alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James Younger et al. *v.*R. J. Myerer & Field.

Ejectment — Title—Burden of Proof.

Where in. an action for partition the defendants answer denying - plaintiffs; right to any interest in the land, and claiming the whole title in themselves, and the case was transferred to the circuit court, it assumed the character of an action for recovery of land, and the burden was on the defendants to show a superior title in themselves.

APPEAL FROM BULLITT CIRCUIT COURT.

March 6, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Peters:

Appellees filed their petition in the Bullitt County Court against appellants, for partition of a tract of some 100 acres of land on Long Lick Creek ip said county. They allege that appellants are in possession of the whole tract, and that they are entitled to one-third of it.

Appellants filed an answer, in which they admit they have possession of the land, claim it as their own, assert they had had the *561peaceable adverse possession for more than fifteen years before ap-pellees brought suit, and controvert their right to any part of the same.

*A. H. Field, for appellants.*

*Meyler, for appellees.*

The case, after the answer was filed, was transferred to the Bul-litt Circuit Court, where on final hearing judgment was rendered in favor of appellees for one-third of the land, and partition ordered, and from that judgment this appeal is prosecuted.

Appellees claim the land by purchase at a sale of it as a part of the real estate of C. R. Samuels, deceased, made by virtue of a judgment of the Bullitt Circuit Court in the case of Wesley Phelps, curator of R. F. Samuels, deceased, v. C. R. Samuels et al., and that they derived title through C. D. Shean. But they wholly failed to show that Shean had any title to< the land whatever.

When appellants, by their answer, controverted appellees’ title, and the case was removed to the Bullitt Circuit Court, it assumed the character of, and was, in fact, an action for the recovery of real estate; and in order to entitle them to recover, it was incumbent for them to manifest a title in themselves superior to that of appellees, and that they failed to do so.

Wherefore the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to dismiss the petition.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARIO ANDJUAN PEEPLES, :

Petitioner :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-00624-WS-B

UNITED STATES JUSTICE :

DEPARTMENT,

 :

Respondent.

 :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file

deemed relevant to the issue raised, and there having been no

objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge made under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion

of this Court. It is ORDERED that this action be and is hereby

DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute and to obey the

Court’s Order.

DONE this 4th day of January, 2010.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00624-WS-B Document 6 Filed 01/04/10 Page 1 of 1
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick

JANET MARSHALL TAYLOR

v. Record No. 2839-95-2 MEMORANDUM OPINION * PER CURIAM EDWIN COOKE TAYLOR JULY 16, 1996

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HANOVER COUNTY Richard H. C. Taylor, Judge (Thomas W. Blue, on briefs), for appellant. (Harry M. Johnson, Jr.; Smith, Hinton & Johnson, on brief), for appellee.

Janet Marshall Taylor (wife) appeals the decision of the circuit court granting Edwin Cooke Taylor (husband) a divorce on the grounds of the parties living separate and apart for one year. Wife contends husband failed to prove a separation by the parties with the intent to divorce for the statutory period. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily

affirm the decision of the trial court. Rule 5A:27. The evidence in this matter was submitted solely by deposition. "The rule is firmly established in Virginia that a divorce decree based solely on depositions is not as conclusive on appellate review as one based upon evidence heard ore tenus , but such a decree is presumed correct and will not be overturned if supported by substantial, competent and credible

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.2 evidence."

Collier v. Collier , 2 Va. App. 125, 127, 341 S.E.2d 827, 828 (1986) (citation omitted).

Husband testified that he formed the intent to divorce wife when he was served with a court order on December 2, 1993 which required him to leave the farm which had been the marital residence. Husband filed for divorce the next day. While husband did not voluntarily leave the farm, the evidence was sufficient to establish that husband intended to separate permanently from wife and that the parties had lived separate and apart for more than one year. "[A]s a prerequisite for a divorce under Code § 20-91(9), there must be proof of an intention on the part of at least one of the parties to discontinue permanently the marital cohabitation, followed by physical separation for the statutory period." Hooker v. Hooker , 215 Va. 415, 417, 211 S.E.2d 34, 36 (1975). Husband admitted that he continued to view the farm as his primary residence, but gave unambiguous testimony that it was his desire to separate from wife. Therefore, there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's decision awarding husband a divorce on the grounds of a one-year separation. Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily

affirmed.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Mines Management, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period
ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



Date:
March 31, 2010

/s/ JAMES H. MOORE James H. Moore Chief Financial Officer


A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Mines Management, Inc. and will be retained by Mines Management, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 10.6





                        SUMMARY OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

The non-employee directors of the Company receive the following compensation:

o annual director fee of $20,000 per year;

o $2,000 for each board meeting  attended in person and $500 for each telephonic
board meeting; and

o a grant of an option  for  50,000  shares of common  stock (on a  post-reverse
stock split  basis).  Options for 10,000 shares are  immediately  vested and the
options for the remaining  40,000 shares vest 10,000 per year over the next four
years;  provided that the director is still serving on the board of directors at
the time of the vesting of the stock options.
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Granite Broadcasting Corporation (theCompany) on Form10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), we,W. Don Cornwell and Lawrence I. Wills, Chief Executive Officer and ChiefFinancial Officer, respectively, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.section 1350, as adopted pursuant section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that to the best of our knowledge:

 

(i)                   theForm 10-Q fully complies, in all material respects, with the requirementsof section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and

 

(ii)                theinformation contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

Dated: May 15, 2006

 

 
|   | /s/     W.  DON CORNWELL   |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | W. Don Cornwell                                     |   |
|   | Chief Executive  Officer                            |   |
|   |                                                |   |
|   |                                                |   |
|   | /s/     LAWRENCE  I. WILLS |   |
|   | Lawrence I.  Wills                                  |   |
|   | Chief Financial  Officer                            |   |

 

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 19, 2018

a1016

Order 

Clerk

October 19, 2018

156161 & (58)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant/

Cross-Appellee,

v SC: 156161

COA: 331594

Wayne CC: 12-007733-FH

WILBERT JOSEPH McKEEVER,

Defendant-Appellee/

Cross-Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On October 10, 2018, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to 

appeal the May 25, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave 

to appeal as cross-appellant. On order of the Court, the applications are again considered. 

MCR 7.305(H)(1). In lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the 

Court of Appeals and we REINSTATE the defendant’s conviction and sentence. 

Assuming, without deciding, that either the trial court or trial defense counsel was 

responsible for the failure of a witness to appear on the defendant’s behalf, it was still 

incumbent upon the defendant, as the appellant, to establish at the evidentiary hearing 

that the witness would provide materially favorable testimony on retrial. See People v 

Pickens, 446 Mich 298, 327 (1994); People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436, 442-443 (1973). 

The defendant failed to produce the witness or otherwise establish that her anticipated 

testimony would be materially favorable.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-30-1995
<CASH>                                          26,024
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   87,377
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,409
<INVENTORY>                                    183,957
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               311,690
<PP&E>                                         388,826
<DEPRECIATION>                                 210,787
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 514,260
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          207,688
<BONDS>                                         71,030
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,706
<OTHER-SE>                                     199,641
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   514,260
<SALES>                                      2,831,114
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,888,836
<CGS>                                        2,469,841
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  375,610
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,997
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,793
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 28,595
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,181
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             17,414
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,414
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.60
        


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

REAPPOINTMENTS TO ORPHANS’ 

COURT PROCEDURAL RULES 

COMMITTEE

:

:

:

:

No. 852

SUPREME COURT RULES DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 16th day of October, Thomas J. Dempsey, Jr., Esquire, Allegheny 

County, and Julian E. Gray, Esquire, Allegheny County, are hereby reappointed as 

members of the Orphans’ Court Procedural Rules Committee for a term of three years, 

commencing January 1, 2021.
#### Hamrick *v.*Craven et al.

*Pleading.—Exhibit.—Set- Off.—Promissory*Note.—An answer offering to set off a note must be accompanied by the note or a copy thereof, or must show a reason why this is not done.

*Executor.—Assignment of*Note.—An executor may transfer, by assignment, a note due his testator, so as to vest the title in the assignee.

APPEAL from the Hendricks Circuit Court.

Pettit, J.

There are only two questions in this case.

First. Must an answer offering to set off a note be accompanied by the note or a copy of it, or show a reason why it is not done, such as a loss or destruction? We answer this question in the affirmative, and need only refer to 2 G. & H. 104, sec. 78, and the notes under it.

Second. Can an executor transfer, by assignment, a note due to his testator, so as to vest the title in the assignee ? We also answer this question in the affirmative, and cite *Thomas*v. *Reister,*3 Ind. 369, and authorities there cited.

*242*C. C. Nave*and *C. A. Nave,*for appellant.

*L. M. Campbell,*for appellees.

The judgment is reversed, at the costs of the appellees, with instructions to the court below to sustain the demurrer to the answer.*

*

Petition for a rehearing overruled.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BOBBY SMITH, JR., #207658, :

:

Plaintiff, :

:

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-00466-CG-B

:

WARDEN JERRY FERRELL, et al., :

:

Defendants. :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this

file deemed relevant to the issues raised, and a de novo

determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to

which objection is made, the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as

the opinion of this Court. It is ORDERED that this action be and

is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice as duplicative. 

DONE this 18th day of February, 2010.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00466-CG-B Document 13 Filed 02/18/10 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4816 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 4816

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 21, 2004

                                Received

                           September 7, 2004

  Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To permit the Librarian of Congress to hire Library of Congress Police 
                               employees.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PERMITTING LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS TO HIRE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
              POLICE EMPLOYEES.

    (a) In General.--Section 1006 of the Legislative Branch 
Appropriations Act, 2004 (2 U.S.C. 1901 note), is amended--
            (1) in the heading, by striking ``Training, Detailing, and 
        Hiring'' and inserting ``Training and Detailing'';
            (2) by striking ``(a)'' and the heading of subsection (a);
            (3) by striking subsection (b) and redesignating paragraphs 
        (1) and (2) of subsection (a) as subsections (a) and (b); and
            (4) in subsection (b) (as so redesignated), by striking 
        ``paragraph (1)'' and inserting ``subsection (a)''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect as if included in the enactment of the Legislative Branch 
Appropriations Act, 2004.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 20, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
[*] = Certain confidential information contained in this document, marked by brackets, is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 24b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended

 

Exhibit 10.1

 



 

Change Order Form

 

 

Change Order No.: 2

 

Change Order Submission Date:10 March 2015

 

Sponsor: ARCA biopharma Inc. (“Sponsor”)

 

Study Drug/Protocol No.: BUC-CLIN-303

 

Study Title:   GENETIC-AF (“Study”)

 

EPM#: 5969

 

SPS#: 200267

 

Sponsor Contact:  

[*]

 

DCRI Contacts:

 

Project Leader: 

[*]



Business Development:

[*]



 

Sponsor and Duke University (“Duke” or “DCRI”) entered in a Clinical Research Agreement (the “Agreement”), effective 05 November 2013, to conduct the above-referenced Project and Change Order No. 1 was executed November 2014. This Change Order No. 2 serves as an amendment to the Agreement and provides details related to scope changes and associated budget adjustments.    

 

Description of Scope Changes:  The budget for this Change Order No. 2 is detailed in Attachment 1:  “DCRI Detailed Fees and Pass-through Cost Estimate,” and an explanation of the change is referenced in the column called “Justification for Revised Scope”.  Unless otherwise noted, the unit costs remain the same.

 

Study Timeline

There are no changes to the timeline.




 

Description of Budget Change Summary:

 


				
	
Type
	
Contract Value through

Change Order No. 1
	
Change Order

No. 2 Value
	
Revised Total

	
DCRI Direct Fees
	
[*]
	
[*]
	
[*]

	
Pass-through Costs
	
[*]
	
-
	
[*]

	
Total
	
[*]
	
[*]
	
[*]




 

See attached budget file.

The DCRI will invoice completed units on a monthly basis.  All payments remain as agreed upon as in the Agreement unless otherwise stated.

Approval Signature:

 


	
Sponsor:

 

By:  /s/ Michael Bristow

Title:  President / CEO – ARCA

Date:  March 10, 2015
	
Duke University:

 

By:  /s/ David S. Hill

Title:  Assistant Director, Finance – DCRI

Date:  March 13, 2015

 




 




[*] = Certain confidential information contained in this document, marked by brackets, is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 24b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended

 




Attachment 1

 

DCRI Detailed Fees and Pass-through Cost Estimate

 

 

 

[* 3 pages of text omitted]

[*] = Certain confidential information contained in this document, marked by brackets, is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 24b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
#### J. R. Hendricks *v.*Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Bail — When Second Bond Void;

Where a justice of the peace, in an examining court, has adjudged the accused guilty and caused him to execute a bail bond for his appearance, a second bond as a result of a second examination by other justices for the same offense between the same parties, is void.

APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT.

December 5, 1873.

*329
      *Lindsay, for appellant.*

*Attorney-General, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The accused had given bail bond for his appearance, the penalty of which was two hundred dollars, and was discharged from custody.

After his preliminary examination, no other justices, nor even the same court, had any power to require additional bond or security, except for the causes prescribed by Sec. 96, Criminal Code of Practice; and it is even doubtful whether this section applies to a proceeding in an examining court, when that court has discharged the person from custody. Thompson and Parsons had tried the case. George and Parsons then retried it and took or required another bond. If this power can be rightfully exercised, then there could be no termination to such proceedings in examining courts. There is nothing to show that the surety to the bond was insufficient, or that the offense was not bailable. No reason is assigned for one court adjudging the accused guilty, when a previous court of the same jurisdiction had rendered a similar judgment, in the same case, for the same offense, and between the same parties. The last bond is a nullity. Judgment reversed and cause remanded with directions to dismiss the proceedings on the bond for $500.00.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

Deandre Bradley

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−05116

Honorable Beth W. Jantz

111th Food Market

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, June 9, 2021:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Beth W. Jantz: Plaintiff's motion for

voluntary dismissal [32] is granted. This case is dismissed with prejudice. Status hearing

set for 06/15/2021 [31] is stricken. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice.(pk, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-05116 Document #: 33 Filed: 06/09/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:91
**Exhibit23.1**

 

**Consentof Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm** 

 

Wehereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333 167570 and No. 333-144122) of TheInterGroup Corporation (the “Company”), of our report dated October 13, 2023 (which includes an explanatory paragraph relatedto the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern), relating to the consolidated financial statements which appear in thisForm 10-K.

 

/s/WithumSmith+Brown, PC

 

EastBrunswick, NJ

October13, 2023
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONSPURSUANT TO 18 UNITED STATES CODE § 1350**

 

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies thatto his knowledge the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the fiscalperiod ended March 31, 2005 of Allstate Life Insurance Company of New Yorkfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result ofoperations of Allstate Life Insurance Company of New York.

 

May 6,2005

 
|   |                                               | /s/ Casey J. Sylla |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------|--------------------|--------|
|   | Casey J.  Sylla                                    |
|   | Chairman  of the Board and President               |
|   |                                               |
|   | /s/ John  C. Pintozzi                              |               |
|   | John C.  Pintozzi                                  |
|   | Senior  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|        |                                                    |                    |        |  |

 

E-5

----