alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John T. Boucher *v.*Jesse Satterfield.

Exceptions — Bill of — Verdict Contrary to Evidence.

In the absence of a statement in a bill of exceptions that it contained all the evidence heard on the trial in behalf of both parties, the court of appeals will not reverse.

APPEAL FROM CALDWELL CIRCUIT COURT.

December 12, 1871.

*Lyle, G. W. Duvall, for appellant.*

*Hewlett, for appellee.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters:

It may be inferred from what is stated in the bill of exceptions that it contains all .the evidence adduced on the trial by appellant, but there is no statement that it contains all the evidence heard on the trial on behalf of appellee. And in the absence of such statement this court can not reverse a judgment because it is founded on a verdict rendered-contrary to evidence.

All the instructions given appear to have been asked by appellant, or if not they were not objected to, and they appear as favorable as he was entitled to have them. And as no available error for reversal is presented, the judgment is *affirmed.*
EXHIBIT 99.15




CONSENT OF DAVID A. KIDD
 
  The undersigned hereby consents to reference to the undersigned’s name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on Form 40-F being filed by Mercator Minerals Ltd. with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with (1) the Preliminary Economic Assessment El Creston Project Opodepe, Sonora, Mexico dated December 16, 2010 (the “PEA Report”) and (2) the annual information form of the Corporation dated March 30, 2012, which includes reference to my name in connection with information relating to the PEA Report and the properties described therein.
  Date: March 30,  2012
  /s/ David A. Kidd



David A. Kidd, P.E.
SCAD

- 20

- 0000365

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI  I

In re CHRISTOPHER S. BOUSLOG, Bar No. 3087

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the November 16 , 2021 renewed
motion for permission to withdraw from the representation of
disciplined attorney Christopher Bouslog in this matter , filed
by attorney Keith Shige tomi , which we deem a timely response to
this court’s November 1, 2021 order to show cause, the

November 17, 2021 response filed by Bradley Tamm, as Trustee

Administrator at the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) , the
November 18, 2021 amended declaration filed by attorney
Shigetomi, the lack of response from Bouslog, and the record in

this mat ter and in Offi ce of Disciplinary Counsel v. Bouslog ,

SCPR

- 20

- 70, we find that attorney Shigetomi has now complied Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAD-20-0000365 02-DEC-2021 07:50 AM Dkt. 53 ORD2

with the requirements of Rule 50(a) of the Hawai  i Rules of

Appellate Procedure and with this court’s May 27, 2021 order, by
providing assura nces of his cooperation with ODC and the
Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection, particularly in regard to
the proper safeguarding of all client files and other property
from Bouslog’s former practice. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for pe rmission to

withdraw is granted. The clerk of the court shall take the
necessary steps to reflect in the record of this case attorney
Shigetomi’s withdrawal as counsel for Christopher Bouslog.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai  i, December 2, 2021.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
/s/ Todd W. Eddins
9629.

#### Covington *v.*Rosenbusch.

Decided November 7, 1918.

Certiorari; from Fulton superior court—Judge Pendleton. November 27, 1918.

A. *A.*Owens, *L. H. Foster, T-. J. Ripley,*for plaintiff in error.

*R. R. Jackson,*contra.

Broyles, P. J.

1. “Where an employee, in good faith and for a valuable • consideration, sells, transfers, and assigns his title and right to possession of a stipulated amount of salary due him by his employer,. and thereafter’ collects the money thus transferred, he can not, as against a suit for the recovery of the money, avail himself of a discharge in bankruptcy as a defense. The instrument of transfer is an assignment of title. *Central of Ga. Ry. Co.*v. *King,*137 *Ga.*369 (73 S. E. 632). One who thus disposes of property without the authority of its owner, under the ruling in McIntyre *v.*Kavanaugh, 242 U. S. 138 (37 Sup. Ct. 38, 61 L. ed. 205), is'guilty of a wilful and malicious injury to property, within the meaning of the bankruptcy act, see. 17 (2), as amended by the act of February 5, 1903 (32 Stat. 798, U. S. Comp. St. 1916, § 9601); and consequently his liability is hot released by a discharge in bankruptcy.” *Covington*v. *Rosenbusch,*148 *Ga.*459 (96 S. E. 78).

2. Any holding in *Glasco*v. *Cooper,*17 *Ga. App.*690 (87 S. E. 1095, or *Stovall*v. *Coker,*18 *Ga. App.*126 (88 S. E. 907), which may be contrary to this ruling^ is, on review, overruled.

3. Under the ruling stated above, the court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bloodworth and Harwell, JJ., concur.*
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7508046_1

201 East Washington Street, Suite 1200Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2595

Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

201 East Washington Street, Suite 1200

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2595

Kristina N. Holmstrom (State Bar No. 023384)

Direct Dial: 602.262.5762

Direct Fax: 602.734.3875

Email: kholmstrom@lrrc.com

Kathleen Kahn (State Bar No. 027350)

Direct Dial: 602.262.5792

Direct Fax: 602.734.3910

E-mail: KKahn@lrrc.com

Attorneys for Defendant Life Insurance Company of North America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kathleen Grant,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Life Insurance Company of North

America, a foreign insurer, Banner

Health, Inc., Long Term Disability Plan

of Banner Health, Inc., Banner Plan

Administration,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-02665-ROS

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

The parties hereby give notice they have settled Count I of the complaint . The

parties expect to submit a stipulation and order of dismissal with prejudice within the

next 30 days.

DATED this 24th day of March, 2016.

LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP

By: /s/ Kristina N. Holmstrom

Kristina N. Holmstrom

Kathleen Kahn

Attorneys for Defendant Life Insurance Company

of North America

Case 2:15-cv-02665-ROS Document 14 Filed 03/24/16 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 7508046_1

201 East Washington Street, Suite 1200Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2595

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 24, 2016, I electronically transmitted the attached

document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a

Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrant:

Lisa J. Counters

The Counters Firm, PC

7303 West Boston Street

Chandler, Arizona 85226

/s/ B. Phares

LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP

Case 2:15-cv-02665-ROS Document 14 Filed 03/24/16 Page 2 of 2
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Space Station Crew Returns to Earth, Lands Safely in Kazakhstan","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"GFiHoTXYVL\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/space-station-crew-returns-to-earth-lands-safely-in-kazakhstan-4\/\">Space Station Crew Returns to Earth, Lands Safely in Kazakhstan<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/space-station-crew-returns-to-earth-lands-safely-in-kazakhstan-4\/embed\/#?secret=GFiHoTXYVL\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Space Station Crew Returns to Earth, Lands Safely in Kazakhstan” — NASA\" data-secret=\"GFiHoTXYVL\" 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\/04\/exp38.jpg.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":337}
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 24, 2018

No. 04-17-00005-CV

ESTATE OF FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ, DECEASED,

From the Probate Court No 2, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015PC0654-A

Honorable Tom Rickhoff, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

 On January 10, 2018, this court issued its opinion and judgment; the due date for a 

motion for rehearing is January 25, 2018. Before the due date, Appellant filed a first motion for 

extension of time to file a motion for rehearing until February 7, 2018. See TEX. R. APP. P. 49.1, 

49.8.

Appellant’s motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s motion for rehearing is due to be filed 

with this court by February 7, 2018.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

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

court on this 24th day of January, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

CAMP DRUG STORE, INC., individually and as 

the representative of classes of similarly-situated 

persons,

Plaintiff,

v.

ARKRAY USA, INC.

Defendant.

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

-

GLEN ELLYN PHARMACY, INC., individually 

and as the representative of classes of similarlysituated persons,

Plaintiff,

v.

ARKRAY USA, INC.

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 20-cv-02511

Hon. John Z. Lee

CLASS ACTION

Consolidated with case

No. 20-cv-2947

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for Plaintiffs

Camp Drug Store, Inc. and Glen Ellyn Pharmacy, Inc. and Defendant ARKRAY USA, Inc., that, 

pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(ii), Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant shall be dismissed 

without prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs. This stipulation of dismissal disposes of 

the entire action.

Case: 1:20-cv-02511 Document #: 87 Filed: 08/09/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:651
2

Dated: August 9, 2022

Defendant

By: /s/ Matthew D. Pearson (with permission)

One of Defendant’s Attorneys 

George J. Tzanetopoulos

Maria A. Boelen

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

One North Wacker Drive, Suite 4500

Chicago, Illinois 60606

Telephone: (312) 416-6200

Facsimile: (312) 416-6201

gtzanetopoulos@bakerlaw.com

mboelen@bakerlaw.com

Casie Dell Collignon (pro hac vice)

Matthew D. Pearson (pro hac vice)

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

1801 California Street

Denver, CO 80202

Telephone: (303) 860-0600

ccollignon@bakerlaw.com

mpearson@bakerlaw.com

Counsel for Defendant 

Respectfully submitted, 

Plaintiffs

CAMP DRUG STORE, INC., individually and as 

the representative of a class of similarly-situated 

persons,

By: /s/ David M. Oppenheim

One of their attorneys

Phillip A. Bock

David M. Oppenheim

BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC 

203 N. La Salle St., Ste. 2100

Chicago, IL 60602

Telephone: 312-658-5500

Facsimile: 312-658-5555

Email: service@classlawyers.com

GLEN ELLYN PHARMACY, INC., individually 

and as the representative of classes of similarlysituated persons,

By: /s/ Dulijaza (Julie) Clark

Daniel A. Edelman

Cathleen M. Combs

Dulijaza (Julie) Clark

EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER

& GOODWIN, LLC

20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500

Chicago, Illinois 60603

Telephone: (312) 739-4200

Facsimile: (312) 419-0379

Case: 1:20-cv-02511 Document #: 87 Filed: 08/09/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:652
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Chief Executive Officer of Norcraft Holdings, L.P. and Norcraft
Companies, L.P. (together, the Company), does hereby certify that to the undersigneds knowledge:

1) the
Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 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 Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: March 31, 2010 |  | /s/ Mark Buller                      
|                     |  | Mark Buller  Chief Executive Officer

A signed
original of this written statement, required by Section 906, has been provided to Norcraft Holdings, L.P. and Norcraft Companies, L.P. and will be retained by Norcraft Holdings, L.P. and Norcraft Companies, L.P. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[785 NYS2d 269]

#### Ocean Diagnostic Imaging P.C., as Assignee of Jean Baptiste Turenne and Another, Appellant, v State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

September 17, 2004

*54APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Amos Weinberg,*Great Neck, for appellant. *Bruno Gerbino & Macchia LLP,*Melville, and *Rivkin Radler LLP,*Uniondale *(.Evan H. Krinick*and *Stuart M. Bodoff*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order insofar as appealed from unanimously affirmed with $10 costs.

Plaintiff, a health care provider, seeking to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, established a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by the submission of a complete proof of claim and the amount of the loss *(see*Insurance Law § 5106 [a]; *Mary Immaculate Hosp. v Allstate Ins. Co.,*5 AD3d 742 [2004]; *Amaze Med. Supply v Eagle Ins. Co.,*2 Misc 3d 128[A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51701[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2003]). Defendant failed to deny the claim within the statutory 30-day claim determination period (11 NYCRR 65.15 [g] [3]). Defendant’s requests for examinations under oath did not toll the 30-day period, inasmuch as the insurance regulation in effect at the time plaintiff submitted its claim did not contain a provision requiring a claimant to appear for an examination under oath *(see A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 2003*NY Slip Op 51392[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2003]). Accordingly, defendant is precluded from raising most defenses *(see Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y.v Maryland Cas. Co.,*90 NY2d 274, 282 [1997]).

However, an untimely denial does not preclude a defendant from asserting the defense that the collision was a staged event in furtherance of an insurance fraud scheme *(see Matter of Metro Med. Diagnostics v Eagle Ins. Co.,*293 AD2d 751 [2002]). The investigator’s affidavit set forth sufficient facts to demonstrate that defendant possessed a “founded belief that the alleged injur[ies] do[ ] not arise out of an insured incident” *(Central Gen. Hosp. v Chubb Group of Ins. Cos.,*90 NY2d 195, 199 [1997]). As a result, because defendant demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether there was a lack of coverage *(see id.),*plaintiffs motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

McCabe, P.J., Rudolph and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Tiernan P. Doyle","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/tdoyle1\/","title":"NASA Sets Science Webinar Coverage for Space Station Resupply Mission","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"42yGqerXeO\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-sets-science-webinar-coverage-for-space-station-resupply-mission\/\">NASA Sets Science Webinar Coverage for Space Station Resupply Mission<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-sets-science-webinar-coverage-for-space-station-resupply-mission\/embed\/#?secret=42yGqerXeO\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Sets Science Webinar Coverage for Space Station Resupply Mission” — NASA\" data-secret=\"42yGqerXeO\" 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\/2024\/03\/astro.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
#### J. T. Sullivan, &c. *v.*W. G. Simpson’s Admr.

Conversion — Moneys Deposited With Trustee.

Where currency is placed in an envelope, and delivered to a party to keep, it is not a conversion, for that party to place several hundred dollars of his own money in same.

Same — ^identification—Sufficiency—Proof.

It is a sufficient identification of money placed in an envelope 'to keep, that certain money was found in said envelope, corresponding in amount. The onus was not on the claimants to establish that the notes found are the identical notes delivered. Those denying, must establish that they are not.

APPEAL PROM OWEN CIRCUIT COURT.

September 9, 1871.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Lindsay:.

The evidence presented by this record leaves no doubt upon our minds that the package containing two thousand dollars; delivered to Simpson’s Administrator by his widow, was the same package delivered to the deceased by the appellants a few days before his death.

Simpson held this money as the agent of appellants, and unless before his death he did some act or acts amounting to a conversion or unless its identity was lost by being mixed with the private funds of the deceased, it seems to us the administrator should be required to restore it to the rightful owners.

It is more than probable that Simpson after reaching home, placed in the package of money belonging to appellants six or seven hundred dollars of his own means. And it is clear that at least one thousand dollars of their money was appropriated to the payment of his individual debt to the bank in Louisville. To this extent he converted their money to his own use, and for said amount he became to them an ordinary debtor. The remainder of their money the two thousand dollars, in the envelope, was never converted unless the mere fact of placing with it a small amount of his own funds was of itself a conversion. We *427are of opinion that Simpson did not intend that this act should have any such effect, and are not prepared to decide that the law will imply a conversion, where there is no satisfactory evidence that anything of the kind was intended. The identification of the money by appellants is we think sufficient. It was found in their envelope, and if it had ever been intermixed with the funds of S'impson, it was done without their knowledge or consent. The onus is not upon them to establish that the notes found are the identical notes delivered by them to Simpson.

fir«, *for appellant.*

Blackwell, *for appellee.*

Those who claim under ,Simpson or through him as his representatives or creditors must establish that they are not.

The judgment of the circuit court is reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to render judgment on the cross-petition in favor of appellants for two thousand dollars with interest, and that their claim be first paid out of the estate of the’ intestate.