alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk May 25, 2012

t0522 

# Order

May 25, 2012

144466-7

RAYMOND WAYNE TACKETT, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 144466 COA: 296805 Wayne CC: 08-106659-CD GROUP FIVE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

THOMAS M. MCGREGOR, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 144467 COA: 296819 Wayne CC: 08-105824-CD GROUP FIVE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Chief Justice, a sti pulation signed by counsel for the parties agreeing to the dismissal of this application for leave to appeal is considered, and the application for leave to appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs.
#### NELSON et al. v. REID et al.

No. 995.

District Court, S. D. Florida, Miami Division.

Dec. 27, 1944.

Harold B. Wahl, of Jacksonville, Fla., for plaintiffs.

McKay, Dixon & Dejamette, of Miami, Fla., for defendants.

HOLLAND, District Judge.

On December 20, 1944, counsel for the respective parties appeared in chambers and presented the several motions hereinafter referred to. Extended argument was had, and the matter was taken under consideration.

I first consider the motion for production and discovery under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C.A. following section 723c, which motion was filed November 30, 1944. This motion should be denied. Stark v. American Dredging Co., 3 F.R.D. 300; Moore’s Federal Practice, 1944 Supplement, at page 264, is authority for this statement; “Nevertheless, as in the case of depositions under Rule 26, there is a growing tendency to prevent any inquiry into matters obtained by the adverse party in the preparation of his action or defense.” Cases are there cited for this statement. This statement of the law, as applied to this case, meets my approval.

 I now take up motion for answers to interrogatories. This motion was filed November 15, 1944. In answer to one of the interrogatories, the defendants state that they have no personal knowledge as to whether the dog in question did injure Sandy Nelson. The broad scope given to the Rules of Federal Procedure with reference to interrogating the opposite party is fully recognized. The plaintiff is entitled to interrogate the defendants both as to the plaintiff’s case and as to the defendants’ case. The plaintiff is entitled not only to seek answers with reference to detailed facts, but also as to ultimate facts. The plaintiff is also entitled, in addition to ob*200taining discovery, to seek admissions for the purpose of the trial. In this case, however, the plaintiffs desire, in spite of the answer that no personal knowledge was had of the alleged assault by the dog, to have the defendants hunt up or search out information, and, based on such hearsay information, to make admissions. In this case, with the defendants having no personal knowledge of the alleged assault of the dog, the defendants are not required to seek information from others, and based thereon to make admissions for the purpose of trial.

In one particular the answers filed are not sufficient, and the defendants should amend their answer to state the sex of the dog involved, and to give the dog’s pedigree if they have it. This supplemental answer should be made within ten days of this date. In all other respects the said motion is denied.

I next take up the motion for summary judgment under F.R.D. Rule 56. For the reasons heretofore assigned in this order in making the other rulings, said motion is denied.
#### George Popadyn et al., Appellants, v Clark Construction and Property Maintenance Services, Inc., Respondent.

[854 NYS2d 626]

*1336Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages they incurred when defendant, as an agent for HSBC Mortgage Corporation, participated in evicting plaintiffs from their home by moving their personal property to a storage facility in 2001. According to plaintiffs, some of their property was damaged or missing when they redeemed it, and the value of their property after it was redeemed was reduced from $90,000 to $10,000. Supreme Court properly granted that part of defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint with respect to plaintiff husband. The record establishes that, although he had declared bankruptcy in the year 2000 and had many of his debts discharged in the course of the bankruptcy proceeding, he failed to list items for which he now seeks recovery. Indeed, the record establishes that his bankruptcy filing set forth that his personal property assets were in the amount of only $1,220. “The doctrine of judicial estoppel provides that where a party assumes a position in a legal proceeding and succeeds in maintaining that position, that party may not subsequently assume a contrary position because [his] interests have changed ... In a bankruptcy context, judicial estoppel prevents a party from prosecuting claims not disclosed in a bankruptcy proceeding that resulted in the party’s discharge” *(McIntosh Bldrs. v Ball,*264 AD2d 869, 870 [1999]). We further conclude, however, that the court erred in granting that part of defendant’s motion with respect to plaintiff wife, inasmuch as she was not involved in the bankruptcy proceeding and was at least part owner of much of the disputed property. We therefore modify the order accordingly. Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Lunn, Pine and Gorski, JJ.
#### Anita D. Ferguson et al., Respondents, v County of Niagara et al., Appellants.

[854 NYS2d 267]

*1314Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries sustained by Anita D. Ferguson (plaintiff) when she slipped and fell in a locker room at defendant Niagara County Community College. According to plaintiff, there was water on the floor of the locker room where she fell. Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint. Defendants failed to meet their “initial burden of establishing that [they] did not create the [allegedly] dangerous condition that caused plaintiff to fall and did not have actual or constructive notice thereof’ (Quinn *v Holiday Health & Fitness Ctrs. of N.Y., Inc.,*15 AD3d 857, 857 [2005]; *see Cooper v Carmike Cinemas, Inc.,*41 AD3d 1279, 1280 [2007]; *Kimpland v Camillus Mall Assoc., L.P.,*37 AD3d 1128 [2007]). The failure of defendants to meet their burden requires denial of the motion, “regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers” (Alvarez *v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; *see Ayotte v Gervasio,*81 NY2d 1062 [1993]). Present-Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Smith, Centra and Pine, JJ.
Exhibit 31.2
**CERTIFICATIONS**
      I, Gregory D. Perry, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of TranskaryoticTherapies, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared; b) [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transitioninstructions contained in SEC Release 34-47986] c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.   Date: May 10, 2004 /s/ Gregory D. Perry   Gregory D. Perry Vice President, Finance, and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit 23


Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm








The Board of Directors


World Acceptance Corporation:





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-14399, 333-107426, 333-135621, 333-153212, 333-179389) on Form S-8 of World Acceptance Corporation of our reports dated May 29, 2012 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of World Acceptance Corporation and subsidiaries as of March 31, 2012 and 2011, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended March 31, 2012, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of March 31, 2012, which reports appear in the March 31, 2012 annual report on Form 10-K of World Acceptance Corporation.


/s/ KPMG


Greenville, South Carolina


May 29, 2012
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 372 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 372

To ensure access to certain information for financial services industry 
                  regulators, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 4, 2015

  Mrs. Capito (for herself, Mr. Crapo, Ms. Heitkamp, Mr. Manchin, Mr. 
Merkley, and Mr. Toomey) introduced the following bill; which was read 
  twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To ensure access to certain information for financial services industry 
                  regulators, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``SAFE Act Confidentiality and 
Privilege Enhancement Act''.

SEC. 2. CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION SHARED BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL 
              FINANCIAL SERVICES REGULATORS.

    Section 1512(a) of the S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008 (12 
U.S.C. 5111(a)) is amended by inserting ``or financial services'' 
before ``industry''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1





AEROSONIC CORPORATION



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 on Form 10-K of Aerosonic Corporation (the Company) for the period ending January 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David A. Baldini, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by 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 consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



March 27, 2006







/s/  David A. Baldini

David A. Baldini

Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer











---

Exhibit 32.2







AEROSONIC CORPORATION



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 on Form 10-K of Aerosonic Corporation (the Company) for the period ending January 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gary E. Colbert, Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by 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 consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





March 27, 2006





/s/  Gary E. Colbert



Gary E. Colbert

Executive Vice President

Chief Financial Officer
EX-10.6






Exhibit 10.6



Note: Certain information has been omitted from this exhibit and filed separately with the
Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to a request for confidential treatment in accordance
with Rule 24b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The locations of these
omissions are indicated in the exhibit by the following markings: [**].




MORTGAGE NOTE




	 	 	 
	$207,000.00

	 	Mineola, New York
	 

	 	March 2000





FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Roberto Perez and Astrid Perez, both residing at [**], promises to pay to PALL
CORPORATION or order at 2200 Northern Boulevard, East Hills, New York or at such other place as may
be designated in writing by the holder of this note, the principal sum of TWO HUNDRED SEVEN
THOUSAND ($207,000.00) dollars with interest thereon to be computed from the date hereof, at the
rate of -0- per centum per annum and to be paid as follows:



See Schedule A annexed hereto and made a part hereof.



IT IS HEREBY EXPRESSLEY AGREED, that the said principal sum secured by this note shall become due
at the option of the holder thereof on the happening of any default or event by which, under the
terms of the mortgage securing this note, said principal sum may or shall become due and payable;
also, that all of the covenants, conditions and agreements contained in said mortgage are hereby
made part of this instrument.



Presentment for payment, notice of dishonor, protest and notice of protest are hereby waived.



This note is spoured by a mortgage made by the maker to the payee of even date herewith, on
property situate in the county of Suffolk, known as [**].



This note may not be changed or terminated orally.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	     /s/ ROBERTO PEREZ
 	 
	 	Roberto Perez 	 
	 
	 	 	 
	 	     /s/ ASTRID PEREZ
 	 
	 	Astrid Perez
114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 349 

AN ACT 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to empower 

individuals with disabilities to establish their own supplemental needs trusts. 

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

†S 349 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Special Needs Trust 

3 Fairness Act of 2015’’. 

4 SEC. 2. FAIRNESS IN MEDICAID SUPPLEMENTAL NEEDS 

5 TRUSTS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1917(d)(4)(A) of the So7 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396p(d)(4)(A)) is amended 

8 by inserting ‘‘the individual,’’ after ‘‘for the benefit of such 

9 individual by’’. 

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

11 subsection (a) shall apply to trusts established on or after 

12 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Passed the Senate September 9, 2015. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 349 

AN ACT 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to 

their own supplemental needs trusts. empower individuals with disabilities to establish
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FROM 10-QSB FOR
OPHTHALMIC  IMAGING  SYSTEMS  FOR THE  PERIOD  ENDED  NOVEMBER  30,  1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                             NOV-30-1999
<CASH>                                       246,852
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                298,117
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                  354,351
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             948,311
<PP&E>                                     1,316,471
<DEPRECIATION>                            (1,030,706)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             1,246,462
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      4,721,113
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                           0
<OTHER-SE>                                         0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 (74,411)
<SALES>                                    1,010,168
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           1,010,168
<CGS>                                        746,346
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                746,346
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             918,415
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            37,771
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (692,364)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (692,364)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                (692,364)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Maurice H., Appellant, v Charity C., Respondent.

[852 NYS2d 881]

*1249Memorandum: Petitioner father appeals from an order dismissing his three petitions alleging that respondent mother violated the terms of a prior custody order. We affirm. Contrary to the father’s contention, the Judicial Hearing Officer properly dismissed one of the three violation petitions because “the evidence does not establish that [the mother] willfully violated a clear mandate of [the custody] order” by failing to notify him of a medical emergency and by failing to identify the father as an emergency contact on a hospital form *(Matter of Lonniel L.G. v Tammy G.-G.,*39 AD3d 1200, 1201 [2007]; *see generally Matter of Johnson v Ahern,*29 AD3d 1101 [2006]). The mother brought the child to the hospital seeking treatment for an eye injury, whereupon she completed the hospital form, and the record establishes that the child’s eye injury did not constitute a medical emergency *(see Matter of Brennan v Anesi,*283 AD2d 693, 694 [2001]). We have examined the father’s remaining contentions with respect to the dismissal of the three violation petitions and conclude that they are lacking in merit. Finally, the father’s request that this Court reverse the order and remit the matter to Family Court to dispose of the remaining petitions is not properly before us *(see*CPLR 5512 [a]; *Eaton v Eaton,*46 AD3d 1432 [2007]; *Kantrowitz v LaRoche,*5 AD3d 101 [2004]; *see also Angelucci v Sands,*297 AD2d 764 [2002]). Present— Smith, J.P., Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Green, JJ.
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 Wisconsin Electric Power Company (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2004 (the "Report"), I, Allen L. Leverett, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:

(1)     The report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Allen L. Leverett                
Allen L. Leverett 
Chief Financial Officer
March 8, 2004

This certification accompanies this 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 Wisconsin Electric Power Company and will be retained by Wisconsin Electric Power Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.2
 CFO CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADDED BY SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002
   (i)
    
    the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.
  /s/ Robert CoppleRobert CoppleChief Financial Officer
  /s/ Carol WaldmanName: Carol WaldmanTitle: Notary Public