alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Mary A. Bowen *v.*National Insurance Company.

Insurance — Premium Note — Venue.

Where an insurance company which had not complied with the law of Kentucky, executed a policy to a citizen of Kentucky, took her premium note therefor and delivered the policy to her in the state of Ohio, recovery may be had on such policy either in the state of Ohio or in Kentucky.

APPEAL FROM CAMPBELL CIRCUIT COURT.

April 3, 1874.

*654Webster, *for appellant.*

*'Hcmkins, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

There is no reason presented for disturbing the judgment. The two paragraphs in the answer may be regarded as presenting valid defenses; and we are inclined to think they do. Still, under the instructions given by the court below; the appellant had the full benefit of all the defense she had from her own statement. Although foreign insurance companies have no right to transact business in the state without complying with the law, yet in this case it appears that the contract of insurance, including the execution of the note and the delivery of the policy, all took place in the state of Ohio. No agent of the company seems to have been soliciting any such business within the state of Kentucky; nor is there anything in the proof showing that the company was evading the law of the state. The insurance laws were enacted more for the protection of the insured, than as a source of revenue. Here, the assured left the state and entered into a contract, valid by the laws of Ohio, and upon which a recovery could have been had of the company in the event of loss, either in the state of Ohio, or in this state. The jury were told that if the transaction took place in Kentucky, or if the policy was even delivered in Kentucky that no recovery could be had. This was the law of the case and gave to appellant a hearing before the jury upon her only defense. If there had been facts conducing to show that the appellee was transacting a general business of insurance within the state by having contracts executed in Ohio, the question presented by counsel for the appellant would have been considered.

Judgment affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOE HENRY SCOTT, III, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-00610-WS-B

J.O. DAVIS CORRECTIONAL :

FACILITY, et al.,

 :

Defendants.

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this action be

dismissed without prejudice.

DONE this 6th of April, 2010.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00610-WS-B Document 14 Filed 04/06/10 Page 1 of 1
##### 



Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Ronald Mustari, President and Chief Executive Officer (principal executive
officer) of Whitehall Limited, Inc. certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Whitehall Limited,
Inc.;

2.     Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.     The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls
and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to
be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and  presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period
covered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change
in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that
occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the
registrant's control over financial reporting; and

5.     The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control
over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.

Date: February 17, 2004

| |  |                                                      
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ Ronald Mustari                                   
| |  |                                                      
| |  | Ronald Mustari, President and
Chief Executive Officer
FHLBC Board of Directors 2004 Compensation Policy



 Exhibit 10.8.7 
  
 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK OF CHICAGO 
 BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2004 COMPENSATION POLICY 
  
 GENERAL 
  
 The Board of Directors of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago (“Bank”) hereby adopts this directors’ compensation policy for 2004
(“Policy”). 
  
 COMPENSATION POLICY
METHODOLOGY 
  
 The goal of the Policy is to appropriately
compensate the Directors for actual attendance and participation at the meetings of the Board of Directors and the committees of the Board and also for work performed on behalf of the Board of Directors and the Bank apart from such meetings. Under
this policy, compensation consists of per-meeting fees. The fees are intended to compensate Directors for: (1) their time spent reviewing the material sent to them on a periodic basis by the Bank; (2) making themselves available and participating in
any necessary telephonic meetings and for chairing meetings; (3) actual time spent attending the meetings; and (4) fulfilling the responsibility of directors. 
  

PAYMENT AND FEE STRUCTURE 
  
 Each Director, other than the Chairman and the Vice Chairman, will receive (i) $2,500 for each day spent in attendance at one or more meetings of the
Board or its committees; or (ii) in the case of a Director who chairs one or more Committee meetings, $2,700 for each day chairing such Committee. 
  
 The Chairman of the Board of Directors will receive $4,100 for each day spent in attendance presiding at one or more meetings of the Board of Directors or
the Executive Committee and for each day spent attending other committee meetings. 
  
 The Vice Chairman will receive $3,300 for each day spent in attendance at one or more meetings of the Board or its committees. 
  

Meeting fees of $1,500 per day will also be paid to Directors for their participation in any other special meetings or events (where no other fee or
compensation is paid to such Director) on behalf of the Board of Directors and the Bank at the request of the Federal Housing Finance Board or at other events approved by the Board of Directors. 









 COMPLIANCE WITH LEGAL REQUIREMENTS 
  
 In no event shall any Director be paid amounts which would exceed the annual
limitations on compensation set forth in Section 7(i) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (12 U.S.C. §1427(i)), as amended by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, and as adjusted by the Federal Housing Finance Board pursuant to 12 C.F.R.
§918.3. 
  
 EXPENSES 
  
 Each Director will be reimbursed for necessary and reasonable travel,
subsistence and other related expenses incurred in connection with the performance of their official duties (including telephonic meetings or meetings called at the request of the Federal Housing Finance Board or other FHLB System body) as are
payable to senior officers of the Bank under the Bank’s Travel Policy. 
  

	
	Approved by the Board of Directors
	
	Dated: December 16, 2003
	
	 /s/ Peter E. Gutzmer

	 Corporate Secretary


  

 - 2 -
##### 



\
Exhibit 99.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of AMDL, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Arthur S. Rosten,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| |                                                                                                                                                              
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (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/ Arthur S. Rosten
Chief Financial Officer
November 12, 2002

15
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,733
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,306
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,413
<INVENTORY>                                     10,486
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                41,928
<PP&E>                                          29,143
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,073
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  41,928
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,100
<BONDS>                                         16,497
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         14
<COMMON>                                         5,815
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,825
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    88,457
<SALES>                                         79,066
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                79,066
<CGS>                                           63,113
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   75,738
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   310
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 368
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,183
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,083
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,083
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .55
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

** Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 23, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-10405

Conference Calendar

 

ALFREDO ALVAREZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

NFN ORTEGA, Detective, Forth Worth Police Department;

ROBERT RANGEL, Drug Enforcement Administration Agent;

TERRI MOORE, Assistant United States Attorney; NEIL

DURRANCE, Public Defender; KEVIN FITCHETT, Detective,

Fort Worth Police Department; PAUL GARTNER, C.D. Deputy

Chief; LIEUTENANT UNKNOWN,

Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:04-CV-403-Y

--------------------

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alfredo Alvarez, federal prisoner # 30170-077, appeals the

dismissal of his Bivens** complaint and moves for appointment of

counsel. The district court held in pertinent part that

Alvarez’s claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,
No. 05-10405

-2-

486 (1994). Alvarez has failed to brief this issue and therefore

has waived its review. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222,

224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

Alvarez’s appeal is without arguable merit and is therefore

dismissed as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20

(5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. His motion for appointment of

counsel is denied. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212

(5th Cir. 1982). The dismissal of his appeal as frivolous and

the district court’s dismissal of his complaint as frivolous and

for failure to state a claim constitute two strikes for the

purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103

F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). Alvarez is cautioned that if he

obtains three strikes, he will not be able to proceed in forma

pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is

incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). 

 APPEAL DISMISSED; APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED; SANCTION

WARNING ISSUED.
exv10w2



 





Exhibit 10.2




Summary of Fiscal 2006 Annual Compensation for the Non-Employee Members of the

Board of Directors of Lennox International Inc.




     On December 9, 2005, the Board of Directors of Lennox International Inc. (the “Company”), upon
recommendation of the Company’s Compensation Committee, approved the 2006 compensation package for
all non-employee members of the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”). The 2006 compensation
package for non-employee directors, other than the Vice Chairman and Chairman of the Board,
includes an annual retainer of $45,000 in cash and $20,000 in common stock, with an additional
annual retainer of $15,000 in cash for serving as a committee chair of the Audit Committee, $10,000
in cash for serving as a committee chair of the Compensation and Human Resources Committee
(formerly the Compensation Committee) or Board Governance Committee and $6,000 in cash for serving
as a committee chair of the Pension and Risk Management, Acquisition or Education and Public Policy
Committees. Each non-employee director will receive a fee of $1,500 in cash for attending, in
person, each meeting day of the Board of Directors and a fee of $1,200 in cash for attending, in
person, each Board committee meeting. Non-employee directors will receive a fee of $1,000 for
participation in a telephonic meeting of the Board and a fee of $750 for participation in a
telephonic meeting of a Board committee. The Vice Chairman’s compensation package is
one and one-half times that of a non-employee director and the Chairman’s compensation
package is twice that of a non-employee director. All directors receive reimbursement for
reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with attendance at meetings of the Board
of Directors or a Board committee.
11260.

#### Newsome *v.*Smith *et al.*

Decided April 8, 1920.

Complaint; from city court of Statesboro — Judge Proctor. December 9, 1919.

*W. G. Neville, Anderson & Jones,*for plaintiff.

*Fred T. Lanier,*for defendants.

Smith, J.

1. The record in this case discloses that the plea designated a plea in abatement is in reality a plea of res judicata, and the judgment of the lower court sustaining the plea is a final disposition of the case. The motion to dismiss the writ of error on the ground that it was premature is therefore without merit, and must be denied.

2. A plea by the defendant that the matters set up by the plaintiff in the present suit could have been pleaded as a set-off to a former suit, brought by the defendant against the plaintiff, on an account, in the same court, is not, without more, a good plea of res judicata. While the plaintiff in the present suit could have pleaded a set-off, he was not, under the law, compelled to do so, unless the claim or claims upon which the present suit was brought and the matters adjudicated in the other suit grew out of the same transaction. See *Johnson*v. *Reeves,*112 *Ga.*690, 691, (37 S. E. 980) ; *Ray*v. *Fleetwood,*106 *Ga.*253, 257 (32 S. E. 156).

3. There was no evidence to authorize the judgment sustaining the plea of res judicata.

*Judgment reversed.*

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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4871 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4871

 To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for equity 
in the calculation of Medicare disproportionate share hospital payments 
                     for hospitals in Puerto Rico.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 20, 2004

  Mr. McCrery (for himself, Mr. Acevedo-Vila, Ms. Pryce of Ohio, Mr. 
 Rangel, Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Becerra, and Mr. Menendez) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for equity 
in the calculation of Medicare disproportionate share hospital payments 
                     for hospitals in Puerto Rico.

    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 ``Puerto Rico Hospitals Medicare DSH 
Equity Act of 2004''.

SEC. 2. CALCULATION OF MEDICARE DSH PAYMENTS FOR PPS HOSPITALS IN 
              PUERTO RICO.

    Section 1886(d)(9)(D)(iii) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1395ww(d)(9)(D)(iii)) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(iii) Subparagraph (F) (relating to disproportionate 
        share payments), except that for this purpose--
                    ``(I) the sum described in clause (ii) of this 
                subparagraph shall be substituted for the sum referred 
                to in paragraph (5)(F)(ii)(I); and
                    ``(II) for discharges occurring on or after October 
                1, 2004, subclause (I) of paragraph (5)(F)(vi) shall be 
                applied by substituting for the numerator described in 
                such subclause the number of subsection (d) Puerto Rico 
                hospital's patient days for a cost reporting period 
                which were made up of patients who (for such days) were 
                entitled to benefits under part A of this title and 
                either were eligible in Puerto Rico on a categorically 
                needy basis or medically needy basis as aged, blind or 
                disabled for medical assistance under title XIX.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1

                   EXHIBIT 21 - SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
                   -------------------------------------------



                  SUBSIDIARY                           STATE OF INCORPORATION
                  ----------                           ----------------------
      Morgan's Creative Restaurant Concepts, Inc.               Ohio
      Morgan's Restaurants of Ohio, Inc.                        Ohio
      Morgan's Restaurants of Pennsylvania, Inc.            Pennsylvania
      Morgan's Restaurants of West Virginia, Inc.           West Virginia
            (fka Morgan's Weirton Foods, Inc.)
      Morgan's Restaurants of New Jersey, Inc.               New Jersey
      Morgan's Foods of Missouri, Inc.                         Missouri
      Morgan's Restaurants of New York, Inc.                   New York
      Morgan's Tacos of Pennsylvania, Inc.                  Pennsylvania
No. 87-1193.

#### Miami Herald Publishing Co. *v.*Gridley, Circuit Judge of Florida, Orange County, et al.,

*ante,*p. 960. Motion of respondents Paula Hawkins and W. E. Hawkins for damages denied.
#### Ozias *W.*Shipman, adm’r for Francis M. Stone v. Leander S. Butterfield and Stephen Baldwin.

*Petition for administration*— Jurisdiction *to appoint administiator,*

A petition for administration of the estate of an intestate does not confer jurisdiction to appoint an administrator if it does not show that the petitioner is interested in the estate as next of kin, creditor or in some other capacity enumerated in Comp. L. § 4379.

*488Jurisdiction to appoint an administrator must appear affirmatively on tlie face of tire petition for administration.

Error to Superior Court of Detroit.

Submitted January 11.

Decided January 18.

Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

*Edaovn F. Oonekj (Maybury <& Oonely) ■*for plaintiff in error.

*Otto Kwelmer, Levi T. Griffin*and *Ashley Pond*for defendant in error.

Probate proceedings must be treated as void if tbe jurisdictional facts relied on are not in tbe record: *Besancon v. Brownson*39 Mich. 392.

Marston, J.

In this case after letters of administration had been introduced in evidence, counsel for the plaintiff introduced the record and files of the p(roJ>ate court in the matter of the estate of the deceased, to show the appointment of the plaintiff as administrator. Objection was then made that the petition for the appointment of an administrator did not set forth sufficient facts to confer jurisdiction in the probate court, and that there was nothing in the record or files of that court to supply the omission. The objection was sustained.

Section 4319 provides that administration of the estate of a person dying intestate shall be granted to some one or more of the persons therein mentioned and in the order therein set forth. The petition in this case does not show that it was made by any person interested in the settlement of the estate as the statute requires. For aught that appears the petitioner and the person appointed were entire strangers and had no interest whatever in the estate of the deceased either as next of kin, creditor or otherwise, and this it was held could not be done in *Besancon v. Brownson*39 Mich. 393.

It is true that the statute does not in express terms require that these facts shall be set out in the petition, but the rule is universal that jurisdiction must affirmatively appear: and whether the necessary facts are to be shown in *489one way or another it is clear that in this case this general rule has been disregarded. The plaintiff was called upon by the objection to present any evidence which could sustain the action of the court; and he produced for the purpose the whole files and records; but they are bare of any showing that the probate court had before it in any form the jurisdictional facts which authorized it to deal with the estate.

The judgment must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.