alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Austin and others *against*Hall.

Where several plaintifi's must joiu in bringing a personal action, a release by one joint plaintiff is a bar to the action, So, in an action by tenants in common for a trespass on land, of -which they are.the coheirs, a release by one of the plaintiffs 5s a bar to the actiOD.

Tenants in common must join in an action of trespass *quart claw* ■sumfregit*

THIS was an action of trespass, *quare clausum fregit,*against the defendant and one *Ely,*for entering upon the lands of the plaintifi's, expelling them from thence, and taking the issues and profits.

The defendant pleaded not guilty, and *liberum tenementum ;*and the plaintiffs new assigned the *locus in quo*on which the trespass was alleged to have been committed. To the new assignment, the defendant pleaded, 1. Not guilty ; 2. A release, under seal, from *Edward Austin,*one of the plaintiffs, in consideration of the sum of six cents, of all actions, and causes of action, and' *287demands, which the said *Edward*Austin, or which he and any other person, had against the defendant and *Ely;*(except his share of his father’s personal property, to whom the defendant was administrator;) and, particularly, all demands on account of any trespasses done by the defendant to any real property owned or claimed by the said *Edward Austin,*and the other heirs of his deceased father; and, also, the suit lately commenced against the defendant and *Ely*by the said *Edward Austin*and his coheirs. And the defendant averred, that the real property mentioned in the release vras the same as that described in the new assignment of the plaintiff; that the said *Edward Austin,*and the other heirs of his deceased father, were the plaintiffs in this suit; and that the suit mentioned in the release and the present action were the same. 3. A release, in like manner, from *Joseph Austin,*another of the plaintiffs. To the second and third pleas there was a general demurrer and joinder in demurrer.

Z; *R. Shepherd,*in support of the demurrer,

cited *Cro. Eliz.*411. 2 *Co.*68. *Co. Litt.*197. *b.*1 *Salk.*260. *Cro. James,*231. *2 Bl. Rep.*1077. *2 Burr.*668.

*D. Russell,*contra,

cited *Cro. Eliz.*648. *Bac. Abr. Release,*(G.) 6 *Co. 35.*1 *Lev.*272. 1 *Ld. Raym.*648, 649. *Co. Litt.*285. *a.*

*Per Curiam.*

The declaration, in this case, is for a trespass on land, and an eviction of the plaintiffs; and for the damages sustained by reason thereof this suit is brought. The action is, strictly, a personal one, and the plaintiffs were bound to join in it. The release, therefore, by two of the plaintiffs, is a bar to the action, and the defendant is entitled to judgment.

Judgment for the defendant.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 0 17 5 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. NATALIE AMANDA RICH ,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including May 5 , 202 1 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 26 2021

03/26/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0175
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 819 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to reallocate costs of the Pactola 

Dam and Reservoir, South Dakota, to reflect increased demands for 

municipal, industrial, and fish and wildlife purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 15, 2005 

Mr. JOHNSON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to reallocate costs 

of the Pactola Dam and Reservoir, South Dakota, to 

reflect increased demands for municipal, industrial, and 

fish and wildlife 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 ‘‘Pactola Reservoir Re5 allocation Authorization Act of 2005’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds that— 
2

•S 819 IS

1 (1) it is appropriate to reallocate the costs of 

2 the Pactola Dam and Reservoir, South Dakota, to 

3 reflect increased demands for municipal, industrial, 

4 and fish and wildlife purposes; and 

5 (2) section 302 of the Department of Energy 

6 Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7152) prohibits such a 

7 reallocation of costs without congressional approval. 

8 SEC. 3. REALLOCATION OF COSTS OF PACTOLA DAM AND 

9 RESERVOIR, SOUTH DAKOTA. 

10 The Secretary of the Interior may, as provided in the 

11 contract of August 2001 entered into between Rapid City, 

12 South Dakota, and the Rapid Valley Conservancy District, 

13 reallocate, in a manner consistent with Federal reclama14 tion law (the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388, chapter 

15 1093), and Acts supplemental to and amendatory of that 

16 Act (43 U.S.C. 371 et seq.)), the construction costs of 

17 Pactola Dam and Reservoir, Rapid Valley Unit, Pick18 Sloan Missouri Basin Program, South Dakota, from irri19 gation purposes to municipal, industrial, and fish and 

20 wildlife purposes.

Æ
#### Houston v. Town of Chapel Hill

Case below: 177 N.C. App. 739

No. 354P06

Petitioner’s (Houston) PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA05-1461)

Denied 12/14/06
<PAGE>

                                Exhibit - 11.1
                    Computation of Earnings Per Share Data



         The following formulas were used to calculate the earnings per
share data shown in the Consolidated Statements of Income and Retained
Earnings for the three months and nine months ended September 30, 1997
and September 30, 1996 included in this Report.



                                  Calculation
                                  -----------

Three Months Ended
------------------

September 30, 1997  Net Income         Net Income        = $1,297,000  =   $ .22
                                 -----------------------   ----------
                    per common   Weighted average shares    5,994,705
                    share        of Common Stock for the
                                 period



September 30, 1996  Net Income         Net Income        = $    9,000  =  $ .00
                                 -----------------------   ----------
                    per common   Weighted average shares    5,988,025
                    share        of Common Stock for the
                                 period




Nine Months Ended
-----------------

September 30, 1997  Net Income         Net Income        = $4,499,000  =  $ .75
                                 -----------------------   ----------
                    per common   Weighted average shares    5,993,560
                    share        of Common Stock for the
                                 period



September 30, 1996  Net Income         Net Income        = $  640,000  =  $ .11
                                 -----------------------   ----------
                    per common   Weighted average shares    6,036,503
                    share        of Common Stock for the
                                 period




For purposes of calculating earnings per share, there were 5,994,705 and
5,993,560 weighted average shares of common stock outstanding during the
three months and nine months ended September 30, 1997 and 5,988,025 and
6,036,503 weighted average shares of common stock outstanding during the
three months and nine months ended September 30, 1996.  The effect of
the Company's stock option plans was anti-dilutive for all periods
presented.
109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 904

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 1560 Union Valley Road in West Milford,

New Jersey, as the ‘‘Brian P. Parrello Post Office Building’’.

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

2

S 904 ES

1 SECTION 1. BRIAN P. PARRELLO POST OFFICE BUILDING.

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States

3 Postal Service located at 1560 Union Valley Road in West

4 Milford, New Jersey, shall be known and designated as

5 the ‘‘Brian P. Parrello Post Office Building’’.

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Brian P. Parrello Post

10 Office Building’’.

Passed the Senate June 29, 2005.

Attest:

Secretary.
109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 904

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States PostParrello Post Office Building’’. West Milford, New Jersey, as the ‘‘Brian P. al Service located at 1560 Union Valley Road in
#### Aldawna Delroy Chambers, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Defendants.

[974 NYS2d 119]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Plug, J.), entered November 16, 2011, which denied, without prejudice, his unopposed motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the trial calendar is granted.

It is undisputed that the action was marked off the trial calendar on December 1, 2010. By electing to mark the case off the trial calendar pursuant to CFLR 3404, the trial court set the course for restoration *(see Basetti v Nour,*287 AD2d 126, 135 [2001]). Since the plaintiff moved to restore the action to the trial calendar within one year after the date it was marked off, restoration was automatic *(see Ross v Brookdale Univ. Hosp. & Med. Ctr.,*54 AD3d 370, 371 [2008]; *Kohn v Citigroup, Inc.,*29 AD3d 530, 532 [2006]; *Hirsch v Monroe Bus Corp.,*24 AD3d 609 [2005]). Accordingly, the plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the trial calendar should have been granted. Mastro, J.E, Balkin, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
**Facebook****Email**Print**Facebook****Email

## Overview

The complexity of rheumatic diseases entails an integrative approach to research and clinical care. This program supports human genetic and genomic, biopsychosocial and behavioral, and pain related research in rheumatic diseases, with a goal to understand how a person’s genetics, environmental, behavioral and lifestyle factors influence health and to understand the best approach to prevent and treat diseases, ultimately bringing precision medicine to patients.

Areas of focus include, but not limited to:
                          - Integrated functional genetics, genomics and epigenetics studies of rheumatic diseases including complex interaction between genetic and environmental factors.
                          - Multi-omics, high-throughput technologies, systems biology approach for biomarker discovery, patient phenotyping, pathway analyses, mechanistic studies, drug response and toxicities, and translation of new knowledge into clinical care.
                          - Algorithms development and computational modeling of multifaceted data including clinical, biological and patient reported information to improve understanding of disease, clinical diagnosis and treatment, and patient outcomes.
                          - Research into biopsychosocial and behavioral risk factors; socioeconomic factors; health disparities; adherence and compliance; health-related decision making; sleep and mood disturbances, or social functioning as related to rheumatic diseases.
                          - Investigation into biological mechanisms of pain in rheumatic diseases and chronic pain syndromes and identify critical events for development of new therapies.
                          - Exploring biopsychosocial mechanisms of pain, including sensory, cognitive, and affective components to understand the distinction between tissue damage and the experience of pain as related to rheumatic diseases.
                          - Examining neuroendocrine and/or neuroimmune mechanisms in rheumatic and related chronic syndromes.
                          - Integrative approaches to management of pain and fatigue related to rheumatic diseases including cognitive behavioral therapy, exercise and diet, coping skills training, support groups, self-management programs, relaxation and stress management, self-disclosure/emotional expression.
                          - Adapting mobile health technologies (e.g., smart phones), wearable sensors, and web-based technologies to facilitate research on the role of behavioral factors, enhance collection of patient-generated or -reported data, and implemental of digital interventions as related to rheumatic diseases.   

#### Contact Us

### Yan Wang, M.D., Ph.D.

Bethesda MD 20892-4872

Yan.Wang1@nih.gov 

## Funding Opportunities

## Research News

**Facebook****Email**Print**Facebook****Email
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 quarterly report of QuantRx Biomedical Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Sasha
Afanassiev, Chief Financial 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, that to my knowledge:





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/ Sasha AfanassievSasha
      AfanassievCFO,
      Treasurer & VP of
Finance





Date:    August
6, 2010





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.
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 Quarterly Report of Arete Industries, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
John Herzog, Interim Chief Financial 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, 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 result of operations of the
Company.




  Dated:  May 25, 2006              By:  /s/ John Herzog
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    John Herzog, Interim Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 10.4


                                AMENDMENT TO THE
                              HANOVER DIRECT, INC.
                          KEY EXECUTIVE EIGHTEEN MONTH
                         COMPENSATION CONTINUATION PLAN

                               Amendment Number 2

         WHEREAS, Hanover Direct, Inc. (the "Company") maintains the Hanover
Direct, Inc. Key Executive Eighteen Month Compensation Continuation Plan (the
"Plan"); and

         WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 9 of the Plan, the Company's Board of
Directors (the "Board") has the right at any time to amend the Plan (except
under certain circumstances set forth in said Section 9 which are not applicable
in the instant case); and

         WHEREAS, the Board now desires to amend the Plan;

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of August 1,
2001, as follows:

         FIRST: Section 2.2(ii)(a)(II) of the Plan is hereby amended to read in
its entirety as follows:

                  "(II) any sale or series of sales since April 27, 2001
involving an aggregate of fifty percent (50%) or more of the market value of
Hanover's assets (for this purpose, said 50% amount shall be deemed to be $107.6
million); or"

         SECOND: Clause (ii)(B)(II) of the definition of "Change of Control" in
Section 2.2 of the Plan is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:

                  "(II) a Transaction (other than as described in clause
         (ii)(A)(II) of this definition) immediately following which the
         shareholders of Hanover immediately prior to the Transaction continue
         to have a majority of the voting power in the resulting entity."

         THIRD: Section 2.8 of the Plan is hereby amended to read in its
entirety as follows:

                  "2.8 `For Cause' means the involuntary termination of the
         Participant's employment with the Company on account of the
         Participant's (i) willful and continued
<PAGE>
         failure to perform his/her regular duties for the Company, (ii)
         commission of an act of fraud relating to and adversely affecting the
         Company, or (iii) conviction of a felony in connection with his/her
         employment with the Company."

         FOURTH: Except to the extent hereinabove set forth, the Plan shall
remain in full force and effect without change or modification.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and as evidence of the adoption of the foregoing,
the Company has caused this Amendment Number 2 to be executed by a duly
authorized officer this 29th day of April, 2002.

                                        HANOVER DIRECT, INC.


                                        By: /s/ Charles F. Messina
                                           -------------------------------
                                        Name: Charles F. Messina
                                             -----------------------------
                                        Title: EVP/CAO
                                              ----------------------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          31,300
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,519
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    106,249
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               172,741
<PP&E>                                          63,290
<DEPRECIATION>                                (27,750)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 277,621
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          109,270
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        62,689
<OTHER-SE>                                     100,259
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   277,621
<SALES>                                         22,013
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                40,819
<CGS>                                            9,886
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  111,275
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (70,456)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (70,456)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

</TABLE>
#### Louw *against*Davis.

If the plaintiff, on trial, waive any particular cause of action* and afterwards bring a new suit for the same cause, tüe record in the former action Is not a bar to the new suit

A venire, in a justice’s court, must be executed by a constable of the town from which the jury is summoned, and in which the cause is tried.

But it seems that a *venire*directed *to any constable of the*county, if executed by the proper constable, is *a mere defect in ioruj, for which the judgment will aotbareversed*

IN ERROR, on *certiorari*to a justice’s court. Davis, the plaintiff in the court below, brought an action against *Lomo,*the defendant below, for negligence in not defending a suit brought against him, the plaintiff, in the court of common pleas of *Seneca*county. A *venire*was issued in the cause, directed to any constable of the county, and was executed by a constable of the town of *Ovid,*but the jurors were taken from the town of ' Romulus, where the cause was tried. There was a challenge to the array, which wás overruled by the justice. The defendant pleaded a former trial for the same cause of action, and judgment in his favour. From the record produced in evidence, it appeared that the former action was for the same cause, but that the plaintiff therein withdrew all his demands, except one for five dollars, for a fee in the suit, which the defendant was employed to defend. There does not appear to have been any decision, by the justice, as to the effect of the record as a bar. A verdict was given for the plaintiff below.

*Per Curiam.*

With respect to the effect of the former trial, there appears to have been no decision made by the justice; and it might be fairly inferred, from this circumstance, that the defence on this ground was not persisted in: but there could be no objection to the plaintiff’s waiving any claim for the negligence ; this was a distinct cause of action, and founded in *torh*The other objection, however, is fatal. The statute requires the *venire*to be directed to a constable of the city or town where the cause is to be tried, commanding him to sum, mon, &c. The direction of a *venire*is different from that of a summons or execution : these are directed to any constable of the county. Perhaps, the mere direction of the *venire*might have been considered matter of form, if it had been served by a constable of the town where the cause was tried *\*this the act seems to require ; probably because constables of the town are more likely to be acquainted with persons who are fit and proper jurors. But, whatever may have been the reason for suph a *228provision,-it is too plain and explicit to admit of any other con- ' struction. The judgment must, therefore, be reversed/

Judgment reversed.