simple assault conviction.

Accordingly, we reverse both the battery and assault convictions and remand with instructions to vacate those convictions.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

ORFINGER, C.J., PALMER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 21

- 00301

- CV

Rodger Pierce , Appellant

v.

Bill Hanson , Appellee

FROM THE 335TH DISTRICT COURT OF BASTROP COUNTY

NO. 1191

- 335

, THE HONORABLE REVA TOWSL EE

- CORBETT , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant ’s brief was originally due on August 5, 2021

. On August 31, 2021 , this

C ourt sent a notice to appellant informing hi m that h is brief was overdue and that a failure to file

a satisfactory respo nse by September 10, 2021, would result in the dismissal of this appeal for

want of p rosecution. To date, appellant has not filed a brief or a motion for extension of time.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42. 3(b).

__________________________________________

Melissa Goodwin , Justice

Befor e Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Smith

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: November 16, 2021
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1488 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1488

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the exclusion for 
    employer-provided educational assistance to include educational 
            assistance provided to dependents of employees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 13, 2007

    Mr. Keller of Florida (for himself, Mr. Kind, and Mr. Weller of 
  Illinois) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the exclusion for 
    employer-provided educational assistance to include educational 
            assistance provided to dependents of employees.

    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 ``Family Friendly Employers Act of 
2007''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FOR EMPLOYER-PROVIDED EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDED 
              TO DEPENDENTS OF EMPLOYEES.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 127(c) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (defining educational assistance) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``or a dependent of the employee'' after 
        ``education of the employee'' in subparagraph (A), and
            (2) by inserting ``or dependent'' after ``employee'' in 
        subparagraph (B) and in the material following subparagraph 
        (B).
    (b) Separate Limitation for Dependents.--Subsection (a) of section 
127 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new 
paragraph:
            ``(3) Maximum exclusion for assistance furnished to 
        dependents.--If, but for this paragraph, this section would 
        exclude from gross income more than $2,500 of educational 
        assistance furnished to the dependents of an employee (in the 
        aggregate) during a calendar year, this section shall apply 
        only to the first $2,500 of such assistance so furnished.''.
    (c) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (2) of section 127(a) of such 
Code is amended--
            (1) by striking ``an individual'' and inserting ``the 
        employee'', and
            (2) in the heading thereof by striking ``maximum 
        exclusion'' and inserting ``maximum exclusion for assistance 
        furnished to employee''.
    (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CURRENCY>                                U.S. Dollars
<MULTIPLIER>                                      1000

<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   1.00
<CASH>                                            4078
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     6979
<ALLOWANCES>                                       449
<INVENTORY>                                       1829
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 15511
<PP&E>                                           81888
<DEPRECIATION>                                   34667
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   72955
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            11785
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         14791
<OTHER-SE>                                       16151
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     72955
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 47592
<CGS>                                             9408
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    18789
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 22300
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1767
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   5477
<INCOME-TAX>                                      2110
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               3367
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      3367
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .62



</TABLE>
#### Sterling Nugent, Drain Commissioner of the County of Huron, v. Moses Erb, Supervisor of the Township of Chandler.

*Drains*— Proceedings *to establish*— Refusal *to malee assessment.*

1. Where, owing to defects in the proceedings of a drain, commissioner, no legal drain can be laid out, a supervisor is justified in refusing to assess taxes therefor.

2. The order of a county drain commissioner, made under section 3 of chapter 3 of Act No. 227, Laws of 1885, determining the practicability of a proposed drain, is fatally defective if it fails to establish its commencement, route, terminus, width, length, and depth.

*Mandamus.*

Argued February 2, 1892.

Denied February 3,

and opinion filed February 11, 1892.

*279Eelator applied for *mandamus*to compel respondent to assess a drain tax. The facts are stated in the opinion.

*W. T. Bope,*and *E. C. Chapin,*for relator.

*Hiram L. Chipman*and *E. F. Bacon,*for respondent.

Per Curiam.

Eelator asks for a *mandamus*to compel the respondent, who is supervisor of his township, to assess a drain tax.

. The relator is county drain commissioner. The supervisor refuses to assess the tax on account of certain defects in the proceedings to lay out the drain. Among other defects claimed are the following:

> 1. That the order of the commissioner determining the practicability of the drain does not establish the commencement, route, width, length, or depth of the proposed drain.

> *2.*That the papers were not filed with the county clerk until January, 1891, while the order required the. assessment to be made in the year 1890.

The commissioner is required by the statute, in determining the practicability of the proposed drain, to find* the width, depth, length, commencement, and the terminus thereof. His application to the probate court, if made, is also to describe the property to be taken. There was no such description of the property to be taken as. is required. The case is governed by *Kroop v.*Forman, 31 Mich. 144; *Milton v. Commissioner,*40 Id. 229.

As the proceedings are shown to be defective in this-, respect, we need not pass upon the other point.

The proceedings being so defective that no legal drain-could be laid out, the supervisor was not in the wrong in* refusing to assess the tax.

Writ denied.
#### Alexander McDowell v. G. C. Collier & Son.

(No. 2924.)

Appeal from Jack County.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 266. *Limitation; immigrant; debt not evidenced by writing.*Article 3224 of the Revised Statutes provides that: “No demand against any person who shall hereafter remove to this state, incurred prior to his removal, shall be barred by the statute of limitations, until he shall have resided in this state for the space of twelve months.” In the preceding article (3223), actions against an immigrant, barred by limitation of''the country from which he emigrated, are expressly inhibited. But if the claim is barred by the limitations of this state, and the defendant has been a resident of this state for twelve months before the suit is brought, the action will be *202barred, though it may not .be barred under the laws of the state from which he emigrated. [Thompson v. Berry, 26 Tex. 263.] Our statute of limitations bars actions for debt, where the indebtedness is not evidenced by a contract in writing, after the lapse of two years from the accrual of the cause of action. [E. S. art. 3203.] This suit was upon an account for an indebtedness incurred by the .defendant in the state of Alabama. ITe removed from that state to this, and had resided in this state more than one year prior to the institution of this suit, and the cause of action upon the indebtedness had accrued more than two years prior to the institution of the suit. Held, that the cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations of this state.

June 21, 1884.

Eeversed and remanded.
#### Charles PUCKETT v. WELLS FARGO BANK MINNESOTA NA., Litton Loan Servicing, LP, Prudential Gardner, Realtors, Commerce Title and Abstract Company, and Dale Peoples.

No. 2011-CC-1189.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 16, 2011.

In re Commerce Title and Abstract Company; Landry, Steven Y.; — Defendants); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 98,195; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CW 351.

Denied.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 93 (Thursday, June 8, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5693]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

  The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] come 
forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
  Mr. HEFLEY led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:

       I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United 
     States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, 
     one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice 
     for all.
     

                          ____________________
```
#### Michael CARAKER, Appellant, v. The HERTZ CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, and Kemkes Peteranton, Appellees.

No. 4D09-3018.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 23, 2011.

Roy D. Wasson of Wasson and Associates, Chartered, Miami, and Scott Saper-stein, P.A., Plantation, for appellant.

Warren B. Kwavnick of Cooney, Trybus, Kwavnick, Peets, P.L.C., Fort Lauderdale for appellee The Hertz Corporation.

PER CURIAM.

*Affirmed. See Vargas v. Enterprise Leasing Co.,*993 So.2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), *rev. granted,*28 So.3d 46 (Fla.2009).

HAZOURI, MAY and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.
#### Asa HARRIS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D10-4224.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 10, 2010.

Asa Harris, pro se, Petitioner.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner’s direct criminal appeal was dismissed when counsel failed to file the initial brief. We grant the instant petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and hereby reinstate case number 1D08-6144. Jurisdiction in that proceeding is relinquished to the trial court for 30 days with directions to consider the appointment of the public defender if petitioner so qualifies. In addition, the clerk of the circuit court shall return the record in that case to this court within 30 days.

WOLF, DAVIS, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.