alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### J. C. Grigsby's Ex'r *v. D.*P. Ratecan.

Malicious Prosecution — Abuse of Leg,al Process — Pleading.

In. an action for abusing the legal process of the law in order to . legally compel a party to do a collateral thing, such as to give up 'his property, or to take his property under color of legal process, it is not necessary to allege and prove that the proceedings under • which the property of plaintiff was seized 'had- been terminated, nor that he was sued without probable cause.

Malicious Prosecution — Abuse of Legal Process.

It is an abuse of the legal process of the law to have goods seized under a distress warrant for rent not .reserved in money.

APPEAL FROM BULLITT CIRCUIT COURT.

December 29, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

' In an action for a malicious prosecution the plaintiff, must show, in order to maintain the action, that the prosecution is at an end; but where the action (as in this case) is for abusing the *171process of the law, in order illegally to compel a party to do a collateral thing, such as to give up his property, or to take his property under color of legal process, it is not necessary to allege and prove that the proceedings under which the property of the plaintiff was seized, was at an end, nor that they were sued without probable cause. 2 Greenleaf 452.

*Lee Rodman, for appellant.*

*A. H. Field, for appellee.*

A slight examination of the petition in this case is quite sufficient to show that this is an action against appellant for suing out a distress warrant against appellee and thereby causing his property to be taken, when according to the facts stated in the warrant he had resorted to a remedy which the law did not authorize for the rent claimed to be unpaid as charged in the warrant was due and payable in “work” when it is expressly declared by the statute that rent reserved in money may be recovered by distress. Sec. 1, Article 2, Chapter 56, 2d Vol. R., page 92; and Sec. 4 of said article and chapter provides how a landlord whose rent is reserved in money after it is due may obtain a distress warrant, but where it is not reserved in money the remedy is by an' action in contradistinction to distress. It was therefore an abuse of the process of the law to have the goods of appellant seized under the form' of a distress warrant for rent not reserved in money.

Nor is that the only objection to the proceedings. The term of appellee did not expire till March, 1871, by the stipulations of his contract, or rather he had the whole year to repair the fencing, and the warrant was sued out three months before the lease ended.

Upon the subject of the instructions it is sufficient to say that after a careful examination of all of them, and they are numerous, we are satisfied that those which were given by the court presented the law quite as favorably for appellant as he had a right to ask them.

And, perceiving no error in the proceedings, the judgment must be *affirmed.*
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      Exhibit 5

                       B A S S, B E R R Y & S I M S P L C
                    A PROFESSIONAL LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
                                ATTORNEYS AT LAW

2700 FIRST AMERICAN CENTER                       1700 RIVERVIEW TOWER
NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37238-2700                  POST OFFICE BOX 1509
TELEPHONE (615) 742-6200                         KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE 37901-1509
TELECOPIER (615) 742-6293                        TELEPHONE (423) 521-6200
                                                 TELECOPIER (423) 521-6234


                                  May 18, 1998



Regal Cinemas, Inc.
7132 Commercial Park Drive
Knoxville, TN 37918

         Re:  REGISTRATION STATEMENT ON FORM S-8

Ladies and Gentlemen:

         We have acted as your counsel in the preparation of a Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (the "Registration Statement") relating to the Company's
Participant Stock Option Plan, Employee Stock Option Plan, 1993 Employee Stock
Incentive Plan, and 1998 Stock Purchase and Option Plan for Key Employees (the
"Plans") filed by you with the Securities and Exchange Commission covering
30,000,000 shares (the "Shares") of common stock, no par value, issuable
pursuant to the Plans.

         In so acting, we have examined and relied upon such records, documents,
and other instruments as in our judgment are necessary or appropriate in order
to express the opinions hereinafter set forth and have assumed the genuineness
of all signatures, the authenticity of all documents submitted to us as
originals, and the conforming to original documents of all documents submitted
to us as certified or photostatic copies.

         Based on the foregoing, we are of the opinion that the Shares, when
issued pursuant to and in accordance with the Plans following consummation of
the forthcoming merger between the Company and affiliates of Kohlberg Kravis
Roberts & Co. and Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst Incorporated, and shareholders
approval of the 1998 Plan, will be validly issued, fully paid, and
nonassessable.

         We hereby consent to the use of this opinion as an exhibit to the
Registration Statement.

                                         Very truly yours,

                                         /s/ Bass, Berry & Sims PLC
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                       18 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Anthony E. Applebaum, Chief Executive Officer of Mera Pharmaceuticals,
certify that (1) Mera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year
ended October 31, 2003 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-KSB for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2003 fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations
of Mera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.


                                   /S/ANTHONY E. APPLEBAUM
                                   -----------------------
                                   Anthony E. Applebaum
                                   Principal Financial and Accounting Officer

                                   March 21, 2005


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 32 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 In connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Annual Report of
The Midland Company (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004 (the
Report), John W. Hayden, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and John I. Von Lehman, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of their knowledge:  (1)
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ John W. Hayden
    
    /s/ John I. Von LehmanJohn W. Hayden
    
    John I. Von LehmanPresident and Chief Executive Officer
    
    Executive Vice President,Chief Financial Officer and SecretaryMarch 11, 2005A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to
The Midland Company and will be retained by
The Midland Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
 28
10592.

#### Dean *v.*Merchants *&*Farmers Bank.

Decided November 19, 1919.

Smith, J.

1. Where one purchasing real estate has the opportunity of examining it before buying, but, instead of doing so, voluntarily relies upon the statements of the vendor concerning its character and value, the contract will not be rescinded or set aside, or the purchase-price of the land abated, because of the falsity of such statements, unless some fraud or artifice was practised by the vendor to prevent such examination. This is true even though the vendee in buying the land may have acted upon the misrepresentations of the vendor or his agent. See *Tallent*v. *Crim,*19 *Ga. App.*16 (90 S. E. 742), and numerous cases there cited.

2. Under the foregoing ruling, the court did not err in striking the defendant’s plea, and in thereafter directing a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount sued for.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenhins, P. J., and Stephens, J., eoncwr.*

*476Complaint; from Franklin superior court—Judge W. L. Hodges. March 27,1919.

*Fermor Barrett, W. B. Little,*for plaintiff in error.

*Linton Johnson, Worley Adams, James B. Thomas,*contra.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          20,245
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         282,147
<DEPRECIATION>                                (27,054)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 282,145
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          136,730
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,120
<OTHER-SE>                                     137,001
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   282,145
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,726
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,908
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,663
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,098
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,098
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 21

(21) SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

                                                      STATE OF
NAME                                                INCORPORATION


The Annapolis Banking and Trust Company               Maryland
Baltimore Trust Company                               Delaware
Bank of Southern Maryland                             Maryland
Calvert Bank and Trust Company                        Maryland
The Chestertown Bank of Maryland                      Maryland
The Citizens National Bank                       United States
County Banking & Trust Company                        Maryland
The Eastville Bank                                    Virginia
Farmers & Merchants Bank - Eastern Shore              Virginia
The Fidelity Bank                                     Maryland
The First National Bank of St. Mary's            United States
The Forest Hill State Bank                            Maryland
Fredericktown Bank & Trust Company                    Maryland
MBC Agency, Inc.                                      Maryland
  Mercantile Life Insurance Company                    Arizona
MBC Realty, Inc.                                      Maryland
Mercantile Mortgage Corporation                       Maryland
  Benchmark Appraisal Group, Inc.                     Maryland
Mercantile-Safe Deposit and Trust Company             Maryland
  Mercantile Pennsylvania Corporation                 Maryland
  Hopkins Plaza Agency, Inc.                          Maryland
The National Bank of Fredericksburg              United States
Peninsula Bank                                        Maryland
The Peoples Bank of Maryland                          Maryland
Potomac Valley Bank                                   Maryland
The Sparks State Bank                                 Maryland
St. Michaels Bank                                     Maryland
Westminster Bank and Trust Company of
  Carroll County                                      Maryland

Each of the foregoing subsidiaries conducts business under its
corporate name.
<TABLE>

                                EXHIBIT 12
                             MID-PLAINS, INC.


Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

                    Year Ended December 31,              
                    1996       1995        1994       1993       1992     
<S>                 <C>        <C>         <C>        <C>        <C>         
In Thousands:
 
Net Income          $1,660     $3,425      $2,889     $2,882     $2,680
Income Tax
  Expense            2,139      2,109       1,715      1,551      1,562
Interest Charges     1,177        957         896        955      1,004 

  Total Earnings     4,976     $6,491      $5,500     $5,388     $5,246
Interest 
  Expense            1,177        957         896        955      1,004
Ratio of Earnings
  To Interest
  Expense            4.23        6.78        6.14       5.64       5.23
</TABLE>
#### State *v.*Andrews.

Opinion delivered February 11, 1929.

*Hal L. Norwood,*Attorney General, and *Boyd Gypert,*for appellant.

Humphreys, J.

The declared purpose of this appeal is to obtain a construction of 10313-14 of Crawford & Moses’ Digest, being a part of the “Trade Union Label Act,” under which appellee was charged with counterfeiting and imitating the Little Bock Printing Trades Council Union label.

Appellant contends that the trial court misinterpreted the seotionsi of the statute in question. For aught that appears in the record, the trial court may have interpreted the statutes just as appellant contends they should be interpreted. Upon a trial of the cause the trial court found appellant was not guilty as charged, and acquitted him. The testimony was conflicting as to whether the *1130label used 'by appellee was a counterfeit or imitation of the Little Rock Printing Trades Council label, therefore the court may have found, under his construction of the evidence, that appellee was innocent, even though the law meant just what appellant contends it means.

According to the record, no interpretation of the statutes was requested and no declaration as to their meaning was announced by the court. In other words, the icourt made no declaration of law at all which is incorporated in the record. He sat as. a jury in the case, and rendered a general verdict of not guilty. This court cannot presume that he rendered a general verdict under a misinterpretation of the statutes. Since the court might have acquitted appellee on a finding in his favor on the disputed questions of fact, and could have done so under a correct construction of the statutes, it would be an act of supererogation for this court to construe statutes which the trial court did not erroneously construe. As we read the record, the question presented for determination is moot.

No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
Exhibit 1 to Item 8(c):


May 22, 1998



Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street NW
Washington, DC  20549

Gentlemen:

We have read Item 4 of Form 8-K of United States Exploration, Inc. with the
date of May 19, 1998 and are in agreement with the statements contained in
paragraphs 2 and 3 of such item on page 2 therein.  We have no basis to agree
or disagree with other statements of the registrant contained therein.


/s/ Grant Thornton

GRANT THORNTON, LLP
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN ITS QUARTERLY
REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<CIK>  0001040441
<NAME> BEVERLY ENTERPRISES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          64,136
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  571,051<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                    26,436<F2>
<INVENTORY>                                     56,661
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               721,237
<PP&E>                                       1,918,456
<DEPRECIATION>                                 655,785
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,582,398
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          393,921
<BONDS>                                      1,119,865
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,460
<OTHER-SE>                                     870,867
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,582,398
<SALES>                                        816,716
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               820,281
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  739,712
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                27,081
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F3>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,716
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 30,772
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,309
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             18,463
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,463
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .18
<FN>
<F1>Excludes $34,349 of long-term notes receivable.
<F2>Excludes $5,143 of allowance for doubtful long-term notes receivable.
<F3>Included in Total costs and expenses line.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31
                                  ----------


                                 CERTIFICATION
                                 -------------


         I, Steve Bailey, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports
         on Form 8-K containing distribution and servicing reports filed in
         respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual
         report, of CWALT, Inc., Alternative Loan Trust 2004-7T1;

         2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as
         a whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this
         annual report;

         3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
         required to be provided to the trustee by the master servicer under
         the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in
         these reports is included in these reports;

         4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
         master servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar,
         agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance
         review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the
         reports, the master servicer has fulfilled its obligations under that
         agreement; and

         5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
         master servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards
         based upon the report provided by an independent public accountant,
         after conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single
         Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set
         forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, that is
         included in these reports.

         In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
         information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The
         Bank of New York, as Trustee.


         Date: March 29, 2005


                                       /s/ Steve Bailey
                                       ----------------
                                       Steve Bailey
                                       Senior Managing Director
10616.

#### Broxton *et al. v.*The State.

Decided June 14, 1919.

Motion to change venue; from Ware superior court—Judge Summerall. May 13, 1919.

*Dickerson & Kelley, Parker & Parker,*for plaintiff in error.

*A. B. Spence, solicitor-general,*contra.

Stephens, J.

1. While it is mandatory upon the judge to whom a petition for a change of venue is presented in behalf of a defendant in a criminal case, under the act approved August 21, 1911 (Acts of 1911, p. 76), to change the venue if the evidence submitted should reasonably show that there is a “probability or danger of lynching or other violence,” it is primarily a question for the judge, upon the hearing of such petition, to determine from the evidence whether or not such probability or danger of lynching or other violence exists; and where the evidence upon such issue conflicts, the judgment denying the defendant’s motion to change the venue will not be reversed, unless manifestly erroneous. Where the evidence fails to reasonably show the probability or danger of lynching or other violence, it is not error on the part of the judge to refuse to change the venue. See *Wilburn*v. *State,*140 *Ga.*138 (78 S. E. 819) ; *Shepherd*v. *State,*141 *Ga.*527 (81 S. E. 441) ; *Graham*v. *State,*141 *Ga.*812, 818 (82 S. E. 282); *Nice*v. *State,*22 *Ga. App.*136 (95 S. E. 534).

2. Evidence that the defendant would receive a fair and impartial trial in the county wherein the alleged crime was committed was relevant, to throw light upon the state of the public mind and the consequent probability or danger of lynching or other violence.

3. The judge did not err in refusing to change the venue.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworih, J., concur.*
As a founding member of ASTM Committee F04 for Surgical implants, and later

Chairman, I cannot speak highly enough of the value and effectiveness of the

participation of the FDA in the development of standards.  

Patrick G Laing MD