alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
A04A1508.

#### RAMSON et al. v. DEAKINS.

(601 SE2d 838)

ANDREWS, Presiding Judge.

Michael Ramson, Mattie Ramson, and Acceptance Insurance Company sued Ernest Deakins, the Ramsons’ landlord, after a fire destroyed the Ramsons’ personal property. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that Deakins’ negligence was the proximate cause of the fire that destroyed the Ramsons’ personal property in the trailer they rented from Deakins. It also concluded, however, that it could not award damages because the plaintiffs did not prove the fair market value of any item destroyed in the fire. Because we find the plaintiffs submitted evidence from which the fair market value of some of the items could be determined, we reverse and remand this case to the trial court.

In *Braner v. Southern Trust Ins. Co.,*255 Ga. 117 (335 SE2d 547) (1985), our Supreme Court relaxed the then-existing rule as to proof of damage to personal property destroyed in a fire and adopted the following rule:

> Where a homeowner or homeowner’s spouse testifies as to either the purchase price or replacement cost of household furnishings, items of personal clothing and other commonly used personal property destroyed by fire, *and*as to the *approximate*date of purchase or acquisition of each such item, the evidence is sufficient for the jury to find the actual cash values of such common and familiar property.

(Citations omitted; emphasis supplied.) Id. at 121 (3).

After closely examining the transcript of the bench trial, we find that the purchase price and approximate date of purchase were *394provided for many of the items lost in the fire. Mr. Ramson testified at trial that a handwritten inventory list prepared by his wife accurately listed their personal property in the trailer at the time of the fire. He further testified that the dollar amounts beside each item represented the amount paid for each of the items. Mr. Ramson specifically testified that the five-piece bedroom suite included on the list was two years old at the time of the fire.

Decided July 7, 2004.

*Joseph C. Clem,*for appellants.

*Brian M. House,*for appellee.

Although Mrs. Ramson did not testify at trial, her deposition was admitted for the trial court’s consideration. In her deposition, Mrs. Ramson explained that she completed the handwritten inventory list and provided information about the age of numerous items included on the sheet. She confirmed her husband’s testimony that the dollar amounts beside each item on the list represented the purchase price.

As there was sufficient evidence from which the trial court could determine a portion of the plaintiffs’ damages, we reverse and remand this case to the trial court for consideration of such an award.

*Judgment reversed and case remanded.*

*Miller and Ellington, JJ., concur.*
# SpaceX Crew-8 crew members during a training session

jsc2023e066258 (Oct. 15, 2023) --- The four SpaceX Crew-8 crew members (from left) Jeanette Epps and Michael Barratt, both NASA astronauts; Alexander Grebenkin from Roscosmos; and Matthew Dominick from NASA; are pictured during a training session at SpaceX headquarters in Hawthorne, California. Credit: SpaceX

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/jsc2023e066258/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareTakenOctober 15, 2023Image CreditNASASize3640x2160pxNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.
- About NASA's Mission
Join Us- Home
- News & Events
- Multimedia
- NASA+
- Missions
- Humans in Space
- Earth & Climate
- The Solar System
- The Universe
- Science
- Aeronautics
- Technology
- Learning Resources
- About NASA
- NASA en Español
Follow NASA-   
-   
-   
-   
- More NASA Social Accounts
- NASA Newsletters
- Sitemap
- For Media
- Privacy Policy
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
- Office of the IGBudget & Annual Reports
Agency Financial Reports
Contact NASA
Accessibility
-  									Page Last Updated:								  								Oct 25, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								  									Mark A. Garcia								 
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
#### Carr *v.*Allison.

The pre-emption law of the *United States,*in force in *February,*1833, did not authorise the transfer of a pre-emption right before a patent had issued for the land.

A bond was given in 1833 for the payment of a certain sum, in consideration of an improvement previously made on *United*States’ land, and of the obligee’s promise not to enter the land on which the improvement was made. *Held,*that the improvement was not a valid consideration for the bond, and that the promise not to enter the land was void as against public policy.

*64
      *Monday,*December 31.

ERROR to the *La Gi'ange*Circuit Court.

Blackford, J. —

upon a writing obligatory, dated in February, 1833, in the penalty of 500 dollars.

The declaration states the condition of the bond to be, that if *Carr*should relinquish to *Allison*his right to enter a certain tract of land, and should not enter it himself, then *Allison*was to pay *Carr*the value of his improvement and natural advantages on the land, to be valued, &c. It is then averred, that the plaintiff relinquished his right of entry to the defendant, and that the defendant entered the land but refused to pay, &c.

General demurrer to the declaration, and judgment for the defendant.

This is not a case of the sale of a right of pre-emption ; but if it were, the sale could not, on that ground, be sustained. The pre-emption law which was in force when this contract was made, did not authorise the transfer of a preemption right, before the issuing of a patent for the land.

We understand by the declaration, that the land in question belonged to the *United States,*and was subject to be entered at the land-office by the first person who should apply for it; and that the bond sued on was given in consideration of an improvement on the land, and of the plaintiff’s promise not to enter the land.

We consider that the improvement, which was a part of the land, was. no valid consideration for the bond. The declaration shows that the land, with the improvement, belonged to the *United States,*and that the plaintiff had no lawful interest in either of them. The agreement therefore to pay, in consideration of the improvement, was *nudum pactum.*The statute of 1834, relative to the sale of improvements on public lands, does not affect this case, as that statute was not in force when the contract was made.

The plaintiff’s promise not to enter the land was no consideration for the bond. It is the interest of the public that the *United States'*lands should be sold; and, therefore, the contract of an individual not to purchase a part of those lands, is void as against public policy.

*65
      *H.*Cooper, for the plaintiff.

*D. H.*Colerick, for the defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is affirmed with costs. To be certified, &c.
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




Home
  
   
    Search & Site Index Significant CasesAbernathy
	Alvara

		King

Day

Latham, et al

Aguzie, et al.

Conyers & Northover


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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 20-0515

ESTATE OF DARLINE A. BRAGER, 

through DOUGLAS

BRAGER, Personal Representative for the 

Estate

of Darline A. Brager, 

 Plaintiff and Appellant,

 v.

ANNE M. WEINBERGER, A.P.R.N., an 

individual, 

 Defendant and Appellee.

ORDER OF MEDIATOR APPOINTMENT

This appeal being subject to M.R.App.P. 7, and the parties having failed to jointly 

and timely select a mediator under M.R.App.P., 7(4),(c),

IT IS ORDERED THAT Richard A. Weber, whose name appears next on the 

list of attorneys desiring appointment as mediators for Money Judgments appeals which 

is maintained pursuant to M.R.App.P., 7(4)(e), is hereby appointed to conduct the 

mediation process required by M.R.App.P., 7(5), and 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time periods set forth in M.R.App.P., 

7(5)(d) shall run from the date of this order of appointment.

A true copy of this order is being mailed to counsel of record for the parties, or to 

the parties individually if not represented by counsel, on the date hereof.

DATED this November 12, 2020.

Bowen Greenwood, Clerk of the Supreme Court

11/12/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0515
c: James P. O'Brien, Justin K. Cole, Luc Lemoine Brodhead, Elizabeth L. Hausbeck, 

Richard A. Weber
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-10467 Summary Calendar
ISMAEL HERNANDEZ PADILLA, Plaintiff-Appellant

v. LYNN PRIDE-RICHARDSON; CRAIG WATKINS, Dallas District A ttorney; DANIEL F. SOLIS, State Appointed Attorney, Defendants-Appellees

A ppeal from the United States District Court f or the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:12-CV-486
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ismael H ernandez Padilla, Texas prisoner # 356764, m oves for permission to p r oceed in forma p auperis (IFP) on his appeal o f the d istrict court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1 9 8 3 action. The district c ourt denied his motion t o proceed IFP, certifying t hat the appeal was not t a k en i n good faith. By m oving in this court for IFP status, Padilla is challenging the district court’s certification. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Padilla, however, d oes not U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D May3, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R
. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R
. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-10467 Document: 00512229636 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/03/2013No. 12-10467

address the district court’s reasons for its certification decision. Padilla’s motion for leave to proceed I FP o n appeal is therefore DENIED. Padil l a ’ s a ppeal is without arguable merit a nd is thus frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2. As we recognized on November 6, 2012, Padilla has accumulated at least t h r e e s t r ikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Padilla v. W atkins , 491 F. App’x 484, 4 85 (5th C i r . 2 0 1 2 )

. We have not applied the § 1915(g) bar here because Padilla filed t his appeal before the b ar w a s i m p o s e d

. See Banos v. O’Guin , 1 44 F.3d 883, 8 85 (5th Cir.1998). However, w e reiterate that Padilla is barred from proceeding IFP in any civil action or a ppeal filed i n a court of the United States whi l e he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he “is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” § 1915(g).

2 Case: 12-10467 Document: 00512229636 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/03/2013
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOYCE L. PEARSON.

February 27, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
#### The State *v.*Dillard and Others.

An indictment for a riot stated that the defendants, on, &c., with force and arms, did unlawfully, riotously, &e., assemble and gather themselves together to disturb the peace of the state, and, being so assembled, did then and there make a great noise, disturbance,,riot, and tumult, and then and there unlawfully, riotously, &c., remained and continued together making such noise, riot, tumult, and disturbance, for the space, &c., and then and there fought through and with each other, &c. *Held,*that the indictment was sufficient.

*Tuesday, July*28.

ERROR to the *Franldin*Circuit Court.

*W.*J'. *Peaslee,*for the state.

*J. M.*Johnston, for the defendants.

Sullivan, J.

The defendants were indicted for a riot. The indictment charges that the defendants, on, &c., with force and arms, did unlawfully, riotously, &c., assemble and gather themselves together to disturb the peace of the state, and, being so assembled, did then and there make a great noise, disturbance, riot, and tumult, and then and there unlawfully, riotously, &cl, remained and continued together making such noise, riot, tumult, and disturbance, for the space, &c., and then and there fought through and with each other, &c. Plea, not guilty, and verdict against the defendants. Motion in arrest of judgment, on the ground that it is not alleged in the indictment that the defendants *riotously*fought through and with each other, &c. The Court arrested the judgment and discharged the defendants.

If the allegation in 'the indictment, that the defendants *fought through and with each*other, were necessary to complete the offence for which the defendants were indicted, it would have been necessary to aver that it was done *riotously.*But the indictment would have been good, had that clause been omitted altogether. The common law and statutory definitions of a riot are substantially the same, and at common law, an indictment without the clause referred to would be good. 2 Ch. Cr. Law, 488. — Arch. Or. Pr. 382.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, with instructions to the Circuit Court to render judgment on the verdict.
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 12, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

CHARLES COSGROVE, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

BUREAU OF PRISONS; (FNU)

BELLAR, Corrections Officer, FCI

Leavenworth; (FNU) LUTHE,

Corrections Officer, FCI Leavenworth;

DUKE TYRELL, Warden, FCI

Leavenworth; (FNU) ASHMAN, Unit

Manager, FCI Leavenworth; (FNU)

MARTINEZ, Case Manager, FCI

Leavenworth; (FNU) JOHNSON, Case

Manager Coordinator, FCI Leavenworth;

(FNU) GULLEY, Senior Correctional

Officer, FCI Leavenworth; R. DARROW,

Correctional Officer, FCI Leavenworth; J.

BUSER, Special Investigative

Administrator, FCI Leavenworth; S.

LACY, Disciplinary Hearing Officer, FCI

Leavenworth; D. WETTLAUFFER,

Lieutenant, FCI Leavenworth; (FNU)

BROWN, Counselor, FCI Leavenworth;

(FNU) KING, Counselor, FCI

Leavenworth, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

No. 09-3196

(D.C. No. 5:08-CV-3200-SAC)

(D. of Kansas)

ORDER

Appellate Case: 09-3196 Document: 01018347649 Date Filed: 01/12/2010 Page: 1 
2

The captioned appeal is dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to 10th Cir. R.

42.1.

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of this court.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 09-3196 Document: 01018347649 Date Filed: 01/12/2010 Page: 2
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T B I NG L ON G Y U, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 11- 72801 A ge nc yN o. A 098- 460- 170 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M ar c h 12, 2013 ** B efo re: P R E G E R S O N , R E IN H A R D T , an dW . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. B i ng l on g Y u, a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f C hi na, pet i t i on s f or re vi ew of a B oard of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ ( “ B I A ” ) or de rdi s m i s s i ng hi s appe a l f r om an i m m i gr a t i on ju d g e ’s d e c is io n d e n y in g h is ap p lic a tio n f o ra s y lu m an dw ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l. W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew for s ub st ant i alevi dence 

# FI LED MA R 19 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 72801 2 th e a g e n c y ’s f

a c tu a l f in d in g s , Na g o u lko v . I

NS , 33 3 F . 3d 10 12 , 10 15 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) , an dw e d e n yth e p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . Y u f e ar s r e turni ng t o C hi nabe c aus e he m a i l e d abook aboutF a l un G ong f r o m th e U n ite dS ta te s to h is w if e in C h in ain 2 0 0 4 , an dC h in e s e o f f ic ia ls confi sc at ed the bo okand i ss ued a sum m on s f or hi m . E ven i f c re di bl e, subst ant i al e v id e n c e s up p o rts th e B I A ’s f in d in g th a t Y uf

a ile dto d e m o n s tr a te an o b je c tiv e ly r e a s o n ab le f

e aro f f u tu r e p e r s e c u tio n . Se e i d. at10 18 (possibi l i ty of f uture p ersecu t i o n i s t o o sp ecu l at i v e). C o n seq u en t l y, h i s asyl u m cl ai m fai l s. B e c au s e Y u f

a ile dto e s tab lis h e lig ib ilityf o ra s y lu m , h e n e c e s s ar ilyf a ile dto m e e t th e m o r e s tr in g e n t s tan d ar df o rw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l. See Zehat

yev. G on zales , 45 3 F . 3d 11 82 , 11 90 (9th C i r. 20 06 ). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. EDWARD ARNOLD WARFIELD.

May 28, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
II 

Calendar No. 333

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1718

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

3710 West 73rd Terrace in Prairie Village, Kansas, as the ‘‘Senator 

James B. Pearson Post Office’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 14, 2003

Mr. ROBERTS (for himself and Mr. BROWNBACK) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs 

OCTOBER 27, 2003

Reported by Ms. COLLINS, without amendment 

A BILL

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 3710 West 73rd Terrace in Prairie Village, 

Kansas, as the ‘‘Senator James B. Pearson Post Office’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. SENATOR JAMES B. PEARSON POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 3710 West 73rd Terrace in Prai-
2

•S 1718 RS 

1 rie Village, Kansas, shall be known and designated as the 

2 ‘‘Senator James B. Pearson Post Office’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the Senator James B. Pear7 son Post Office. 

Calendar No. 333

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1718

A BILL

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3710 West 73rd Terrace in 

Prairie Village, Kansas, as the ‘‘Senator James B. Pearson Post Office’’. 

OCTOBER 27, 2003

Reported without amendment
#### IN THE MATTER OF A RESOLUTION OF THE STATE COMMISSION OF INVESTIGATION ADOPTED JUNE 4, 1982, AND PROCEEDINGS THEREON.

February 2, 1987.

Leave to appeal granted; and it is further

ORDERED that the motion for impoundment of the papers is granted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-15-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           8,137
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,092
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,033
<PP&E>                                             587
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (32)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,415
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,592
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         86
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,736
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,415
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   694
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,428
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (57)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (677)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (244)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (433)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (433)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.12)


</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

August 20, 2020

No. 04

- 20

- 00330

- CV

IN RE J.O.H., A.F.B., H.R., J.J.R., AND A.L.D., CHILDREN

From the 131st Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019

- PA

- 00260 Honorable Peter A. Sakai , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On August 4, 2020, we ordered the court reporter s to file their volumes of the reporter’s record by August 14, 2020 , and on August 12, 2020, Elva Chapa filed her portion of the reporter’s record. At this time, we have not received a reporter’s record from Angelica Jimenez, who is listed on t he docketing statement as the official court reporter. Accordingly, we ORDER court reporter Angelica Jimenez to file her portion of the reporter’s record by August 31, 2020

. If Ms. Jimenez is not responsible for a portion of the record, she must file a notification stating

s uch.

_________________________________ Beth Watkins, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 20th day of August, 2020

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz , Clerk of Court