alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Michael Gilligan, Respondent, *v.*The Consolidated Gas Company of New York, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

June, 1905.)

Husband and wife — Injury to wife’s wearing apparel — Action by husband.

A husband cannot recover for injuries to the wearing apparel of his wife caused by the explosion of a gas meter in their apartments.

MacLean, J., dissented.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff in the Municipal Court of the city of vNew York, eleventh district, borough of Manhattan.

Shearman & Sterling, for appellant.

Stem, Singer & Barr, for respondent.

Scott, J.

The allowance of the value of the wife’s property was unauthorized. The error can, however, be corrected by reducing the judgment by thirty-eight dollars, and affirming it as reduced, without costs. As to the other property, I am inclined to think that the proof of value was sufficient and the best that plaintiff could be expected to offer under *659the circumstances. The plaintiff is not to be denied all relief, because, owing to the destruction of his property, he cannot give exact expert evidence of value.

Judgment should be modified by the deduction of thirty-eight dollars, and as modified should be affirmed, without costs.

Dugko, J., concurs.

MacLean, J.

(dissenting)’. In this action to recover damages, for destruction of certain furniture and wearing apparel, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant, through the explosion of one of its meters in the apartment of the plaintiff, there was evidence of a leak in the meter, of notice by the wife to the plaintiff to a collector of the defendant, though disputed, and that the meter exploded, upon which the trial justice might find, as he did, negligence on the part of the defendant calling for no interference here; but the amount of damages awarded was not proper, including, as it evidently did, thirty-eighty dollars for hats, coat, waist and skirts presumably paraphernalia belonging to the wife, and for which she herself might recover under the Domestic Relations Law (Whiton v. Snyder, 88 N. Y. 299, 305-307), although anomalously her husband would be bound to supply or to replace them as necessaries. The remainder was for damage to 'the wearing apparel of the plaintiff, and to household furniture. The evidence of value thereof, however, was clearly insufficient, for first cost, and improper qualification of the plaintiff as an expert afforded insufficient basis for more than conjectural valuation. The j udgment must, therefore, be reversed and a néw trial ordered.

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

Judgment modified, and as modified affirmed, without costs.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirement of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
 Date:  August 13, 2008
    By:
    /s/ David R. AllenDavid R. AllenChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
Opinion issued October 29, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-19-00226-CV

———————————

SHERI GRIFFITH, Appellant

V.

THE KROGER CO., Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 3

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1116193

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Sheri Griffith, has neither paid the required filing fees nor 

established indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 20.1; 

see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 51.207, 51.208, 51.941(a), 101.041; Order, Fees 

Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and Before 
2

the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 15-9158 (Tex. Aug. 

28, 2015). After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant 

did not adequately respond. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 42.3(b), (c).

We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution for nonpayment of required 

fees. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Goodman, and Countiss.
IIB 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 699

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 20, 2003

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a comprehensive study of the Rathdrum Prairie/Spokane Valley 

Aquifer, located in Idaho and Washington.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 699 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE RATHDRUM 

2 PRAIRIE/SPOKANE VALLEY AQUIFER. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Interior, in 

4 consultation with the State of Idaho and the State of 

5 Washington, shall conduct a comprehensive study of the 

6 Rathdrum Prairie/Spokane Valley Aquifer for the purpose 

7 of preparing a model of the aquifer and establishing for 

8 those States a mutually acceptable understanding of the 

9 aquifer as a ground water resource. 

10 (b) REPORT.—The Secretary shall submit to the Con11 gress a report on the findings and conclusions of the study 

12 by not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment 

13 of this Act. 

14 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

15 For conducting the study under this Act there is au16 thorized to be appropriated to the Secretary $3,500,000.

Passed the House of Representatives March 19, 

2003. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
# 18SNR08_00

# image1.png
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed May 31, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-0176

Lower Tribunal No. 16-28069

________________

Khamal Ellison,

Appellant,

vs.

Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, etc.,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a) from 

the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Alan Fine, Judge.

Khamal Ellison, in proper person.

Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, and Amber Kourofsky 

(Atlanta, GA), for appellee.

Before HENDON, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure
2

9.315(a) (“After service of the initial brief . . . the court may summarily affirm 

the order to be reviewed if the court finds that no preliminary basis for 

reversal has been demonstrated.”).

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6328

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOHN ADAM MARTIN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (8:02-cr-00868-GRA-1; 8:05-cv-01237-GRA)

Submitted: July 20, 2006 Decided: July 26, 2006

Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Adam Martin, Appellant Pro Se. Isaac Louis Johnson, Jr.,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

John Adams Martin seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 motion for reconsideration of

the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims

by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any

dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise

debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Martin has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 90 Filed 08/15/14 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 1791
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 90 Filed 08/15/14 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 1792
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 90 Filed 08/15/14 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 1793
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,952,535
<SECURITIES>                                   310,167
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,123,524
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    793,709
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,252,663
<PP&E>                                       9,485,195
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,828,072
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,000,190
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,563,814
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        5,736,124
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           716
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,000,190
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,572,929
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,906,048
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              91,450
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,608,019
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,606,669
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .26


</TABLE>
Case 2:11-cv-04203-FSH-PS Document 3 Filed 07/25/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 27
Exhibit
23.1






CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED


PUBLIC
ACCOUNTING FIRM








We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-8 (File No. 333-113317 and 333-140113) previously filed by Financial Media
Group, Inc., of our report, dated November 18, 2008, on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements of Financial Media Group, Inc. and
subsidiaries for each of the two years in the period ended August 31,
2008.








/s/ KABANI & COMPANY,
INC.





Los
Angeles, California


December
12, 2008
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Multi-Lingual Initiatives Issue Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Thursday, August 13, 2009.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marisa Knispel at 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-3557.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Multi-Lingual Initiatives Issue Committee will be held Thursday, August 13, 2009, at 2 p.m. Eastern Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Marisa Knispel. For more information please contact Ms. Knispel at 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-3557, or write TAP Office, 10 MetroTech Center, 625 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201, or contact us at the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

The agenda will include various IRS issues.

Dated: July 16, 2009.

Shawn F. Collins,

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.  

[FR Doc. E9-17475 Filed 7-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
##### 



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 Quarterly Report of Simula, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bradley P. Forst,
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,
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 for the periods presented.



| | /s/ Bradley P. Forst
Bradley P. Forst
Chief Executive Officer
November 14, 2003
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### In the Matter of Jeffrey Schmidt, Respondent, v Putnam County Office of the Sheriff et al., Appellants.

[854 NYS2d 178]

In order to be eligible for disability benefits pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c, a covered municipal employee need only prove a direct causal relationship between job duties and the resulting illness or injury *(see Matter of White v County of Cortland,*97 NY2d 336, 340 [2002]). The word “duties” in General Municipal Law § 207-c encompasses the full range of a covered employee’s job duties *(see Matter of Theroux v Reilly,*1 NY3d 232, 244 [2003]). Preexisting nonwork-related conditions do not bar recovery under General Municipal Law § 207-c when the petitioner demonstrates that the job duties were a direct cause of the disability *(see Matter of White v County of Cortland,*97 NY2d 336, 340 [2002]).

Here, there is no dispute that the petitioner was capable of performing all of his job duties prior to his fall, which occurred in the performance of his duties on January 31, 2003. Although the petitioner’s medical records refer to preexisting injuries to the petitioner’s knees, the records unequivocally established that the petitioner sustained acute bilateral medial meniscal tears with subsequent surgical repair and disability as a result of his on-the-job fall on January 31, 2003. The records also demonstrated that the petitioner’s line-of-duty injuries were a direct cause of his disability.

Accordingly, the Putnam County Sheriff’s denial was not rationally based upon the evidence presented and thus, the Supreme Court properly found the denial to be arbitrary and capricious *(see*CPLR 7803 [3]; *Matter of White v County of Cortland,*97 NY2d 336 [2002]).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Santucci and Leventhal, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1


                  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) and
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


         In connection with the filing by Rush Financial Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company")  of the  Quarterly  Report  on  Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ending
September  30, 2004 (the  "Report"),  I, Dewey M. Moore,  Jr.,  Chief  Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.       The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) and
         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 operation of
         the Company.


Dated:  November 15, 2004



                                               /s/ Dewey M. Moore, Jr.
                                               --------------------------------
                                               Dewey M. Moore, Jr.
                                               Chief Executive Officer






                                       33
SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Chart 1-18. Six of the 10 industries projected to grow the 

fastest are health related and one is computer related

47

47

49

50

50

55

61

68

70

79

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Percent change in wage and salary employment, projected 2004-2014

Educational support services, private

Home health care services

Software publishers

Management, scientific, and technical consulting services

Community care facilities for the elderly

Outpatient care centers, except mental health & substance abuse

Residential mental health and substance abuse facilities

Offices of all other health practitioners

Residential mental retardation facilities

Facilities support services

Chart 1-18. Six of the 10 industries projected to grow the 

fastest are health related and one is computer related

• Private educational support services, projected to be the fastest growing 

industry over the 2004-2014 period, includes educational consulting, guidance 

counseling, and testing organizations.

• Projected employment growth in health care industries is driven by a growing 

and aging population that will demand more medical services, and by medical 

advances that create more types of treatment. Six of the 10 industries 

projected to grow the fastest are health related, including community care 

facilities for the elderly and residential care facilities for mental health and 

substance abuse.

• Information technology will continue to transform the economy and spur job 

growth in computer-related industries. Software publishing employment has 

more than doubled since 1990; as firms continue to invest heavily in 

information technology, employment will continue to grow.
[No. 54825-5-I.

Division One.

December 12, 2005.]

#### Jerry R. Elrod et al., *Appellants,*v. John H. Paton Testamentary Trust, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Whatcom County, No. 04-2-00514-7, Michael F. Moynihan, J., entered August 13, 2004. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Schindler, J., concurred in by Cook, J. Pro Tern.; Kennedy, J., indicated her concurrence prior to her death on September 16, 2005.
<PAGE>


                                                                  EXHIBIT 11.1

                                 CONDUCTUS, INC.

                  STATEMENTS OF COMPUTATION OF LOSS PER SHARE
                      (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
                                   (UNAUDITED)


                                          For the Three Months Ended
                                        ------------------------------
                                          March 31,        March 31,
                                            1997             1996
                                        ------------------------------
Net loss                                 $(1,363)           $(1,379)
                                        -----------      ------------
Weighted average number of 
  shares outstanding                       6,841              5,708
                                        -----------      ------------
Common and common equivalent 
  shares used in computing 
  per share amounts                        6,841              5,708
                                        -----------      ------------
                                        -----------      ------------
Net loss per share                       $ (0.20)            $(0.24)
                                        -----------      ------------
                                        -----------      ------------



                                        -16-