alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Max Reizen, Appellant, *v.*Louis Steiglitz and Another, Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

January 8, 1925.

Sales — damages — action for refusal of defendants to furnish plaintiff with information required to effect compliance with Bulk Sales Law (Pers. Prop. Law, § 44) — plaintiff’s damages limited to recovery of down payment and reasonable fees for attorney — recovery for other disbursements of plaintiff may not be had.

In an action for the defendants’ refusal to furnish plaintiff with such information as was required by him to effect a compliance with the provisions of the Bulk Sales Law (Pers. Prop. Law, § 44), plaintiff’s recovery should be limited to the amount of his down payment plus the reasonable fees of his attorney. The plaintiff is not entitled to recover disbursements incurred by him in the business during the period covered by the contract, nor the reasonable value of his time during that period.

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan, Fourth District, dismissing the complaint at the close of plaintiff’s case after trial before a jury.

*Max Ornstein,*for the appellant.

*Williams & Williams [David B. Williams*of counsel], for the respondents.

Mullan, J.:

We are in agreement that the judgment below was wrong and that there should be a new trial. The plaintiff made a *prima facie*
      *361showing of a breach on defendants’ part consisting of the refusal or failure of defendants to furnish such information as was needed by plaintiff in order to effect compliance with the provisions of the Bulk Sales Law (Pers. Prop. Law, § 44). A majority of the court are of the opinion that the plaintiff should be limited as to damage to a recovery of his down payment and the reasonable fees of his attorney; and that the plaintiff may not recover the disbursements made by him in the business during the period provided by the contract for the purpose of permitting the plaintiff to determine whether he should carry the purchase to completion; nor the reasonable value of the plaintiff’s time during that period.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

Guy and Mullan, JJ., concur; Bijur, J., concurs in memorandum.

Bijur, J.:

I concur fully in the conclusion reached by my colleagues but believe that plaintiff is entitled also to recover all his expenditures in the premises on the ground that they were disbursements necessarily incurred by him in preparing to carry out the contract which result was prevented by defendants’ breach. *(Bernstein*v. *Meech,*130 N. Y. 354; *Friedland*v. *Myers,*139 id. 432; *Nelson*v. *Hatch,*70 App. Div. 206; affd., 174 N. Y. 546; *Reed*v. *McConnell,*62 Hun, 153; *Abbey*v. *Mace,*19 N. Y. Supp. 375; affd., 141 N. Y. 574, on opinion below; *Burkhard*v. *Morris,*206 App. Div. 366.)
Exhibit 99.2


                            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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Owens Mortgage
Investment Fund, a California Limited Partnership (the "Issuer") for the period
ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bryan H. Draper, Chief Financial Officer of Owens
Financial Group, Inc., the General Partner of the Issuer, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

         (1) The Report containing financial statements of the Issuer 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 result of operations of the
Issuer.


/s/ Bryan H. Draper

Bryan H. Draper
Chief Financial Officer of Owens Financial Group, Inc., General Partner
August 13, 2002
EXHIBIT
32.1
  
 CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 
 Pursuant
to
 18
U.S.C. Section 1350,
 As
Adopted pursuant to
 Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 I, Zeynep
Hakimoglu, certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of ClearOne Communications, Inc. on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
ClearOne Communications, Inc.
 
 
 
 Date:  May
      14, 2009
              By:
              /s/ Zeynep HakimogluZeynep
      HakimogluChairman,
      President and Chief Executive Officer
                (Principal
      Executive Officer)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 A
signed original of the written statement above required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to ClearOne Communications, Inc.
and will be retained by ClearOne Communications, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
NO. 12-13-00159-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JONES PAINT & BODY SHOP AND § APPEAL FROM THE 114TH

DAVID N. JONES,

APPELLANTS

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

LARRY PARENT,

APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. 

Pursuant to Rule 32.1, Appellants’ docketing statement was due to have been filed at the 

time the appeal was perfected, i.e., May 10, 2013. See TEX. R. APP. P. 32.1. On May 16, 2013, 

this Court notified Appellants that they should file a docketing statement within ten days if they 

had not already done so. On the same date, this Court sent Appellants a second notice requesting 

that they remit the filing fee for the appeal. 

Appellants did not file the docketing statement or pay the filing fee. Accordingly, on 

May 31, 2013, this Court issued another notice advising Appellants that the docketing statement 

was past due. The notice also advised Appellants that the filing fee was due to have been paid on 

or before May 28, 2013, but had not been received. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5 (requiring payment of 

filing fee at time an item is presented for filing). The notice further provided that unless the 

docketing statement was filed and the filing fee paid on or before June 10, 2013, the appeal 

would be presented for dismissal in accordance with Rule 42.3. The time for filing the docketing 

statement and paying the filing fee has expired, and Appellants have not complied with the 
2

Court’s request. Because Appellants have failed, after notice, to comply with Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure 5 and 32.1, the appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

Opinion delivered June 19, 2013.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)
3

COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JUNE 19, 2013

NO. 12-13-00159-CV

JONES PAINT & BODY SHOP AND DAVID N. JONES,

Appellants

V.

LARRY PARENT,

Appellee

 

 Appeal from the 114th Judicial District Court

 of Smith County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. 12-2816-B) 

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same 

being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that 

this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed; and that this decision be certified to the court 

below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
#### W. S. Long, Adm’r, *v.*L. P. Duvall.

Infants — Suing by Next Friend.

An infant may sue by his next friend, but a stranger cannot sue for an infant merely by describing himself as next friend of the infant.

Sales — Agreement to Pay in Services.

Where a doctor purchased a horse, and it was agreed between the seller and the purchasér that the purchaser should pay for it in medical services to the seller, recovery cannot be had for the value of the horse until it is shown that the purchaser was given an opportunity to render the services and refused to do so.

Limitation of Actions — Action on Account.

Where ten years have elapsed since the sale of a horse and the institution of an action to recover the purchase-price, a plea of limitation is a bar to the action.

APPEAL FROM CLINTON CIRCUIT COURT.

January 20, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

This action is prosecuted by L. W. Duvall. The petition shows upon its face that the real party in interest is L. P. Duvall, who is not made a party. An infant may sue by his next friend, but a stranger can not undertake to enforce an infant’s rights in court,' by describing himself the next friend to the infant as is done in this case.

The action is founded upon the contract made by L. W. Duvall and D. W. T. Long, deceased. The undertaking of the latter was to “pay for or account for the horse with his medical services.” It is alleged that he has not done so; but there is no allegation that he *454was ever called on and refused to comply with his contract. No action for money can be maintained on a contract like this, until the obligor has had an opportunity to render the personal service contracted for, has been called on to render it, and refused to do so. It is true that the petition evidently shows that Dr. Long is now dead, and therefore that it is now impossible for him- to' render the contemplated services. It does not appear what length of time Long lived after this contract was made, but ten years elapsed after the sale of the house and before any steps were taken to collect the money,. The plea of limitations presented an insurmountable bar to the *action;*for that' reason instruction No. 5 asked by appellant should have been given.

*T. C. Winfrey, for appellant.*

-, *for appellee.*

Whilst it is true limitation does not run against an infant, it must be borne in mind that this action is prosecuted by an adult, the father of the infant, and upon a contract made with him'.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a new trial upon principles consistent with this opinion.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT GREGORY DEMETRUIS WEDLOW, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-1383 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed October 31, 2018. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Highlands County; Peter F. Estrada, Judge. Gregory Demetruis Wedlow, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See State v. Matthews, 891 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 2004); Hughes v. State, 22 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Waiter v. State, 965 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Vidak v. State, 793 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Haynes v. State, 106 So. 3d 481 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013); Cooper v. State, 902 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).

CASANUEVA, CRENSHAW, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
#### Hardin County Court, et al., *v.*W. T. Lowe, et al.

County Revenue — Collection from Sheriff.

Before a, suit can be maintained against the sheriff and his bondsmen for failing to pay over revenues collected for the county a demand from the official entitled to receive them or an order relative thereto by the county court must he made.

Demand Before Suit.

Until there is a demand made on a county sheriff by one authorized to make it requiring him to pay over county revenues collected by him and until he has failed to comply therewith, no cause of action can arise against him and his bondsmen.

*656APPEAL FROM HARDIN CIRCUIT COURT.

March 27, 1876.

*Wilson & Bell, for appellants. James Montgomery, for appellees.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

Although the petition shows that at the time of the last settlement there remained in the hands of the sheriffs, in the way of a surplus of county dues, the sum of $1,590.63, it does not show that up to the time of the institution of this action, the county court had authorized or empowered any person to collect said sum from the sheriff, or that it had made any orders whatever concerning its safekeeping. Until some such order is made, and the sheriff is required to pay the money over, either to the county treasurer, or if there be none, then to some person designated by the county court, he cannot commit a breach of his bond. Until some person is authorized to collect the fund, there can be no demand made upon the sheriff; and until there is a demand and a failure to pay, no cause of action can arise against him and his official sureties. *Owen v. Ballard County Court,*8 Bush 611.

There is no cause of action stated in favor of Davenport. He sues as the assignee of Tabb. It is alleged that Tabb is a county creditor to the amount of $-. But it is not stated that this claim, if it amounted to any sum whatever, had been allowed by the county court, nor that the sheriff had ever been directed to pay it.

The demurrer was properly sustained, and the petition properly dismissed. Judge Cofer did not sit in this case.

Judgment *affirmed.*
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ATLANTIC SPECIALTY 

INSURANCE COMPANY,

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff,

vs. CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-458-CG-N

MR. CHARLIE ADVENTURES, 

LLC and KIM P. KORNEGAY

Defendant.

FINAL JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Court’s Orders granting Plaintiff’s motion for partial 

summary judgment and granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion 

for summary judgment (Doc. 76), denying Defendants’ motion for reconsideration 

(Doc. 89), and denying Defendants’ motion for additional pre-judgment interest

(Doc. 90), it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that judgment is 

entered as follows:

1. In favor of the Defendants, Mr. Charlie Adventures, LLC and Kim P. 

Kornegay, and against the Plaintiff, Atlantic Specialty Insurance 

Company, on Plaintiff’s claim for a declaratory judgment;

2. In favor of the Defendants Mr. Charlie Adventures, LLC and Kim P. 

Kornegay, and against the Plaintiff, Atlantic Specialty Insurance 

Company, on the Defendants’ counterclaim for breach of contract in 

the amount of $862,431.22. (This amount includes $805,000 in 

Case 1:13-cv-00458-CG-N Document 91 Filed 05/19/15 Page 1 of 2
2

compensatory damages, plus pre-judgment interest in the amount of 

$57,431.22.)

3. In favor of the Plaintiff, Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company, and 

against the Defendants, Mr. Charlie Adventures, LLC and Kim P. 

Kornegay, on the Defendants’ counterclaim for bad faith.

DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of May, 2015. 

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00458-CG-N Document 91 Filed 05/19/15 Page 2 of 2
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1561 

To allow States to elect to observe year-round daylight saving time, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 10, 2023 

Mr. NORMAN (for himself, Mr. FRY, and Mr. WILSON of South Carolina) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To allow States to elect to observe year-round daylight saving 

time, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Daylight All Year 

5 Leads to Ideal Gains in Happiness and Temperament 

6 Act’’ or the ‘‘DAYLIGHT Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. OPTIONAL YEAR-LONG APPLICATION OF DAYLIGHT 

8 SAVING TIME. 

9 Section 3(a) of the Uniform Time Act of 1966 (15 

10 U.S.C. 260a) is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1561 IH

1 (1) by inserting ‘‘or may by law apply the ad2 vancement of time described in this section for the 

3 duration of the year,’’ after ‘‘may by law exempt 

4 itself from the provisions of this subsection providing 

5 for the advancement of time,’’; 

6 (2) by striking ‘‘the standard time otherwise 

7 applicable during that period’’ and inserting ‘‘the 

8 same standard time’’; 

9 (3) by striking ‘‘may by law exempt either the 

10 entire State as provided in (1) or’’ and inserting ‘‘, 

11 by law, may apply either standard time provided for 

12 in paragraph (1) to the entire State,’’; and 

13 (4) by inserting ‘‘, or may apply the advance14 ment of time for the duration of the year to the en15 tire area of the State lying within any time zone’’ 

16 before the period at the end. 

17 SEC. 3. GAO STUDY. 

18 Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment 

19 of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to Con20 gress a report containing the results of a study on imple21 menting daylight savings time year-round. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries of Cherokee International Corporation

|Subsidiary Name                                 |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|----------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Cherokee Europe SCA                             |  | Belgium                      
|Cherokee Europe SPRL                            |  | Belgium                      
|Cherokee Germany GmbH                           |  | Germany                      
|Cherokee India Pvt. Ltd.                        |  | India                        
|Cherokee International (China) Power Supply LLC |  | China                        
|Cherokee Netherlands B.V.                       |  | Netherlands                  
|Cherokee Netherlands I B.V.                     |  | Netherlands                  
|Cherokee Netherlands II B.V.                    |  | Netherlands                  
|Cherokee Sarl                                   |  | France                       
|Cherokee AB                                     |  | Sweden                       
|Cherokee U.K.                                   |  | United Kingdom               
|Powertel India Pvt. Ltd.                        |  | India                        

---



QuickLinks
<PAGE>

                   EXHIBIT 32.1 -- SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

I, Richard L. Wambold, certify that:

     (1) the Form 10-K of Pactiv Corporation for the period ended December 31,
         2006, (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of sec.13(a)
         or sec.15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

     (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         Pactiv Corporation for the period then ended.

/s/ RICHARD L. WAMBOLD
------------------------------------------------------
Richard L. Wambold
Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer

March 1, 2007
------------------------------------------------------
Date

This certification accompanies this report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A signed original
of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 244 (Friday, December 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 75787]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29782]



[[Page 75787]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[S-166-2014]


Foreign-Trade Zone 231--Stockton, California Application for 
Subzone Expansion Medline Industries, Inc.; Lathrop, California

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) 
Board by the Port of Stockton, California, grantee of FTZ 231, 
requesting an additional site within Subzone 231A on behalf of Medline 
Industries, Inc. (Medline), located in Lathrop, California. The 
application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-
Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of 
the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on December 
15, 2014.
    Subzone 231A was approved on March 4, 2007 (72 FR 14516, 03/28/
2007) and currently consists of one site: Site 1 (12.49 acres) 18250 
Murphy Parkway, Lathrop. The applicant is now requesting authority to 
include an additional site: Proposed Site 2 (9.03 acres), 501 D'Arcy 
Parkway, Lathrop. No authorization for production activity has been 
requested at this time. The proposed subzone would be subject to the 
existing activation limit of FTZ 231.
    In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Christopher Kemp of 
the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make 
recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions 
shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the 
address below. The closing period for their receipt is January 28, 
2015. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the 
foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period 
to February 12, 2015.
    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection 
at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, 
Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the ``Reading Room'' section of the 
FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.
    For further information, contact Christopher Kemp at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4b28233922383f243b232e3965202e263b0b3f392a2f2e652c243d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="99faf1ebf0eaedf6e9f1fcebb7f2fcf4e9d9edebf8fdfcb7fef6ef">[email protected]</span></a> or (202) 482-0862.

    Dated: December 15, 2014.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-29782 Filed 12-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>