alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Wm. Hunter, etc. v. C. W. Carter.

Conversion — Personal Property — Possessions—Bight of Action.

The bare possession of personal property, without the absolute or strict legal title confers a right of action against a mere wrong-doer having no right and not clothed with any authority from the real owner.

*484APPEAL PROM MORGAN CIRCUIT COURT.

April 11, 1871.

*John W. Haselrigg, for appellants.*

Opinion by

Judge Peters:

The evidence shows that appellees were in the actual possession of the mare sued for at the time she was taken, and the general rule as to personal .property is that bare possession without the absolute or strict legal title confers a right of action against a mere wrong-doer having no right and not clothed wtih any authority from the real owner, 1. *Chit; pleadings*151. Here no evidence was introduced to show that appellants had acquired the title of the United States government or of Col. True, and in the absence of such proof, appellee’s possession gave him a right to recover, consequently the instructions asked by appellants' were properly overruled, and if they borrowed the mare from appellee, the instruction given on his motion was more favorable to appellants than it should have been in as much as the jury was told if they borrowed her and returned her within the time stipulated for her return, the law was for them, regardless of her condition at the time they returned her.

Wherefore the judgment must be affirmed.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Jim Cawley","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/james-j-cawleynasa-gov\/","title":"Jessica Parsons","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"wsXIR9K743\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/kennedy-biographies-parsons-jessica\/\">Jessica Parsons<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/kennedy-biographies-parsons-jessica\/embed\/#?secret=wsXIR9K743\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Jessica Parsons” — NASA\" data-secret=\"wsXIR9K743\" 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\/2020\/02\/jessica_parsons_photo.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":878}
No. 87-1488.

#### Schwartz *v.*Cuomo, Governor of New York, et al.

App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.
THIRD AMENDMENT
TO
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
      (a)
    
    CHANGE OF CONTROL shall mean the occurrence of any of the following events: (i) any
person, entity or affiliated group, excluding the Company or any employee benefit plan of
the Company, acquiring more than 50% of the then outstanding shares of voting stock of the
Company, (ii) the consummation of any merger or consolidation of the Company into another
company, such that the holders of the shares of the voting stock of the Company
immediately before such merger or consolidation own less than 50% of the voting power of
the securities of the surviving company or the parent of the surviving company, (iii) the
adoption of a plan for complete liquidation of the Company or for the sale or disposition
of all or substantially all of the Companys assets, such that after the transaction, the
holders of the shares of the voting stock of the Company immediately prior to the
transaction own less than 50% of the voting securities of the acquiror or the parent of
the acquiror, or (iv) during any period of two (2) consecutive years, individuals who at
the beginning of such period constituted the Board (including for this purpose any new
director whose election or nomination for election by the Companys stockholders was
approved by a vote of at least a majority of the directors then still in office who were
directors at the beginning of such period) cease for any reason to constitute at least a
majority of the Board.




---



##### 








---



##### 



REIT:
MEDICAL PROPERTIES TRUST, INC.By:
    /s/ Edward K. Aldag, Jr.Name:
    Edward K. Aldag, Jr.Title:
    Chairman, President & CEOOPERATING PARTNERSHIP:
MPT OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P.
By:   Medical Properties Trust, LLC
Its:   General Partner
By:   Medical Properties Trust, Inc.
Its:   Sole MemberBy:
    /s/ Edward K. Aldag, Jr.Name:
    Edward K.Aldag, Jr.Title:
    Chairman, President & CEOEXECUTIVE:/s/ R. Steven HamnerR. Steven Hamner
**MPD** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19 - 0715 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. WOLFGANG ALEXANDER LUCAS VASQUEZ ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 12 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is gran ted an extension of time to and including May 3 1 , 202 1 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief.

Electronically signed by: Jim Rice Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 13 2021

05/13/2021
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 275

To amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to permit a committee

to vote to allow live media coverage of the testimony of a subpoenaed witness.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 22, 1997

Mr. GANSKE submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Rules

RESOLUTION

To amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to

permit a committee to vote to allow live media coverage

of the testimony of a subpoenaed witness.

1 Resolved, That clause 3(f)(2) of rule XI of the Rules

2 of the House of Representatives is amended—

3 (1) in the first sentence, by inserting ‘‘, unless

4 the committee or subcommittee votes otherwise pur5 suant to the next sentence’’ before the period; and

6 (2) in the second sentence, by inserting ‘‘, un7 less a majority of the members of the committee or

8 subcommittee voting, a quorum being present, vote

9 otherwise’’ before the period.

Æ
#### Dennis E. Chain *v.*State of Indiana.

[No. 3-1174A194.

Filed September 11, 1975.]

*632
      *Jack Murray,*Knox, for appellant.

*Theodore L. Sendak,*Attorney General, *Robert F. Colker,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Per Curiam

The only issue presented for review by Dennis E. Chain’s appeal from his conviction of possession of a dangerous drug1 is whether the trial court erred in giving two instructions.

We affirm.

Objected-to Instruction 3 sets out the statutes defining and establishing the punishment for the offenses charged. Objected-to Instruction 11 consists of verdict forms. The essence of Chain’s objections and argument on appeal is that these instructions should not have been given because the statute upon which they are based, Acts 1971, P.L. 212, § 4, as amended, IC 1971, 16-6-8-10 (Burns Code Ed.) is unconstitutional.

The statute provides, in relevant part, as follows:

> “Any person who violates any provision of this chapter, except the provisions of IC 1971, .16-6-8-7, shall upon conviction thereof, be imprisoned in the state prison not less than one (1) year or more than ten (10) years, and fined in any sum not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) ; or for a first violation of paragraph c of IC 1971, 16-6-8-3 except where such person has been convicted for possession of more than twenty-five (25) grams of Cannabis Sativa or more than five (5) grams of hashish, such person may be imprisoned in the county jail or state penal farm for any determinate period of not less than thirty (30) days nor more than one (1) year and fined in any sum not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500).”

Chain contends this statute is unconstitutionally vague because it permits discretion in determining whether to impose punishment as a felony or as a misdemeanor without providing sufficient guidelines for the exercise of this discretion.

Chain’s conviction of possession of cannabis sativa was *633treated as a misdemeanor and he was sentenced to a term of 180 days at the Indiana State Farm and fined $500.

The constitutionality of a statute may be properly challenged only by a person who has been adversely affected by the asserted unconstitutionality. *State ex rel. Haberkorn*v. *DeKalb Circuit Court*(1968), 251 Ind. 283, 241 N.E.2d 62; *Bd. of Commr’s*v. *Kokomo City Plan Comm.*(1975), 263 Ind. 282, 330 N.E.2d 92.

Since Chain was sentenced under the lesser of the two alternatives provided by the statute, he cannot show injury and thus cannot challenge constitutionality of this statute. *Lamb*v. *State*(1975), 263 Ind. 137, 325 N.E.2d 180.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Note. — Reported at 333 N.E.2d 792.

. IC 1971, 16-6-8-3 (c), (Burns Code Ed.)
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-31119 Conference Calendar

KENNETH WAYNE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus CITY OF SIMMESPORT; KENNY SMITH; DWAYNE DIBBLE, incorrectly identified as DeWayne Dilbert; PERRY DUPONT, incorrectly identified as Perry Lemoine; DANIEL FIRMIN, incorrectly identified as Daniel Furhman, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CV-756

- - - - - - - - - - June 15, 1999 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Kenneth Williams (“Williams”) has appealed the jury’s verdict in his civil rights action and the district court’s denial of his motion in limine that sought to exclude his disturbing the peace conviction from evidence. He argues that the jury clearly erred in reaching its verdict and that evidence of his misdemeanor disturbing the peace conviction was inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 609. We haveNo. 97-31119 -2- reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and conclude that (1) ample evidence existed to support the jury’s verdict,

see United States v. Flintco Inc. , 143 F.3d 955, 964 (5th Cir. 1998), and (2) the district court did not commit plain error in admitting evidence of Williams’ disturbing the peace conviction under Federal Rule of Evidence 401. See United States v. Graves , 5 F.3d 1546, 1551-53 (5th Cir. 1993); see also Palmerin v. City of Riverside , 794 F.2d 1409, 1413-14 (9th Cir. 1986). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

CHRISTIAN DIOR COUTURE, S.A., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CHINABRANDMALL.COM, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 20-cv-02421 

Judge Robert W. Gettleman 

Magistrate Judge Susan E. Cox

PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE MOTION FOR ENTRY OF A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 

ORDER, INCLUDING A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION, TEMPORARY TRANSFER 

OF THE DOMAIN NAMES, TEMPORARY ASSET RESTRAINT, 

AND EXPEDITED DISCOVERY 

Plaintiff Christian Dior Couture, S.A. (“Plaintiff” or “Dior”) seeks entry of an ex parte

temporary restraining order, including a temporary injunction against Defendants enjoining the 

manufacture, importation, distribution, offering for sale, and sale of unauthorized products, a 

temporary transfer of the Domain Names, a temporary asset restraint, and expedited discovery in 

an action arising out of 15 U.S.C. § 1114; Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); 

and the U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq. A Memorandum of Law in Support is filed 

concurrently with this Motion. 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-02421 Document #: 14 Filed: 04/23/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:400
2 

Dated this 23rd day of April 2020. Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Justin R. Gaudio_____________ 

Amy C. Ziegler 

Justin R. Gaudio 

Allyson M. Martin 

Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd. 

300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2500 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

312.360.0080 

312.360.9315 (facsimile) 

 aziegler@gbc.law 

 jgaudio@gbc.law 

 amartin@gbc.law 

Counsel for Plaintiff Christian Dior Couture, S.A. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02421 Document #: 14 Filed: 04/23/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:401
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

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 of Access Worldwide Communications, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Shawkat Raslan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                         
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    SHAWKAT RASLAN                                                                                                    
|Shawkat Raslan Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer (principal executive
officer) August 15, 2005
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Giuseppe Cirincione, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

KeyBank, N.A., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-15-02073-PHX-NVW

JUDGMENT AND

DISMISSAL BY COURT

 Based on Defendant’s Offer of Judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 68, and

Plaintiff’s timely acceptance of said offer:

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that judgment be entered in

favor of Plaintiff, Giuseppe Cirincione as an individual, against Defendant KeyBank,

N.A., in the amount of $3500.00.

DATED this 25th day of November, 2015.

Case 2:15-cv-02073-NVW Document 13 Filed 11/25/15 Page 1 of 1
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of FelCor Lodging Limited Partnership
(the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarter and nine months ended September
30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, in the capacity as
indicated below and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended,
and
| | -- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Registrant.
| | -- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

November 6, 2003
    
    /s/ Thomas J. Corcoran, Jr.Thomas J. Corcoran, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer of
FelCor Lodging Trust Incorporated,
as general partner of
FelCor Lodging Limited Partnership
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

*CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350*

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of GraniteCity Food & Brewery Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB forthe quarterly period ended June 28, 2005, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven J. Wagenheim,President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by theCompany and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

 
| Dated:   August 10,  2005 | By:    | /s/ Steven J. Wagenheim               |   |
|------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                                     |   | Steven J. Wagenheim                   |
|                                     |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
{"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":"STS-101","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"P4fgpCbGLY\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-101\/\">STS-101<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-101\/embed\/#?secret=P4fgpCbGLY\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“STS-101” — NASA\" data-secret=\"P4fgpCbGLY\" 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:\/\/images-assets.nasa.gov\/image\/0500988\/0500988~large.jpg?w=600&h=1498&fit=clip&crop=faces%2Cfocalpoint","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1498}
#### Maxwell N. Andalman, Respondent, *v.*Alfred K. Behrens and Another, Copartners, Doing Business under the Firm Name and Style of Behrens Lipshutz Company, Defendants, Impleaded with Jack Lipshutz, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

February 5, 1926.

Attorney and client — fees — attorney recovered judgment of $1,476.96 for services rendered in litigation involving $1,900 — verdict excessive where services covered ordinary litigation — plaintiff received retainer of $200 — judgment reduced to $600.

A judgment for the plaintiff, an attorney, for $1,475.95 for legal services rendered defendant in a litigation involving $1,900, should be reversed, where said services included the prosecution of an ordinary law suit for which plaintiff had already received a retainer of $200. However, should plaintiff stipulate to reduce the judgment to $500, with interest and costs, the judgment as so modified will be affirmed.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the City Court of the City'of New York, entered in favor of the plaintiff.

*O’Brien, Malevinsky & Driscoll [Edward C. Raftery*of counsel], for the appellant.

*Tobias A. Keppler,*for the respondent.

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff recovered judgment in the sum of $1,475.95 for legal services rendered to the defendants in litigation involving the sum of $1,900. We regard this award of the jury out of proportion to the amount involved and the work done. The services rendered were the preparation for and the prosecution of the ordinary law suit which involved no legal complexities. The plaintiff already has received a retainer of $200. An additional sum of $500 will, in our judgment, reasonably compensate him for the services rendered. The judgment appealed from is reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event unless within ten days after the entry of the order the plaintiff stipulates to reduce the judgment to the sum of $500, with interest and costs, in which event jiidgment as so modified affirmed, without costs of appeal to either party.

All concur; present, Bijur, Delehanty and Wagner, JJ.