alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Thomas Current *v.*Claud Cantrill, et al.

Damages — Instructions—Negligence—Proximate Cause.

To make a defendant liable for damages caused by his negligence, the negligence complained of must be the proximate cause of the injury, and an instruction not recognizing this rule is erroneous.

APPEAL FROM BOURBON CIRCUIT COURT.

December 1, 1875.

Opinion by

Judge Peters:

The evidence is somewhat, conflicting, and the judgment cannot be reversed by this court unless the law, as expounded by the court below to the jury, was erroneous and prejudicial to appellant, and that is the only question presented by the appeal, as no exceptions seem to have been taken to any of the evidence offered on the trial by appellees.

In the last paragraph of instruction No. 1 given to the jury on the motion of appellees, they were told, in substance, that if they believed from the evidence that the defendant, while threshing plaintiff’s wheat, omitted to use upon his engine such known and *547usual device and contrivance as were usual and customary on machines of similar character to prevent the escape of sparks from said engine, and their wheat was ignited by a spark that escaped from the engine and thereby destroyed, they ought to find such damages as the plaintiffs sustained by reason of the omission.

*Cunningham & Turney, Breckenridge & Shelby, for appellant.*

*A. Duvall, R.'T. Davis, Huston & Mulligan, for appellees.*

By this instruction the liability of the appellant is fixed by his failure to use upon his engine such device and contrivance as were usual and customary on machinés of that character, whether the use of such device and contrivance would have prevented the destruction or not. He should have been made liable to appellees for the value of their wheat upon the belief of the jury from the evidence that the wheat would not have been burned and lost if the customary and usual device and contrivance had been applied to their machine to prevent the escape of the sparks. Or to express it differently, if appellant failed to use the 'spark arrester, or such preventive of the escape of sparks from the smoke stack as was generally used with such machines, and appellees’ wheat was burned and destroyed by his failure to use such preventives, in that event he would be liable. To make a party responsible for negligence, the negligence complained of must be the proximate cause of the injury. Sherman & Redfield on Negligence, Sec. 9, p. 7.

To the second instruction given, the same objection exists as to the first. We see no objection to the instructions given by the court in substitution of tiróse asked for by appellant. There are no exceptions to the ruling of the court in admitting or in refusing to admit evidence. But for the error in giving the two instructions as asked by appellees without the qualification herein suggested, the judgment is *reversed,*and the cause is remanded for a new trial and for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Exhibit 32.3

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, David K. Spohr, Vice President and Director of Fund Administration of the Managing Owner, Preferred
Investment Solutions Corp. (the Managing Owner), of World Monitor Trust II  Series D (Series D), hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:



| | (1) | Series Ds Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Annual
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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Series D.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                  
|--------------------------------------------------
|/s/ David K. Spohr                                
|David K. Spohr                                    
|Vice President and Director of Fund Administration
|March 31, 2006
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Enzo Biochem, Inc., and Subsidiaries (“the Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the “Report”), I, Barry Weiner, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.

|Dated: June 9, 2008 | By:/s/ Barry Weiner    
|------------------- | -----------------------
|                    | Barry Weiner           
|                    | Chief Financial Officer





---
Exhibit 15.2

May 6, 2009

Beckman Coulter, Inc.

4300 N.
Harbor Boulevard

Fullerton, CA 92834-3100

Re: Registration
Statement Nos. 333-155275, 333-145422, 333-100904, 333-156005, 333-24851, 333-37429, 33-31573, 33-41519, 33-51506, 33-66990, 33-66988, 333-69291, 333-59099, 333-69249, 333-69251, 333-72896 and 333-72892

With respect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our report dated May 6, 2009, related to our review of
interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436 under the Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), such report is not considered part of a
registration statement prepared or certified by an independent registered public accounting firm, or a report prepared or certified by an independent registered public accounting firm within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.



|                      
|----------------------
|/s/ KPMG LLP          
|                      
|Costa Mesa, California
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                                 Netegrity, Inc.

                            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 of Netegrity, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Regina O. Sommer, Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section
1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, that this Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in this Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Date: October 28, 2003                    /s/ Regina O. Sommer
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Regina O. Sommer
                                          Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
                                          (Principal Financial Officer and
                                          Principal Accounting Officer)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 )

 )

VS. ) CR. NO. 09-00194-CG

 )

STACEY ADAM WARD, )

 )

Defendant. )

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the United States’ Motion for Reduction of 

Sentence pursuant to Rule 35(b), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Doc. 58) and 

the defendant’s response (Doc. 60) The United States asks the court to reduce the 

defendant’s 151-month sentence because he provided substantial assistance in the 

investigation and prosecution of other defendants. Upon due consideration of the 

grounds presented, the court finds that the United States’ motion is well taken and 

hereby GRANTS the motion. Based upon the information presented by both 

parties, the court finds that a reduction of the sentence from 151 months to 100 

months is appropriate.

Therefore, it is ORDERED that defendant STACEY ADAM WARD’s 

sentence hereby is amended, and his term of imprisonment is reduced from 151

months to 100 months. All other terms and conditions of the sentence and 

judgment remain the same.

DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of January, 2013.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cr-00194-CG-B Document 61 Filed 01/11/13 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CARI D. SEARCY and KIMBERLY 

MCKEAND, individually and as 

parent and next friend of K.S., a 

minor,

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 Plaintiffs,

vs. CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0208-CG-N

LUTHER STRANGE, in his capacity 

as Attorney General for the State of 

Alabama,

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Lift Stay (Doc. 

67) and The Attorney General’s Response (Doc. 68). On this date, the 

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Attorney General’s motion for 

stay pending appeal in this case, and in the companion case of Strawser v. 

Attorney General, State of Alabama1, which the Court of Appeals 

consolidated with the appeal in this case. Plaintiffs then moved to lift the 

stay imposed by this court and the Attorney General responded, saying he is 

seeking a stay from the U.S. Supreme Court and further seeks to avoid any 

confusion by an abrupt termination in the stay entered herein.

Plaintiffs’ motion for an immediate lift of the stay is DENIED. If the 

Supreme Court denies a stay or does not rule before February 9, 2015, this 

court’s stay will still remain in place until that date to allow the Probate 

 1 Southern District of Alabama Case No. 14-00424.

Case 1:14-cv-00208-CG-N Document 69 Filed 02/03/15 Page 1 of 2
2

Courts of this state to be completely prepared for compliance with the rulings 

in this case and the Strawser case.

DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of February, 2015.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00208-CG-N Document 69 Filed 02/03/15 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001090709
<NAME> ANTEON CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1,000
<CASH>                                           1,061
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  107,446
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               117,600
<PP&E>                                          27,892
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,939
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 285,176
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           69,391
<BONDS>                                        164,581
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           178
<OTHER-SE>                                      45,490
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   285,176
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               400,850
<CGS>                                          353,245
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  353,245
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                32,275
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,042
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,833
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,543
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                290
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    463
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (173)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, 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.

November 19, 2014

h1112 

# Order

Clerk November 19, 2014

149363

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 149363

COA: 314110

Saginaw CC: 12

- 037025

- FC

DARIUS LAMAR LEWIS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 22, 2014

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DE NIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Dismissed and Opinion Filed September 26, 2018
.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 01018
- CV
IN RE ROCKHILL INSUR ANCE COMPANY, INTERN ATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF HANNOVER SE, ANTARES AUL 124, AND LIBERTY SYNDICA TE

LIB 4472 VIA PIONEER UNDERWRITING , Relators Original Proceeding from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 17
- 08647 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices L ang, Myers, and Whitehill Opinion by Justice Lang Before the Court is relators’ motion to withdraw petition for writ of mandamus due to the settlement of the underlying proceeding

. Without passing on the merits of the case, we grant
relators’ motion to wi thdraw the p etition for w rit of m andamus and dismiss this proceeding

. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1). Having dismissed the petition at the relator s ’ request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained

.

181018F.P05 /Douglas S. Lang/ DOUGLAS S. LANG JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.1



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


In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Global  Environmental  Energy Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending November 30, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Dr Christopher  McCormack,  Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section  906 of the
Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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 result of  operations of the
Company.


By:/s/Dr Christopher McCormack
-----------------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer (or equivalent thereof)

Date:  January 25, 2005









This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and  shall not 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, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version 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.
EXHIBIT 23


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

    We consent to the  incorporation  by reference  in this Annual  Report (Form
10-K) of National  Computer  Systems,  Inc.  of our report  dated March 2, 1997,
included in the 1996 Annual Report to Stockholders of National Computer Systems,
Inc. and subsidiaries.

    We  also  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  Post  Effective
Amendment  Number 2 to Registration  Statement  Number 2-80386 on Form S-8 (1982
Employee Stock Option Plan),  Post Effective  Amendment Number 1 to Registration
Statement  Number  2-96965  on Form  S-8  (1984  Employee  Stock  Option  Plan),
Registration  Statement  Number  33-9830  on  Form  S-3  (Selling  Shareholder),
Registration  Statement  Number 33-21511 on Form S-8 (1986 Employee Stock Option
Plan),  Registration  Statement Number 333-00377 on Form S-8 (1989  Non-Employee
Director  Stock  Option  Plan),  Registration  Statements  Number  33-48509  and
333-00381 on Form S-8 (1990 Employee Stock Option Plan),  Registration Statement
Number  333-00379  on Form S-8 (1990  Long-Term  Incentive  Plan),  Registration
Statement  Number  33-48510 on Form S-8 (1992  Employee  Stock  Purchase  Plan),
Registration  Statement  Number  33-68854  on Form S-8  (option  held by  former
director),  and  Registration  Statement  Number  333-00383  on Form  S-8  (1995
Employee Stock Option Plan) Registration  Statement Number 333-00000 on Form S-3
(VUE Selling  shareholders) and Registration  Statement Number 333-25343 on Form
S-8  (NCS/VUE  Stock Option Plan) of our report dated March 2, 1997 with respect
to the consolidated  financial  statements  incorporated  herein by reference in
this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of National Computer Systems, Inc.

                                                       /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
Minneapolis, Minnesota
April 23, 1997
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>        5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial  information  extracted from the Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB and is  qualified  in its  entirety by  reference  to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>


<S>                                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                             12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                         SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                              SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                                    34,201
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             172,125
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                               44,957
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          303,416
<PP&E>                                                    121,529
<DEPRECIATION>                                            (60,178)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            923,310
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                     368,132
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                  555,178
<OTHER-SE>                                                0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              923,310
<SALES>                                                   1,059,138
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          1,059,138
<CGS>                                                     (246,793)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             (1,335,676)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          20,947
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                           (502,384)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              (800)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                              (503,184)
<EPS-BASIC>                                               (.053)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             (.046)




</TABLE>
11891.

#### TOWNSEND *v.*THE STATE.

A verdict supported by any evidence and approved by the trial judge can not be set aside by this court because of alleged insufficiency of evidence.

A conviction of larceny was authorized by the evidence.

Decided December 16, 1920.

Accusation of larceny; from city court of Wrightsville — Judge *83Blount. August 28, 1920.

*Alfred Herrington, Jr., G. A. Fair cloth,*for plaintiff in error.

*G. S. Glaxton, solicitor,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

The motion for a new trial in this case contained only the usual general grounds. “.While the evidence is rather weak, this court cannot say, as a matter of law, that the verdict is without evidence to support it. The verdict having been approved by the trial judge, under the repeated and uniform rulings of this court and of the -Supreme Court a reviewing court is powerless to interfere. When the verdict is' apparently decidedly against the weight of evidence, the trial judge has a wide discretion as to granting or- refusing a new trial; but whenever there is any evidence, however slight, to support a verdict which has been approved by the trial judge, this court is absolutely without authority to control the judgment of the trial court. *Bradham*v. *State,*21 *Ga. App.*510 (94 S. E. 618), and cit. ” *Page*v. *State,*23 *Ga. App.*548 (4) (99 S. E. 55).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.*
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 Global Diversified Industries, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ending April 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Adam
Debard, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my
knowledge, 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 and 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 Company.





/s/ Adam
Debard


Adam
Debard


Principal
Accounting Officer




October
23,
2008