alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### William McBean *v.*William W. Richey, etc.

Pleading — Evasive Answer.

When, an answer is silent and evasive and the proof unsatisfactory, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought.

APPEAL PROM McCRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT.

March 25, 1872.

Opinion of ti-ie Court by

Judge Hardin:

The answers of both the Richeys and Hughes are singularly silent, and apparently evasive as to the ability of Arthur W. Richey to pay for the land; and the consideration, if any, which was paid by Hughes for the notes; and the testimony of W. W. Richey, though taken .to sustain the claim of Hughes, is equally unsatisfactory on that subject. It seems almost incredible that *147if those transactions were in good faith, and especially if Hughes -bought the notes and -paid their value for them, though even W. W. Richey, in giving his deposition would have failed to explain how, or in what he was paid for the notes.

King, *J. B. Husband, for appellant.*

*Bullock,*Bramlette, *appellee.*

Upon the whole case, as presented in the record, we must conclude 'that the plaintiff was entitled to -relief, and that the court erred in dismissing .his petition.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to enter a judgment for the plaintiff.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 213 (Tuesday, November 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 65474]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26200]



[[Page 65474]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 8935]


In the Matter of the Review of the Designation of Basque 
Fatherland and Liberty Also Known as Eta Also Known as Askatasuna Also 
Known as Batasuna Also Known as Ekin Also Known As Euskal Herritarrok 
Also Known Euzkadi Ta Akatasuna Also Known as Herri Batasuna Also Known 
as Jarrai-Haika-Segi Also Known as K.A.S. Also Known as Xaki as a 
Foreign Terrorist Organization Pursuant to Section 219 of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended

    Based upon a review of the Administrative Record assembled in these 
matter pursuant to Section 219(a)(4)(C) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1189(a)(4)(C)) (``INA''), and in 
consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the 
Treasury, I conclude that the circumstances that were the basis for the 
2008 decision to maintain the designation of the aforementioned 
organization as a Foreign Terrorist Organization have not changed in 
such a manner as to warrant revocation of the designation and that the 
national security of the United States does not warrant a revocation of 
the designation.
    Therefore, I hereby determine that the designation of the 
aforementioned organization as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, 
pursuant to Section 219 of the INA (8 U.S.C. Sec.  1189), shall be 
maintained.
    This determination shall be published in the Federal Register.

John F. Kerry,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-26200 Filed 11-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
ILND 450 (Rev. 10/13) Judgment in a Civil Action

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ANDREA GOCIMAN, SIMON PFEIFER, ISABEL BOTELLO, 

JOSEPH HICKEY, and KARI WHALEN, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

LOYOLA UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO,

Defendant(s).

Case No. 20 C 3116

Judge Robert W. Gettleman 

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

Judgment is hereby entered (check appropriate box):

in favor of plaintiff(s)

and against defendant(s)

in the amount of $ ,

which includes pre–judgment interest. 

does not include pre–judgment interest.

Post-judgment interest accrues on that amount at the rate provided by law from the date of this judgment. 

Plaintiff(s) shall recover costs from defendant(s).

in favor of defendant(s) 

and against plaintiff(s)

Defendant(s) shall recover costs from plaintiff(s).

other: Defendants Gociman and Hickey are dismissed for lack of standing and Counts I and II 

dismissed with prejudice.

This action was (check one):

tried by a jury with Judge presiding, and the jury has rendered a verdict. 

tried by Judge without a jury and the above decision was reached. 

decided by Judge Robert W. Gettleman on a motion.

Date: 1/25/2021 Thomas G. Bruton, Clerk of Court

Claire E. Newman, Deputy Clerk

Case: 1:20-cv-03116 Document #: 38 Filed: 01/25/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:2408
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 213 (Tuesday, November 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 65397]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26310]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD


Employee Thrift Advisory Council; Sunshine Act; Notice of Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m. (Eastern Time) November 12, 2014.

PLACE: 10th Floor Board Meeting Room, 77 K Street NE., Washington DC 
20002.

STATUS: Open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Open to the Public

1. Approval of the minutes of the May 19, 2014 ETAC Meeting
2. Mutual Fund Window
3. Participant Demographic Report
4. New Participant Experience
5. New Business

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Kimberly Weaver, Director, Office 
of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.

    Dated: October 31, 2014.
Megan Grumbine,
Deputy General Counsel, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
[FR Doc. 2014-26310 Filed 10-31-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6760-01-P
[785 NYS2d 824]

#### Eugene Sarver, Appellant, v Pace University, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

October 21, 2004

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Eugene Sarver,*appellant pro se. *Lisa D. Hayes,*New York City, for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

*71Order entered March 12, 2004 reversed, without costs, and the action is reinstated.

Plaintiff commenced this small claims action against his former employer, defendant Pace University, seeking damages for “[fjraud [in the] inducement, indemnification.” The court properly rejected the res judicata and collateral estoppel theories advanced by defendant in its pretrial motion to dismiss the action since, as the court noted, defendant failed to conclusively establish that the action “arise [s] from the same transaction and occurrence put forth in [plaintiffs] prior small claims action [against defendant].” It was error, however, for the court, sua sponte, to dismiss the action for failure to state a cause of action, a species of dismissal which, given the “informal and simplified procedure” (CCA 1804) governing small claims matters, is rarely, if ever, available in Small Claims Court *(see Friedman v Seward Park Hous. Corp.,*167 Misc 2d 57, 58 [1995]). “Substantial justice” (CCA 1804, 1807) will best be served by a prompt trial of plaintiffs claim.

Suarez, PJ., McCooe and Gangel-Jacob, JJ., concur.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Rachael Whitefield","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/rachaellwhitefield-2-2-2\/","title":"Eric A. Boe","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"RrJs93wRnR\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/eric-a-boe\/\">Eric A. Boe<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/eric-a-boe\/embed\/#?secret=RrJs93wRnR\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Eric A. Boe” — NASA\" data-secret=\"RrJs93wRnR\" 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\/2016\/02\/boe_eric_a.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":750}
#### Thos. Higgins *v.*C. S. Stoy.

Cost — Vexatious Litigation — Each Party to Pay His Own Cost.

Where the proceedings are vexatious upon the part of both litigants, and neither succeeds, each party should pay his own cost.

APPEAL PROM MARION CIRCUIT COURT.

December 6, 1870.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

Stoy filed his petition in the Marion Circuit Court claiming to be the owner and possessor of a certain house and lot in the town of Lebanon, and alleging that the eastern wall of his said house was about nine inches within the boundary of his said lot, and that Higgins who owned the adjoining lot to the east, had, without his consent, and of force entered upon his said premises, and attached planks, joists and rafters to his said eastern wall by driving nails through the same into said wall, and he prayed for judgment for the recovery of said nine inches of land, and for five hundred dollars damages for trespass. Appellant moved to strike out that part of the petition setting up the trespass which motion was overruled.

Wherefore he filed his answer denying that Stoy owned the house and lot, or was rightfully in possession of the same, or that the eastern wall of the house was within the boundary of the lot, also that he had forcibly entered upon said premises or had attached and continued to keep rafters, etc., attached to the wall of the house, or that any portion of Stoy’s lot was in his possession.

*353*Harrison & Russell, for appellant.*

*Rountree & Fogle, for appellee.*

He also made his answer a cross-petition and prayed judgment against Stoy on account of an alleged Trespass upon his lot and building.

Upon trial, the jury returned a verdict in these words: “We, of the jury, find the wall the property of Stoy, and that Higgins has a right to the use of said wall as far back as his brick house goes, beyond that the wall is exclusively said Stoy’s, and that Higgins has committed no trespass.” Upon the verdict the court rendered a judgment settling the rights of the parties in and to the property in controversy in exact accordance with the finding of the jury, and adjudging Higgins to pay the costs of the action.

In this, so far as the cases are concerned, we think the court erred. It cannot be concluded from the verdict. That Higgins was guilty either of the unlawful possession of any portion of Stoy’s lot, or of the trespass complained of, nor that Stoy was guilty of the trespass complained of by Higgins in his cross-petition.

We conclude that the proceeding was vexatious upon the part of both litigants, and as neither succeeded, that each party should pay his own costs.

The judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded, with directions to the circuit court to enter a judgment in conformity with this conclusion.
<PAGE> 1

Exhibit 99

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 amended Quarterly Report of Powerball International,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (the
"Report"), I, Robert K. Ipson, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
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, to
the best of my knowledge:

(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/ Robert K. Ipson

Robert K. Ipson
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
June 19, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       4,085,892
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               23,644,781
<ALLOWANCES>                                   267,242
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            30,673,612
<PP&E>                                      10,736,327
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             115,042,454
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       24,218,396
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        4,000,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        90,432
<OTHER-SE>                                  46,045,648
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                46,136,080
<SALES>                                     22,743,022
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            22,743,022
<CGS>                                       14,383,784
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               14,383,784
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,701,672
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             498,093
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                193,385
<INCOME-TAX>                                    86,443
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            106,942
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                101,686
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,256
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 15.32

 

 

 

August 5, 2008

 

Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc.

5330 East 31st Street

Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135

 

We have reviewed, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial information of Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. and subsidiaries for the periods ended June 30, 2008 and 2007, as indicated in our report dated August 5, 2008; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on        that information.

 

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, is incorporated by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-79603, No. 333-89189, No. 333-33144, No. 333-33146, No. 333-50800, No. 333-128714, and No. 333-152401 on Form S-8.

 

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE  LLP

Tulsa, Oklahoma
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"A-MAZE-ING Women of STEM Puzzles","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"YFLdMcbcRS\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/a-maze-ing-women-of-stem\/\">A-MAZE-ING Women of STEM Puzzles<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/a-maze-ing-women-of-stem\/embed\/#?secret=YFLdMcbcRS\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“A-MAZE-ING Women of STEM Puzzles” — NASA\" data-secret=\"YFLdMcbcRS\" 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\/edu_amazing_stem_maze_puzzles_collage.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":456}
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-23-00200-CR

SIMEON BONILLA-RUBIO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 158th District 

Court

of Denton County (F21-1926-158)

October 3, 2024

Memorandum Opinion by Justice 

Birdwell

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Wade Birdwell

 Justice Wade Birdwell
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Michael Asbury","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/michael-a-asburynasa-gov\/","title":"Wes Deadrick","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"kCWEWhmI72\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/wes-deadrick\/\">Wes Deadrick<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/wes-deadrick\/embed\/#?secret=kCWEWhmI72\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Wes Deadrick” — NASA\" data-secret=\"kCWEWhmI72\" 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\/03\/ivv_wes_deadrick_nasa_director_2022.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":662}