alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Thomas Robb v. Charlotte Shephard.

*Biting dog*— Estoppel *from denying ownership.*

In an action for damages from being bitten by a dog an instruction that there was no evidence to show that defendant kept the dog, but that on the contrary it belonged to her husband, or at all events that he was the keeper of it, would preclude any finding that the defendant was the keeper of the dog.

A man bitten by a dog asked a woman as to who owned it, and she said it belonged to her. He accordingly sued her. *Beld*that she would be estopped from denying ownership on the trial if she knew that the inquiry was made for the purpose of finding out who was liable for the injury.

Error to Bay. (Green, J.)

Jan. 18.

Feb. 27.

Case. Defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

*A. MoDonell*for appellant.

*Simonson & Gillett*and *Hatch & Cooley*for appellee.

Intent to deceive is not necessary to an estoppel: *Vanneter v. Crossman*42 Mich. 465*Continental Bank v. Bank of Commonwealth*50 N. Y. 575; expenditures in litigation may as properly support an estoppel as any. *Meister v. Birney*24 Mich. 435.

Marston, J.

This action was brought to recover damages which the plaintiff sustained in consequence of being bitten by a dog which it is alleged was kept by the defendant. The plaintiff recovered a judgment and two errors are assigned in this Court as reason for a reversal.

*First.*That the court erred in the instructions given the jury as to what would be sufficient to show that the defendant, while not the owner, might be considered as the keeper of the dog.

Taking all that was said upon the subject the jury could not have found that this defendant was the keeper of the dog. The court distinctly said that there was no evidence *190(in tbe case to sbow that the defendant did keep the dog, ¡but on the .contrary that the dog belonged to her husband, or at all events that he was the keeper of the dog, and that under the evidence the defendant would not be.

*Secondly.*It is said the court erred in charging the jury, that if on the day the plaintiff was injured, he inquired of the defendant as to the ownership of the dog and was informed, in reply thereto, that the dog belonged to her, and that the plaintiff in reliance upon such information brought this action, the defendant on the trial would be estopped from denying the fact on the trial. The court instructed the jury she .could only be so estopped, in case she knew that the inquiry was made with reference to ascertaining who was liable for the injury sustained.

We are of opinion that no error was committed in so instructing the jury, and that the case comes within wha+ was said by this Court in *Meister v. Birney*24, Mich. 440. There was evidence to bring this case within the rule laid down.

The judgment will therefore be affirmed with costs.

Graves, C. J. and Cooley, J. concurred.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 21

- 00172

- CR

L

A F RENCH M ORRIS H ILL

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 213th District

Court

of Tarrant County ( 1692224R )

February 9 , 2023

Memorandum Opinion by Justice

Bassel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

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

was no error in the t rial c ourt’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Dabney Bassel

Justice Dabney Bassel
#### Sean DENOON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CON EDISON, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 03-9322-CV.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Jan. 11, 2005.

*798Sean Denoon, Brooklyn, New York, for Appellant, pro se.

Mary K. Schuette, Con Edison Law Department, New York, New York, for Appellee.

PRESENT: WINTER, SOTOMAYOR, and B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Sean Denoon, *pro se,*appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Dearie, /.), granting the appellee’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing his complaint which alleged claims of discrimination and retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) *et seq.*(“Title VII”). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the factual and proeédural background of this case.

This Court reviews *de novo*a district court’s grant of summary judgment, focusing on whether the district court properly concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the movant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. *See Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P.,*321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.2003). This Court will only affirm the dismissal of a claim on summary judgment if “it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of [his] claim which would entitle [him] to relief.” *Terry v. Ashcroft,*336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir.2003) (alterations in original) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

Substantially for the reasons stated by the district court, we affirm the judgment of the district court. In addition, DeNoon’s contentions regarding his attorney’s performance provide no basis for reversal in this civil matter. *See United States v. Coven,*662 F.2d 162, 176 (2d Cir.1981). We have considered all arguments and claims brought by the appellant and find each of them to be without merit.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.
Exhibit-31.2 - Certification per Sarbanes-Oxley Act (Section 906)

APD ANTIQUITIES, INC.

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS


The undersigned, Cindy Swank, President and Director, of APD Antiquities, Inc.
 (the "Company") certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)  the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended
     December 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
     Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
     U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d); and

(2)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Company.

Dated:  December 6, 2006

                                           /s/ Cindy Swank
                                        ---------------------------
                                           Cindy Swank
                                           Chief Executive Officer
                                          (Principal Financial Officer)
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Spaghetti Anyone? Building With Pasta","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"nH2Nh2WZt6\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/spaghetti-anyone-building-with-pasta\/\">Spaghetti Anyone? Building With Pasta<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/spaghetti-anyone-building-with-pasta\/embed\/#?secret=nH2Nh2WZt6\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Spaghetti Anyone? Building With Pasta” — NASA\" data-secret=\"nH2Nh2WZt6\" 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_srch_pasta_building.png?w=320","thumbnail_width":320,"thumbnail_height":175}
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 386 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                        March 17, 1998.
    Resolved, That the Honorable Richard K. Armey, a Representative from the 
State of Texas, be, and he is hereby, elected Speaker pro tempore on this day.
    Sec. 2. The Clerk of the House shall notify the President of the United 
States and the Senate of the election of the Honorable Richard K. Armey as 
Speaker pro tempore during the absence of the Speaker.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

WESTERN DIVISION

Tara Hoover, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Case No. 20 CV 50247

v. )

) Hon. Iain D. Johnston 

)

Abdullahi Said, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is Judge Schneider’s Report and Recommendation [139] that the 

settlement reached in this case, involving a minor, be found to be fair and reasonable, and 

reached in good faith as a result of the parties’ private mediation. Judge Schneider allowed to 

7/13/2023 for any objection, but none was filed. The Court has reviewed the allegations of the 

complaint, the allocation of settlement funds, and accepts Judge Schneider’s assessment that the 

allocation is fair, reasonable, equitable, and was reached in good faith. In the absence of any 

objection, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation [139]. Pursuant to the parties’ 

stipulation [134], the case is dismissed with prejudice with each party to bear its own costs and 

fees. Civil case terminated.

Date: July 14, 2023 __________________________________

Iain D. Johnston

United States District Judge 

Case: 3:20-cv-50247 Document #: 140 Filed: 07/14/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:533
#### Mary L. Price, etc., *v.*E. M. Gatt.

Forcible Entry and Detainer — Distinct Offenses.

Traverse — Jury Must Find Party Guilty of Same Offense.

A forcible entry is an entry on land or tenements without the consent of the person having the possession in fact of the premises. Forcible detainer is the refusal of a tenant to surrender to his landlord the lands or tenements demised, after the expiration of his term. On a traverse the jury in the circuit court must find the party. *573charged guilty of the offense of. which he was found guilty by- the jury in the country.

APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

March 22, 1872.

*Whitaker, Walker, for appellant.*

*Bradley & Sumrall, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

A forcible entry is defined by Sec. 500 *Civil Code*to be an entry into lands, or tenements without the consent of the person having the possession in fact of the premises. And a forcible detainer is the refusal of a tenant to surrender to his landlord the land, or tenements demised after the expiration of his term. They are therefore distinct offences, and so they were before the adoption of the Code. But it was held by this court under the old practice that both offences could be charged' in the same warrant, and the jury in the country might find the party charged, guilty of either one or both of the offences, and upon a traverse the jury must find the party guilty of the offence of which he was found guilty by the jury in the country.

The court below properly overruled the motion to quash .the warrant, and also the demurrer thereto.

The jury who tried the traverse found the inquisition true, and as neither the evidence nor the instructions are certified to this court by a bill of exceptions we cannot disturb the finding of the jury.

As to the irregularities which occurred before the justice and which do not affect the merits of the case, upon a traverse, must be disregarded. *Jones v. Skiles,*1 Mar. 54. Appellants were the traversors if the Jefferson court of Common Pleas had refused to entertain jurisdiction of the traverse, the proper order would have been to dismiss it which would have remitted the traverse to the benefit of her judgment for restitution rendered by the justice on the verdict of the jury before him, and surely the refusal of the court below to do so was not prejudicial to traversor. Judgment must be affirmed.
1

303-1097 JJM #35665

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

NORTHER DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

DELTRIC DARNELL SMITH, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) No.: 2020 cv 2868

v. )

)

OFFICER FRAZIER, #40, )

)

Defendant. )

NOTICE OF FILING

To: Mr. Deltric Darnell Smith

Prisoner ID Y32487

Hill Correction Center

P.O. Box 1700

600 Linwood Road

Galesburg, IL 61401

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 11, 2020, we filed the Defendant’s 

Appearance, Answer to Complaint and Affirmative Defenses with the Clerk of the United 

States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, a copy of which is hereby served 

upon you.

LAW OFFICES OF JOHN J. MEEHAN, P.C.

120 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2100

Chicago, Illinois 60602 

(312) 332-6333

#6206105

PROOF OF SERVICE

Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to Section 1-109 of the Code of Civil 

Procedure, the undersigned certifies that a copy of this Notice and the above-referenced

documents were served by emailing and electronic service to the above attorneys as 

addressed on August 12, 2020 before 5:00 p.m. 

S:/John J. Meehan___________
hYtqrA '

Do you swear under penalty of perjury that the following answers you give are true and

accurate?

Yes

when do you first recall working in the same facility as Ken Del signore (kd)

Late in 2015 he was assigned to my group.

2. were you kd's tech team lead from approximately Nov 2015 to March 20t7?

Yes

2a. Have you been in nearly continuous contact with kd regarding the PMUD/Shannon project

and the subsequent whistleblower action?

Yes

3. Did kd talk to you by telephone on approximately Aug 3l-st, 2018 about a call he had just

recently had with Christi Gliori regarding a threat to his short term disability benefits following

an email he had sent earlier that day that showed an April Fools Day joke job offer from Lucent

Government Services?

Yes

4. Please describe what you recall from that call.

There were a couple main points as I recall. First that he speculated thot Chris Miranda wos the

perpetrator for the April fools day joke email and also that Christy Gliori had threatened his

benefits if he didn't stop sending emails, etc. Also,I remember thot this threat occurced soon

ofter Ken spoke with lawyers from Nokia.

In another call we discussed his email getting shut down, and his access to the building was

suspended. Although I don't recall the exact dates.

5, did you meet kd at a mioobrewery/restaurant in the south west Chicago suburbs in

approximately early February 2019?

Yes, otPollyanna

6. do you recall kd taking a call from Metlife regarding long term disability benefits while in

this restaurant?

Yes

7. Please describe anything you remember about what kd said (that day or thereafter) about this

call or how he responded to it.

He mentioned that he had received a call from Metlife and it was very strange. I asked him whot

he meant, and he said that the agent/caller was very rude and somewhat demeaning. I seem to

recoll some sort of threat about not getting the beneftt, but I'm not very clear on that. Later he

speculated that someone at Nokia must have spoken with Metlife regarding long term disobility

which seemed inoppropriate to us.

Case: 1:20-cv-04019 Document #: 1-5 Filed: 07/09/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:191
**Exhibit 32.2**

**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 annual report of American Cordillera Mining Corp., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the transitional period ended November 30, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Dwight Weigelt, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer, and Secretary of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date: March 28, 2014

|  

By:

/s/ Dwight Weigelt

 

 

Dwight Weigelt

 

 

CFO, Secretary, Treasurer, Director |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of US Dataworks, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light
of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this quarterly report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented
in this quarterly report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
    5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
    /s/ John T. McLaughlinJohn T. McLaughlin,Chief Accounting Officer
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OFPERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

The undersigned officer of WII Components, Inc. (the “Company”)hereby certifies that the Company’s annual report on Form 10-k for thefiscal year ended December 31, 2005 to which this certification is beingfurnished as an exhibit (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and that the information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 

This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350 and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K (“Item 601(b)(32)”)promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”),and the Exchange Act. In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32),this certification (A) shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes ofSection 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability ofthat section, and (B) shall not be deemed to be incorporated by referenceinto any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to theextent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

 
| Date: March 23, 2006 |                           |
|----------------------|--------------------------------|
|                 | /s/ John Fitzpatrick           |   |
|                 | Name: John Fitzpatrick         |
|                 | Title: Chief Executive Officer |

 

1

----
IV

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 467

Providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3526) to reform the financing

of Federal elections.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 11, 1998

Mrs. MALONEY of New York submitted the following resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Rules.

RESOLUTION

Providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3526) to

reform the financing of Federal elections.

1 Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this

2 resolution the House shall resolve into the Committee of

3 the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consid4 eration of the bill (H.R. 3526) to reform the financing

5 of Federal elections. The first reading of the bill shall be

6 dispensed with. All points of order against consideration

7 of the bill are waived. General Debate shall be confined

8 to the bill and shall not exceed two hours, to be divided

9 equally between the chairman and ranking minority mem10 ber of the Committee on House Oversight. After general
2

•HRES 467 IH

1 debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under

2 the five-minute rule for a period not to exceed 10 hours.

3 No amendment shall be in order except amendments print4 ed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated

5 for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII before June

6 23, 1998. Each amendment shall be considered as read,

7 shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be sub8 ject to a demand for the division of the question in the

9 House or in the Committee of the Whole. Consideration

10 of each amendment shall not exceed one hour. All points

11 of order against the amendments are waived except those

12 arising under clause 7 of rule XVI. The chairman of the

13 Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time during

14 further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a re15 quest for a recorded vote on any amendment, and may

16 reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic

17 voting on any postponed question which follows another

18 electronic vote without intervening business, except that

19 the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any

20 series of questions shall be fifteen minutes. At the conclu21 sion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Com22 mittee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such

23 amendments as may have been adopted. The previous

24 question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and

25 amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
3

•HRES 467 IH

1 motion except one motion to recommit, with or without

2 instructions.

3 SEC. 2. If the Committee of the Whole rises and re4 ports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then

5 on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately

6 after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of

7 rule XXIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for

8 further consideration of the bill.

9 SEC. 3. It shall not be in order for the House to con10 sider any resolution which waives or supersedes any provi11 sion of this resolution.

Æ