alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BANTA v. BANTA.

No. 34734.

Nov. 21, 1950.

*224 P. 2d 592.*

Fletcher Riley, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Carmon C. Harris, of Oklahoma City, for defendant 'in error.

HALLEY, J.

This action was commenced to obtain a divorce. The first *581appeal in this case is found in Banta v. Banta, 202 Okla. 86, 210 P. 2d 346. Therein the court denied a divorce and adjusted certain property rights. The plaintiff, Carl Banta, brought this action, and on March 28, 1950, the trial court granted plaintiff a divorce and refused to grant the defendant any alimony or attorney fee other than had already been allowed therein.

Defendant has appealed. Plaintiff has filed a motion to dismiss for the reason the appeal is not perfected in accordance with law in that no case-made has been served and filed.

The motion to dismiss must be sustained. It is admitted that no case-made has been served and filed. The papers offered with the petition are not certified as a transcript. Defendant states that she has prepared and filed a bill of exceptions. The proposed bill of exceptions was not allowed by an order of the court as required by 12 O.S. 1941 §635, and for this reason is not a part of the record. Adams Royalty Co. v. Faulkner, 176 Okla. 423, 55 P. 2d 1033. In addition, when a bill of exceptions is allowed and filed it can be reviewed only on a duly certified transcript. Adams Royalty Co. v. Faulkner, supra, and cases cited therein.

This court has held many times that where the petition in error is not accompanied by a case-made duly served and filed or by a transcript of the record duly certified, there is nothing for this court to review and the purported appeal will be dismissed, Merry v. Industrial Building & Loan Ass’n et al., 138 Okla. 240, 280 P. 822; Keel v. Keel, 138 Okla. 243, 280 P. 814.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>               5
<MULTIPLIER>            1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             590                   1,102
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,237                   5,656
<ALLOWANCES>                                       287                     579
<INVENTORY>                                      6,850                   2,583
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,584                   9,503
<PP&E>                                           1,509                   1,419
<DEPRECIATION>                                     664                     484
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,498                  10,829
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,185                   3,063
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             3                       3
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,341                   5,766
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,498                  10,829
<SALES>                                         27,738                  20,559
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,738                  20,559
<CGS>                                           20,816                  15,460
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,816                  15,460
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,926                   5,552
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 272                     204
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    796                   (557)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        16                      43
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                780                   (600)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   (209)                 (1,266)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                       571                 (1,866)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .17                   (.57)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .17                   (.57)
        

</TABLE>
Skip to main content    

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

            - About FMSHRC               - News
              - Commissioners
              - Chairman and Commissioner Tenure
              - Administrative Law Judges
            - Guides               - Frequently Asked Questions
              - FOIA Guide
              - How a Case Proceeds Before the Commission
              - Guide to Commission Proceedings
              - Requests to Reopen
              - Instructions for Electronic Filing
              - Videoconference Hearings
              - Section 105(c)(3) Complaints
            - Decisions               - Review Commission Decisions
              - ALJ Decisions
              - Blue Books
            - Review Commission Arguments & Meetings               - Oral Arguments
              - Meetings
            - The Mine Act & Procedural Rules               - The Mine Act
              - Procedural Rules
              - Changes to Procedural Rules
            - FOIA               - Submit a FOIA Request
              - FOIA Guide
              - Rules
              - FOIA References
              - FOIA Library
              - FOIA Public Liaison
              - FOIA Reports
              - Proposed FOIA Rules
            - Reports & Budget Submissions               - Strategic Plans
              - Budget and Annual Performance Reports
              - Buy American Reports
              - Performance Accountability Reports
              - Sustainability Report
              - Reports to Congress
              - Contingency Plan
              - Reports to the President
            - Cases on Review               - Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission
              - Commission Decisions On Appeal
            - Contact Us

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-                   Secretary of Labor v. Black Beauty Coal Co.              

#   Secretary of Labor v. Black Beauty Coal Co.

Black Beauty, LAKE 2008-378-R, Argument Notice 10-29-14.pdf

Black Beauty, LAKE 2008-378-R, Argument Notice 10-29-14.htm

Secretary of Labor v Black Beauty Coal Docket LAKE2008-378-R etal.mp3

##### Footer Links

-  EEO Policies 
-  No Fear Act Notice 
-  Employee Ethical Conduct 
-  Equal Access to Justice Act 
-  Motions to Approve Settlement 
-  Non-Discrimination 
-  Reasonable Accommodation Procedures 
-  Privacy Act 
-  Sunshine Act Regulations 
-  USA.gov 
-  FMSHRC Privacy Policy 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

### The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

#### 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Suite 520NWashington, DC 20004-1710Phone: (202)434-9900TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
----

|                                       |   |   | Reference      Rate |   |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|--------|---------------------|--------|
| ROAE      less than 6%                     |   |   | -      %            |   |
| ROAE      6% or greater and less than 8%   |   |   | 25%                 |   |
| ROAE      8% or greater and less than 10%  |   |   | 50%                 |   |
| ROAE      10% or greater and less than 12% |   |   | 75%                 |   |
| ROAE      12% or greater                   |   |   | 100%                |   |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,225,531
<SECURITIES>                                   203,109
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,800,145
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,496,709
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,730,570
<PP&E>                                       2,344,504
<DEPRECIATION>                                 775,049
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,127,071
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          870,872
<BONDS>                                      2,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,756,827
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,176,987
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,127,071
<SALES>                                      2,211,105
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,211,105
<CGS>                                        1,172,675
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,172,675
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               730,428
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,822
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                328,257
<INCOME-TAX>                                   102,719
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            225,538
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   225,538
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .128
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .128
        

</TABLE>
Skip to main content    

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

            - About FMSHRC               - News
              - Commissioners
              - Chairman and Commissioner Tenure
              - Administrative Law Judges
            - Guides               - Frequently Asked Questions
              - FOIA Guide
              - How a Case Proceeds Before the Commission
              - Guide to Commission Proceedings
              - Requests to Reopen
              - Instructions for Electronic Filing
              - Videoconference Hearings
              - Section 105(c)(3) Complaints
            - Decisions               - Review Commission Decisions
              - ALJ Decisions
              - Blue Books
            - Review Commission Arguments & Meetings               - Oral Arguments
              - Meetings
            - The Mine Act & Procedural Rules               - The Mine Act
              - Procedural Rules
              - Changes to Procedural Rules
            - FOIA               - Submit a FOIA Request
              - FOIA Guide
              - Rules
              - FOIA References
              - FOIA Library
              - FOIA Public Liaison
              - FOIA Reports
              - Proposed FOIA Rules
            - Reports & Budget Submissions               - Strategic Plans
              - Budget and Annual Performance Reports
              - Buy American Reports
              - Performance Accountability Reports
              - Sustainability Report
              - Reports to Congress
              - Contingency Plan
              - Reports to the President
            - Cases on Review               - Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission
              - Commission Decisions On Appeal
            - Contact Us

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-                   Secretary of Labor v. Northshore Mining Company              

#   Secretary of Labor v. Northshore Mining Company

Northshore LAKE 2014-219-M Meeting Notice 10-21-16.pdf

Northshore LAKE 2014-219-M Meeting Notice 10-21-16.htm

secretary-labor-v.northshore-mining-docket-lake2014-219-m10-21-16.mp3

##### Footer Links

-  EEO Policies 
-  No Fear Act Notice 
-  Employee Ethical Conduct 
-  Equal Access to Justice Act 
-  Motions to Approve Settlement 
-  Non-Discrimination 
-  Reasonable Accommodation Procedures 
-  Privacy Act 
-  Sunshine Act Regulations 
-  USA.gov 
-  FMSHRC Privacy Policy 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

### The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

#### 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Suite 520NWashington, DC 20004-1710Phone: 771-210-1887 TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 2, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Page 55]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-32135]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Trinity County Resource Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Trinity County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet 
on February 4, 2002 in Weaverville, California. The purpose of the 
meeting is to discuss the selection of Title II projects under Public 
Law 106-393, H.R. 2389, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act of 2000, also called the ``Payments to States'' Act.

DATES: The meeting will be held on February 4, 2002 from 6:30 to 8:30 
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Trinity County Public 
Utilities District Conference Room, 26 Ponderosa Lane, Weaverville, 
California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joyce Andersen, Designated Federal 
Official, USDA, Shasta Trinity National Forests, PO Box 1190, 
Weaverville, CA 96093. Phone: (530) 623-1709. E-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4f252e212b2a3d3c2a210f293c61292a2b613a3c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b3d9d2ddd7d6c1c0d6ddf3d5c09dd5d6d79dc6c0">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will focus on selecting Title II 
projects. The meeting is open to the public. Public input opportunity 
will be provided and individuals will have the opportunity to address 
the committee at that time.

    Dated: December 21, 2001.
S.E. `Lou' Woltering,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 01-32135 Filed 12-31-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M


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



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-7058

PEDRO P. DEL ROSARIO,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

Respondent-Appellee.

Mark R. Lippman , The Veteran Law Group, of La Jolla , California, argued for claimantappellant.

Martin F. Hockey, Jr. , Assistant Director, Commercial Li tigation Branch, Civil Division,

United States Department of Ju stice, of Washingt on, DC, argued for respondent-appellee.

With him on the brief were Tony West , Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson

, Director, and Todd M. Hughes , Deputy Director. Of counsel on the brief were David J.

Barrans , Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and Y. Ken Lee , Attorney, Office of the General

Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC.

Appealed from: United States Cour t of Appeals for Veterans Claims

Judge Alan G. Lance, Sr.NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-7058

PEDRO P. DEL ROSARIO,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secret ary of Veterans Affairs

Respondent-Appellee.



## Judgment

ON APPEAL from the United States C ourt of Appeals for Veterans Claims

in CASE NO(S). 06-1596

This CAUSE having been hear d and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

Per Curiam (MICHEL, Chief Judge , RADER, Circuit Judge , and FOLSOM *

, District

Judge ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

DATED March 2, 2010 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly, Clerk

* The Honorable David Folsom, Chief District Judge, of the Eastern District of Texas, sitting

by designation.
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.

 May 27, 2014

p0519

Order 

Clerk

May 27, 2014

148675 & (53)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148675

COA: 308060

Oakland CC: 2011-235705-FC

CHRISTOPHER SCOTT NICKERSON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 23, 2014 

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to 

remand is DENIED.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"March 2023 Revocations & Surrenders","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"eSB4cd9o2F\"><a href=\"\/oti\/march-2023-revocations-surrenders\/\">March 2023 Revocations & Surrenders<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/march-2023-revocations-surrenders\/embed\/#?secret=eSB4cd9o2F\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“March 2023 Revocations & Surrenders” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"eSB4cd9o2F\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
**FEDERALMINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION**

 

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

 

BAC 6735-01

 

May 27, 2016

 

 

TIMEAND DATE:                10:00 a.m., Wednesday, June 8, 2016

 

PLACE:                                  TheRichard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Washington, DC 20004 (enter from  F Street entrance)

 

STATUS:                                Open

 

MATTERSTO BE 

CONSIDERED:                     TheCommission will consider and act upon the following in open session: *Secretaryof Labor v. The American Coal Company,*Docket No. LAKE 2011-13**(Issuesinclude whether the Judge erred by denying the Secretary’s motion to approve a proposedsettlement because the Judge concluded that more information was needed.)

 

 

Any person attending this meeting who requires specialaccessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign languageinterpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

 

 

CONTACTPERSON 

FOR MORE INFO:                EmogeneJohnson (202) 434-9935 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD

                                                Relay/ 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                __________________________________

                                                SarahL. Stewart

                                                DeputyGeneral Counsel
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ August 4, 2011 ERRATA

______________________

Appeal No. 2010-1445 CREATIVE COMPOUNDS, LLC, v. STARMARK LABORATORIES, Decided: June 24, 2011

Precedential Opinion

______________________ Please make the following change: Page 5, line 17, change “2009” to --2006--.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH 

	NO. 2-05-182-CV

IN RE DAVID L. SMITH	RELATOR

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

	ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	The court has considered relator's petition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinion that relief should be denied.  Accordingly, relator's petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

	Relator shall pay all costs of this original proceeding, for which let execution issue.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL A: CAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON and HOLMAN, JJ.

DELIVERED: May 24, 2005
#### HOLBROOK *el al.*v. GRAYSON.

No. 5960.

Opinion Filed August 18, 1914.

Rehearing Denied October 6, 1914.

(143 Pac. 170.)

APPEAL AND ERROR — Grounds for Dismissal — Settlement of Controversy. When the matters involved in a case have been fully settled by the parties, the court will not consider any question presented by the petition in error, and the proceeding in error will be dismissed.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

*276
      *Error from District*Court, *Okmulgee County; Wade 8. Stanfield, Judge.*

Action between Carleton *W.*Holbrook and' others and Theodore Grayson. From the judgment the parties first mentioned bring error.

Dismissed.

*Ramsey & Thomas*and *Chandes A. Dickson,*for plaintiff in error.

*TI. E. 'Smith, Ered M. Carter,*and *C. E. Cassity,*for defendant in error.

BLEAKMORE, J.

Since this case was lodged in this court, and on the 4-th day of June, 1914, the defendant in error filed his motion to dismiss the same for the reason that the parties hereto had compromised and settled same out of court by the execution and delivery, by defendant in error, of a deed to the real property involved, the title to which was the sole matter in controversy, which motion was duly served on plaintiffs in error on the 25th day of May, 1914.

It appearing that the matters involved have been fully settled between the parties, this court will not consider any of the questions presented by the petition in error, and the case should be dismissed. *Smith v. Boatman,*29 Okla. 818, 120 Pac. 599; *Spaulding et al. v. Yarbrough,*40 Okla. 731, 140 Pac. 782.

It follows, therefore, that the motion to dismiss the appeal must be sustained, and it is so ordered.

All the Justices concur.