alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
S96A0833.

#### RICHWOOD & ASSOCIATES, INC. v. OSBORNE.

(475 SE2d 606)

Fletcher, Presiding Justice.

Gloria Dean Smartwood Osborne filed a motion for contempt against her former husband, Allen L. Osborne, for his failure to pay alimony. She sought to join her ex-husband’s employer, Richwood & Associates, as a party to the contempt action. We granted the employer’s discretionary application to consider whether a party can add a Georgia corporation as a joint tortfeasor in a motion for contempt of a divorce decree. We reverse because the trial court did not have jurisdiction to consider the wife’s tort claim against the employer in this contempt action.

A contempt motion to enforce a divorce decree is an independent proceeding that is ancillary to the divorce action.1 Because a contempt action is not a new civil action, many provisions of the Civil Practice Act do not apply. Thus, a party is limited in the type of claims that may be brought2 and may not file either a counterclaim or cross-claim.3

Richwood was not a party to the original divorce action and the wife is not seeking to enforce its compliance with a decree to which it was not a party. Instead, her motion to join Richwood as a defendant alleges that the employer conspired with her former husband to defeat her efforts to enforce the trial court’s orders and judgment in the divorce action. Because the filing of a contempt motion is not tantamount to the filing of a complaint, the wife cannot allege a separate count for conspiracy against the husband’s employer as part of the contempt action. To bring a third-party conspiracy claim, she must *90file a new tort action. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s order adding Richwood as a party in this action.

Decided September 9, 1996.

*William R. Hurst, Michael D. Barber,*for appellant.

*Ballard, Stephenson & Waters, Billy J. Waters,*for appellee.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

 See *Brown v. King,*266 Ga. 890 (472 SE2d 65) (1996).

2

 See, e.g., *Blalock v. Blalock,*247 Ga. 548, 550 (277 SE2d 655) (1981) (holding that party may file motion to modify visitation rights in contempt proceeding); see generally Dan E. McConaughey, Georgia Divorce, Alimony and Child Custody, § 14-3 (describing limited authority of trial courts in contempt actions).

3

 See *McNeal v. McNeal,*233 Ga. 836 (213 SE2d 845) (1975); *Davis v. Davis,*230 Ga. 33, 34 (195 SE2d 440) (1973).
Exhibit 4.46  Annex 3  To the Cash Pooling Agreement  Act of accession  Polca,5 Place du Champ de Mars, 1050 Brussels, Belgium,  To the attention of the Director,  Re: Accession to the Polca Cash Pooling Agreement (the Agreement) of Cdiscount International BV (the participating Company)  1.All terms used herein shall have the same meaning as defined in the Agreement.  2.Cdiscount International BV confirms having received and read all the provisions of the Agreement as well as any other information, document considered useful and necessary for the Agreement and its implementation.  3.Cdiscount International BV states to be controlled directly or indirectly by Casino Guichard Perrachon within the meaning of the definition of the term Casino Group found in Article 1 of the Agreement.  4.Cdiscount International BV confirms having provided Polca with its latest financial accounts, including financial information on its equity and its financial debts, in accordance with Article 6.2 of the Agreement, on the basis of which the Maximum Amount of Advances is set to 70 million (Seventy million)euros.  5.Cdiscount International BV hereby agrees to be a Participating Company within the meaning of the Agreement, endorses each of the representations provided for in Article 9 of the Agreement, agrees to be bound without reservation by the terms and conditions of the Agreement, to benefit from all the rights it creates and engages to perform all the obligations imposed upon it.  6.For the purpose of participating to the cash pooling transactions provided for in the Agreement, Cdiscount International BV states that the account No. NL43 SOGE 0270 2335 39 opened with the Bank should be considered as its Secondary Account for the purposes of the Agreement.  7.We confirm having the authority and capacity to sign the Act of accession to the Agreement.  8.Please note that all correspondences relating to the Agreement will be sent by postal letter, fax, e-mail, telephone at :  ·Hans Loevendie ·Mail : hloevendie@qroupe-casino.fr ·Professor Dr Dorgelolaan 30-D  5613 AM  EINDHOVEN


For the purposes of articles 3 and 4 of the Agreement, only the person bellow or substituted will have exclusively the capacity and the authority to represent us:  ·Hans Loevendie Professor Dr Dorgelolaan 30-D  5613 AM  EINDHOVEN  9.As we have negotiated and agreed, we have noted that the date of entry into force of the Agreement toward us is fixed to 1stof August 2014.  For the good shape, please return to us one of the two originals of these preceded by the words read and approved and your handwritten signature.  Kind regards,   Done at Eindhoven, on 01/08/2014Cdiscount International BVby
/s/ Hans LoevendieHans Loevendie
Exhibit 32
 HMN FINANCIAL, INC.
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 result of operations of the Company.
 Date:  November 2, 2010
    /s/ Bradley KrehbielBradley KrehbielPresident
(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Jon EberleJon EberleSenior Vice President/Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
#### The People, ex. rel. Henry Koller et al., v. Peter J. Nappa et al.

*Quo warranto*— Religious *societies.*

This case is ruled by the decision in *People v. Nappa,*reported in 80 Mich. 484, where the facts are fully stated.

Error to Houghton. ('Williams J.)

Submitted on briefs November *20,*1891.

Decided December *21,*1891.

Information in the nature of a *quo warranto*to test the title of respondents to the office of trustees of a religious society. Relators bring error.

Information •quashed.

The facts are stated in 80 Mich. 484.

*Allen F. Rees (A. T. Streeter,*of counsel), for appellants.

*Stone & Gray,*for respondents.

*233.McGrath, J.

This is an information in' the nature of a *quo warranto*to test the title of respondents to the office of trustees of a religious society organized under sections 4617-4642, inclusive, of Howell’s Statutes.

This is the second information. The first was filed upon the relation of one John Blolnquist, and on appeal to this Court the information was quashed, and the case is reported in 80 Mich. 484. The relators in the present case are the three trustees who claim to hold over by reason of the alleged failure to hold an election. Chief Justice Champlin, in the former case, referred to the absence of a showing in the information of right on the part of the relator to set the inquiry on foot, but the Court expressly refrained from determining the case upon that ground. Otherwise the' case presented is the same, and is disposed of by the former decision.

The information must be quashed, with costs against the relators.

The other Justices concurred.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 720 

To amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to improve 

attorney accountability, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 30, 2017 

Mr. SMITH of Texas (for himself, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. BUCK, Mr. FRANKS

of Arizona, Mr. FARENTHOLD, Mr. CHABOT, and Mr. CHAFFETZ) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

to improve attorney accountability, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Lawsuit Abuse Reduc5 tion Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ATTORNEY ACCOUNTABILITY. 

7 (a) SANCTIONS UNDER RULE 11.—Rule 11(c) of the 

8 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is amended— 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 720 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘may’’ and in2 serting ‘‘shall’’; 

3 (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘Rule 5’’ and 

4 all that follows through ‘‘motion.’’ and inserting 

5 ‘‘Rule 5.’’; and 

6 (3) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘situated’’ 

7 and all that follows through the end of the para8 graph and inserting ‘‘situated, and to compensate 

9 the parties that were injured by such conduct. Sub10 ject to the limitations in paragraph (5), the sanction 

11 shall consist of an order to pay to the party or par12 ties the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred 

13 as a direct result of the violation, including reason14 able attorneys’ fees and costs. The court may also 

15 impose additional appropriate sanctions, such as 

16 striking the pleadings, dismissing the suit, or other 

17 directives of a non-monetary nature, or, if warranted 

18 for effective deterrence, an order directing payment 

19 of a penalty into the court.’’. 

20 (b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this Act 

21 or an amendment made by this Act shall be construed to 

22 bar or impede the assertion or development of new claims, 

23 defenses, or remedies under Federal, State, or local laws, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 720 IH

1 including civil rights laws, or under the Constitution of 

2 the United States. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Erneal DAVIS.

No. 2010-KO-2585.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 1, 2011.

In re Davis, Erneal; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 00-1938; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 09-KA-1109.

Denied.
H. R. 1714 

One Hundred Tenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eight 

An Act 

To clarify the boundaries of Coastal Barrier Resources System Clam Pass Unit 

FL–64P. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. REPLACEMENT OF CERTAIN COASTAL BARRIER 

RESOURCES SYSTEM MAPS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The map subtitled ‘‘FL–64P’’, relating to the 

Coastal Barrier Resources System unit designated as Coastal Barrier Resources System Clam Pass Unit FL–64P, that is included 

in the set of maps entitled ‘‘Coastal Barrier Resources System’’ 

and referred to in section 4(a) of the Coastal Barrier Resources 

Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)), is hereby replaced by another map relating 

to that unit entitled ‘‘Coastal Barrier Resources System Clam Pass 

Unit, FL–64P’’ and dated July 21, 2005 

(b) AVAILABILITY.—The Secretary of the Interior shall keep 

the map referred to in subsection (a) on file and available for 

inspection in accordance with section 4(b) of the Coastal Barrier 

Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(b)). 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### David BURKETT v. LFI FORT PIERCE, INC.

No. 2011-C-1129.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 16, 2011.

In re LFI Fort Pierce Inc.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation District 04, No. 08-23484; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-1478.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 195 (Friday, October 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 62423]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25404]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Bureau of Labor Statistics


Proposed Collection, Comment Request

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor published a document in the Federal 
Register of October 4, 2010, concerning a request for comments on the 
proposed revision of the National Compensation Survey (1220-0164). The 
document contained an incorrect date for submission of comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nora Kincaid, BLS Clearance Officer, 
at 202-691-7628 (this is not a toll free number). (See ADDRESSES 
section.)

Correction

    In the Federal Register of October 4, 2010, 75 FR 61178, in the 
second column, correct the DATES caption to read:

DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the 
ADDRESSES section of this notice on or before December 3, 2010.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 5th day of October 2010.
Kimberley Hill,
Chief, Division of Management Systems, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
[FR Doc. 2010-25404 Filed 10-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-24-P
#### Jayton K. PRIDE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D10-5409.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 29, 2010.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 14, 2011.

Jayton K. Pride, pro se, Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. *See Smith v. State,*951 So.2d 965 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

PADOVANO, ROBERTS, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 23

<PAGE>
SNODGRASS
Certified Public Accountants and Consultants



[LOGO]


Board of Directors
Sistersville Bancorp, inc.
726 Wells Street
Sistersville, WV 26175



                         INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT

We consent to the use of our  report  dated  April 15,  1999,  on the  financial
statements of Sistersville Bancorp, Inc., as of March 31, 1999 and 1998, and for
the two years in the period  ended March 31,  1999,  appearing  in  Sistersville
Bancorp, Inc.'s annual Form 10-KSB.




/s/ S R Snodgrass, A.C.
Wheeling, West Virginia
June 14, 1999




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                                        <C>                  <C>

S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.
980 National Road  Wheeling, WV 26003-6400  Phone: 304-233-5030  Facsimile: 304-233-3062
</TABLE>
#### POINT EAST FOUR CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION, INC., Appellant, v. ZEVULONI & ASSOCIATES, INC., Appellee.

No. 4D09-3221.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 8, 2010.

Joshua A. Berkowitz of Law Offices of Daniel E. Jonas, P.A., Miami Beach, for appellant.

Erwin Rosenberg, Miami Beach, (withdrawn as counsel after filing brief), for appellee.

FARMER, J.

We reverse the trial court’s denial of prevailing party attorneys fees under the contract between the parties. The contract provided that “the prevailing party in any action shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees.”

The Condominium Association hired Ze-vuloni & Associates as a public insurance adjuster to handle its claim for benefits under a casualty insurance policy. The contract for adjustment provided for a fee of 10% of the proceeds recovered by the Association. There has never been any recovery of insurance benefits by the Asso-*688eiation. Nevertheless the public adjuster sued the Association for its fee. Its suit was dismissed for failure to state a cause of action for breach of the fee agreement, without prejudice to refile when a fee became due. While the public adjuster’s motion for rehearing of that decision was still pending, the Association moved for attorneys fees under the contract. The trial court denied the motion for fees finding neither party to be the prevailing party.

The adjuster’s suit for fees without any recovery by the insured Association was meritless and was properly dismissed. The Association was undeniably the prevailing party in that action.

We review the interpretation of contractual provisions de novo as a pure matter of law. *Stevens v. Zakrzewski,*826 So.2d 520, 521 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Courts have no discretion to decline to enforce this kind of contractual attorneys fees provision. *Rose v. Rose,*615 So.2d 203, 204 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (where contract provides for attorneys fees to prevailing party in litigation arising out of contract trial judge has no discretion to decline to enforce the contractual provision). When one party loses in an action for breach of contract, the adverse party is the prevailing party. *Scutti v. Daniel E. Adache & Assoc. Arch. P.A.,*515 So.2d 1023, 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). The public adjuster’s suit for a fee under the contract was manifestly “any action” as that term was used in the attorneys fee provision of the contract. The trial judge had no choice but to grant the motion for fees and proceed to fix the amount of a reasonable fee.

*Reversed.*

WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 21-0390 

RANDY LAEDEKE, 

Plaintiff and Appellant, 

DARLA PRENN, and THE ESTATE OF 

LILA M. LAEDEKE, 

Plaintiffs and Appellants, 

v. 

BILLINGS CLINIC, 

Defendant and Appellee. 

OCT 2 5 2022 

Bowen Greenwood 

Clcrk of Supreme Court 

State of Montana 

ORDER 

On September 29, 2022, Plaintiff and Appellant Randy Laedeke filed a Petition for 

Rehearing in this matter. On October 14, 2022, Defendant and Appellee Billings Clinic 

responded in opposition to Laedeke's petition. 

Under M. R. App. P. 20, this Court will consider a petition for rehearing only if the 

opinion "overlooked some fact material to the decision," if the opinion "overlooked some 

question presented by counsel that would have proven decisive to the case," or if the 

opinion "conflicts with a statute or controlling decision not addressed" by the Court. 

M. R. App. P. 20(1)(a)(i-iii). 

Laedeke asserts rehearing is warranted in this case because the Court "overlooked 

a major material fact" and "overlooked a question presented . . . that would have proven 

decisive to the case." Having reviewed Laedeke's petition and Billings Clinic's response, 

the Court concludes rehearing is not warranted under M. R. App. P. 20. Laedeke's petition 

for rehearing merely rehashes the same arguments regarding the tolling of the statute of 

limitations until he received certain medical documentation that he made in his initial 

briefing and which this Court squarely addressed and rejected in our Opinion. "A petition 

10/25/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0390
for rehearing is not a forum in which to rehash arguments made in the briefs and considered 

by the Court." State ex rel. Bullock v. Philip Morris, Inc., 217 P.3d 475, 486, 2009 Mont. 

LEXIS 443. Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Rehearing is DENIED. 

The Clerk of this Court shall provide a copy of this Order to Randy Laedeke and to 

all counsel of record• 44-, 

DATED this ZS day of October, 2022. 

Chief Justice 

• Al 

Justices 

2
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 62630]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25459]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Area 7 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (Including the 
States of Alaska, California, Hawaii, and Nevada)

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Area 7 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be 
conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, 
ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal 
Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Wednesday, November 17, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janice Spinks at 1-888-912-1227 or 
206-220-6098.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that a meeting of the Area 7 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held 
Wednesday, November 17, 2010, at 2 p.m. Pacific Time via telephone 
conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit 
written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, 
notification of intent to participate must be made with Janice Spinks. 
For more information please contact Ms. Spinks at 1-888-912-1227 or 
206-220-6098, or write TAP Office, 915 2nd Avenue, MS W-406, Seattle, 
WA 98174 or post comments to the Web site: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include various IRS issues.

    Dated: October 4, 2010.
Shawn F. Collins,
Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2010-25459 Filed 10-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 18

- 00021

- CR

RANDALL GREENOUGH, Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 402nd District Court Wood County, Texas Trial Court No. 22,721

- 2015

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Randall Greenough was charged in six separate indictments with four charges of
aggravated sexual assault of a child and two charges of indecency with a child by sexual contact. 1

A jury found him guilty of all six offenses. As to each conviction, the jury assessed Greenough’s
punishme nt as ninety

- nine years’ confinement in prison, along with a $10,000.00 fine. The trial
court ordered Greenough’s sentences to run consecutively.
Greenough has filed a single brief in which he raises an issue common to all of his appeals, 2

maintaining that the State’s argument was egregious and that the trial court’s instruction to
disregard his comments did not cure the alleged defect

. We addressed this issue in detail in our
opinion of this date in Greenough’s ap peal in cause number 06

- 18

- 00020

- CR. For the reasons
stated therein, we affirm the trial court’s judgment in this cause number.
The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice

Date Submitted: June 7, 2018 Date Decided: July 13 , 2018

Do Not Publish

1 In this case, the State indicted Greenough, in trial court cause number 22,721

- 2015, with the offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child, alleging that on July 30, 2015, Greenough “ did then and there intentionally or k nowingly cause the penetration of the female sexual organ of [Ginny], a child who was then and there younger than 17 years of age and not the spouse of the defendant, by defendant ’ s finger. ”

2 Greenough appeals from four convictions of sexual assault of a child and two convictions of indecency with a child in our cause numbers 06

- 18

- 00019

- CR through 06

- 18

- 00024

- CR.