alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 21

                                MAXXAM INC.

                  PRINCIPAL SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

          Listed below are MAXXAM Inc.'s principal subsidiaries and the
jurisdiction of their incorporation or organization.  Certain subsidiaries
are omitted which, considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary,
would not constitute a significant subsidiary.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                       State or
                                                     Province of
                                                    Incorporation
                                                          or
                       Name                         Organization
--------------------------------------------------  -------------

<S>                                                 <C>
ALUMINUM OPERATIONS
     Alpart Jamaica Inc.                            Delaware
     Alumina Partners of Jamaica (partnership)      Delaware
     Anglesey Aluminium Limited                     United
                                                    Kingdom
     Kaiser Alumina Australia Corporation           Delaware
     Kaiser Aluminum Corporation                    Delaware
     Kaiser Aluminium International, Inc.           Delaware
     Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation         Delaware
     Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical of Canada Limited   Ontario
     Kaiser Bauxite Company                         Nevada
     Kaiser Finance Corporation                     Delaware
     Kaiser Jamaica Bauxite Company (partnership)   Jamaica
     Kaiser Jamaica Corporation                     Delaware
     Queensland Alumina Limited                     Queensland
     Volta Aluminium Company Limited                Ghana
FOREST PRODUCTS OPERATIONS
     Britt Lumber Co., Inc.                         California
     MAXXAM Group Inc.                              Delaware
     MAXXAM Properties Inc.                         Delaware
     Salmon Creek Corporation                       Delaware
     Scotia Pacific Holding Company                 Delaware
     The Pacific Lumber Company                     Delaware
REAL ESTATE OPERATIONS
     Horizon Corporation                            Delaware
     MAXXAM Property Company                        Delaware
     MCO Properties Inc.                            Delaware
     MCO Properties L.P. (limited partnership)      Delaware
     MXM General Partner, Inc.                      Delaware
     MXM Mortgage L.P. (limited partnership)        Delaware
     Palmas del Mar Properties, Inc.                Delaware
RACE PARK OPERATIONS
     New SHRP Acquisition, Inc.                     Delaware
     SHRP General Partner, Inc.                     Texas
     Sam Houston Entertainment Corp.                Texas
     Sam Houston Race Park, Ltd. (limited
          partnership)                              Texas
OTHER
     MAXXAM Group Holdings Inc.                     Delaware



</TABLE>
#### Louisville, Cin. & Lex. R. Co. *v.*Edw. E. Stolle, etc.

Railroads — Turntables.

A railroad company was .held not negligent in locating its turntable on its property away from the traveled passway, nor in failing to enclose or lock it.

Railroads — Turntable—Proximate Cause of Injury.

The proximate cause of injury of a boy at a turntable was held not to be the failure of the railroad company to enclose or lock the turntable', but to be the trespass of himself and companions of the injured boy, for which trespass the railroad company is not liable.

APPEAL FROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT.

September 6, 1873.

*71*M. J. Dudley, for appellant.*

*Lindsey, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

It appears from appellee’s testimony that the turntable upon or at which young Stolle was injured was located upon the grounds of the company. That it was not immediately upon a street or other line of travel, and that it could be reached only by leaving the ordinary pass ways and passing over the grounds of appellants. It appears also that the table, was stationary and that it required the strength of one man, or the united strength of from two to four boys to move it. Also that the injury was the result of the table being turned or moved by the companions of young Stolle, and that except for the fact of its being so moved the injury would not have occurred. There is no evidence tending to show that the company, in the construction of this table, located as it is upon its own private ground, and away from the traveled pass ways of the city, did not use such precautions as it could reasonably be expected to use under the circumstances. It seems clear to our minds that it did all that a reasonably prudent and honest man would have done under like circumstances, and hence that it was not guilty of culpable negligence. Besides this, the failure of the company, to enclose the table or to fasten it so that it could not be moved, was not the proximate cause of the injury complained of. Young Stolle alone could not have moved the table, and except for the fact that he was accompanied by the boys who united their strength to move it, he would not have been hurt. The proximate cause of the injury was the trespass of his companions, and for the consequences of this trespass the company can not be held responsible. The tests of liability in cases like this are well stated by Shearman & Redfield in Sec. 505 of their work on Negligence. Applying these tests to appellee’s proof, it is clear that no. recovery against the company ought to have been had, and hence we are of opinion that the circuit court erred in refusing to give the peremptory instruction to find for appellant at the time it was asked. For which error the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
<PAGE>   1

   
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.13
    


                         [HOGAN & SLOVACEK LETTERHEAD]






                          INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT





   
         We consent to the use of our report dated July 17, 1998, with respect
to the financial statements of Summit Environmental Corporation, Inc. included
in two Registration Statements (Amendment No. 3 to Form SB-2 and Amendment No. 3
to Form S-4) of Summit Environmental Corporation, Inc.
    


                                              /S/ HOGAN & SLOVACEK



   
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
September 3, 1998
    



   
                                                                   Exhibit 23.13
                                                                Page 1 of 1 Page
#### Jonathan E. Ingersoll v. Jonathan W. Harrison.

*Imane wards can be personally served, with summom.*

An insane person under guardianship continues liable to suit and to the personal service of summons.

Error to Wayne.

Submitted April 7.

Decided April 25.

Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error.

Beversed.

*Wilkinson, Post & Wilhmson*for appellant.

A court can protect a lunatic’s interests by appointing a guardian *ad litem: Johnson v. Pomeroy*31 Ohio St. 247; *Gerster v. Hilbert*38 Wis. 612; *Sturges v. Longworth*1 Ohio St. 554; lunatics can employ attorneys: Bac. Ab. tit. “ Ideots and Lunaticks; ” *Stigers v. Brent*50 Md. 214; and can be *235arrested on *capias*like sane persons: *Kernot v. Norman*2 Term 390; *Nutt v. Verney*4 Term 121; *Steel v. Alan*2 B. & P. 362; *Exp. Leighton*14 Mass. 206; courts treat actions in which they are parties like other cases: *Hines v. Potts*56 Miss. 346; *Holmes v. Service*15 C. B. 293; *Anon.*13 Ves. 590; *Johnson v. Pomeroy*31 Ohio St. 247; *Blake v. Cooper*11 C. B. 679.

*Moore db Moore*for appellee.

Grates, C. J.

The plaintiff sued defendant by summons personally served, whereupon Sarah J. Harrison, appearing as defendant’s guardian, joined with him in pleading in abatement of the service that at the time of its occurrence he was under guardianship as an insane person. The plaintiff demurred, but the court sustained the plea and quashed both service and process.

The sole question raised is whether the existence of the guardianship took away the defendant’s legal capacity to be served with the summons, and we think it did not. He continued liable to suits and liable to notification of their institution. *Sternbergh v. Schoolcraft*2 Barb. 153, and authorities cited; *Crippen v. Culver*13 Barb. 424. See, also, *Bush v. Pettibone*4 Comst. 300; *Ibbotson v. Lord Galway*6 Term 133; *Cock v. Bell*13 East 355.

The judgment is reversed with costs and the plaintiff will have judgment on the demurrer, that the plea is overruled, and the cause will be remanded to be proceeded in according to law.

The other Justices concurred.
EXHIBIT 4.29


 


Executive director appointment
letter – Mr Michael J Ullmer


 


The Executive director appointment letter of Mr Michael J Ullmer is
incorporated by reference to National Australia Bank Limited’s Annual Report on
Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Commission on January 20, 2005
10947.

#### Hodges *et al. v.*Thompson *et al.*

Decided March 2, 1920.

Action for damages; from city court of Monroe—Judge Stone. September 18, 1919.

*B. L. & H. C. Cox,*for plaintiffs in error.

*B. W. Fortson,*contra.

Bloodwobth, J.

1. The only special ground of the motion for a new trial complains of the refusal of the court to give to the jury a certain requested charge. “In order that this court may consider an exception to the judge’s refusal to give a request to charge, it must appear not only that it was in writing, but also that it was tendered to the court before the jury retired ‘to consider their verdict.’ ” *Shirley*v. *State,*5 *Ga. App.*611 (2) (63 S. E. 583); Penal Code (1910), § 1087. It does not so appear in this ground.

2. No error of law appearing, this court will not disturb a verdict where there is evidence to support it, as there is in this case, and where it is approved by the trial judge.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Lulce, J., concur.*
1

NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION SAFETY TEAM ADVISORY COMMITTEE (NCSTAC) MEETING

October 19, 2022

AGENDA

MEETING GOALS:

● Review Disaster and Failure Studies Program Scoring of Events and Readiness of Teams,

● Review the status of the NCST investigation of Hurricane Maria’s effects on Puerto Rico,

● Review the status of the NCST investigation of the partial collapse of Champlain Towers South in 

Surfside, Florida, and

● Develop the Committee’s annual report to Congress.

October 18, 2022

Time (ET) Topic Discussion Leader

Opening Remarks

9:30 am – 9:35 am Call to Order

Roll Call 

Ben Davis

Management and Program Analyst, 

Disaster & Failure Studies Program

& NCST Designated Federal Officer

NIST

9:35 am – 9:45 am Welcome

Opening Remarks 

Laurie Locascio

NIST Director

9:45 am – 10:00 am Meeting Goals

Review of Agenda

Introduction of New Committee 

Members

Ross Corotis

NCSTAC Chairperson

Professor Emeritus

University of Colorado Boulder

Disaster and Failure Studies Program Updates

10:00 am – 10:30 am

Disaster and Failure Studies Program 

Updates

Tanya Brown-Giammanco

Director of Disaster & Failure Studies

NIST

10:30 am – 10:45 am Committee Discussion of the Disaster 

and Failure Studies Program Updates

Ross Corotis

Hurricane Maria Program Update

10:45 am – 11:10 am Hurricane Maria Program Update Joseph Main

Team Lead, Hurricane Maria NCST

NIST

Maria Dillard

Associate Team Lead, Hurricane Maria 

NCST

NIST

11:10 am – 11:25 am Committee Discussion of the Hurricane 

Maria Program Update

Ross Corotis

11:25 am – 11:35 am BREAK Ben Davis

Champlain Towers South NCST Update
2

11:35 am – 12:05 pm Champlain Towers South NCST 

Investigation Update

Judy Mitrani-Reiser

Team Lead, Champlain Towers South 

NCST

NIST

Glenn Bell

Associate Team Lead, Champlain 

Towers South NCST

NIST

12:05 pm – 12:25 pm Committee Discussion of the Champlain 

Towers South NCST Investigation Update 

Ross Corotis

Closing Business

12:25 pm - 12:35 pm Summary Remarks Joannie Chin

Director, Engineering Laboratory 

NIST

12:35 pm – 1:00 pm Public Comment Period Ben Davis

1:00 pm – 1:45 pm LUNCH BREAK Ben Davis

1:45 pm – 5:00 pm NCSTAC Preparation of Annual Report to 

Congress

Ross Corotis

5:00 pm ADJOURN Ben Davis
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DEVORIS NEWSON,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-23-00259-CR

Appeal from the

120th Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20110D01149)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court on its own motion to determine whether it should be 

dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Because there is no appealable order, we dismiss the appeal for 

want of jurisdiction.

Appellate court jurisdiction is authorized by statute. See Galitz v. State, 617 S.W.2d 949, 

951 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (en banc). In the absence of an authorizing statute, appellate courts 

are without jurisdiction to consider an appeal. In the criminal context, the Texas Legislature has 

authorized appeals from final, written judgments and certain specific interlocutory orders. See 

Gutierrez v. State, 307 S.W. 3d 318, 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). Appellant’s pro se notice of 

appeal does not specify the order he is attempting to appeal, and the docketing certificate from the 

120th Judicial District Court does not indicate that there is an appealable order in this case. 
On September 26, 2023, the clerk of this Court sent Appellant a letter notifying him that it 

appeared there was no appealable order at issue in this case. The letter gave notice of our intent to 

dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction, after ten days, unless grounds were shown for the Court 

to continue the appeal. As of the date of this order, no response to the Court’s letter has been 

received. Because there does not appear to be an appealable order, we dismiss the appeal for want 

of jurisdiction. 

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

October 16, 2023

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ. 

(Do Not Publish)
#### Israel Richardson *v.*E. M. Lampton.

Vendor and Purchaser — Sale In Gross.

Where a sale of land does not appear to have been by the aere, but In gross, a deficit of less than five per cent, in the amount of the land, in the absence of fraud, will not authorize the interference of a court of equity.

APPEAL PROM HARDIN CIRCUIT COURT.

October 24, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

The terms of the written memorandum of the contract for the sale of appellant's interest in the tract called the old “Brad*237ley farm” to appellee, and also of the written memorandum of the contract for the sale of the interest of J. W. Snyder in the same farm to F. M. Oldridge, which was assigned by Oldridge to appellee, were both according to’ the established rules of construction, sales' in gross. Nor are the deeds (for there are two deeds executed by Richardson and Snyder to Lampton) susceptible of a different construction. Lampton purchased the two interests at different times and at different prices, and neither the title bonds, nor the deeds executed to Lampton, state that the sales were either of them made by the acre, but in all of said writings the gross seems to' be paid to each vendor as therein recited. In the deed dated November 1, 1866, the quantity of the land is estimated at 211)^ acres, more or less; and in that of February 1, 1867, the quantity is stated to be 206Rj acres, more or less. In the first named deed there is evidently a mistake, one line is omitted, as is proven by ¡Petty, and the court in the judgment undertook to reform and establish it as' the true and proper deed.

*C. G. Wintersmith, for appellant.*

*Montgomery, for appellee.*

Petty wrote both deeds; the first one he wrote from field notes furnished him by Lampton and the second he wrote from field notes furnished by Kenkead, the county surveyor of Hardin county.

The deficit in the quantity claimed by appellee and the true quantity in the tract is just five acres. This deviation from the estimated quantity by appellee is even less than five per cent., which is less than was probably estimated by the parties, and is not such a per cent, as would authorize the interference of a court of equity. There is no evidence of fraud on the part of appellant or Oldridge, either in representing the boundary of the land, or the value of the spring.

The allegations in appellee’s original and amended petition do not authorize the court to reform the deed filed as Exhibit “D”. Wherefore the judgment is reversed and the cause is' remanded with directions to dismiss the petition.
#### LOWERY v. PHILLIPS

No. 150P97

Case below: 125 N.C.App. 743

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 May 1997.
**EXHIBIT 21
LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY**
 **COMPANY NAME**STATE OF INCORPORATION/ORGANIZATION
1.
Mississippi Phosphates Corporation
Delaware
2.
Mississippi Potash, Inc.
Mississippi
3.
Eddy Potash, Inc.
Mississippi
4.
Mississippi Nitrogen, Inc.
Delaware
5.
MissChem Nitrogen, L.L.C.
Delaware
6.
Triad Nitrogen, L.L.C.
Delaware
8.
MCC Investments, Inc.
Delaware
9.
Mississippi Chemical Management Company
Delaware
10.
Mississippi Chemical Company, L.P.
Delaware
11.
Mississippi Chemical Holdings, Inc.
British Virgin Islands
12.
MissChem (Barbados) SRL
Barbados Society With Restricted Liability
13.
MissChem Trinidad Limited
Trinidad********
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                              982,588
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                     2,101,761
<ALLOWANCES>                         36,000
<INVENTORY>                       4,103,680
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  7,573,728
<PP&E>                              995,492
<DEPRECIATION>                      655,150
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    8,584,044
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             2,437,877
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                            175,406
<OTHER-SE>                        5,970,761
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      8,584,044
<SALES>                          18,447,560
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 19,524,499
<CGS>                            13,213,440
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    17,866,790
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  164,254
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   1,529,449
<INCOME-TAX>                        564,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 965,449
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                        965,449
<EPS-BASIC>                                .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                              .13


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-30-1998             MAY-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-31-1997             JUN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-29-1997             NOV-29-1997
<CASH>                                          14,005                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,947,219                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                  4,113,546                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,616,825                       0
<PP&E>                                       1,466,293                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,924,083                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,317,831                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           356                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,924,083                       0
<SALES>                                      4,551,635               8,647,856
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,551,635               8,647,856
<CGS>                                        2,593,446               5,439,653
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                68,345                 191,905
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                459,273                  58,470
<INCOME-TAX>                                   186,965                  14,620
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   272,308                  43,850
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .08                     .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
PMI Complex Test Case 2 - View 1 (of 3)

Includes Atomic Test Cases - 28, 29, 43, 47, 50

 Models - 2012

Rev C

SPECIFIED):

 ALL

ES FROM THE

 OBTAINED

ASIC UNLESS

S TO

ES TO

RANCING.

be placed

on plane

 rotate

0 is to

ort for

anes.

control

note will

e next

nist_ctc_02_asme1_rc
PMI Complex Test Case 2 - View 2 (of 3)

Includes Atomic Test Cases - 26, 31, 41

 Models - 2012

Rev C

Optional:

This perpendicularity tolerance is included

to legitimize specifying datum target K1.

nist_ctc_02_asme1_rc
PMI Complex Test Case 2 - View 3 (of 3)

Includes Atomic Test Cases - 34, 35

 Models - 2012

Rev C

 E,

ed

the

d to

J

rs

nd

ng

 E,

for

y

es,

ule

nist_ctc_02_asme1_rc
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>     0000065312
<NAME>    Metro-Tel
       
<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  6-MOS                        
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                   JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                         828,390         
<SECURITIES>                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                  1,291,090
<ALLOWANCES>                   0
<INVENTORY>                    2,911,158
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               67,238
<PP&E>                         686,260
<DEPRECIATION>                 539,799
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 5,244,337
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          3,084,346
<BONDS>                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>          0
<PREFERRED>                    0             
<COMMON>                       169,750
<OTHER-SE>                     1,773,628
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   0    
<SALES>                        7,747,321
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               7,834,709
<CGS>                          5,712,805      
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  7,554,397     
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>             26,509
<INCOME-PRETAX>                444,193
<INCOME-TAX>                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            444,193
<DISCONTINUED>                 0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                0
<CHANGES>                      0                  
<NET-INCOME>                   444,193
<EPS-PRIMARY>                  .80
<EPS-DILUTED>                  .80
        

</TABLE>