alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Kameatra DAVIS, Appellant, v. REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE APPEALS COMMISSION and St. Anthony’s Hospital Inc., Appellees.

No. 1D11-0337.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 24, 2012.

Kameatra Davis, pro se, Appellant.

M. Elaine Howard, Deputy General Counsel, Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission, Tallahassee, for Appel-lees.

PER CURIAM.

Kameatra Davis appeals from an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission affirming the denial of her request for unemployment compensation benefits. We reverse.

It is apparent from the decision of the appeals referee, affirmed by the commission, that the referee denied Ms. Davis’s claim because she had not kept a record of the specific places she had contacted when looking for work and the specific dates of her contacts, except for three places that she identified, two of which she had contacted between June 13 and 20, 2010. We have concluded in the past that a claimant is not required to keep any sort of written job search log. *Grell v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission,*44 So.3d 201 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). *Accord Aguirre v. Unemployment Appeals Commission,*68 So.3d 404 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); *Carilus v. Unemployment Appeals Commission,*51 So.3d 653 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).

As in *Grell,*the referee did not conclude that Ms. Davis was not credible, and thus the referee may have erroneously believed that she could not make a determination based upon Ms. Davis’s testimony alone about the extent of her job search.

Reversed and Remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

PADOVANO, MARSTILLER, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.
645 A.2d 134

#### MARIE C. INCOLLINGO, ET AL. AND JOHN M. GAVEN, ET AL. v. JOHN B. CANUSO AND FOX AND LAZO, INC., ET AL.

June 8, 1994.

ORDER

Leave to appeal is granted.
EX-4.10






Exhibit 4.10



The following is a summary of amendments to the Ford Motor Company Tax-Efficient Savings Plan for
Hourly Employees, effective January 23, 2009:





	 	•	 	Oakmark Select Fund ⁄ Class I and Templeton Foreign Fund-Advisor Class will be closed to
new monies effective January 23, 2009 and will be removed from the lineup effective July
30, 2009. Any contributions and loan repayments allocated to or assets remaining in these
funds as of 4:00 p.m., ET, on these dates will be reallocated as follows:






⁄
 Oakmark Select Fund-Class I Þ Vanguard Institutional Index Fund-Institutional
Plus Shares;




⁄ Templeton Foreign Fund-Advisor Class Þ BGI EAFE Equity Index Fund.
#### LOUISIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and in their Capacities as Commissioners Lambert C. Boissiere, III, James M. Field, Foster L. Campbell, Eric Skrmetta, and Clyde C. Holloway v. LOUISIANA STATE LEGISLATURE.

No. 2011-CD-1065.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 25, 2011.

In re Boissiere III, Commissioner Lambert C.; Campbell, Commissioner Foster L.; Field, Commissioner James M.; Holloway, Commissioner Clyde C; Louisiana Public Service Commission et al.; Skrmet-ta, Commissioner Eric; —Plaintiffs); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 592,231.

Writ denied as premature.
627 A.2d 1134

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. TRACY MINGO.

May 13, 1993.

Petition for certification is granted, and the matter is summarily remanded to the Appellate Division to consider defendant’s excessive sentence claim.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AS OF MAR-31-1998 AND THE RELATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CASH FLOWS
FOR THE PERIOD THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           9,144
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,517
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,359
<PP&E>                                          20,441
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,871
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  29,562
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,189
<BONDS>                                          1,224
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        37,778
<OTHER-SE>                                     (13,629)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    29,562
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,045
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,794
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (65)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 101
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    215
<INCOME-TAX>                                         6
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                209
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       209
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.02
        

</TABLE>
070228-F-JZ504-411.JPG
            BRIGADIER GENERAL CHARLES MATHES YOUNGCharles Mathes Young was born in Helena, Ark., in 1914. He graduated from Georgia Military Academy, College Park, Ga., and subsequently received a Congressional appointment to the U.S. Military Academy, graduating with the Class of 1938. Commissioned a second lieutenant upon graduation from West Point, Lieutenant Young then attended the Air Force Flying Training School at Kelly Field, Texas. With the advent of World War II following his graduation from Flying Training School as a pilot, he participated in combat while serving in England and France during 1944. At the age of 29, while serving in England, he was promoted to the rank of colonel. Returning to the States in November 1944, Colonel Young held several positions during the years immediately following the war. They included such assignments as a flying supervisor and a deputy for flying training. In June 1946, he was transferred to Maxwell Field, Ala., where he held the post of instructor in combat tactics in the Air Command and Staff School. He remained at Maxwell until October 1947, when he was reassigned to Japan, where he served until Aug. 1, 1950. During this overseas tour of duty he held positions as plans officer at Headquarters, Thirteenth Air Force in the Philippines and as intelligence officer at Headquarters, Far East Air Force. Colonel Young was assigned from Japan to Headquarters, U.S. Air Force in Washington where he served as chief, Policy and Management Group, Deputy Chief of Staff/Intelligence, until August 1953, at which time he attended the Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Pa. Upon graduation from the War College in June 1954, he was returned to Headquarters U.S. Air Force, where he served as chairman of the Training Committee, Joint Tactical Air Support Board. From January 1955 until August 1957, he was commander of the 3560th Pilot Training Wing, Webb Air Force Base, Texas. In August 1957, he was transferred from Webb Air Force Base to Randolph Air Force Base, Texas, where he served as inspector general for Air Training Command until his assignment overseas in June 1958 and assumption of command of the 86th Fighter Interceptor Wing, at Ramstein Air, Base, Germany, effective June 30, 1958. In July l959 Colonel Young was assigned to Headquarters U.S. Air Forces, Europe, as deputy chief of staff, intelligence. At that time this office was located at Ramstein Air Base, but was subsequently moved to Lindsey Air Station, Wiesbaden, Germany, in November of that year. In April 1960, he was promoted to brigadier general. (Current as of June 1960)
#### Lawrence E. BROCK and Emma Brock v. Myron Ellis SINGLETON, A3M Vacuum Services, Inc., and Clarendon America Insurance Company.

No. 2011-C-1216.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 23, 2011.

In re A3M Vacuum Services Inc.; Clarendon America Insurance Company; Singleton, Myron Ellis et al.; — Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. John, 40th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 52577; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-CA-550.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.
| Subsidiaries                                                  | Country of Incorporation |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|
| Cactus Argentina S.A.                                         | Argentina                |
| Futuros y Opciones.Com S.A.                                   | Argentina                |
| IRSA Inversiones y Representaciones Sociedad Anónima     | Argentina                |
| BrasilAgro Companhia Brasileira de Propiedades Agrícolas | Brasil                   |
| Sociedad Anónima Carnes Pampeanas S.A.                   | Argentina                |
| Northagro S.A.                                                | Argentina                |
| Pluriagro S.A.                                                | Argentina                |
| Agrotech S.A.                                                 | Argentina                |
| FyO Trading S.A.                                              | Argentina                |
| Helmir S.A.                                                   | Uruguay                  |
| Doneldon S.A.                                                 | Uruguay                  |
| Sedelor S.A.                                                  | Uruguay                  |
| Codalis S.A.                                                  | Uruguay                  |
| Alafox S.A.                                                   | Uruguay                  |

----
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ N O . 09
- 21
- 00283
- CV

__________________
IN THE INTEREST OF C.S.

__________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 279th District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. F
- 2 3 8,543

__________________________________________________________________ ORDER On September 10, 2021, the trial court signed an interlocutory order of termination as to A. R ., the mother of C. S. On September 13, 2021, A. R . filed a notice of appeal. “ The appellate court may allow an appealed order that is not final to be modified so as to be made fina l and may allow the modified order and all proceedings relating to it to be included in a supplemental record. ” Tex. R. App. P.
27.2. Accordingly, we abate the appeal and remand the cause to the trial court. See id. Upon remand, the trial court may issue s uch further orders or judgments necessary to create a final, appealable order in this cause. Unless a final, appealable2 order or judgment is included in a supplemental clerk ’ s record and filed with the clerk of this court on or before December 27 , 2021 , the appeal will be reinstated and dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
ORDER ENTERED November 24 , 2021.
PER CURIAM Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
#### T.S., the Mother, Appellant, v. GUARDIAN AD LITEM and Department of Children and Families, Appellees.

No. 4D10-2386.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 15, 2010.

Denise E. Kistner of the Law Offices of Denise E. Kistner, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Hillary S. Kambour, Tavares, for appel-lee Guardian ad Litem.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Thomas B. Arden, Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee Department of Children and Families.

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal stemming from a dependency case involving T.S.’s three children, T.S. argues that the trial court erred in terminating protective supervision and placing the children in the custody of their respective natural fathers. A termination of protective supervision order is reviewable under an abuse of discretion standard. *C.A. v. Dep’t of Children & Families,*988 So.2d 1247, 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). We reverse because the motion to terminate protective supervision was heard at a status hearing, which was scheduled for the purpose of receiving a therapist’s report, and T.S. was not given notice that the motion would be heard at that time. *See R.H. v. Dep’t of Children & Families,*948 So.2d 898, 899 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (noting that it was error and a violation of the mother’s due process rights to terminate protective supervision without prior notice that permanency would be decided). Here, the trial court abused its discretion where the mother objected to termination of protective supervision and there was no prior notice that the Guardian Ad Litem’s pending motion for closure of the case as to the three children would be at issue at the status hearing. The mother was not *342prepared, nor was she required to be prepared, to defend the significant motion to terminate protective supervision, which although filed, had not been noticed for hearing. *See Khan v. Dep’t of Rev.,*901 So.2d 992, 993 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (“It is an essential part of the concept of due process that any relief granted at a hearing be within the kind of relief sought by the notice given for hearing.”).

*Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.*

STEVENSON, HAZOURI and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.
**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**
 
 The
undersigned officer of Camden Summit Inc., the general partner of Camden Summit
Partnership, L.P., formerly known as Summit Properties Partnership, L.P. (the
“Operating Partnership”) hereby certifies to his knowledge that the Operating
Partnership’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004
(the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Operating
Partnership.
 
 
 Date:
      March 31, 2005
    /S/
      DENNIS M. STEENDennis
      M. SteenChief
      Financial Officer, Senior Vice President -Finance
      and Secretary
#### Kirschner, Appellant, *v.*Keller, Appellee.

(No. 6089

Decided February 16, 1942.)

*Messrs. Young & Kondritzer,*for appellant.

*Mr. Daniel C. Handley, Jr.,*for appellee.

By the Court.

In this case the plaintiff seeks to recover damages for personal injuries or physical pain inflicted upon him through the negligence or malpractice of the defendant, who is a chiropractor.

The trial court instructed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence and entered judgment on that verdict after overruling a motion for a new trial.

The plaintiff had been afflicted with epilepsy for twenty or more years. It was a type the cause of which was unknown and there is no known cure. The use of phenobarbital, however, reduces the frequency and perhaps the intensity of the convulsions. The plaintiff liad used this drug for many years and knew its effect and the effect of the discontinuance of its use. He was evidently dissatisfied with this palliative and was *112seeking a cure. In this quest, he went to a nonresident chiropractor, who referred him to the defendant.

In going to the chiropractor, he did so, manifestly, for chiropractic treatment. He received that treatment from the defendant. The defendant manipulated his spinal column, and there is no claim that such manipulation resulted in any harmful effects. It is asserted, however, that the discontinuance of the use of phenobarbital resulted in the convulsions being-more frequent and more intense, and that the discontinuance of the drug- was on the direction of the defendant.

But the plaintiff knew when he went to the defendant that his profession did not believe in the curative qualities of drugs and relied solely on manipulation to accomplish beneficial results. He so testified.

As soon as the taking of the drugs was resumed it was found that his prior condition was restored and apparently improved over what it had been before submitting- himself to the treatment administered by the defendant.

It seems to us that the plaintiff submitted to the discontinuance of the use of phenobarbital voluntarily with full knowledge of the consequences in the hope that the chiropractic treatment would effect a cure. The familiar principle of the common law, *volenti non fit*injuria, prevents a recovery for the added suffering-resulting- from the discontinuance of the drug.

It is not claimed, and there is no testimony, that defendant guaranteed a cure, and as there is no evidence that any harm resulted from the treatment, the plaintiff has no cause of action.

The judgment is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Matthews, P. J., Hamilton and Ross, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         167,376
<SECURITIES>                                   132,227
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     42,382
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               454,954
<PP&E>                                          24,036
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,024
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 517,399
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           54,359
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           117
<OTHER-SE>                                     462,923
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   517,399
<SALES>                                        371,806
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               371,806
<CGS>                                          131,239
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               128,845
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (8,610)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                120,332
<INCOME-TAX>                                    48,314
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             72,018
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    72,018
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.57
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 99.2


                             CERTIFICATE 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 Heritage Worldwide, Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Fabrice Viguier, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  section  1350,  as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act  of  2002,  that:

     (1)  The  Report  fully  complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d)  of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in  the  Report  fairly  presents, in all
material  respect,  the  financial  condition  and  result  of operations of the
Company.

     A  signed  original  of  this written statement required by Section 906 has
been  provided  to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  or  its  staff  upon  request.


/s/  Fabrice  Viguier
---------------------
Chief  Financial  Officer

March  25,  2003





                                       24
<PAGE>
**Exhibit 32.1**




**CERTIFICATION**




Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Pehong Chen, the Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of BroadVision, Inc. (the
      "Company"), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:




**1.** The
      Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,
      2007,
      and to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the "Periodic
      Report"), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section
      15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




**2.** The
      information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of
      the 5th  day
      of November 2007.


*/s/ Pehong
                Chen*
              Pehong
                ChenChief
                Executive Officer andChief
                Financial Officer
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Jackie WAFFER.

No. 2010-K-2375.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 4, 2011.

In re Waffer, Jackie; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 03 F0707; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,-210-KA.

Denied.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 21.1











                                      -39-
<PAGE>

                      TOTAL ENTERTAINMENT RESTAURANT CORP.
                      REPORT ON FORM 10-K DECEMBER 31, 2002

                 CERTIFICATION BY STEVEN M. JOHNSON PURSUANT TO
                  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     The undersigned, Chief Executive Officer of Total Entertainment Restaurant
Corp. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to the best of my knowledge, that the
Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2002 (the "Annual
Report") accompanying this certification fully complies with the requirements of
the Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m
or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Annual Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company. The foregoing certification is incorporated solely
for purposes of complying with the provisions of Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act and is not intended to be used for any other purpose.




     Date     March 28, 2003                    /s/ Steven M. Johnson
          ----------------------                ----------------------------
                                                Steven M. Johnson
                                                Chief Executive Officer











                                      -40-