alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Duchane *v.*Goodtitle, on the Demise of Buntin and Another, Executors of Bazadone.

Although an executor, unless authorized by the will, has no power over the fee simple estate, he may maintain ejectment for lands held by his testator for a term of years.

APPEAL from the ifnoa; Circuit Court. Ejectment on the demise of *Buntin*and *Dubois,*executors of *Bazadone,*for a house and lot in *Vincennes.*Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff below.

Scott, J.

The appellant has assigned several reasons for reversing the judgment. The first is, that executors cannot maintain an action of ejectment for a fee simple estate. Although an executor, by virtue of his authority as executor alone, has no power over a fee simple estate; yet he may, by a Special provision in the will of the testator, be authorized to enter on such estate, and to lease or otherwise dispose of it. Therefore, the position that an executor cannot maintain ejectment for a fee simple estate, is not in all cases correct. But if we admit the correctness of the position in all its latitude, it can avail nothing in the present case; inasmuch as there is nothing in the record, which proves to this Court that the property in controversy was of that description. Wherever a man has a right to enter and make a lease, he has a right to maintain ejectment. As the will of *Bazadone*is not before us, we cannot say that the executors have acted without authority. The remaining objections all have reference to evidence offered on .the trial in the Court below, which, not being spread on the record, can have no weight in this decision. If any error has intervened in the progress of this cause in the Circuit Court, wh have no legal evidence of it.

*118Dewey, for the appellant.

*.JipDonald*and *Tabbs,*for the appellee.

Blackford, J., gave no opinion, having been of counsel jTof one 0f hie parties in a similar cause.

Per *Curiam.*

The judgment is affirmed, with costs,
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

February 3, 2011

d0201

Order 

February 3, 2011

141739(93)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 141739

COA: 278411

Kent CC: 06-006768-FC

SAMMIE RAY BAILEY, JR.,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration or clarification of this 

Court’s November 24, 2010 order is considered, and it is GRANTED. On 

reconsideration, the November 24, 2010 order is amended to read as follows:

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 20, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The 

parties shall address: (1) whether the court erroneously instructed the jury as to 

the effect of provocation on a claim of self-defense, and (2) whether the 

reasonable doubt standard is sufficiently expressed when the court instructs the 

jury that, if there was a realistic or reasonable possibility that the defendant acted 

in self-defense, he is not guilty. 

The Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan and the Criminal 

Defense Attorneys of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other 

persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this 

case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
     This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from
Financial  Statements  for the year ended December 31, 1998, and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such Financial Statements filed with form 10KSB and
for the annual period ended December 31, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       36,883
<SECURITIES>                                  9,219
<RECEIVABLES>                                11,695
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                  32,786
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             96,148
<PP&E>                                       86,715
<DEPRECIATION>                              (69,916)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              325,447
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         6,055
<BONDS>                                           0
<COMMON>                                        130
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                  317,732
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                325,447
<SALES>                                     276,325
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            276,675
<CGS>                                        65,856
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              7,901
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (3,152)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (74,583)
<INCOME-TAX>                                (35,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               0
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                               (109,583)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0
        

</TABLE>
#### A. W. England *v.*John Sweeney.

Pleadings — Counter-claim—Demurrer Sustained — No Reply Permitted.

By Section 132, Civil Code, it is expressly provided that there shall be no reply except upon the allegations of a counter-claim or set-off in the answer. After the counter-claim is rejected there is nothing to reply to.

APPEAL FROM MARION CIRCUIT COURT.

January 27, 1869.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters:

The facts set forth in the answer did not constitute a counterclaim nor set-off, and the demurrer of appellee to so much of the answer as was attempted to be pleaded as a counter-claim was properly sustained; after which it was erroneous to permit appellee to file a reply.

By Sec. 132 Civ. Co. it is expressly provided that there shall be *no reply*except upon the allegation of a counter-claim or set-off in the answer. After the counter-claim had been rejected, there was nothing to reply to, and appellants’ objections to filing it should have been sustained.

The substance of the covenant sued on is that appellants bound themselves to take appellee to learn the trade of a blacksmith. He was to strike two years, after which he was to have the privilege of working 18 months at a fire, and be sent to school five months, *61but there is no express undertaking in the writing, or words indicating an obligation on appellants to give up the *control*of a fire to appellee which confer on him the right to direct the uses, and purposes to which that fire should be devoted. Instruction No. 1, given on motion of appellee, was prejudiced to appellants, in telling the jury that it was their duty under the contract to give the use “and control” of a fire to appellee. Nor did the loss of employment constitute an element of damages. The time in which he was to be engaged at the fire would have been or the profits of his labor during that time would have belonged to appellants. The loss he sustained by reason of being deprived of the instructions and consequent progress he would have made in learning said trade by appellants’ failure to put him to work at a fire was the proper criterion of damages.

*Harrison, for appellee.*

*Rountree &*Fogle, *for appellant.*

Again by the terms of the contract appellee was to strike two years, and until he had thus worked for that period he was not entiled to a fire. Instruction No. 10 asked by appellants should therefore have been given.

Wherefore the judgment is *reversed*and the cause is remanded with directions to award a new trial and for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Case 2:16-cv-00291-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/01/16 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:16-cv-00291-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/01/16 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:16-cv-00291-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/01/16 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:16-cv-00291-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/01/16 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:16-cv-00291-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/01/16 Page 5 of 5
P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 

### OFFICIAL BUSINESS STATE OF TEXAS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE

DONALD CAMPBELL 

# fo&U Eg CL li. 

### 'Wtty U.S.POSTAGE»PITNEYBOWES vCJE (4 P

__

5lf 7iP7R7m &• Ann >i»«6 IS3AS 0001401623 AUG. 24. 2015 J^=jg?any « .ttCCTttECTH^^yM

UTF
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 28, 2019

No. 04-18-00575-CV

Charles Victor WILLIAMS,

Appellant

v.

Scott STILES, et al.,

Appellees

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-CI-06819

Honorable Norma Gonzales, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On May 23, 2019, appellees filed a motion to strike appellant’s brief. On May 24, 2019, 

this court stuck appellant’s brief from our record. Accordingly, we DENY appellees’ motion to 

strike as moot.

On May 23, 2019, appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. 

We DENY appellee’s motion to dismiss.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 28th day of May, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
##### 



(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 as of the
dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.
  By:
    
    /s/
    
    Michael S. LipscombMichael S. LipscombChief Executive OfficerBy:
    
    /s/
    
    John S. GloverJohn S. GloverChief Financial Officer
 19
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the quarterly report of The Newark Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-Q/A for the quarter ended July 31, 2005 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Robert H. Mullen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934;and 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financialcondition of the Company as of the dates presented and consolidated results of operations of the Company for the periods presented. 

Dated: August 31,2006 

 

This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q/A or as a separate disclosure statement. 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 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.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22- 0107 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. SHANE THOMPSON FREIBURG,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including November 21, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 13 2022

10/13/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0107
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

07-3071 

RICHARD H. CARLSON, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, 

Respondent. 

Peter B. Broida, of Arlington, Virginia, argued for petitioner. 

Joyce G. Friedman, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, United States Merit 

Systems Protection Board, of Washington, DC, argued for respondent. With her on the 

brief were B. Chad Bungard, General Counsel, Rosa M. Koppel, Deputy General 

Counsel, and Sara B. Rearden, Acting Associate General Counsel. 

Appealed from: United States Merit Systems Protection Board 
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

 07-3071 

RICHARD H. CARLSON, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, 

 Respondent. 

 Judgment

ON APPEAL from the MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

in CASE NO(S). CH0752040095-C-2 

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

Per Curiam (LOURIE, LINN, and MOORE, Circuit Judges). 

 AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

DATED July 17, 2007 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

Jan Horbaly, Clerk
#### Priest, Administrator, *v. Martin.*

In Error

*Thursday, June 1.*

ASSUMPSIT against an administrator on a promissory note executed by the intestate. Pleas, non assumpsit by the intestate, and failure of consideration. Cause submitted, by consent, to the Court without a jury, and judgment for the plaintiff. *Held,*that the judgment thus rendered takes the place of a verdict, and can be set aside only on the same pre^ ponderance of evidence, that would invalidate a verdict.

*Held,*also, that the judgment against the defendant, in such case, should not be *de bonis propriis,*but to be levied out of the assets of the intestate in the defendant’s hands to be administered,, if he have so much, but if not, then the costs out of the defendant’s own goods,
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Heather Deiss","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/heather-s-deissnasa-gov\/","title":"Katherine Johnson: A Lifetime of STEM","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"UuhceUI32N\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/learning-resources\/katherine-johnson-a-lifetime-of-stem\/\">Katherine Johnson: A Lifetime of STEM<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/learning-resources\/katherine-johnson-a-lifetime-of-stem\/embed\/#?secret=UuhceUI32N\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Katherine Johnson: A Lifetime of STEM” — NASA\" data-secret=\"UuhceUI32N\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/katherinejohnson_2.jpg?w=226","thumbnail_width":226,"thumbnail_height":208}
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF
GERHARD E. KURZ, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
OF SEABULK INTERNATIONAL, INC.
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350 AND EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13A-14(b)
(Adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) The undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Seabulk International, Inc. (the Company) hereby
certifies that:  1.
    The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, to which
this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ GERHARD E. KURZGerhard E. KurzMarch 11, 2005
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 32

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ambient Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended March 31, 2004 (the "Report") filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, John J. Joyce, Chief Executive
Officer (and Principal Financial and Accounting 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





MAY 17, 2004                          /s/ JOHN J. JOYCE
                                      ---------------------------------
                                      JOHN J. JOYCE
                                      CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                      (AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER)



A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO AMBIENT CORPORATION AND WILL BE RETAINED BY AMBIENT CORPORATION AND
FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
576 A.2d 783

#### IN THE MATTER OF ANTHONY L. MEZZACCA, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

July 12, 1990.

*163ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed a report with the Supreme Court recommending that ANTHONY L. MEZZACA of EDISON, who was admitted to the Bar of this State in 1962, be publicly reprimanded,

And this Court having issued an Order to Show Cause as to why respondent should not be disbarred, or otherwise disciplined, and the parties having appeared before this Court,

And it appearing from the Disciplinary Review Board’s report that ANTHONY L. MEZZACCA had taken miscalculated contingent fees, in violation of *Rule*1:21-7, thereby violating *RPC*1.5, and had mishandled trust monies in violation of *Rule*1:21-6 and *RPC*1.15, in delaying the return of $1,650 of his client’s funds until after he had appeared before the ethics committee in December of 1978,

And it further appearing that despite consideration of respondent’s candor and admission of wrongdoing as mitigating factors, respondent’s failure to correct deficiencies uncovered in a prior audit and respondent’s prior reprimand call for a public reprimand;

It is ORDERED that the report and recommendation of the Disciplinary Review Board are adopted and ANTHONY L. MEZZACCA is hereby publicly reprimanded; and it is further

ORDERED that the Decision and Recommendation of the Disciplinary Review Board, together with this Order and the full record of matter, be added as a permanent part of the file of said ANTHONY L. MEZZECCA as an attorney at law of the State of New Jersey; and it is further

*164ORDERED that ANTHONY L. MEZZACCA reimburse the Ethics Financial Committee for appropriate administrative costs.
Case 2:16-mj-01051-JFM Document 3 Filed 01/26/16 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:16-mj-01051-JFM Document 3 Filed 01/26/16 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:16-mj-01051-JFM Document 3 Filed 01/26/16 Page 3 of 3
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) OR RULE 15d-14(a)
       OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 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 on Form 10-Q of Penwest
Pharmaceuticals Co. (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned, Tod R. Hamachek, Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.
<TABLE>

<S>                                        <C>
Dated: August 12, 2003                        /s/ Tod R. Hamacheck
                                             ------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Tod R. Hamachek
                                                  Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
</TABLE>

     A signed original of this written statement 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.