alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
10693.

#### HARRISON *v.*JOINER.

Bkoyles, O. J.

1. The bill of exceptions in this case not only contains an exception to the disallowance of an amendment to the defendant’s plea, but also contains an exception to the final judgment rendered in the case. Therefore, there is no merit in the motion of the defendant in error to dismiss the bill of exceptions on the ground that the plaintiff in "error can not bring a direct bill of exceptions complaining of the disallowance of an amendment to the defendant’s plea.

2. Where a plea of res adjudicata could have been filed at the appearance term of the case, it is too late to file it at the trial term. *Merritt*v. *Bagwell,*70 *Ga.*578*(3-a),*585.

*(a)*The instant case was returnable to the February term, 1917, of the *579trial court; the original answer of the defendant was filed February 6, 1917, and the amendment to the answer, which set up a plea of res adjudicata, was tendered June 6, 1919, at the trial term. In this amendment ¿t appeared that the judgment relied on as a bar to the plaintiff’s cause of action was rendered on December 7, 1916. It therefore clearly appears on the face of the amendment itself that the plea of res adjudicata could have been filed at the appearance term of the court, to wit, in February, 1917. It follows that the court did not err in disallowing this amendment.

Decided December 10, 1919.

Complaint; from city court of Dublin—Ira S. Chappell, judge pro hac vice. June 6, 1919.

*Larsen & OrocJcett,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. S. Adams,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bloodworth, J., concurs. Lulce, J., dissents.*

Luke, J.,

dissenting. All dilatory pleas must be filéd at the first term of the court. Civil Code (1910), §5641. Dilatory pleas are those which do not answer the general right of the plaintiff, either by denial or in confession and avoidance, but only assert matter tending to defeat the particular action by resisting the plaintiff’s present right of recovery. Such a plea is a step which, if taken, is but preliminary to the substantial defense to the action, and in no way affects the legal right of the plaintiff to recover, save by suspending it, if such plea should prevail, so far as +he present action is concerned. The plea of res adjudicata, therefore, does not merely go to resisting the plaintiff’s right of recovery so far as the present action is concerned, but if sustained is conclusive that he can not recover at all as to the matters which have been previously adjudicated. See *Walden*v. *Walden,*128 *Ga.*126-130, 131 (6) (57 S. E. 323).

In this case the plea of the defendant was not, in my opinion, filed at a time when it was by law too late as a defense. The court erred in striking tin plea, upon the ground of the objection thereto, and in thereafter rendering judgment against the defendant.
10111.

#### Pendley *v.*Paga Mining Company.

Decided August 7, 1919.

Action for damages; from Bartow superior court—Judge Tarver. July 19, 1918.

*Colquitt & Conyers, A. W. Fite,*for plaintiff.

*Neel & Neel,*for defendant.

Bloodwokth, J.

The nonsuit in this case was properly granted.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARLOS HUMBERTO DEPAZ FRANCO,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 18

- 72024

Agency No. A071

- 585

- 624

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 7, 2020 * *

Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Carlos Humberto Depaz Franco, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his

motion to reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel.

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. W e review for abuse of discretion the

denial of a motion to reopen. Martinez

- Hernandez v. Holder , 778 F.3d 1086, 1088

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Cir cuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 13 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

(9th Cir. 2015)

. We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying De p az Franco’s untimely

motion to reopen for failing to demonstrate he acted with the due diligence

required for equitable tolling. See 8 U.S.C. § 1 229a(c)(7)(C)(i) ; see also Avagyan

v. Holder , 646 F.3d 672 , 679 (9 th Cir. 2011) (due diligence requires that petitioner

took reasonable steps to investigate prior counsel’s suspected error, or, if petitioner

wa s ignorant of counsel’s shortcomings, made reasonable efforts to pursue relief).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### John Knapka *v.*Christian Linck.

Pleading — Legal Conclusion.

Where the cross-petition alleges that the plaintiff is indebted to defendant in the sum of $65 for a cow sold and delivered to plaintiff, a reply merely denying that plaintiff is indebted to defendant in the sum of $65 or in any sum for a cow sold and delivered to her at the the price stated or at any other price, is a mere conclusion of laiw, and insufficient.

Pleading — Variance.

There can be no variance between the 'allegations in a pleading and the proof, unless the pleading contains an allegation of fact, or raises some issue of fact.

APPEAL FFOM PENDLETON CIRCUIT COURT.

December 10, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

The circuit court committed no error, either in instructing the jury or in admitting or excluding testimony. Appellant, by his cross-petition, charges directly that appellee is indebted to him in the sum1 of sixty-five dollars for one cow sold and delivered at that price. To this paragraph there is no sufficient reply; appellee merely denies that he is indebted to appellant in the sum- of sixty-five dollars, or in any other sum for a cow sold and delivered to him at the price stated or any other price.

He in effect pleads a conclusion of law. He does not deny that the cow was sold and delivered to him at the agreed price of sixty-five dollars; nor does he allege that he has paid or otherwise extinguished the debt.

This court has repeatedly held that such a plea raises no issue and is entitled to no consideration. *(Haggard v. Hay,*13 B. Monroe 175).•

Nor can the judgment be upheld under the provisions 156 section of the civil code, because proof was heard conducing to show that the cow had been paid for. There can be no variance between the allegation in a pleading, and the proof, unless the pleading contains an allegation of fact, or raises some issue of fact. This plead*79ing does neither. Appellant was called upon to prove nothing, and could not be required under it to rebut, explain or contradict any proof that might be offered.

*Lee, for appellant.*

*Perrin, for appellee.*

He had the right to take his claim! for the cow for confessed even after verdict against him.

Wherefore the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial consistent with this opinion.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

SHAUN N. GABOR, 

Plaintiff,

v.

GENERAL REVENUE 

CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:20-cv-05085

Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr.

Honorable Sunil R. Harjani

Magistrate Judge

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

Plaintiff, SHAUN N. GABOR, hereby notifies the Court that Plaintiff and Defendant, 

GENERAL REVENUE CORPORATION, have reached settlement, and are in process of 

completing the settlement agreement and filing a stipulation of dismissal. The parties request 

that the Court retain jurisdiction for any matter relating to completing the settlement 

agreement and/or enforcing the settlement agreement. 

DATED: September 21, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

SHAUN N. GABOR

By: /s/ Joseph S. Davidson

Joseph S. Davidson

LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH P. DOYLE LLC

105 South Roselle Road

Suite 203

Schaumburg, Illinois 60193

+1 847-985-1100

jdavidson@fightbills.com

Case: 1:20-cv-05085 Document #: 6 Filed: 09/21/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:21
<PAGE>
                      THE MIDLAND COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
                  EXHIBIT (21) - SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
                                DECEMBER 31, 2001


     The subsidiaries of the Registrant as of December 31, 2001, all of which
are included in the consolidated financial statements, are as follows:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                                          PERCENTAGE
                                                                                     STATE OF             OF VOTING
                                                                                   INCORPORATION         STOCK OWNED
                                                                                 ------------------    -----------------
<S>                                                                                    <C>               <C>
M/G Transport Services, Inc.                                                           Ohio                  100
Midland - Guardian Co.                                                                 Ohio                  100
MGT Services, Inc.                                                                     Ohio                  100

SUBSIDIARIES OF MIDLAND - GUARDIAN CO.:
American Modern Insurance Group, Inc.                                                  Ohio                  100

SUBSIDIARIES OF AMERICAN MODERN INSURANCE GROUP, INC.:
American Modern Home Insurance Company                                                 Ohio                  100
American Family Home Insurance Company                                                Florida                100
American Modern Life Insurance Company                                                 Ohio                  100
Lloyds Modern Corporation                                                              Texas                 100
American Modern Home Service Company                                                   Ohio                  100

SUBSIDIARIES OF AMERICAN MODERN HOME INSURANCE CO.:
American Modern Lloyds Insurance Company                                               Texas                 100
American Southern Home Insurance Company                                              Florida                100
American Western Home Insurance Company                                              Oklahoma                100
G.U.I.C. Insurance Company                                                             Ohio                  100

</TABLE>

     The name of 15 wholly - owned subsidiaries of The Midland Company are not
shown above as such individual listing is not required.
10686.

#### Smith *v.*Roddenbery Hardware Company.

Smith, J.

The plaintiff’s petition shows that he entered into a written contract with the defendant, pursuant to which he deposited $150, for the “right of exclusive sale of Grant Motor Cars in Thomas County,” the deposit to be refunded on his sale of four ears. In this action he sought to recover the deposit. The sale of the four cars was a condition precedent to his recovery of the deposit; and it not appearing from the petition that he complied with this condition, or that he had *307any valid reason for non-compliance, or that the defendant had in any way breached the contract, no cause of action was set forth, and the trial court properly dismissed the petition on demurrer. See *Griswold*v. *Scott,*13 *Ga.*210 (2); *Kimbrough*v. *Worrill,*38 *Ga.*119; *Baker v. Tillman,*84 *Ga.*401 (11 S. E. 355); *Life Insurance Company of Virginia*v. *Proctor,*18 *Ga. App.*517 (89 S. E. 1088).

Decided October 20, 1919.

Complaint; from city court of Cairo—Judge Bigsby. May 26, 1919.

*Titus, Dehle & Hophins,*for plaintiff.

*M. L. Ledford,*for defendant.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*
. T . 

_________

United States Department of Com

National Institute of Standards and Technolo

Certificate of Metrological Traceability For: 

Hawaii 

This laboratory has demonstrated evidence of an unbroken chain of metrological traceability of its standards to the international system of units (SI), documented measurement uncertainties, uses documented measurement procedures, successfully 

completed training and proficiency tests, documented calibration intervals, submitted a quality management system, anddemonstrated suitable measurement assurance for the Scope listed on this certificate. The Office of Weights and Measures Program assesses laboratories to NIST Handbook 143 - Program Handbook for State Weights and Measures Laboratories and ISO/IEC 17025:2017. 

Scope 

Mass Echelon I Mass Echelon III Volume Transfer, II 1 kg to 1 mg 500 kg 1000 gal to 5 gal 2 lb to 0.001 lb 30 kg to 1 mg Time 8 oz to 0.03125 oz 1000 lb to 0.001 lb Stopwatches 

8 oz to 0.03125 oz Mass Echelon II  24 hr Katrice Lip

20 kg to 1 mg Volume Gravimetric, I NIST Office 1000 lb to 500 lb 2 L to 100 mL 50 lb to 3 lb 25 gal to 2 fl oz Effective Da

2

(Rev.: September 2021)
11032.

#### Motes *v.*Phillips *et al.*

Decided February 10, 1920.

Action for deceit; from Bartow superior court—Judge Tarver. September 37, 1919.

*M. B. Eubanks,*for plaintiff.

*Neel, Finley & Neel,*for defendants.

Smith, .J.

There being evidence to authorize the verdict returned, which has the approval of the trial judge, his judgment overruling the motion for a new trial based solely on the ground that the verdict is without evidence to sustain it cannot be interfered with.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenlcins, P. J., and Stephens, J., eoneur.*
10278.

#### Gates *v.*State of Georgia.

Decided January 29, 1920.

Condemnation; from city court of LaGrange—Judge Moon. December 11, 1918.

*Jones & Greer,*for plaintiff in error.

*L. L. Meadors, solicitor,*contra.

Luke, J.

1. “A draft animal with its harness, hitched to and being used to draw a buggy in which liquors are being conveyed, constitutes a part of the conveyance, so as to subject the animal and harness to seizure and condemnation under section 20 of the act of the General Assembly approved March 28, 1917 (Acts Ex. Sess. 1917, pp. 7, 16), providing for the seizure and condemnation of vehicles and conveyances conveying prohibited liquors.” 149 *Ga.*472 (101 S. E. 769).

(a) In response to a question certified by this court the Supreme Court rendered the foregoing decision, which was transmitted to this court on January 26, 1920.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, G. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
128565 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 128565 COA: 251712 Midland CC: 99-009315-FC MICHAEL WESLEY BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to ap peal the March 15, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p1024 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2005

Clerk
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Anthony E. Applebaum, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Mera Pharmaceuticals, 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 Company's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)

presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.

The Company's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the Company's auditors and the audit committee of Company's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)

all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the Companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the Company's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal controls; and

6.

The Company's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|Date:  Sept. 5, 2008                      
|                                          
|/s/ANTHONY E. APPLEBAUM                   
|Anthony E. Applebaum                      
|Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
December 9, 2010 

Scott Cooper 

Vice President, Government Relations and Public Policy 

American National Standards Institute 

Dear Mr. Cooper: 

In response to the Federal Register Notice requesting comment on the effectiveness of Federal Agency Participation in 

Standardization, the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IES) is providing the following response. 

Federal agencies’ participation in the development of standards is extremely important to IES in two specific ways. 

Communicating information from agencies on government initiatives and programs affords developers the opportunity to 

contribute technical input to these programs. In addition, participation of government agency personnel on developer’s standards 

committees provides a welcome and necessary perspective to these consensus bodies. 

In the area of new technology initiatives, the US DOE approached a network of standards developers to assist in its commitment 

to advance the development and market penetration of its solid state lighting (SSL) program, which encourages the use of energy

efficient white light sources. IES, a recognized developer of light source testing procedures, was asked to provide the industry 

with SSL testing methods to insure uniformity and consistency of industry product performance reporting. IES has developed 

two test methods to date for measuring photometric and lumen depreciation performance of these source types. Two additional 

test methods are underway. For this program activity DOE identified the need and IES responded. 

In addition DOE supported the contribution of a Pacific Northwest National Lab employee in the development of an IES guide to 

understanding the SSL technology and its application. The end resulting document has been approved by IES and is in the 

developer’s bookstore. 

In the work of other committees, IES enjoys the support of various federal agency employees as subject matter expert members 

of technical committees in the development of standards and guidelines used by engineers, architects, designers, and building 

owners and operators. Specific committees with agency representation include: Roadway Lighting (US DOT/FHWA); Energy 

Management (DOE/PNNL and NREL); Research (DOE/LBL); Photobiology (US Army, US Food and Drug Admin., and NIST); 

and Testing Procedures (EPA and NIST). 

IES as an ANSI accredited standards developer has a policy of openness for committee membership. The standards produced 

by these committees are led by the developer with or without an agency initiative, but in many cases, as a result of agency staff 

participation, a two way benefit may result. The standard content may include the answer to a specific agency need and/or the 

resulting document may become a useful agency reference. (IES documents are referenced in the National Voluntary Lab 

Accreditation Program (NVLAP).) 

We appreciate the opportunity to submit comments and would be pleased to provide any additional input if requested. 

Sincerely, 

Rita M. Harrold 

Director of Technology
10413.

#### Harvey *v.*Boyd *et al.*

Decided December 10, 1919.

Complaint; from city court of Floyd county—Judge Nunnally— February 35, 1919.

*M. B. Eubanhs,*for plaintiff in error.

*Nathan Harris, L. H. Covington,*contra.

Luke, J.

This case is controlled by the decision this day rendered in *Harvey*v. *Boyd,*ante, 561.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bloodworth, J., concurs; Broyles, O. J., dissents.*
Exhibit 11

                     Golden American Life Insurance Company
                 Computation of Earnings Per Share (unaudited)
                     (in thousands, except per share data)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     Quarter Ended September 30                Nine Months Ended September 30
                                                     --------------------------                ------------------------------
                                                     1995                  1994                1995                      1994
                                                     ----                  ----                ----                      ----
<S>                                                 <C>                    <C>                  <C>                      <C>
Net Income                                         $1,065                $ 559                 $2,176                  $1,496

Weighted average number of shares
  outstanding during the period                       250                  250                    250                     250
                                                    -----                -----                  -----                   -----
Earnings Per Share                                  $4.26                $2.24                  $8.70                   $5.98
                                                    =====                =====                  =====                   =====

</TABLE>