alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Simmons *v.*Thompson.

August 19, 1912.

Complaint for land. Before Judge Boan. Newton superior court. July 15, 1911.

*G. G. King,*for plaintiff in error. *Rogers & Knox,*contra.

Atkinson, J.

D. A. Thompson owned a tract of land in the town of Covington, and carved out of it several parcels fronting south on Conyers street. One of these was sold to W. B. Lee. Subsequently the most easterly parcel which bordered easterly on New street was sold to W. R. Ingram, the deed describing the property as follows: “All that tract or parcel of land lying and being in the city of Covington, Newton county, State of Georgia, known as lot No. 9 in a survey of D. A. Thompson’s land, made by J. M. Heiger, fronting on Conyers street one hundred feet, and running back north 220 feet, more or less, until the back line comes even with W. B. Lee’s lot, bounded on the south by Conyers street; west by lands of D. A. Thompson; north by D. A. Thompson, east by New street, thirty-three feet wide, which said street is to be kept open as far back as Ingram’s lot runs at least.” *Held:*

1. The descriptive words “running back north 220 feet, more or less, until the back line comes even with W. B. Lee’s lot,” are ambiguous and subject to be explained by parol evidence in an- action of complaint for land between Thompson and his remote grantee.

2. In a suit for the recovery of land, the petition should describe the land with such accuracy, that, if a general verdict is found for the plaintiff, a writ of possession may issue based on such description. If the evidence authorizes a recovery for a part of the land included in the description, the verdict, should likewise describe the land recovered with sufficient accuracy. In the present case, the petition described the land for which suit was brought in a vague and indefinite manner. Three amendments were made to it, but all of them were filed on the same day, and it can not be determined with certainty from the record in what order they were made. They varied the description of the land in dispute, though themselves subject to criticism as to definiteness. The verdict was generally in favor of the plaintiff. The evidence did not authorize a recovery based on any description made in the petition or the amendments, as a whole. The verdict did not describe any particular part of the land included in such description, so as to adjust it to the evidence. *Held,*that a new trial must be granted.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

DOUGLAS R. CARAWAY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 08-cv-04371-MMC 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 

APPLICATION TO AMEND

JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF SALE

Re: Dkt. No. 172

Before the Court is the United States’ “Application for Third Amended Judgment 

and Decree of Sale,” filed July 8, 2016, by which the United States requests the Court 

modify the “Second Amended Judgment and Decree of Sale,” filed April 29, 2016; in this 

instance, the United States seeks to add a provision specifying the type of account in 

which the Clerk of the Court shall deposit the proceeds of the sale. Defendants were 

required to file their opposition, if any, no later than July 22, 2016. To date, no opposition 

has been filed. 

The Court having read and considered the Application, the relief requested therein

is hereby GRANTED, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a); Mootry v. Grayson, 104 F. 613 (9th Cir. 

1900), and the proposed Third Amended Judgment and Decree of Sale will be entered 

concurrently herewith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 28, 2016

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04371-MMC Document 173 Filed 07/28/16 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of Albert E. Jeffcoat, Appellant, v Jean Molyneux, *771Respondent.

Order, Family Court, New York County, entered on or about February 25, 1976, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Petitioner-appellant had applied for downward modification of alimony payable under a foreign divorce decree; the application was denied and respondent-respondent awarded counsel fee of $1,500 and disbursements. The alimony issue having been settled, only the counsel fee is before us for review. Prior to trial, petitioner failed to appear for deposition, thus necessitating four court appearances before trial. The trial itself took an entire afternoon and the morning following. The petition was dismissed on the merits. The time spent in all of this and the result attained justified the fee awarded. When measured against the $2,500 petitioner believes himself entitled to for his unsuccessful suit, this is obviously so. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Markewich and Lynch, JJ.
### §§4231 to 4233. Repealed. Pub. L. 97–258, §5(b), Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1068

Section 4231, Pub. L. 90–577, title IV, §401, Oct. 16, 1968, 82 Stat. 1103, set out the declaration of a development assistance policy. See section 6506(a)–(e) of Title 31, Money and Finance.

Section 4232, Pub. L. 90–577, title IV, §402, Oct. 16, 1968, 82 Stat. 1104, related to the favoring of units of general local government in the provision of loans or grants-in-aid. See section 6506(f) of Title 31.

Section 4233, Pub. L. 90–577, title IV, §403, Oct. 16, 1968, 82 Stat. 1104; 1970 Reorg. Plan No. 2, §102, eff. July 1, 1970, 35 F.R. 7959, 84 Stat. 2085, related to rules and regulations for the effective administration of this subchapter. See section 6506(g) of Title 31.
**FINAL-Revised 8/9/01**

**Changes are in bold.**

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 01-579 ENGINEER: Hall/GSK

PV (kg/yr):

SUBMITTER:

USE:

.

MSDS: Yes Label: No

General Eqp.:

Respirator:

Health Effects:

TLV/PEL (PMN or raw materials):

VP: torr @25  C

S-H 2 O: g/L

MW:

Phys State:

Proc/Form

End Use:

Consumer Use:

SAT (concerns): Related cases (if referenced):

PBT Potential: P1B1T2

Ground Water: migration to ground water = negligible

Health: 2; Dermal, inhalation, drinking water

Eco: 3; All releases to surface waters

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1-2INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT Page # 2

ASSUMPTIONS: Inhalation exposure spreadsheet saved to LAN.

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS:

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW:INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT Page # 3

PMN: 01-0579

MFG:

Site/Location:

Days/yr:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES (Eqpt. cleaning, container residue, etc.):

WATER:

from:INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT Page # 4

P01-0579 (Mfg - continued)

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE

Tot. # of workers: (submitter estimate)

Days/yr: (submitter estimate)

Inhalation:

typical

worst:

Number of workers with inhalation exposure:

Basis:

Dermal

Basis:INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT Page # 5

PMN: 01-0579

PROC:

Site/Location: (submitter estimate)

Days/yr: (submitter estimate)

Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES (Eqpt. cleaning, container residue, etc.):

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE

Tot. # of workers: (submitter estimate)

Days/yr: (submitter estimate)

Inhalation:

typical:

worst:

Number of workers with inhalation exposure:

Basis:

Dermal

Basis:INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT Page # 6

PMN: 01-0579

USE:

Site/Location: (submitter estimate, see p. 29)

Days/yr: (submitter estimate)

Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES (Eqpt. cleaning, container residue, etc.):

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE

Tot. # of workers: up to (submitter estimate)

Days/yr: (submitter estimate)

Inhalation:

typical:

worst:

Number of workers with inhalation exposure:

Basis:

Dermal

Basis:

### CONTACT REPORT

(Telephone Log)

PMN: 01-0579

Call By: Grace Kitzmiller (Eastern Research Group for

EPA/OPPT/CEB)

Call To:

Submitter:

Date: 5/21/01

Time: 11:15 am

Q1:

A1:
#### § 238.7 Fiscal Agent obligations.

Failure of the Fiscal Agent to perform any of its obligations pursuant to the Fiscal Agency Agreement shall not impair any Noteholder's rights under the Guarantee but may be the subject of action for damages against the Fiscal Agent by USAID as a result of such failure or neglect. A Noteholder may appoint the Fiscal Agent to make demand for payment on its behalf under the Guarantee.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE 2ND QTR ENDED 6/30/97 CONTAINED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q
(RESTATED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH REPORT ON FORM
10-Q. 
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          32,187
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,416
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (519)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                48,320
<PP&E>                                           8,444
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,489)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  58,646
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,198
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            82
<OTHER-SE>                                      44,916
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    58,646
<SALES>                                         34,811
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                34,811
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,777
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,467
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   380
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  69
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,484
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,368
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,116
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.25
        

</TABLE>
ucc3q10ex107_3.htm


 


 



	 EXHIBIT 10.7.3
	
 Union Carbide Corporation and Subsidiaries


 







 



Third Amendment to Second Amended and Restated Revolving Loan Agreement












This Third Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Revolving Loan Agreement (the “Amendment”), dated as of December 31, 2007, is entered into by and between Union Carbide Corporation, a New York corporation (the “Lender”) and The Dow Chemical Company, a Delaware corporation (the “Borrower”) effective as of February 1, 2010.







WHEREAS, the Lender and the Borrower are parties to the Second Amended and Restated Revolving Loan Agreement dated as of November 1, 2005 and amended by the First Amendment dated the 31st day of December 2007 (the “Loan Agreement”);







WHEREAS, the Lender and the Borrower wish to change a component of the Interest Rate, as defined in the Loan Agreement and as contemplated herein;







NOW, THEREFORE, in view of the following terms and conditions and for other good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:







To delete the current Definition 1.14 “TDCC Refinance Rate” in the Loan Agreement and replace it with the following:








	
  

	
1.

	
“TDCC Reference Rate” means the interest rate established for intercompany financing transactions by the Corporate Treasury Department of The Dow Chemical Company (Borrower).  This rate is set to LIBOR plus 105 basis points as of the effective date of this Amendment, any future changes to this rate will be effective if agreed between the Lender and the Borrower in writing.”


















	
  

	
2.

	
No Other Amendment or Waiver.  Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, the Loan Agreement remains in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.













	
  

	
3.

	
Execution in Counterparts.  This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when so executed will be deemed to be an original and all of which taken together will constitute one and the same agreement.  Signature pages may be detached from multiple separate counterparts and attached to a single counterpart so that all signature pages are attached to the same document.













	
  

	
4.

	
Governing Law.  This Amendment and the rights and obligations of the parties to this Amendment will be governed by and construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of New York.












IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be duly executed by their duly authorized representatives.













	  	
THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY


 


 


By: /s/ ANDREAS UNTERSTE           


Name:    Andreas Unterste


Title:      Director of Financial Operations, Compliance


               and Technology

	
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION


 


 


By: /s/ EUDIO GIL                


Name:   Eudio Gil


Title:     Chief Financial Officer, Vice President


              and Treasurer







 




  





27
Case 3:08-cv-02270-SC Document 78 Filed 07/27/10 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Samuel Conti

7/26/10

Case 3:08-cv-02270-SC Document 78 Filed 07/27/10 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:08-cv-02270-SC Document 78 Filed 07/27/10 Page 3 of 3
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CERTIFY ORDER FOR INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW NO. 3:08-CV-3518 MMC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LAW OFFICES OF RONALD JASON PALMIERI, P.C. Ronald Jason Palmieri (CA Bar No. 96953) 

1644 North Orange Grove Avenue 

Los Angeles, CA 90046 

TELEPHONE: (323) 882-8225 FACSIMILE: (323) 882-8208 lawofcsrjp@aol.com

WILDMAN, HARROLD, ALLEN & DIXON LLP

Carole E. Handler (CA Bar No. 129381) 

9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200 

Beverly Hills, CA 90212 

TELEPHONE: (310) 860-8705 FACSIMILE: (310) 860-3805 handler@wildman.com

WILDMAN, HARROLD, ALLEN & DIXON LLP

Peter N. Moore (admitted pro hac vice) 225 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2800 

Chicago, IL 60606-1229 

TELEPHONE: (312) 201-2000 FACSIMILE: (312) 201-2555 pmoore@wildman.com

Attorneys for Defendant 

REUNION.COM, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

VIOLETTA HOANG, LIVIA HSIAO, and

MICHAEL BLACKSBURG, and MATTHEW

HALL, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v.

REUNION.COM, INC., a California corporation,

 Defendant. 

No. 3:08-cv-3518 MMC 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CERTIFY 

MARCH 31, 2010 ORDER FOR

INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW PURSUANT TO 

28 U.S.C. § 1292(B)

Date: June 4, 2010 

Time: 9:00 a.m.

Judge: Hon. Maxine Chesney Courtroom 7 (19th Floor) 

Case 3:08-cv-03518-MMC Document 130 Filed 06/09/10 Page 1 of 2
1

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CERTIFY ORDER FOR INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW NO. 3:08-CV-3518 MMC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[Proposed] Order

Having reviewed Defendant’s Motion to Certify the Court’s March 31, 2010 

Order for Interlocutory Review Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), the parties’ 

respective memoranda of law, any and all supporting documents, and all other related 

documents in the Court’s file, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for 

reasons set forth in Defendant’s memoranda and hereby ORDERS as follows: 

The Court’s March 31, 2010 Order Reconsidering and Vacating in Part 

December 23 Order; Denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss First Amended 

Complaint; Setting Case Management Conference (Docket No. 107) (the “March 31, 

2010 Order”) involves controlling questions of law as to which there is substantial 

ground for difference of opinion and an immediate appeal from the order may 

materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation and thus the March 31, 

2010 Order is hereby certified for interlocutory review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1292(b).

Dated: ________________ _________________________________

 Maxine M. Chesney 

 United States District Judge 

2071008 

June 9, 2010

Case 3:08-cv-03518-MMC Document 130 Filed 06/09/10 Page 2 of 2
Summary of Director Compensation



  
 Exhibit 10.5

 BRIGGS & STRATTON CORPORATION 
 Form 10-Q for Quarterly Period Ended September 26, 2010 
 Exhibit 10.5

 SUMMARY OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION 
 Effective October 20, 2010 







  
 DIRECTOR COMPENSATON

 Each nonemployee director receives an annual retainer fee of $150,000, of which $75,000 is payable in cash and $75,000 is
payable in deferred shares of the company’s common stock. In addition, the chairs of the Audit, Compensation and Nominating & Governance Committees each receives $10,000 in deferred stock annually, and each member of the Audit
Committee receives $5,000 in deferred stock annually. 
 The deferred shares are credited to the director’s account in the
Deferred Compensation Plan for Directors (the “Plan”). They vest when the director retires as a director. While the director is serving on the board, the stock accrues additional shares of deferred stock in lieu of a cash dividend. Under
the Plan, any nonemployee director may also elect to defer receipt of all or a portion of his or her director’s cash compensation until any date but no later than the year in which the director attains the age of 73 years. Participants may
elect to have cash deferred amounts (1) credited with interest quarterly at 80% of the prevailing prime rate, or (2) converted into common share units based on the deferral date closing price of the company’s common stock. Any balance
in the common stock account will be credited with an amount equivalent to any dividend paid on the common stock, which will be converted into additional common share units. Common share units may be distributed in cash or stock at the election of
the directors. 
 Nonemployee directors are provided with $150,000 of coverage under Briggs & Stratton’s Business
Travel Accident Plan while on corporate business. 
 Nonemployee directors are encouraged to use company products to enhance
their understanding and appreciation of the company’s business. Each such director may purchase at retail up to $10,000 annually of company products and products powered by the company’s engines. The company reimburses directors for the
purchase price of these products. The amount of the reimbursement is included in the director’s taxable income
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THIS 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,575
<SECURITIES>                                    18,305
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,968
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,694
<INVENTORY>                                        720
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,131
<PP&E>                                           4,202
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,387
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  35,077
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,793
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           130
<OTHER-SE>                                      27,726
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    35,077
<SALES>                                         10,402
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,018
<CGS>                                            2,602
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,380
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,550
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     2
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,576)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (601)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,975)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,975)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.16)


</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 710

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 710 appear at 84 FR 37752, Aug. 2, 2019.

#### § 710.10 Findings.

The examiner shall make a determination exclusively on matters of record in the proceeding and shall set forth in the written decision all findings of fact and conclusions of law relevant to the matters in issue.
### §4371. Congressional findings, declarations, and purposes

(a) The Congress finds—

(1) that man has caused changes in the environment;

(2) that many of these changes may affect the relationship between man and his environment; and

(3) that population increases and urban concentration contribute directly to pollution and the degradation of our environment.

(b)(1) The Congress declares that there is a national policy for the environment which provides for the enhancement of environmental quality. This policy is evidenced by statutes heretofore enacted relating to the prevention, abatement, and control of environmental pollution, water and land resources, transportation, and economic and regional development.

(2) The primary responsibility for implementing this policy rests with State and local government.

(3) The Federal Government encourages and supports implementation of this policy through appropriate regional organizations established under existing law.

(c) The purposes of this chapter are—

(1) to assure that each Federal department and agency conducting or supporting public works activities which affect the environment shall implement the policies established under existing law; and

(2) to authorize an Office of Environmental Quality, which, notwithstanding any other provision of law, shall provide the professional and administrative staff for the Council on Environmental Quality established by Public Law 91–190.

(Pub. L. 91–224, title II, §202, Apr. 3, 1970, 84 Stat. 114.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Public Law 91–190, referred to in subsec. (c)(2), is Pub. L. 91–190, Jan. 1, 1970, 83 Stat. 852, known as the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which is classified generally to chapter 55 (§4321 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 4321 of this title and Tables.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 91–224, title II, §201, Apr. 3, 1970, 84 Stat. 114, provided that: "This title [enacting this chapter] may be cited as the 'Environmental Quality Improvement Act of 1970'."