alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
10614.

#### Vaughn-Carlton Company *v.*Studebaker Corporation of America *et al.*

Decided October 9, 1919.

Trover; from Colquitt superior court—Judge Thomas. April 10, 1919.

Application for certiorari to review this decision was denied. A report of facts in this case appears in 22 *Get. App.*684. On the last trial the court directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant again brought the case to this court, on direct exceptions to the directing of the verdict and to certain rulings on the trial. At the trial the defendant moved to dismiss the case, on the ground that there was no allegation or proof of demand for the property before suit. The defendant sought to prove by the vice-president of the defendant company that at the time of the purchase of the property by the defendant, he did not know of the printed conditions retaining title in the plaintiff which were on the back of the order signed on the part of the purchaser. The contentions argued in the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error were that the court erred in not sustaining the motion to dismiss, and in excluding the proffered testimony. It was contended by opposing counsel that in view of the defendant’s answer to the suit, in which the defendant admitted possession of the property and asserted title, it appeared that a demand would have been unavailing, and it was therefore unnecessary.

*Shipp & Kline, D. P. Starr,*for plaintiff in error.

*P. Q. Bryan,*contra.

Broyles, O. J.

1. None of the assignments of error is meritorious.

2. It appearing that this writ of error was prosecuted for the purpose of delay only, the petition of the defendant in error that ten per cent damages be awarded against the plaintiff in error is granted.

*Judgment affirmed, with damages.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, J.J., concur.*
<PAGE>   1





                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                          NEXSTAR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

                        COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  Three Months Ended                          Six Months Ended
                                                       June 30,                                    June 30,
                                        --------------------------------------      ----------------------------------
                                               1998                 1997                  1998                 1997
                                        ----------------      ----------------      ----------------      ------------
<S>                                     <C>                   <C>                   <C>                   <C>          
Net loss                                $     (3,352,000)     $     (8,263,000)     $     (5,933,000)     $(17,984,000)
                                        ================      ================      ================      ============

Weighted average shares outstanding
    during the period                         27,923,000            26,447,000            27,696,000        26,436,000
                                        ================      ================      ================      ============

Net loss per common share               $          (0.12)     $          (0.31)     $          (0.21)     $      (0.68)
                                        ================      ================      ================      ============
</TABLE>
9876.

#### Huson *v.*Dawson Naval Stores & Lumber Co., *et al.*

Wade, C. J.

This suit was based upon a contract authorizing the plaintiff to effect a sale of land for the defendant, the Dawson Naval Stores and Lumber Company, to one Moulton, upon specified terms as to payment, so that it would net to the owner $3.50 per acre, and to retain as compensation for this service all obtained' for it in excess of that amount. The contract fixed December 20, 1913, as the time limit within which the plaintiff should “make, complete, and execute the aforesaid sale.” The plaintiff on December 17, 1913, effected with Moulton an agreement of sale which provided that the owner should make, execute, and deliver bond for titles to Moulton, and that Moulton should “make, execute, and deliver to the first party [Dawson Naval Stores and Lumber Com*354pany] notes and mortgages as aforesaid', within thirty days from delivery of abstracts of title to the party of the second part.” *Meld,*that there was a clear variance between the contract effected by the plaintiff and that which he was authorized to make, the time for completion of the sale being extended by him beyond December 20, the time fixed by the owner of the property; and the owner had the right to repudiate the contract, as there was no acceptance “on the terms stipulated by the owner.” Park’s Ann. Code, § 3587; *Robinson*v. *Weller,*81 *Ga,*704 (8 S. E. 447); *Phinizy*v. *Bush,*129 *Ga.*479 (4) (59 S. E. 259); *Van Winkle v. Harris,*137 *Ga.*43 (72 S. E. 424) ; *Gray v, Lynn,*139 *Ga.*294 (77 S. E. 156). Neither was there such acceptance by the owner or such ratification of the changes made as would, amount to a legal waiver of the variance between the terms authorized and the terms ' agreed upon. The trial judge therefore did not err in sustaining a general demurrer to the plaintiff’s petition.

Decided January 29, 1919.

Complaint; from Terrell superior court —Judge Worrill. May 80, 1918.

*W. H. Gurr, Pottle & Hofmayer,*for plaintiff.

*M. C. Edwards, Yeomans & Wilkinson,*for defendant.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins and Luke, JJ., concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 421 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                               H. R. 421

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To reauthorize the United States Institute for Environmental Conflict 
                  Resolution, and for other purposes.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 421

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To reauthorize the United States Institute for Environmental Conflict 
                  Resolution, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

     This Act may be cited as the ``Environmental Policy and Conflict 
Resolution Advancement Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION FUND.

     Section 13 of the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in 
National Environmental and Native American Public Policy Act of 1992 
(20 U.S.C. 5609) is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting 
the following:
    ``(b) Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund.--There is authorized 
to be appropriated to the Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund 
established by section 10 $4,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 
through 2008, of which--
            ``(1) $3,000,000 shall be used to pay operations costs 
        (including not more than $1,000 for official reception and 
        representation expenses); and
            ``(2) $1,000,000 shall be used for grants or other 
        appropriate arrangements to pay the costs of services provided 
        in a neutral manner relating to, and to support the 
        participation of non-Federal entities (such as State and local 
        governments, tribal governments, nongovernmental organizations, 
        and individuals) in, environmental conflict resolution 
        proceedings involving Federal agencies.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 19, 2003.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
AFFIRM as modified; Opinion issued November29, 2012

in The 

## Qtourtof

## tppta1 jfiftIj 

## itrtctofZ1Ecxa atJOatta No. 05-12-00342-CR _____

DARRYL JEROME WILLIAMSON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal DistrictCourtNo. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. Fii-61428-J MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices FitzGerald, Richter, and Fillmore Opinion by Justice FitzGerald Darryl Jerome Williamson waived ajury and pleaded not guilty to assault on a public servant. See TEx. PENAL CoDE ANN. 

## § 22.01(a) (West 2011). After 

### finding appellant guilty, the trial court assessed punishment at two years’ imprisonment. In two issues, appellant contends thejudgment should be modified to show (1) he did not enter a guilty plea, and (2) he did not have a plea bargain agreement. The State agrees thejudgment should be modified. We modify the trial court’sjudgment and affirm as modified. The background ofthe case and the evidence admitted at trial are well known to the parties, and we therefore limitrecitation ofthe facts. Weissue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule ofAppellate Procedure 47.4 because the law to be applied in the case is well settled. The record shows appellant agreed to waive a jury and have a trial heibre the court in exchange for the State dropping two enhancement paragraphs contained in the indictment, The trial court accepted appellant’s plea of not guilty and heard testimony from witnesses. Thejudgment. however, states the pleato the offense was guilty and that there was a pleabargain agreement. Thus, thejudgment is incorrect. We sustain appellants two issues. We modify the trial courfs judgment to show the plea to the offense was not guilty and there were no plea bargain terms. See TEx. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State. 865 S.W.2d 26, 27—28 (Tex. (‘rim. App. 1993); Asbein’ v. Stale. 813 S.W.2d 526. 529—30 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991. pet. ref’d). As modified, we affirm the trial courtsjudgment.

Do Not Publish TEx. R. App. P.47 120342F.U05

## Qtourt oftppta1 

# if

# uftlj itrtct of rtxa at a1ta JUDGMENT DARRYL JEROME WILLIAMSON, Appellant No. 05-12-00342-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS. Appellee Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3 ofDallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. Fl 1-61428-J). Opinion deliveredby Justice FitzGerald, Justices Richter and Fillmore participating.

follows: Based on the Court’s opinion ofthis date, the trial court’sjudgment is MODIFIED as The section entitled “Pleato Offense” is modified to show “Not Guilty.” The section entitled“Terms ofPleaBargain” is modifiedto show “None.” As modified. we AFFIRM the trial court’sjudgment. JudgmententeredNovember29, 2012.

KERRY P. Efl7GIRAl D .11 ST1(’l
2012 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

5-25-2012

In Re: Kit Lee

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 12-2170

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2012 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"In Re: Kit Lee " (2012). 2012 Decisions. Paper 934.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012/934
1

DLD-182 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-2170

___________

IN RE: KIT B. LEE,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

(Related to 09-cv-05720)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

May 17, 2012

Before: AMBRO, JORDAN and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: May 25, 2012)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

In November 2009, the petitioner, Kit Lee, filed a complaint in the United States 

District Court for the District of New Jersey against Sunrise Senior Living, Inc., alleging 

employment discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Lee also asserted a state-law defamation 

claim. The District Court subsequently dismissed the complaint due to Lee’s failure to 
2

comply with several discovery orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. Upon review, this Court 

affirmed. Lee v. Sunrise Senior Living, Inc., 455 F. App’x 199 (3d Cir. 2011). 

Lee now seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the District Court to rule on the 

merits of her complaint. Lee contends that our previous order affirming the District 

Court’s dismissal of the complaint created a “judicial stalemate,” and argues that we are 

obligated to “fix the stalemate” by ordering the lower court to reopen proceedings. Lee 

evidently misunderstands the judicial process; as noted above, the District Court 

dismissed the complaint pursuant to Rule 37, and this Court affirmed. There is no 

“stalemate.” 

Accordingly, we will deny the mandamus petition.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4294 

To designate the annex to the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Building and 

United States Courthouse located at 333 Constitution Ave. Northwest 

in Washington, District of Columbia, as the ‘‘Judge William B. Bryant 

Annex to the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Building and United States 

Courthouse’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 5, 2004 

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To designate the annex to the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal 

Building and United States Courthouse located at 333 

Constitution Ave. Northwest in Washington, District of 

Columbia, as the ‘‘Judge William B. Bryant Annex to 

the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Building and United 

States Courthouse’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 4294 IH 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF JUDGE WILLIAM B. BRYANT 

2 ANNEX TO THE E. BARRETT PRETTYMAN FED3 ERAL BUILDING AND UNITED STATES COURT4 HOUSE. 

5 The annex to the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal 

6 Building and United States Courthouse located at 333 

7 Constitution Ave. Northwest in Washington, District of 

8 Columbia, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Judge 

9 William B. Bryant Annex to the E. Barrett Prettyman 

10 Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’. 

11 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

12 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

13 paper, or other record of the United States to the annex 

14 to the Federal building and United States Courthouse re15 ferred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

16 to the ‘‘Judge William B. Bryant Annex to the E. Barrett 

17 Prettyman Federal Building and United States Court18 house’’. 

Æ
ILND 450 (Rev01/2015) Judgment in a Civil Action

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

Family Smiles LLC, Family Dental of Virginia 

LLC, Frank Von Westernhagen, LLC d/b/a 

Healthy Smiles, and Von Westernhagen Dental 

Corporation, 

Plaintiff(s), 

v. 

Sentinel Insurance Company, 

Defendant(s). 

Case No. 1:20-cv-04838 

Judge Elaine E. Bucklo 

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: Judgment is entered in favor of the defendant Sentinel Insurance Company. 

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 Elaine E. Bucklo on a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint [41]. 

Date: 4/22/2022 Thomas G. Bruton, Clerk of Court 

Maria G. Hernandez, Deputy Clerk

Case: 1:20-cv-04838 Document #: 50 Filed: 04/22/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:1223
10458.

#### Lovett *v.*Vickers Brothers.

Decided November 6, 1919.

Smith, J.

This was a statutory motion to set aside a default judgment. Civil Code (1910), §§ 4358, 5958. It not affirmatively appearing on the face of the motion, or from the evidence submitted on the hearing, that the motion was made in term time, and this being essential to the validity of such a motion, it should have been dismissed; and the order of the court overruling the motion will be construed as a dismissal. *Bedgood*v. *Floyd,*20 *Ga. App.*617 (93 S. E. 218).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenloms, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*

*408Motion to set aside judgment; from city court of Nashville— Judge Lovett. March 10,1919.

*J. W. Powell,*for plaintiff in error.

*Story & Story,*contra.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4222 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4222

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 550 Nebraska Avenue in Kansas City, Kansas, as the ``Newell George 
                        Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2004

 Mr. Moore (for himself, Mr. Tiahrt, Mr. Ryun of Kansas, and Mr. Moran 
  of Kansas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 550 Nebraska Avenue in Kansas City, Kansas, as the ``Newell George 
                        Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. NEWELL GEORGE POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 550 Nebraska Avenue in Kansas City, Kansas, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Newell George Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Newell 
George Post Office Building.
                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

NOTICE OF ORDER ON MOTION

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-14-00193-CV

Style: Fertitta Hospitality, LLC

v Brandon A. Backe, Joseph P. Belluomini, Shannon Belluomini, Chris Cornwell, 

Matthew L. Goodson, Michael R. McMiillan, Daniel Cole O'Balle, Gilbert E. OBalle, Jr., 

Justin Packard, Calvin Silva, Aaron Trevino and Charles Young

Date motion filed*: August 1, 2014

Type of motion:

Motion of Appellant Fertitta Hospitality, LLC to Extend Time to File Its Reply Brief 

Pursuant to Rule 10.5(b)

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed: Appellant's Reply Brief

If motion to extend time:

Deadline to file document:

Number of previous extensions granted:

Length of extension sought:

Ordered that motion is:

Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: 

The Clerk is instructed to file the document as of the date of this order

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend 

time

Denied

Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

Appellant’s motion to extend the time to file its reply brief is GRANTED. Accordingly, Appellee 

Daniel Cole O’Balle’s motion to strike appellant’s reply brief is DENIED.

Judge's signature: /s/ Jane Bland

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: September 4, 2014
As of January 2024

DIVERISTY AND INCLUSION COMMUNITY OF INTEREST

2024 MEETING SCHEDULE

Meeting times will take place the second Friday of every month at 2:00PM 

Eastern Time to serve members from different time zones. 

January 12, 2024 Fri.

February 9, 2024 Fri.

March 8, 2024 Fri.

April 12, 2024 Fri

May 10, 2024 Fri.

June 14, 2024 Fri

July 12, 2024 Fri.

August 9, 2024 Fri

September 13, 2024 Fri.

October 11, 2024 Fri.

November 8, 2024 Fri.

December 6, 2024 Fri.

All meetings will be held through Microsoft Teams, unless otherwise indicated. 

If you are a new member, please add a meeting hold to your calendar for each 

meeting. New members will receive the official calendar invite from the NICE 

Program Office one week prior to the meeting date.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9

<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
     QUARTERLY  REPORT  ON FORM  10-QSB  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY
     REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL INFORMATION.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                            670
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          2,316
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                    0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                    0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     3,113
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         10,016
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            9,681
<LOANS>                                        15,072
<ALLOWANCE>                                       137
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 47,674
<DEPOSITS>                                     37,926
<SHORT-TERM>                                        0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             1,012
<LONG-TERM>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           73
<OTHER-SE>                                      9,163
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 47,674
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   859
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               1,062
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                  323
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                2,244
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              1,145
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              1,145
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           1,099
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       9
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 16
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 1,183
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    34
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         34
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                       32
<EPS-BASIC>                                     .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .05
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   3.27
<LOANS-NON>                                        97
<LOANS-PAST>                                       12
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                     0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  128
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       0
<RECOVERIES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 137
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              137
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             0



</TABLE>