alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Little, Appellant, *v.*Fittro, Appellee

(No. 485

Decided April 12, 1943.)

*Mr, Clifford F. Brown,*for appellant.

*Mr. Earl 8. Miller,*for appellee.

Carpenter, J.

Plaintiff sold to defendant various articles of personal property, used by him in a roadside restaurant operated in connection with an oil and gas station, for $1,200 of which $900 was paid in cash and $300 by note secured by a mortgage on the articles sold, which included a bottle cooler, a fuel gas tank and four electric lighting fixtures. On the note, $125 was paid, and in this action judgment for the balance, $175, and foreclosure of the mortgage were sought..

Defendant admitted execution and delivery of the note and that $175 of it was unpaid. By cross-petition, he alleged that plaintiff fraudulently represented that he had a clear title to all of the articles sold, including those above described, and that defendant later learned that the bottle cooler was encumbered by a valid mortgage on which $192 was unpaid, and the gas tank and fixtures were not owned by plaintiff at all, and by reason thereof he was damaged in the sum of $500 for which he asked judgment. The answer to the cross-petition denies that plaintiff made such representations.

On the trial it was stipulated that the bottle cooler *66was mortgaged as alleged and that the other two items were not owned by plaintiff.

The verdict on the cross-petition was for the defendant for $500, and the court, deducting the $175 balance unpaid on the note, entered judgment for $325.

This appeal on questions of law was taken by plaintiff. The errors assigned largely relate to rejection of evidence offered by plaintiff and the charge of the court, both of which related to the question of fraudulent intent in the mind of the plaintiff when he sold the articles in question. The court was correct in its rulings in both respects. Much of the tendered evidence consisted of self-serving declarations of the plaintiff made by or to him in the absence of the defendant All was objectionable for the reason that if the plaintiff represented he owned the property, or even sold it without such representation, his intent was immaterial; even if he thought he did own it and it turned out that he did not, he was liable to the buyer for the damage resulting which, in this case, was the value of the goods. Section 8393, General Code, sets forth the implied warranties in a sale “unless a contrary intention appears.” These include “a right to sell” by the seller, to “quiet possession of the goods as against any lawful claims existing at the time of the sale,” and “that the goods shall be free at the time of the sale from any charge or encumbrance in favor of any third person, not declared or known to the buyer * * *.”

That plaintiff sold to defendant the gas tank and lighting fixtures, seems practically undisputed. There was a conflict in the evidence whether the bottle cooler was sold subject to the mortgage. On this question and on the value of the items as measuring damages, there is ample evidence to sustain the verdict and the judgment which is accordingly affirmed. ,

*Judgment affirmed.*

Lloyd and Stuart, JJ., concur.
Order entered September 25, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 15 - 00776 - CV KSADD, LLC, Appellant

V. JOAN WILLIAMS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC - 14 - 03455 - D



### O RDER We GRANT appellee’s September 23, 2015 unopposed motion for an extension of time to file a brief. Appellee shall file a brief by NOVEMBER 11, 2015 . We caution appellee that no further extension of time will be granted in this accel erated appeal absent extraordinary circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19

- 1157 V

UNPUBLISHED

ELIZABETH GRUBA

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: May 13, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU) ;

Rul ing on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Guillain

- Barre Syndrome (GBS)

Ren ee Ja Gentry, The Law Office of Renee J. Gentry, Washington

, DC , for petitioner.

Lara Ann Englund , U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

On August 9, 2019

, Elizabeth Gruba filed a petition for compensation under the

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq

. , 2 (the

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered Guillain

- Barre syndrome ( “ GBS ” ) as

a result of an influenza ( “ flu ” ) vaccine administered on October 16, 2018 . Petit ion at 1

- 3 . The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special

Masters.

On May 12, 2020

, R espondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that P etitioner is entitled to compensa tion in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

at 1. Specifically, R espondent recommends comp ensation in this case. Id. at 1

.

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am

required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E

Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Managemen t and Promotion of

Electronic Government Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to

the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to

redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of

privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such

material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 19 86, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755

. Hereinafter, for

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. §

300aa (2012 ).2 Respondent further agrees that Petitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the

V a ccine Injury Table an d the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation

. Id.

In view of R espondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that

P etitioner is entitle d to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
ANNIE REBECCA ELLIOTT 

DISTRICT CLERK

MAILING

301 Jackson Street 

Richmond, Texas 77469 

PHYSICAL 

1422 Eugene Heimann Circle 

Richmond, Texas 77469 

Telephone: (281) 341-4502 Facsimile: (281) 341-4519 

 http://www.fortbendcountytx.gov 

 Departments – District Clerk

July 08, 2015 

To: The Clerk of the Court of Appeals for the First Court of Appeals Supreme Judicial District (Civil Appeal) 

Trial Court No: 13-DCV-208485 From the 400th Judicial District Court Fort Bend County, Texas 

Judge Presiding: Maggie Perez-Jaramillo Court Reporter: Karen Rothman

Appellant(s): 

 Pablo Rion Y Asociados, S.A. De C.V. VS Appellee(s): David Dauajare and Gabriela Martinez De Dauajare 

Attorney for Appellant(s) Attorney For Appellee(s) 

Daniel W. Jackson Jennette E Deponte 

 SBN: 00796817 SBN: 00795935 

The Jackson Law Firm 

3900 Essex Lane Suite 1116 

Houston TX 77027 

 Mccathern Mooty Hyde Grinke Llp 

3710 Rawlins Suite 1600 

Dallas TX 75219 

Telephone: 713-522-4435 Telephone: 214-741-2662 

Facsimile: 713-527-8850 Facsimile: 214-741-4717 

E-mail: daniel@jacksonlaw.tx.com E-mail: jdeponte@mccathernlaw.co 

Attorney for: Pablo Rion Y Asociados, S.A. de C.V., 

Appellant 

 Attorney for: David Dauajare, Appellee 

Date of Judgment/Appealable Order: 

April 07, 2015

Nature of Action: 

Contract - Consumer/Commercial/Debt

Disposition of Case: Dismissed by Plaintiff/Non-Suit/Final Jury Trial: No

Plaintiff’s Motion to Modify, Correct, or Reform Or for New Trial Filed on: May 7, 2015 

Notice of Appeal Filed On: July 06, 2015

Signed, on this the 8th day of July, 2015.

ANNIE REBECCA ELLIOTT

FORT BEND COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK 

301 JACKSON, RICHMOND, TEXAS 77469 

 

By: /s/ Petra Lozano 

Deputy District Clerk Petra Lozano 

Telephone: (281) 341-4502 

Electronically Filed with the First Court of Appeals 

cc: Daniel W. Jackson, Attorney at Law 

 Jennette E Deponte, Attorney at Law 

Karen Rothman, Court Reporter 

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/8/2015 11:32:38 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
      Here's how you know **The .gov means it’s official.**
            
            Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
 **The site is secure.**
            
            The **https://** ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.


U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
 Menu


close HomeAbout
    About the MSPB	
			Contacts & Locations
			Equal Employment Opportunity
			Information Quality Standards
			No FEAR Act
			Open.Gov
			Organization
			Plans, Budget & Performance
			Privacy Program
           Merit System Principles
	Prohibited Personnel Practices
	 Site Index and SearchAppeals
    Appeal Process
						Appellant Q&A
    Electronic Filing
    Forms
    Hearing Sites
    Policy & Resources
    Regulations
    Whistleblower Q&A 
	Electronic Filing  
	Mediation Appeals ProgramDecisions
    Case Reports
Nonprecedential Decisions
		Precedential DecisionsStudies & Publications
       About & Contact Studies
		Latest Publications
		Newsletters
		Reports
          Research Briefs
		Search StudiesSurveys of Federal Employees Public & Information Services
    Accessibility
		   Contracting & Procurement
			  Federal Register Notices
		      FOIA Program
				 e-FOIA Reading Room
        Submit a FOIA Request
           FOIA Reports 
			Information Collections
			Jobs & Internships
	Press Releases & News
	Privacy Program
				Regulations
			    Technical Support Search small
Search




e-Appeal Logoe-Appeal Information Hub
	Access e-Appeal
	  FAQ
	   Information Sheets (Updated)
	  Notice Regarding Updating Contact InformationExtension of Deadlines
	  e-Filing Regulations
	   Policies
	  	   User Guides
	 

	   Technical Support Form

	  Search & Site Index The New e-Appeal: Information Sheets
	
	Information for Parties with Pending Appeals (Updated)
		Information for Agency Users


Return to top


About MSPB
			  Accessibility
           Budget and Performance
          FOIA
          Info Quality Standards
          No FEAR Act
    
          Office of the Inspector General
          Privacy Program   
           Technical Support       USA.gov
		OSC.gov
				 Vote.gov


U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
 Agency Contact Center (202) 653-7200
          mspb@mspb.gov
EXHIBIT 11


                           IPI, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
              STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                    (In Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                Three Months Ended        Nine Months Ended
                                                                     August 31,               August 31,
                                                                ------------------        -----------------
                                                                2000         1999         2000         1999
                                                                ----         ----         ----         ----

<S>                                                            <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>
Net Income                                                     $  151       $  457       $  872       $1,376

Weighted average number of issued shares outstanding            4,859        4,734        4,843        4,734

Shares used in computation of basic earnings per common
     stock                                                      4,859        4,734        4,843        4,734
                                                               ======       ======       ======       ======

Dilutive effect of outstanding stock options and stock
     warrants after application of treasury stock method            0            0            0            0
                                                               ------       ------       ------       ------

Common and common equivalent shares outstanding-diluted         4,859        4,734        4,843        4,734
                                                               ======       ======       ======       ======

Basic and diluted earnings per common share                    $  .03       $  .10       $  .18       $  .29
                                                               ======       ======       ======       ======
</TABLE>


                                       12
Exhibit 35.4

ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE

CGCMT 2014-GC23

The undersigned, David Co, a
Director of Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as the Custodian (a Certifying Servicer) under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of August 1, 2014 (the Agreement), by and among, Citigroup Commercial
Mortgage Securities Inc., as Depositor, Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as Special Servicer, Trimont Real Estate Advisors, Inc., as Operating Advisor, Citibank,
N.A., as Certificate Administrator, and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee, here by certifies in accordance with Section 10.08 of the Agreement:



| | A) | A review of such Certifying Servicers activities from August 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014 (the Reporting Period) and of such Certifying Servicers performance under the Agreement has
been made under such officers supervision and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | B) | That, as to the best of such officers knowledge, based on such review, such Certifying Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement, in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS as Custodian/s/ David CoBY:

David CoTitle:

DirectorDate:

March 1, 2015
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Baker, Coleman and Overton Argued at Salem, Virginia

THOMAS LEROY LIPSCOMB MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 2202-96-3 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON JANUARY 27, 1998 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BEDFORD COUNTY William W. Sweeney, Judge Jonathan S. Kurtin (Harvey S. Lutins; Lutins, Shapiro & Kurtin, on brief), for appellant. Eugene Murphy, Assistant Attorney General (Richard Cullen, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

Thomas L. Lipscomb (defendant) was found guilty by a jury of distribution of cocaine in violation of Code § 18.2-248 on June 30, 1995. During its deliberations, the jury asked to rehear an audiotaped recording of the drug sale which formed the basis of defendant's conviction. Defendant now appeals, ascribing error to the trial court's decision to allow the jury to listen to the tape. Because we find no error by the trial judge in allowing the jury to have the audiotape, we affirm the conviction. The parties are fully conversant with the record in the cause, and because this memorandum opinion carries no precedential value, no recitation of the facts is necessary. The audiotape at issue was offered into evidence by the

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.2 prosecution after foundation was laid by Special Agent Langhorne of the Department of State Police and Melody Little, a party to the drug sale at issue. See Witt v. Commonwealth , 15 Va. App. 215, 220, 422 S.E.2d 465, 469 (1992) (holding that as long as a proper foundation is laid, audiotapes may be admitted into evidence). Defendant had several opportunities to object to the tape being entered into evidence, yet he declined to act. Because no timely, contemporaneous objection was made, we decline to address the issue of whether the tape should have been allowed into evidence, and we assume it was properly admitted. Rule

5A:18. After it is determined that the tape was in evidence, the plain terms of Code § 8.01-381 govern our decision. Code § 8.01-381 states explicitly that "[e]xhibits requested by the jury shall be sent to the jury room or may otherwise be made available to them." After exhibits are entered into evidence, the trial court has no other option but to give them to the jury upon request. Indeed, it would have been an abuse of discretion if the trial court had not given them the tape. Because the record is clear that the jury requested the audiotape, the trial court's action was proper. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm defendant's conviction.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 35.3












ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE

COMM 2014-UBS4

The undersigned, David Co, a Director of Deutsche Bank Trust
Company Americas, as the Certificate Administrator (a “Certifying Servicer”) under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement,
dated as of July 1, 2014 (the “Agreement”), by and among, Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation, as Depositor,
Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer
and as Special Servicer, Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Certificate
Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian, and Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as Operating Advisor, here by certifies in accordance
with Section 10.11 of the Agreement:



| | A) | A review of such Certifying Servicer’s activities from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 (the “reporting period”)
and of such Certifying Servicer’s performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer’s supervision and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | B) | That, as to the best of such officer’s knowledge, based on such review, such Certifying Servicer has fulfilled all its
obligations under the Agreement, in all material respects throughout the reporting period.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS

as Certificate Administrator





BY: David Co

Title: Director

Date: March 1, 2017
1

The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the

Honorable Arthur J. Boylan, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of

Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2902

___________

Allan D. Hardy, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Dana Moorhead; St. Paul Probation, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: August 4, 2006

Filed: August 15, 2006

___________

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Minnesota inmate Allan Hardy appeals the district court’s1

 preservice dismissal

of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having carefully reviewed the record, we agree with

the district court’s decision to dismiss the case, and accordingly affirm. See 8th Cir.

R. 47A(a). To the extent Hardy’s numerous requests filed with this court may be

construed as motions on appeal, they are denied as moot.

______________________________
585 A.2d 367

#### KATHLEEN GILLIGAN v. FREDERICK GILLIGAN.

September 4, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
585 A.2d 377

#### LOIS MORGAN v. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA.

September 18, 1990.

Petition for certification denied. (See 242 *N.J.Super.*638, 577 A.2d 1300.)
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

757 

CA 10-01894 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ. 

 

MYRNA WALKER, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

ROBERT WALKER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

SHANLEY LAW OFFICES, MEXICO (P. MICHAEL SHANLEY OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

JOHN M. MURPHY, JR., PHOENIX, FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oswego County (Norman

W. Seiter, Jr., J.), entered March 8, 2010 in a divorce action. The

order determined the scope of an equitable distribution hearing. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Entered: June 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
584 A.2d 236

#### SANDRA HARTLEY v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO.

May 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed January 18, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D22-0539 Lower Tribunal No. 20-9556

________________ 

### 11995 Cutler Bay LLC , Appellant,
vs. 

### J. Tucker, etc., Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lourdes Simon, Judge. Read Law PLLC, and Alexis S. Read, for appellant. Brodsky Fotiu-Wojtowicz PLLC, and Robert S. Visca, and Benjamin H. Brodsky, for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and LOGUE, and LINDSEY, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.