alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Latham & Wilson *v.*John Litsay.

Election of Remedies — Dismissal of Action.

Refusal of plaintiff to elect upon which grounds he will stand, when required to do so by order of court, is good cause for dismissal.

APPEAL PROM MERCER CIRCUIT COURT.

October 24, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The first paragraph of the petition is based upon the alleged fraudulent representations' of the defendant to the plaintiffs, inducing the formation of the partnership by which they have sustained special damages. Several causes of action belonging to the same class may be united in the-same petition. 'Sec. Ill, Civil Code. Under classification 5,. are injuries affecting character, and under the 6th, injuries to person' or property. Fraud, by all the authorities on the subject, is regarded as a wrong to property. In other words, by reason of the fraud, the party has sustained an actual pecuniary loss. In slander and libel, this pecuniary loss may in some cases be compensated by way of special damages, but the gist of such actions is the injury to one’s reputation, his position and standing as a citizen, and for which injury punitive damages may be awarded.

The court very properly required the appellant to elect, and upon his failure to do so should 'have dismissed the petition. Upon the refusal, the appellant, in effect, said to the court, that he would stand by his petitions! insisting in the court below, as he does here, that the causes of action were properly joined. *245The dismissal is, in its effect, without prejudice. The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

Thompson, *Davies, for appellants.*

*P. B.*Thompson, *for appellee.*
11734.

#### BOSTICK *v.*THE STATE.

Decided November 9, 1920.

1. The rule that exceptions not argued in the excepting party’s brief in this court will not he considered applies to exceptions to the overruling of a demurrer as to which nothing further appears in the brief than that he filed a demurrer on grounds stated.

2. On the trial of one charged with having had possession of intoxicating' liquor, where a witness for the prosecution testified to the purchase of such liquor from the defendant, it was not error to refuse to • allow the witness to give, on cross-examination, the names of other persons from whom the witness had bought whisky.

Indictment for possession of liquor; from Jefferson superior court-—Judge Hardeman. June 28, 1920.

*John R. Cooper, W. O. Cooper Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*Walter F. Grey, solicitor-general,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

1. In the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error is the following: “When the case was called for trial by *764Hon. R. *W.*Hardeman, judge presiding, the defendant, before arraignment and before plea, pleaded to said indictment, filed a special demurrer to the said indictment on several grounds, all of which are set forth in said written demurrer, and especially upon the ground that the said superior court of Jefferson county had no jurisdiction to try this case, but that jurisdiction was laid in the Federal court since the passage of the national prohibition law by the United States Congress, which demurrer was filed in the office of the clerk of said court and is of record in said case.” The brief contains no further reference to the demurrer. In *Youmans*v. *Moore,*11 *Ga. App.*66 (4) (74 S. E. 710), it is held that “Grounds of error not covered by the brief or the argument of counsel for the plaintiff in error will be treated as abandoned. The general statement in the brief that grounds not referred to or argued are nevertheless not abandoned will not be sufficient to change the rule above announced. Courts of review have the right to expect assistance from counsel by citation of authority or argument, and will.be apt to accept the inference that) the lack of interest by counsel is due to a conviction of the lack of merit.” See also *Muse*v. *Hall,*18 *Ga. App.*651 (3) (90 S. E. 222); *Rounsaville*v. *Camp,*19 *Ga. App.*336 (4) (91 S.E. 446), and cit. The above quotation from the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error is merely a statement of facts, and does not amount to an argument in support of the grounds of the demurrer, and affords no assistance to the court in considering them, and the failure to say anything more in reference thereto amounts to an abandonment of the demurrer.

2. The court did not err in refusing to allow a witness for the State, on cross-examination, to give the names of persons other than defendant, from whom the witness had purchased whisky.

3. The excerpts from the charge of which complaint is made contain no reversible error.

4. There is ample evidence to support the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.*
Exhibit 23




Consent of Independent Accountants



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus 
constituting part of the Registration Statement on Form S-3 No. 33-43655, to 
the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus constituting part of the 
Registration Statement on Form S-3 No. 333-58403, to the incorporation by 
reference in the Prospectus constituting part of the Registration Statement on 
Form S-3 No. 33-64576, to the incorporation by reference in the Registration 
Statement on Form S-8 No. 33-24952, to the incorporation by reference in the 
Registration Statement on Form S-8 No. 33-28096, to the incorporation by 
reference in the Prospectus constituting part of the Registration Statement on 
Form S-3 No. 33-32275, to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus 
constituting part of the Registration Statement on Form S-3 No. 33-55816, to 
the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus constituting part of the 
Registration Statement on Form S-3 No. 33-56739, to the incorporation by 
reference in the Prospectus constituting part of the Registration Statement on 
Form S-3 No. 333-14369, to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus 
constituting part of the Registration Statement on Form S-3 No. 333-14369-01, 
to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus constituting part of the 
Registration Statement on Form S-3 No. 333-17181, of our report dated 
February 5, 1998, appearing on page 57 of The Montana Power Company's Annual 
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997.


/s/ Price Waterhouse LLP
PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP

Portland, Oregon
March 25, 1998
! " #$%&' !
!
(! )*"*" 


#(+,-,,-+,	+$,$#	,

.


//////////"//////////

#

"0
















$"
(1

#(1


*2 0
1


!
 "0

2 0
1

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Any) Defendant’s Attorney

	
	


	




#30 .


 .

.
4 
 !"" .
  
#$

%&'
 .

003"0
03"
)"
 
*
"


.."

" )"
5 
*6)

*7

0


)6.
#

"

$00""3 " #$

%88 9."

" .09: .
3*6"
0
"
.#;%4


.
"

""
.#$%&''&9.

<
..
6
33*)*
9

		..
0"1

-(+- ;	(,-.


="3
 "*603"
"


03"0
(as reflected in 

the last judgment issued)  0." ! "# 

(Complete Parts I and II of Page 2 when motion is granted)

		$


-<
3".
7"
3
9**3"".
> 0

 ".**
0



		



1

Judge’s signature

-


1

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

 Southern District of Alabama

TYRONE MAURICE GRAY 11-00371-001

12411-003

06-25-2012

Pro Se

✔

✔

84 70 months

06-25-2012

November 23, 2015 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade

United States District Court

Case 1:11-cr-00371-CG-M Document 125 Filed 11/23/15 Page 1 of 1
> 
          EXHIBIT    11

ALLTEL    CORPORATION

STATEMENT    RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

(Millions,    except per share amounts) 

 

 
For the Years          Ended December 31,20012000199919981997                                                                                  Net income          applicable to common shares             before cumulative effect of             accounting change$1,047.4$1,965.3$782.7$601.9$651.2Adjustments for          convertible securities:             Preferred stocks                  0.1                 0.1               0.2               0.2              0.2Net income          applicable to common shares before             cumulative effect of accounting change,             assuming conversion of above securities$1,047.5$1,965.4$782.9$602.1$651.4                                                                                           Weighted average          common shares             outstanding for the year311.4314.4312.8305.3307.9Increase in shares          that would result from:             Exercise of stock options1.82.43.62.61.5             Conversion of convertible preferred stocks                 0.3                          0.4                         0.4                        0.5                       0.5Weighted average          common shares,             assuming conversion of above securities             313.5             317.2            316.8           308.4           309.9                          Earnings per share          of common stock before             cumulative effect of accounting change:             Basic$3.36$6.25$2.50$1.97$2.12             Diluted$3.34$6.20$2.47$1.95$2.10
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LINDA PEACOCK, )

Plaintiff, )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-0377-KD-C

BURNEY H. MERRILL, WILLIS C. )

MERRILL and J. COLLIER MERRILL,

)

Defendants.

FINAL JUDGMENT

This matter came before the Court for a jury trial with the undersigned judge presiding. . 

At the close of the Plaintiff’s case, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for judgment as a

matter of law as to Plaintiff’s claims (as asserted in the Second Amended Complaint) for

intentional interference with business relationships (Count Three), breach of fiduciary duty

(Count Four) and oppression of a minority shareholder (Count Seven). At the close of all the

evidence, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for a judgment as a matter of law as to

Defendants’ counterclaim for slander of title. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(c), the jury rendered

an advisory verdict with respect to the issues presented in Plaintiff’s declaratory judgment claim

(Count One) and rendered a verdict on Plaintiff’s claims for conversion (Counts Two), civil

conspiracy (Count Five) and money had and received (Count Six). The jury has rendered its

verdict, and the Court has adopted the jury’s advisory verdict. It is therefore ORDERED,

ADJUDGED and DECREED that:

(1) Plaintiff’s request for a judgment declaring that she “was and is

the owner of fifteen percent (15%) interest in the Floragon

Companies,” entitled to distributions, profits and rights of

ownership is denied.

Case 1:05-cv-00377-KD-C Document 701 Filed 03/10/10 Page 1 of 2
(2) Plaintiff is awarded nothing and this action is dismissed on the

merits, with costs taxed in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and

Local Rule 54.1.

DONE this 10th day of March, 2010.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00377-KD-C Document 701 Filed 03/10/10 Page 2 of 2
CHIEF JUSTICE

 ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

 NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

 DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

 GINA M. BENAVIDES

 GREGORY T. PERKES

 NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

 DORIAN E. RAMIREZ

NUECES COUNTY COURTHOUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FLOOR

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361-888-0416 (TEL)

361-888-0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLOOR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 78539

956-318-2405 (TEL)

956-318-2403 (FAX)

Court of Appeals 

Thirteenth District of Texas 

May 22, 2014

Mr. Jose Rodrigo Guzman

TDCJ #01829088

12071 FM 3522

Abilene, TX 79601

Mr. Rick Holstein

Attorney at Law

810 North Upper Broadway

Corpus Christi, TX 78401

Mr. Mark Skurka

District Attorney

901 Leopard Street, Room 205

Corpus Christi, TX 78401

Re: Cause No. 13-13-00173-CR

Tr.Ct.No. 12-CR-2912-A

Style: JOSE RODRIGO A/K/A RODRIGO JOSE A/K/A JOSE RODRIGO GUZMAN 

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

Enclosed please find the opinion and judgment issued by the Court on this date.

Very truly yours,

Dorian E. Ramirez, Clerk

DER:ch

Enc.

cc: State Prosecuting Attorney

28th District Court

Hon. Patsy Perez, Nueces County District Clerk

Hon. J. Rolando Olvera, Presiding Judge, Fifth Administrative Judicial Region
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
           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 MOCON, Inc. on Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dane D. Anderson,
Chief Financial Officer of MOCON, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 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
         MOCON, Inc.


Date: March 30, 2004

                                        /s/ Dane D. Anderson
                                        Dane D. Anderson
                                        Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.1





Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(a) as adopted


pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, John R. Scannell, certify that:





|   |                                                                                                                                      
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 27, 2014 of Moog Inc.; and




|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;




Date December 16, 2014








/s/ John R. Scannell


John R. Scannell


Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 21.1**

 

WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARIES OFNASH FINCH COMPANY

 

 
| **Subsidiary  Corporation**                                |   | **State of  Incorporation** |
|------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------|
|                                                       |   |                        |
| Erickson’s  Diversified Corporation  Edina, Minnesota |   | Wisconsin                   |
|                                                       |   |                        |
| GTL Truck  Lines, Inc.  Omaha, Nebraska                    |   | Nebraska                    |
|                                                       |   |                        |
| Hinky Dinky  Supermarkets, Inc.  Edina, Minnesota          |   | Nebraska                    |
|                                                       |   |                        |
| Nash Finch  Funding Corp.  Edina, Minnesota                |   | Delaware                    |
|                                                       |   |                        |
| Piggly  Wiggly Northland Corporation  Edina, Minnesota     |   | Minnesota                   |
|                                                       |   |                        |
| Super Food  Services, Inc.  Dayton, Ohio                   |   | Delaware                    |
|                                                       |   |                        |
| T.J. Morris  Company  Statesboro, Georgia                  |   | Georgia                     |
|                                                       |   |                        |
| U-Save  Foods, Inc.  Edina, Minnesota                      |   | Nebraska                    |
|                                                       |   |                        |
| NFCG, LLC  Edina, Minnesota                                |   | Delaware                    |

 

----
EXHIBIT
10.4





Terms of
Employment Arrangement


between
Bay National Bank


and Jill
Moraniec





Ms.
Moraniec was retained effective June 25, 2007 and was promoted to Chief Credit
Officer, pending regulatory approval, in February 2009 (which approval was
received June 30, 2009).  Ms. Moraniec is employed on an at-will basis
at a rate of pay of $105,000 as of October 17, 2009.  Ms. Moraniec is
also eligible for incentive bonuses at the discretion of the Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors, and was entitled to all benefits available
to full time employees of Bay National Bank.





No
discretionary bonuses were paid to Ms. Moraniec for the period ended December
31, 2009.


















12
EXHIBIT 32.1



                       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 The InterGroup Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, John V. Winfield, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge,
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.


Date: September 24, 2010                        /s/ John V. Winfield
                                                ----------------------------
                                                John V. Winfield, President
                                                and Chief Executive Officer




[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to The InterGroup Corporation and will be retained by The InterGroup
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.]
|   | 1. | The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  August 16, 2010 | /s/ Lee W. Hendrickson                                                                                            Lee W. HendricksonChief Financial Officer |
|----------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 24-0225 

TIMOTHY C. HAITHCOX, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

GRANT OF MOTION TO 

PROCEED WITHOUT 

PAYMENT OF FILING FEE 

CAPT. JIM SALMONSEN, Warden, Montana 

State Prison, 

Respondent. 

Motion to proceed without payment of the filing fee in this matter is 

GRANTED. 

DATED April 8, 2024. 

BOWEN GREENWOOD 

Clerk of the Supreme Court 

04/08/2024

Case Number: OP 24-0225
Honorable Homer Garrison, Jr. 

Director 

Texas Department of Public Safety 

Camp Mabry 

Austin, Texas 

Attention: Mr. J. B. Draper 

Dear Sir: Opinion No. O-4975 

Re: Under the provisions of Section 10, House 

Bill 20, Acts of the 47th Lagislature, 

would the Texas Department of Public 

Safety be authorized to cause persons who 

are advanced in years or suffering from 

certain physical defects or nervous disorders to submit to an examination to 

determine their ability to operate a motor 

vehicle safely? 

You have requested the opinion of this department on the above stated 

question. 

House Bill 20, Acts of the 47th Legislature, cited by you is the 

current Texas Drivers' License Law. In the herein after quoted provisicm 

of said law, the word "department" refers to the Texas Department of Public 

Safety, and the word "Director" refers to the Director of that department. 

Section 10 of the Act, relating to examination of applicants for drivers' 

licenses, provides as follows: 

"The Department shell examine every applicent for an operator's, 

commercial operator's, or chauffeur's license, except as otherwise 

provided in this Section. Such examination shall be held in the 

county where the applicant resides or makes application within not 

more than ten (10) days from the date application is made. It shall 

include a test of the applicant's vision, his ability to understand 

highway signs in the English language regulating, warning, and 

directing traffic, his knowledge of the traffic laws of this State, 

and shall include an actual demonstration of ability to exercise 

ordinary and reasonable control in the operation of a motor vehicle 

and such further physical and mental examination as the Department 

finds necessary to determine the applicant's fitness to operate a 

motor vehicle safely upon the hi&ways, and provided, further that the 
Honorable Homer (XIrrison, Jr. Page (0-49‘75) 

Director &ail have the authority to cause to be re-examincd licensee 

in any case w'hich in his Judgment the lizensae is incapable of 

operating a motor vehicle, said exam'ination shall be held in the 

county of the licensee's residence unless otherwise agreed to by both 

parties to be held elsewhere." 

Said House Bill 20 is now codified as Article 66873, Ferna's Revised 

Civil Statutes of 1925. 

Under the authority of this btatute,' It is our o&&ion that you, as director 

of the Department of PubZ.ic Safety, arc authorized to cause liocnsees who 

are advanced in pars or, suffering from p&ys;Laai dafczts or nervous 

disorders to submit to an examination '51 determine thc?r ability to opgate 

a motor vehicle safely whenever, in your Judgmcnt~ the iioensee is lncapable 

of operating a motor vehicle. Under the statute, %mqdble of operating 

a n&or vehicle" wan6 the lack of atKLity +Q exeroise ordinary and 

reasonable control in thc~opcration of a motor vehicln: and to operate @oh 

vehicle safely u&n the highways. 

Yours very t~xiiy 

ATTORNEY GESIRRALCPTECiAS 

s/W. R. Allen 

WRA:mp 

'_ 

A&omDl&. 8, 1gk2 

s/ GERALD c. MnETN 

A!I%XNEXCSRRRALOF~S 

APPRom 0PlN1ON CO&lMITrEg 

BY B. W. B. 

CHAIRMAN