alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### ST. JOHNS RIVER POWER PARK/SCIBAL ASSOCIATES (Improperly Denominated Jea/Scibal Associates in the Final Order), Appellants, v. Buddy R. GRIFFIS, Jr., Appellee.

No. 1D09-5756.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 18, 2010.

Richard M. Stoudemire of Boyd *&*Jen-erette, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellants.

W. Marc Hardesty and Michael S. Tyde of Hardesty, Tyde, Green & Ashton, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

CLARK and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur; THOMAS, J., dissents with opinion.

THOMAS, J.,

dissent.

I respectfully dissent. In this case, Claimant sought a determination that his psychiatric condition was compensable. The Employer/Carrier denied the claim, asserting that the workplace injury was not the major contributing cause of Claimant’s psychiatric condition. Because the Claimant failed to meet the required burden of proof, I would reverse the Judge of Compensation Claims’ (JCC’s) award of psychiatric treatment.

Claimant sought treatment for his diagnosed depression, which he alleged occurred as a manifestation of a compensable *124physical injury. The relevant statutory provision is section 440.093(2), Florida Statutes (2004). Pursuant to this statute, Claimant had the burden to prove that “[t]he compensable physical injury [was] and remain[ed] the major contributing cause of the mental or nervous condition and the compensable physical injury as determined by reasonable medical certainty [was] at least 50 percent responsible for the mental or nervous condition as compared to all other contributing causes combined.” § 440.093(2), Fla. Stat. (2004).

The questions posed to Dr. Grobles were not sufficiently precise to address the causal relationship between Claimant’s compensable right femur injury and his psychiatric condition, because the questions failed to exclude the low back injury that the JCC determined was no longer related to the workplace injury. This court recently reversed a JCC’s denial of medical treatment because the employer/carrier, through the use of imprecise deposition questions, failed to carry its burden of proof to establish a break in the causation chain. *See Jackson v. Merit Electric, 37*So.3d 381, 383-84 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (reversing denial of medical treatment because employer/carrier failed to advise doctor of correct legal posture of case, thus, doctor’s testimony was not competent, substantial evidence to support denial of requested treatment).

Similarly, here, Dr. Grobles was not made aware that Claimant’s low back condition was no longer a compensable injury. Neither the admissible evidence nor reasonable inferences drawn therefrom support the JCC’s finding that Claimant’s compensable physical injury was the major contributing cause of Claimant’s psychiatric injury.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Ceionne BROCK.

No. 2010-KO-2324.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 18, 2011.

In re Brock, Ceionne; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 320-613; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-KA-1294.

Motion denied. Writ denied.
certificate.htm


    
Exhibit 4.1

      Form of Certificate for Fixed Rate
Cumulative                                                          

      Perpetual
Preferred Stock, Series A

      


      


      INCORPORATED
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF

      


      KENTUCKY

       

      
        
        

         

        
          	 NUMBER	 	
                                                                                                       
      SHARES

                
	  P-__                                              	 	                                                                                 _________


        

         

        
          	  	 
	 	 


        

         

      

      


                                                                                                                                     

      


      


      FARMERS
CAPITAL BANK CORPORATION

      Fixed
Rate Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series A

      


      This Certifies that
______________________________  is the owner of _________ Shares of  FIXED RATE CUMULATIVE PERPETUAL
PREFERRED STOCK, SERIES A, each of the Capital Stock of 
Farmers Capital Bank
Corporation, transferable only on the books of
the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by Attorney upon surrender of
this Certificate properly endorsed.

      


      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said
Corporation has caused this Certificate to be signed by its duly authorized
officers and to be sealed with the Seal of the Corporation, this ___ day of
_____________, A.D. ______.

      


      


      __________________________________                              _________________________________

      SECRETARY                                                                                     PRESIDENT

      


      


       

      SHARES
_______ EACH

       

       

      
 

      © GOES
50.

          All
Rights Reserved.
| (logo) WELLS   

          FARGO | Commercial Mortgage Servicing

D1086-120, 12th Floor

550 South Tryon Street

Charlotte, NC 28202

1-800-326-1334 |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of June 1, 2014, by and among WELLS FARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, LNR PARTNERS, LLC, as Special Servicer, SITUS HOLDINGS, LLC, as Trust Advisor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as Certificate Administrator, as Tax Administrator, and Custodian, and WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2014-LC16 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.12 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.              A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period from June 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014 (the “Reporting Period”) and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and 

 

2.              To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer, has fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 6th day of March 2015.

                                                                                                

\s\ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President                         

Wells Fargo Bank
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Willie RHODES.

No. 2011-KK-0869.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 3, 2011.

In re State of Louisiana; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. E, No. 482-302; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-0335.

Denied.

CLARK, J., would grant.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 721 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 721

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the 
                   railroad track maintenance credit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 30, 2017

Ms. Jenkins of Kansas (for herself, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Rodney Davis of 
 Illinois, and Mr. Lipinski) 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 permanently extend the 
                   railroad track maintenance credit.

    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 ``Building Rail Access for Customers 
and the Economy Act'' or the ``BRACE Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF THE RAILROAD TRACK MAINTENANCE CREDIT.

    (a) In General.--Section 45G(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by striking ``, and before January 1, 2017''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to expenditures paid or incurred in taxable years beginning after 
December 31, 2016.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 93 (Thursday, June 8, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1176]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                    CONGRATULATIONS FLORIDA HOSPITAL

                                 ______

                           HON. BILL McCOLLUM

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 7, 1995
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, congratulations to Florida Hospital in 
Orlando, FL, on the occasion of the beginning of construction for the 
Walt Disney Memorial Cancer Institute's new facility in my 
congressional district.
  When its new facility is complete, the institute will bring honor to 
Orlando as a leader in diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of cancer. 
We are grateful to Florida Hospital for providing a service of this 
magnitude, including research and cancer prevention education, for the 
citizens and families of central Florida.
  We are fortunate to have dedicated caregivers like Florida Hospital 
and the Walt Disney Memorial Cancer Institute in Orlando. We 
congratulate them on their commitment to bring quality cancer care to 
our citizens.

                          ____________________
```
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Michael ANDERSON.

No. 2011-KK-0224.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 4, 2011.

In re Anderson, Michael; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. B, No. 472-217; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-1557.

Denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-0XLEY ACT OF 2002


I, James J. Ling,  Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Empiric Energy,  Inc.
(the "Company"),  certify,  U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that , to my knowledge:

     (1)  The  Company's  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
          June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
          the date here of (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.



                                             /s/ James J. Ling
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            James J. Ling
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                                            August 19, 2003


This  certification  accompanies  this  Report  pursuant  to Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  and shall not be deemed  filed by the  Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,  or
otherwise subject to liability under the section.  This certification  shall not
be deemed  incorporated  by reference in any filing under the  Securities Act or
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it
by reference.

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form with the  electronic  version  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.
#### Betsy Ann ROSSEN a/k/a Elisabeth Rossen, Appellant, v. SOLOMON SMITH BARNEY, INC., Appellee.

No. 4D08-2890.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 17, 2010.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 21, 2010.

Inger M. Garcia, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

No brief filed for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

*Affirmed. See*§ 59.041, Fla. Stat. (2009).

GROSS, C.J., FARMER and STEVENSON, JJ„ concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                            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 Quarterly Report of MITY Enterprises, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Bradley T Nielson, Chief Executive 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 respects, the financial condition and results of operations
         of the Company.


Date: July 28, 2004                     /s/ Bradley T Nielson
                                        -----------------------------------
                                        Bradley T Nielson
                                        Chief Executive Officer
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2
 STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
   (A)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and(B)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
as of the dates and for the periods covered by the Report.
   November 14, 2007
    /s/  Laurie L. LathamDate
    Laurie L. LathamChief Financial Officer
Micro-Integration Corp. and Subsidiaries
         Exhibit 11.1 - Statement re: Computation of Earnings Per Share

                                   Three months ended         Six months ended
                                      September 30              September 30
                                   1996         1995         1996         1995
                                 -------      -------      -------      -------
                                      (unaudited)               (unaudited)


Average shares outstanding         2,397        2,423        2,397        2,423

Net effect of dilutive stock
 options based on the
 treasury stock method
 using average market price            0            0            0            0
                                 -------      -------      -------      -------

Total                              2,397        2,423        2,397        2,423
                                 =======      =======      =======      =======

Net Loss                         $  (396)     $  (111)     $  (575)     $  (823)
                                 =======      =======      =======      =======

Per share amount                 $ (0.17)     $ (0.05)     $ (0.24)     $ (0.34)
                                 =======      =======      =======      =======

Note: Fully diluted earnings per share equals primary earnings per share.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         693,600
<SECURITIES>                                 5,720,700             
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,233,700             
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (82,900)           
<INVENTORY>                                          0                     
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,741,400    
<PP&E>                                       3,989,900    
<DEPRECIATION>                                (747,400)            
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,983,900           
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,235,000    
<BONDS>                                              0                     
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                     
<PREFERRED>                                          0                     
<COMMON>                                     5,276,300             
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,472,600             
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,983,900
<SALES>                                      2,343,400             
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,458,400             
<CGS>                                        1,051,000          
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,991,300             
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0            
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0            
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                     
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                467,100              
<INCOME-TAX>                                   183,500               
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0               
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0              
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0               
<CHANGES>                                            0               
<NET-INCOME>                                   283,600       
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .08                   
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08                
                                                                   

</TABLE>
#### Appleby *et al. v.*Holder *et al.*

No. 6249.

June 13, 1928.

Equitable petition. Befope Judge Pomeroy. Fulton superior court. August 15, 1927.

. *Bay & Bay,*for plaintiffs.

*Seward M. Smith, Henderson Hallman,*and *George & John L. Westmoreland,*for defendants.

Atkinson, J.

A court of equity will not interfere with the discretionary action of the State Highway Board acting under the act of 1919 (Acts 1919, p. 248) and the act of 1921 (Acts 1921, p. 199) in designating and locating a State-aid road within the sphere of their legally delegated powers, unless such action is arbitrary and amounts to an abuse of discretion. *Jackson*v. *State Highway Department,*164 *Ga.*434 (4) (138 S. E. 847), and cit.; *Town of Camak*v. *State Highway Board,*166 *Ga.*359 (143 S. E. 367). Applying the foregoing principle, the petition in this case for injunction to prevent the location of a State-aid road failed to allege a cause of action, and the judge did not err in dismissing the petition on general demurrer.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
647 A.2d 471

#### IN THE MATTER OF RAFAEL M. PANTOJA, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

September 28, 1994.

ORDER

The Office of Attorney Ethics having filed a petition with the Supreme Court recommending that RAFAEL M. PANTOJA of NEW YORK, NEW YORK, be immediately temporarily suspended from the practice of law, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that RAFAEL M. PANTOJA is temporarily suspended from the practice of law, effective immediately, and until further Order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that the Office of Attorney Ethics take such protective action, pursuant to *Rule*1:20 — 11(c), as may be appropriate to gain possession and control of the legal files, records, practice and trust assets of RAFAEL M. PANTOJA, wherever situate, pending further Order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that all funds, if any, currently existing in any New Jersey financial institution maintained by RAFAEL M. PANTO-JA, pursuant to *Rule*1:21-6, shall be restrained from disbursement except upon application to this Court, for good cause shown, pending the further Order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that RAFAEL M. PANTOJA show cause before this Court on October 24, 1994, at 2:00 p.m., Supreme Court Courtroom, Hughes Justice Complex, Trenton, New Jersey, why his temporary suspension and the restraints herein should not continue pending final disposition of any ethics proceedings pending against him and further why the funds restrained from disbursement should not be transmitted by the financial institutions who are the present custodians to the Clerk of the Superior Court for deposit in the Superior Court Trust Fund, pending the further Order of this Court; and it is further

*37ORDERED that David E. Johnson, Jr., Esquire, or his desig-nee, present this matter to the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that RAFAEL M. PANTOJA be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of his suspension and that he comply with Administrative Guideline No. 23 of the Office of Attorney Ethics dealing with suspended attorneys.