alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Detroit, Monroe and Toledo Railroad Company v City of Detroit.

*Street-opening*— Condemnation *of land*— Service

Proceedings to open a street across tie land of a railroad company were held invalid where the company was not named in the proceedings and did not appear, even though damages were awarded to it for the land taken.

■Service on the attorney of a railroad company in proceedings to open a street across its premises is not authorized by statute.

An assessment of damages in proceedings to condemn lands is void if the land is not lawfully condemned.

Certiorari to Recorder’s Court of Detroit.

Submitted June 22.

Decided June 27.

*William. H. Wells*and *Ashley Pond*for plaintiff: in ■certiorari.

City Counselor *Henry M. Duffield*for defendant in certiorari.

Campbell, J.

This is a *certiorari*to review proceedings to open Harper avenue in the city of Detroit. A number *48of errors are set forth as alleged in the petition for the writ,, but we shall only refer to some matters of importance. It appears that in opening this avenue it will become necessary to cross the lands and to a greater or less extent interfere with the premises of several railroad companies, and that this* involved the principal damages. One of these — the Lake-Shore *&*Michigan Southern Railroad Company — was not even named in the proceedings,, although the jury awarded1damages for land taken. That company did not appear and* the taking of land and assessment of damages are invalid) absolutely. The Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Company was named and had lands taken and damages-awarded, but did not appear and was not lawfully served) with process. The service purports to have been made on its attorney. The statute has not authorized such service. The damages assessed to these two companies alone made up* a considerable sum, charged on the various parties in the-assessment district as benefited by the proposed improvement. But the assessment is void if the land is not lawfully condemned, as it has not been, and the way cannot be lawfully established. Plaintiff in *certiorari*appeared and objected to the proceedings seasonably, and the objections-were overruled. We think the proceedings were erroneous- and should be quashed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.
10227.

#### Hamilton *v.*Kettles.

Decided July 17, 1919.

Luke, J.

1. The issue in this ease being as to the appointment 6f one of two applicants as guardian of the person of a minor, the court did not err in admitting in evidence a provision of a will, executed by the mother of the minor shortly prior to her death, in which the defendant in error was selected as trustee or guardian of the property of her child, since this was a proper circumstance for the consideration of the jury in determining the question of guardianship. “The request of the parent of an infant on his death-bed is a proper circumstance to be considered by the jury; and, all other things being equal, is sufficient to turn the scale.” *Watson*v. *Warnock,*31 *Ga.*716. See also *Churchhill*v. *Jackson,*132 *Ga.*670 (64 S. E. 691, 49 L. R. A. (N. S.) 875, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 1203).

2. The testimony of the defendant in error, that, “as trustee and guardian of this boy, I have taken possession of his property; I am acquainted with the kind of property he has; the income from the property of this child right now is $18.50 per month; that will be ample for the support of this boy with me,” was not objectionable as being irrelevant and immaterial, since it tended to show what property was held in trust for the minor, and the circumstances of the child were to be considered by the jury as well as the circumstances of the applicants.

3. The charge of the court, when considered as a whole, being a fair and concise statement of the law applicable to the facts in the case, and there being evidence to authorize the verdict returned, the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial is

*Affirmed.*

*Jenkins, J., concurs. Wade, C. J., did not preside.*

*110Appeal; from Whitfield superior court—Judge Tarver. November 2, 1918.

*Maddox, McOamy & Shumate,*for plaintiff in error.

*F. K. McCutchen, B. H. House,*contra.
**EXHIBIT 23**

**CONSENT OFERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM  **

            We consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statement Number 33-48815 on Form S-8 dated June24, 1992, Registration Statement Number 333-73306 on Form S-8 dated November14, 2001, the Registration Statement Number 333-100841 on Form S-8 datedOctober 30, 2002 and the Registration Statement Number 333-113037 on Form S-3dated February 24, 2004 (including the Post-Effective Amendment No. 2) of our reportdated May 13, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements andfinancial statement schedule of Mentor Corporation,Mentor Corporationmanagement's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting ofMentor Corporation**,** included in this AnnualReport on Form 10-K/A for the year ended March 31, 2005.

/s/ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Los Angeles, CaliforniaJuly 29, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000837893
<NAME> 88AP
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         270,374
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   89,019
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               359,393
<PP&E>                                       4,855,712
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,701,989
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,513,116
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,138
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,482,978
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,513,116
<SALES>                                        529,705
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               551,843
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  329,745
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                222,098
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            222,098
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   222,098
<EPS-BASIC>                                      19.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 391 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 391

  To preserve and protect the free choice of individual employees to 
  form, join, or assist labor organizations, or to refrain from such 
                              activities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 27, 2003

  Mr. Wilson of South Carolina (for himself, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Paul, 
 Mrs. Musgrave, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Ryun of Kansas, Mr. 
Istook, Mr. Tancredo, Mr. Toomey, Mrs. Bono, Mr. Goode, Mr. Ballenger, 
  Mr. Norwood, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Linder, Mr. Sessions, Mr. DeMint, Mr. 
   Hall, Mr. Kolbe, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. Beauprez, Mr. Shadegg, Mr. 
Tiahrt, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Schrock, Mr. Issa, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. 
    Wamp, Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr. Cox, Mr. Wicker, and Mr. Pence) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                      Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To preserve and protect the free choice of individual employees to 
  form, join, or assist labor organizations, or to refrain from such 
                              activities.

    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 ``National Right-to-Work Act''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.

    (a) Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (the ``Act'') (29 
U.S.C. 157) is amended by striking ``except to'' and all that follows 
through ``authorized in section 8(a)(3)''.
    (b) Section 8(a) of the Act (29 U.S.C. 158(a)) is amended by 
striking ``: Provided, That'' and all that follows through ``retaining 
membership'' in paragraph (3).
    (c) Section 8(b) of the Act (29 U.S.C. 158(b)) is amended by 
striking ``or to discriminate'' and all that follows through 
``retaining membership'' in paragraph (2) and by striking ``covered by 
an agreement authorized under subsection (a)(3) of this section'' in 
paragraph (5).
    (d) Section 8(f) of the Act (29 U.S.C. 158(f)) is amended by 
striking clause (2) and by redesignating clauses (3) and (4) as (2) and 
(3), respectively.

SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT.

    Section 2 of the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 152) is amended by 
striking paragraph Eleventh.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Gregory F. Kowal, Chief Executive Officer of Mera Pharmaceuticals, certify that (1) Mera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 3 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 31, 2010 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of Mera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.





Date:   September 14, 2010





/s/Gregory F. Kowal


----------------------------------------


Gregory F. Kowal


Chief Executive Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Mera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Mera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT (11)
                             THE MIDLAND COMPANY
                               AND SUBSIDIARIES

       EXHIBIT (11) - COMPUTATION OF CONSOLIDATED NET INCOME PER SHARE
                FOR THE YEARS DECEMBER 31, 1996, 1995 AND 1994


                                            1996          1995          1994
                                        ----------------------------------------

Net Income                              $ 1,068,000   $ 9,552,000   $ 9,419,000
                                        ========================================
Weighted average number of voting
 shares outstanding                       3,021,000     3,028,000     2,998,000
                                        ========================================

Primary:
Adjusted weighted average shares
 outstanding - after consideration of
 the dillutive effect of stock options
 and stock awards                         3,033,000     3,072,000     3,050,000
                                        ========================================
Per share - after consideration of the
 dillutive effect of stock options and
 stock awards (net income divided by
 adjusted weighted average shares
 outstanding)                           $      0.35   $      3.11   $      3.09
                                        ========================================

Fully diluted:
Adjusted weighted average shares
 outstanding - after consideration of
 the dillutive effect of stock options
 and stock awards                         3,040,000     3,084,000     3,066,000
                                        ========================================
Per share - after consideration of the
 dillutive effect of stock options and
 stock awards (net income divided by
 adjusted shares outstanding)           $      0.35   $      3.10   $      3.07
                                        ========================================

                                       14

<PAGE>
#### Alford *v.*Prince.

Opinion delivered October 29, 1928.

*161
      *Nelson $ Crawford,*for appellant.

*Frank C. Douglas,*for appellee.

Hart, C. J.,

(after stating the facts). This is the second appeal in the case. *Prince*v. *Alford,*173 Ark. 633, 293 S. W. 36. Upon the former appeal the court said that, while the lease did not require Alford or Reeves to construct a new 'building, it did convey to Prince the lot upon which the new building was erected for the term of two years, and that he had a right of possession of the whole lot for that period of time, and was entitled to the possession of iany new building or buildings erected on the lot upon the payment of a rental of $50 per month. The effect of the decisions upon the former appeal was that Prince was entitled to the whole lot and the building or building’s erected on it by Reeves, regardless of their size. Alford and Reeves could not require him to accept a new building of the same size as the one which had been torn down and relinquish his right of possession of the remainder of the lot.

*162The testimony upon the present ¡appeal is substantially the same as that upon the former appeal, and what was said upon the former appeal becomes the law of the case. It was there said that, if Reeves took title to the lot with notice of the lease, he was jointly liable with Alford for any damages resulting from the breach of the contract.

Upon the present appeal the court submitted to the jury the question whether or not Reeves took title to the lot without notice of the lease, and the jury found against Reeves on this point. The individual liability of Alford is shown by the undisputed testimony. In other words, according' to the interpretation of the terms of the lease upon the former appeal, Prince was entitled to the possession of any new building- or buildings upon the lot in question for two years, at a rental of $50 per month. In the present appeal there is. no testimony tending to excuse Alford’s breach of the lease contract. Hence, under the undisputed evidence, Prince was entitled to recover from him the sum of $100 per month for two years, less the $50 per month which he had agreed to pay as rent. This would amount for two years to the sum of $1,200, as found by the jury.

The jury having found, upon conflicting testimony, that Reeves had actual knowledge of the provisions of the lease at the time he purchased the lot in. question, he was jointly liable for the difference between the agreed rental of the lease and the amount that Reeves ¡actually received for the rent of the new building or buildings. This, as we have already seen under the undisputed evidence, amounted to $1,200. Therefore the judgment will be affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4296 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4296

To reauthorize and revise the Child Care Access Means Parents in School 
                           Program (CCAMPIS).

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 5, 2004

 Mr. Pomeroy introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To reauthorize and revise the Child Care Access Means Parents in School 
                           Program (CCAMPIS).

    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 ``21st Century CAMPIS Act''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION AND REVISION OF CCAMPIS.

    (a) Minimum Grant.--Section 419N(b)(2)(B) of the Higher Education 
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070e(b)(2)(B)) is amended by striking 
``$10,000'' and inserting ``$30,000''.
    (b) Eligible Institutions.--Section 419N(b)(4) of such Act is 
amended by striking ``$350,000'' and inserting ``$250,000''.
    (c) Definition of Low Income Student.--Section 419N(b)(7) of such 
Act is amended by striking ``a student who is eligible to receive'' and 
inserting ``a student whose family income makes the student eligible to 
receive''.
    (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 419N(g) of such Act 
is amended--
            (1) by striking ``$45,000,000'' and inserting 
        ``$75,000,000'';
            (2) by striking ``1999'' and inserting ``2005''; and
            (3) by striking ``4 succeeding'' and inserting ``5 
        succeeding''.
                                 <all>
```
10962.

#### HAMILTON *v.*THE STATE.

By failure to except to the judgment overruling his demurrer to the indictment, the defendant was precluded from raising in a motion for a new trial the questions raised by the demurrer.

Decided January 27, 1920.

Indictment for forgery, etc.; from Decatur superior court— Judge Harrell. September 25, 1919.

*A. E. Thornton,*for plaintiff in error.

*R. G. Bell, solicitor-general, Frank A. Hooper & Son,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

The indictment in this ease contains two counts, the first charging forgery of a bank check, and the second uttering said check. The indictment alleged that the check was “of the following tenor and effect, to wit: ‘The First National Bank, Bainbridge, Ga. Octo. 1st, 1918. Pay to the order of Frank Johnson $20.00, Twenty dollars, No. 876. Walker.’ A demurrer was filed to the indictment, in part as follows: “1. No crime against the laws of Georgia is charged in said indictment. 3. Defendant demurs specially to said indictment, in that said indictment 1 charges that said check was signed ‘Walker,’ which said signature is not the signature of any person, firm, or corporation, nor is such a signature such that would mislead, defraud, or fool anyone, and, such signature not being name or signature of any person, firm or corporation, same is not subject of being forged.” The demurrer was overruled, and no exceptions to this ruling were filed. The case proceeded to trial. There was a verdict of guilty on both counts, and, the defendant’s motion for new trial being overruled, he excepted. In the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error all grounds of the motion for a new trial are expressly abandoned except those which raise the identical question disposed of by the demurrer. The Supreme Court, in *Matthews*v. *State,*125 *Ga.*248 (54 S. E. 192), held: “Where a demurrer to an indictment calls for a construction of a penal statute, the judgment rendered thereon concludes the defendant as to the construction given the statute by the court, unless reversed or set aside by appropriate procedure.” -See also *Mayor & Aldermen of Savannah*v. *Monroe,*22 *Ga. App.*190 (2) (95 S. E. 731); 22 *Ga. App.*285 (3-b) (96 S. E. 500). Hnder the above ruling the plaintiff in error is concluded by the ruling on the demurrer, and the judgment must be

*Affirmed.*

*Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J.,*concur,
Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION OF
PAUL KORUS, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
OF KEY PRODUCTION COMPANY, INC.
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350

I, PAUL KORUS, Chief Financial Officer of Key Production Company, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify that the accompanying report
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Report") by the Company fully complies with the requirements of that section.

I
further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material aspects, the financial operations and results of operations of the Company.

| |  | /s/PAUL KORUSPaul Korus
Chief Financial Officer
| |  | -----------------------------------------------
| |  | August 13, 2002                                

---

QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 10.129

 

 

SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN COMPENSATION OF NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT

 

As of March 15, 2007, the following are the base salaries (on an annual basis) of certain named executive officers (as defined in Item 402(a)(3) of Regulation S-K) of Mechanical Technology Incorporated whose compensation was either not previously disclosed or has changed from the employment agreement previously filed as an Exhibit:  None.  

All base salaries (on an annual basis) and any changes to these salaries have been previously disclosed in either a Current Report on Form 8-K or the Company's 2006 Annual Proxy Statement.

The Company will provide additional information regarding compensation awarded to all Named Executive officers in respect of and during the year ended December 31, 2006, in the Proxy Statement for the Company's 2007 Annual Meeting of Shareholders which will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days of year end.
H. R. 4427

One Hundred Eighth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 73 South

Euclid Avenue in Montauk, New York, as the ‘‘Perry B. Duryea, Jr. Post Office’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

73 South Euclid Avenue in Montauk, New York, shall be known

and designated as the ‘‘Perry B. Duryea, Jr. Post Office’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

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

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Perry B.

Duryea, Jr. Post Office’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Exhibit 31.2

                                                                         Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

860 

KA 08-01361 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, FAHEY, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

JERMAINE JENNINGS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (PHILIP ROTHSCHILD OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JAMES P. MAXWELL

OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County

(John J. Brunetti, A.J.), rendered March 31, 2008. The judgment

convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first

degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Entered: September 30, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court