alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### JERRY LADEN, APPELLANT, v. BERT DALY ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Argued May 17, 1945

Decided September 27, 1945.

For the appellant, *Alfred Brenner.*

For the respondents, *Charles E. McCraith, Jr.,*and *Stephen F. Sladowski.*

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be' affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Case in the Supreme Court.

*For affirmance*— -The Chancellor, Chiee Justice, Parker, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Colie, Wells, Raeeerty, Dill, Freund, JJ. 11.

*For reversal*— None.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"NASA Invites Media to Northrop Grumman\u2019s April Cargo Launch from Virginia","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"OrXi60BUYL\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-invites-media-to-northrop-grummans-april-cargo-launch-from-virginia\/\">NASA Invites Media to Northrop Grumman\u2019s April Cargo Launch from Virginia<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-invites-media-to-northrop-grummans-april-cargo-launch-from-virginia\/embed\/#?secret=OrXi60BUYL\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Invites Media to Northrop Grumman\u2019s April Cargo Launch from Virginia” — NASA\" data-secret=\"OrXi60BUYL\" 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\/2019\/03\/45195410704_22abeab394_k.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":333}
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-1750

___________ Carolyn Sue Parnell, Administratrix of * the Estate of Melissa Ann Witt, * Deceased, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Western District of Arkansas. * [UNPUBLISHED] C & N Bowl Corporation, Inc. doing * business as Bowling World of Fort * Smith, Arkansas, * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: September 3, 1997 Filed: September 10, 1997

___________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. MelissaAnn Witt was attacked on and abducted from the parking lot of C&N Bowl Corporation d/b/a Bowling World (Bowling World) in Ft. Smith, Arkansas, on December 1, 1994, and subsequently murdered elsewhere. Carolyn Sue Parnell, a s administratrix of Witt’s estate, brought this diversity action se eking to recover damagesThe Honorable Jimm Larry Hendre n, Chief Judge, United States District Court 1 for the Western District of Arkansas. -2- for the wrongful death of Witt, contending that previous criminal activ ity on the parking lot created a legal duty on the part of Bowling World to protect Witt from the attack and abduction. The district court granted summary judgment to Bowling World , 1 concluding that Witt’s assault and abduction was “sudden, unexpected an d unforeseeable,” and that as a matter of law Bowling World owed no duty to Witt. We affirm. Because this is a diversity case, the substantive issues are governed by state law, and we review the district court’s interpretation of state law de novo. See Dupps v

. Travelers Ins. Co. , 80 F.3d 312, 313 (8th Cir. 1996). We also review the grant o f summary ju dgment de novo. See Allen v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. , 81 F.3d 793 , 795 (8th Cir. 1996). The incidents that occurred on the Bowling World parking lot during the eigh teen months p rior to Witt’s abuduction involved minor altercations, loitering, propert y damage, and car

thefts. We agree with the district court that these incidents were not of a nature that created a legal du ty on the part of Bowling World to protect Witt from the type of criminal activity that led to her abduction and death. S ee Boren v. Worthen Nat’l Bank , 921 S. W.2d 934, 941 (Ark. 1996); Twin City Amusement Co. v. Salater , 372 S.W.2d 224, 226 (Ark. 1963). Likewise, w e conclude that the district court did not err in refusing to impos e liability upon B owling World on Parnell’s alternative theory of liability under Section 324A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965). The judgment is affirmed.-3-

A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Nikki Welch","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nikki-d-welchnasa-gov\/","title":"Fission Surface Power","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"SHgEtOnLti\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/artemis\/fission-surface-power\/\">Fission Surface Power<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/artemis\/fission-surface-power\/embed\/#?secret=SHgEtOnLti\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Fission Surface Power” — NASA\" data-secret=\"SHgEtOnLti\" 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\/2021\/05\/kilopower_moon_render_1_1.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":600}
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 994 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                               H. R. 994

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To designate the United States border station located in Pharr, Texas, 
       as the ``Kika de la Garza United States Border Station''.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 994

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the United States border station located in Pharr, Texas, 
       as the ``Kika de la Garza United States Border Station''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States border station located in Pharr, Texas, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Kika de la Garza United States Border 
Station''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the border station referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Kika de la Garza 
United States Border Station''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 23, 1997.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
9283.

#### Futch *v.*Taylor *et al.*

Decided June 12, 1918.

Certiorari; from Berrien superior court—Judge Thomas. September 19,1917.

*Story & Story, J. P. Knight,*for plaintiff in error.

IF. *B. Smith,*contra.

Jenkins, J.

1. An unattested mortgage is good as between the parties thereto, or as between the maker and a transferee. The requirement relative to attestation, as prescribed by section 3257 of the Civil Code (1910), pertains to the prerequisite necessary to its record, and has application only so far as the intervening rights of third persons without notice *are'*concerned.

2. As there was no motion - to dismiss the levy on the ground that the notice prescribed by section 3296 of the Civil Code (1910) had not been given, and the defendant in fi. fa., although reciting such failure, entered a plea to the merits without actual protestation, the failure-to give the notice referred to must be taken as waived. *McFarlin*v. *Reeves,*10 *Ga. App.*581 (73 S. E. 862).

3. In a proceeding to foreclose a chattel mortgage, the mortgagor may by affidavit of illegality avail himself of any defense which he might set up in an ordinary, suit upon the demand secured by the mortgage, *and which goes to show that the amount claimed is not due and owing-,*and while the mortgagor is thus permitted to avail himself of a valid defense by way of recoupment, he is not entitled to plead the defense of set-off in such a summary proceeding, since the latter defense is not one which goes to the justice of plaintiff’s demand. *Arnold*v. *Carter,*125 *Ga.*319 (54 S. E. 177); *Mahone*v. *Elliott,*141 *Ga.*214, 216 (80 S. E. 713). Upon the hearing of the certiorari the court did not err in sustaining the judgment of the justice in dimissing the defendant’s plea.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, O. J., and Lulce, J., concur.*
----

Exhibit 32.1

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. §1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bridge Technology,Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the periodended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, JamesDjen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-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 the Report        fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial        condition and results of operations of the Company. |

 

|   |   |                   |   |   |   |   |   |                      |
|--------|--------|------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|---------------------------|
|   |   |                   |   |   |   |   |   |                      |
|   |   | Date: January 16, 2004 |   |   |   |   |   | /s/ James Djen            |
|   |   |                   |   |   |   |   |   |                           |
|   |   |                   |   |   |   |   |   | James Djen                |
|   |   |                   |   |   |   |   |   | *Chief Executive Officer* |

 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906, an other document authenticating, acknowledging, orotherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will beretained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Commercial Crew A to Z Activity and Coloring Booklet","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"24PdWEY8bx\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/commercial-crew-a-to-z-activity-and-coloring-booklet\/\">Commercial Crew A to Z Activity and Coloring Booklet<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/commercial-crew-a-to-z-activity-and-coloring-booklet\/embed\/#?secret=24PdWEY8bx\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Commercial Crew A to Z Activity and Coloring Booklet” — NASA\" data-secret=\"24PdWEY8bx\" 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\/2023\/02\/edu_a_to_z_activity_sheet.jpg?w=320","thumbnail_width":320,"thumbnail_height":348}
#### WORTHINGTON PUMP AND MACHINERY CORPORATION, PROSECUTOR, v. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF HUDSON COUNTY, CLERK OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF HUDSON COUNTY AND GIACINTO ANGELUCCI, RESPONDENTS.

Submitted October 2, 1945

Decided November 15, 1945.

Before Justices Case, Bodine and Pekskie.

Eor the prosecutor, *James J. Carroll.*

For the respondent G-iaeinto Angelucci, *Louis Steisel*and *John A. Laird.*

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bodine, J.

The Bureau dismissed a petition for compensation. The Court of Common Pleas reversed, relying upon *Mandel*v. *Federal Shipbuilding and Drydock,*132 *N. J. L.*513; *reversed,*133 *Id.*311.

In September of 1943, the workman complained of a pain "in his right lower groin. The plant physician found that there was no evidence of a hernia at that time. He complained again on November 22d and November 30th, 1943, with the same result. He sought no outside medical aid till December 8th, 1943.

The statute *R. S.*34:15-12 (x) provides for recovery in two instances. • The case does not fall within the first division and the second was not complied with. *Primo*v. *Austin Co.,*121 *N. J. L.*518; *Mandel*v. *Federal Shipbuilding and Drydock Co., supra.*

The proofs being in balance do not sustain the contention that there may have been an accident which aggravated a pre*413existing diseased condition. *Furferi*v. *Pennsylvania Rail*road,, 117 *N. J. L.*508. The evidence was that after the alleged strain from swinging the hammer the five essentials of the statute did not occur. There must be conclusive proof thereof.

The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas will be reversed.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas December 17, 2021 No. 04-21-00509-CV BEXAR APPRAISAL DISTRICT ,

Appellants

v. LUCIFER LIGHTING COMPANY ,

Appellee From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021-CI-09696 Honorable Norma Gonzales, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R On October 8, 2021, the trial court signed an order denying appellant Bexar Appraisal District’s plea to the jurisdiction. An appeal from an interlocutory order that denies a plea to the jurisdiction is an accelerated appeal. See T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C ODE A NN . § 51.014(a)(8); T EX . R. A PP . P. 28.1(a). Therefore, Bexar Appraisal District’s notice of appeal was due within twenty days after the order was signed, which was October 28, 2021. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.1(b), 28.1(b). However, Bexar Appraisal District did not file its notice of appeal until November 15, 2021. The clerk’s record shows that Bexar Appraisal District filed a motion in the trial court to extend appellate timetables pursuant to Rule 306a.5 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. See T EX . R. C IV . P. 306a.5; T EX . R. A PP . P. 4.2. However, the clerk’s record does not include a written order finding the date that Bexar Appraisal District received notice or acquired actual notice that the order denying its plea to the jurisdiction was signed. See PDG, Inc. v. Abilene Vill., LLC , 07-19-00118-CV, 2019 WL 1716785, at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Apr. 17, 2019, order) (To gain additional time under Rule 306a.4 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, “a party must file a sworn motion in compliance with Rule of Civil Procedure 306a.5 and obtain a written order that finds the date when the party or the party’s attorney first received notice or acquired actual knowledge that the judgment was signed.”). Without a written order finding the date Bexar Appraisal District received notice or acquired actual knowledge that the trial court signed the plea to the jurisdiction order, it appears that the notice of appeal is untimely and this court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal.We order Bexar Appraisal District to show cause in writing, on or before January 5,

2022 , why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Bexar Appraisal District’s motion for extension of time to file its brief is HELD IN ABEYANCE.

_________________________________ Irene Rios, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 17th day of December, 2021.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
#### James Caldwell, *v.*William Caldwell, &c.

Wills — Construction.

The fact that the testator devised to James five dollars as his share of the estate, does does not argue that he no longer recognized-him as á child, nor that he did not intend him- to share equally with his other children in such balance as might remain of the special provision made for the wife.

APPEAL PROM CAMPBELL CIRCUIT COURT.

January 17, 1872.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Lindsay:

Alexander Caldwell, by his last will and testament, after disposing of the greater portion of his real estate by special devises, provides that his stock in the Newport & Alexander turnpike road shall be held by his executor, the income to go to his wife during her natural life, and at her death to be equally divided between his five children, William, Daniel, Henry, Mary and Esther. To the same five of his children he gave his two slaves Hanna and Ben. He then goes on to say that “To my son James, I give and bequeath the sum of five dollars,-as his share of my estate.” “I give, bequeath and devise all the rest, residue and remainder of my real and personal estate to my wife during her natural life, said property to be left in the hands of my executors for her benefit, said executors to dispose of as much of said property as they think proper, and to use the proceeds for the benefit of my wife, as she needs the same, and .at her death to be equally divided between my heirs.

Whether the balance of the estate embraced in this last devise, remaining at the death of the testator’s widow, passes to his heirs *663as devisees, or as heirs at law is a matter of but little consequence. His six children are his legal heirs, and they take this residue equally, whether they take under the law of descent or under the provisions of the will.

Hodge, *for appellant.*

*It. T. Balter, for appellees.*

The fact that the testator devised to James five dollars as his share of the estate, does not argue that he no longer recognized him as a child, nor that he did not intend him equally with his other children, to share in such balance as might remain of this special provision made for his wife.

To William, Daniel, Henry, Mary and Esther, the turnpike stock and slaves were given, to James five dollars in money. The residue of his estate was given to his wife for life, with remainder to his heirs, the same person to whom he had therefore made specific devises, one of these persons was James. His action, against the executors to recover his portion of this fund should not have been dismissed.

The court should have taken the necessary steps to ascertain what amount of this devise remained in the hands of the executors, and rendered judgment in favor of appellant for one-sixth of such amount. Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.