alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### City of Henderson *v.*D. R. Burbank.

Injunction — Usurpation of Authority.

Where the direction of the common council to the marshal is usurpation of power, and if carried -out, would amount to a trespass, a court of equity may enjoin the attempted exercise of such power.

*198Municipal Corporations — Recovery of Possession of Property.

If one is wrongfully in possession of property which belongs to the city, its possession can only be recovered by civil action.

APPEAL FROM HENDERSON CIRCUIT 'COURT.

October 14, 1873.

*James, Yeoman, for appellant.*

*Vance & Merrett, Bv,sh, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

It is unnecessary to determine the legal propositions submitted by counsel on either side. The petition alleges an adverse holding by the appellee, and also* the compromise between the City-of Henderson and himself with reference to the land in controversy many years since, and the actual possession of the property by the ap-pellee at the time and long prior to the settlement. These facts are admitted by the answer and sustained by the proof. Whether or not such a compromise was binding or vested the appellee with title the city had, this court does not decide, nor is it necessary to> determine ■the question as to< the adverse holding. . It is sufficient to say, that the appellee held possession of the property for years at least claiming it as his own and we find no' law authorizing the city council of Henderson to direct or require by its ordinance the town marshal to take property claimed by others and in the actual possession of the claimant. The passage of the ordinance is admitted and that the marshal was directed to' free the streets from the obstructions placed in them by the appellee, such as fences, etc. This action on the part of the city as presented by the pleadings and proof would, if carried into effect by the marshal, have been a trespass upon the appellee’s rights and resulted in a breach of the peace. The appellee had a right to defend his possession with force if necessary and the direction to the marshal to commit such a trespass was a usurpation of power on the part of the council not sanctioned by law, and the attempted exercise of which authorized a Court of Equity to interpose by an injunction. If the property belongs to the city, resort must be had to a civil action in order to recover the possession. The claim must be enforced by law and in no other way. Judgment perpetuating the injunction is affirmed.
Exhibit 23


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


To the Shareholders of
     ALLTEL Corporation:

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report dated February 1, 2000 incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K, into
ALLTEL Corporation's previously filed Registration Statements, File Nos.
333-68243,333-76485, 333-85395, 2-99523, 33-35343, 33-48476, 33-54175,
33-56291, 33-65199, 33-88907, 333-88923 and 333-90167.


/s/Arthur Andersen LLP

Little Rock, Arkansas
March 3, 2000



                                       83
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-92,917-01

IN RE JAMES RYAN ROSS, Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NOS. 12-12-12875-CR AND 09-13-00093-CR

IN THE 9TH DISTRICT COURT FROM MONTGOMERY COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ of mandamus pursuant to the original

jurisdiction of this Court. In it, he contends that he has repeatedly written to the Montgomery

County District Clerk, attempting to purchase copies of trial transcripts, but he has received

responses to the effect that the clerk has received his “letters and/or motions” and will be notified

“if an order is signed in [his] case.”

In these circumstances, additional facts are needed. Respondent, the District Clerk of

Montgomery County, is ordered to file a response stating whether he received a request from the

Relator for a statement of costs for his records. If the District Clerk received such a request, he shall
2

state the nature of his response and, if available, provide a copy of the response. If the District Clerk

received such a request and did not respond, he shall provide his rationale for not responding. This

application for leave to file a writ of mandamus shall be held in abeyance until Respondent has

submitted the appropriate response. Such response shall be submitted within 30 days of the date of

this order.

Filed: September 29, 2021

Do not publish
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
1996 Consolidated Financial Statements.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             137
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      812
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        111
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1205
<PP&E>                                            3658
<DEPRECIATION>                                    1251
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    4705
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1420
<BONDS>                                           1471
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         25
<COMMON>                                            53
<OTHER-SE>                                        1105
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      4705
<SALES>                                           4332
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  4332
<CGS>                                             3423
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     4109
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    27
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 136
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    187
<INCOME-TAX>                                        81
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                106
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       106
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.19
        

</TABLE>
SCWC-30205
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. MARYANN ACKER, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant, and WILLIAM GERALD ACKER, Respondent/Defendant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(ICA NO. 30205; CR. NO. 056042)
ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and McKenna, JJ., and Circuit Judge Nacino, in place of Pollack, J., recused)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Maryann Acker’s application for writ of certiorari filed on January 7, 2013, is hereby accepted and will be scheduled for oral argument. The parties will be notified by the appellate clerk regarding scheduling.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, February 21, 2013. Keith S. Shigetomi for petitioner Brandon H. Ito for respondent /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Edwin C. Nacino Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-30205 21-FEB-2013 09:43 AM
#### Taylor & Logan *v.*Floyd & Page.

Appeal — Conflicting Bills of Evidence.

Where each party prepared a separate draft of testimony, both constituting a hill of exceptions, and the one conflicted with the other, it was doubted whether the evidence could be considered on appeal.

APPEAL FROM ADAIR CIRCUIT COURT.

February 11, 1874.

*494*Winfrey &*Winfrey, *for appellants.*

*Burnett & Baker, for appellees.*

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The testimony is SO' conflicting upon the issue presented that this court cannot disturb the verdict rendered.

It was the province of the jury tO' determine the question of fact, and having done so; we cannot say that the conclusion arrived at i's palpably against the weight of the evidence. The fact that one of the plaintiffs, in his examination as a witness, was permitted to detail a conversation he had with his clerk as to what the contract was, although incompetent, did not prejudice the rights of the appellants.

This' witness had already sworn that no such contract had been made as alleged, and his statement to¡ the clerk was' a mere repetition, in substance, of what the witness had stated when under oath. The court properly refused the filing of the amended answer, as no such contract as is alleged can be established by proof of the custom of the town. Other persons having made similar trades will not justify or authorize the conclusion that such was the contract between those parties.

The facts of this case have alone been considered, as the instruction constitutes no part of the record; and it may well be doubted whether the evidence should be regarded, as each counsel has prepared a separate draft of the testimony, and the two constitute the bill of exceptions, the one conflicting with the other as to what was proven on the trial.

The judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                          AMERICAN MIDLAND CORPORATION
                             FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
                           ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION S-X


This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
condensed  consolidated finacial statements for the year ended December 31, 1998
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such statements.


</LEGEND>


<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                              dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                                   dec-31-1997
<CASH>                                                               7,000
<SECURITIES>                                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                     7,000
<PP&E>                                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                   3,771,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                              464,000
<BONDS>                                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                                              0
<COMMON>                                                            57,000
<OTHER-SE>                                                       2,460,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                     3,771,000
<SALES>                                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                         0
<CGS>                                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                   137,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                137,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                                      137,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                          (0)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                          (0)






</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4339 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4339

     To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow volunteer 
         firefighters a deduction for personal safety clothing.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 11, 2004

 Mr. Platts (for himself, Mr. Frost, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Green of Wisconsin, 
Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Rogers of Kentucky) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow volunteer 
         firefighters a deduction for personal safety clothing.

    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 ``Volunteer Firefighter Tax Relief Act 
of 2004''.

SEC. 2. DEDUCTION FOR PERSONAL SAFETY CLOTHING OF VOLUNTEER 
              FIREFIGHTERS.

    (a) In General.--Part VII of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to additional itemized 
deductions for individuals) is amended by redesignating section 223 as 
section 224 and by inserting after section 222 the following new 
section:

``SEC. 223. PERSONAL SAFETY CLOTHING OF VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS.

    ``In the case of an individual who is a volunteer with a volunteer 
fire department, there shall be allowed as a deduction an amount equal 
to the amount paid during the taxable year for personal safety clothing 
(including helmets and boots) designed for use, and to be used by such 
individual, in performing fire fighting services for such department.''
    (b) Deduction Allowed Whether or Not Taxpayer Itemizes Other 
Deductions.--Subsection (a) of section 62 of such Code is amended by 
inserting after paragraph (18) the following new paragraph:
            ``(19) Personal safety clothing of volunteer 
        firefighters.--The deduction allowed by section 223.''.
    (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such part VII is 
amended by striking the last item and inserting the following new item:

                              ``Sec. 223. Personal safety clothing of 
                                        volunteer firefighters.''
    (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Keith Wayne Francis v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-19-00870-CR

Trial court case number: 1614325

Trial court: 176th District Court, Harris County, Texas

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a brief concluding that the abovereferenced appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 

Appellant, acting pro se, has filed a motion requesting access to a copy of the appellate 

record for use in preparing a response to appointed counsel’s brief. See Kelly v. State, 436 

S.W.3d 313, 315, 318–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant has also filed a motion for 

an extension of time to file his response.

We grant the motion for access and order the trial court clerk, no later than 10 days 

from the date of this order, to provide a copy of the record, including the clerk’s record, 

the reporter’s record, and any supplemental records, to the appellant. The trial court clerk 

shall further certify to this Court, within 15 days of the date of this order, the date upon 

which delivery of the record to the appellant is made. Finally, we grant appellant’s request 

for an extension in that we order appellant’s response to his appointed counsel’s brief to be 

filed within 45 days of the date of this order. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ____/s/ Sherry Radack____

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __March 19, 2020____
#### Hy. C. Howard *v.*B. F. Beckley & Co.

Notice — Manner of Executing Partnership Papers.

Tlie fact that defendant took a newspaper in which a private agreement between the parties as to the manner of the execution of partnership papers was published, was held not sufficient notice of the partnership arrangement.

APPEAL FROM MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT COURT.

June 25, 1873.

*32
      *J. I. Cornelison, for appellant.*

*Turner, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The answer in this case is a special plea of *non est factum*and from the appellant’s own statements - contained in this pleading makes his firm, of which he is a member, responsible for the debt. Conceding that appellees knew of this private arrangement between the appellant and his co-partners, by which the checks and orders and obligations of the firm were to be drawn up by the bookkeeper, and the firm name signed by H. C. Howard, still where one of the members of the firm accepted this paper the holder had the right to presume that this private arrangement no- longer continued. Nor is 'there any allegation that these appellees had notice of this agreement. That they took the newspaper in which this arrangement between the parties was published is not a sufficient notice in such a case as this, nor is the statement that the plaintiffs, or some of them, admitted they had notice equivalent to an allegation of notice. The plea of *non est factum*is so explained by a statement of the evidence in the pleading offered in support of it as to show that the writing is the act and deed of the parties, and the allegation of notice is also contradicted by the evidence recited in the pleading in support of it. This evidence shows a want of notice, the judgment is *affirmed.*
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of

- )

)

Desbuild, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 62902

- ADR

)

Under Contract No. N40080

- 18

- C

- 0032 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT : Douglas L. Patin, Esq.

Sabah K. Petrov, Esq.

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Washington, DC

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Craig D. Jensen, Esq.

Navy Chief Trial Attorney

Nicole R. Best, Esq.

Joshua S. Kauke, Esq.

Trial Attorneys

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE CATES

- H ARMAN

The parties have resolved their dispute and request that the Boar d enter

judgment in favor of appellant.

It is the Board ’ s decision, pursuant to 41 U.S.C. §§ 7105(e), 7108(b) , and the

parties ’ stipulation and agreement, that the appeal is sustained. In the nature of a

consent judgment, the Board makes a monetary awar d to appellant in the amount of

$1,350,000. This amount is inclusive of Contract Disputes Act interest. No further

interest shall be paid.

Dated: July 20 , 2023

(Signature continued) S TEPHANIE CATES

- HARMAN

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals2 I concur

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD

Administrative Judge

Acting Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals I concur

OWEN C. WILSON

Administrative Judge

Vice Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62902

- ADR

, Appeal of

Desbuild, Inc. , rendered in conformance with the Board ’ s Charter.

Dated: Jul y 24, 2023

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from (A)
condensed consolidated balance sheets and statements of operations and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such (B) 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000065666
<NAME> MICHIGAN RIVET CORPORATION
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         119,372
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,201,075
<ALLOWANCES>                                    50,000
<INVENTORY>                                  4,704,302
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,684,950
<PP&E>                                      23,977,786
<DEPRECIATION>                              15,067,088
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,299,839
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,829,220
<BONDS>                                      3,746,600
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       638,525
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,806,354
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                21,299,839
<SALES>                                     41,596,542
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            41,596,542
<CGS>                                       35,526,431
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               35,526,431
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,557,246
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             469,451
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,043,414
<INCOME-TAX>                                   710,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,333,414
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,333,414
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.09
        

</TABLE>