alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Ferdinand V., Jr., a Child Alleged to be Permanently Neglected. Ferdinand V., Appellant; Jewish Child Care Association of New York et al., Respondents, et al., Respondent.

[717 NYS2d 59]

—Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Rhoda Cohen, J.), entered on or about August 18, 1998, which, upon a finding that the respondent-father had violated the terms of the suspended judgment, entered upon a finding of permanent neglect on or about December 3, 1997, terminated his parental rights and committed custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for purposes of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court’s finding after a hearing that respondent violated the conditions of the suspended judgment by, *inter*alia, assaulting the child’s mother in the presence of the child and ordering the child to assault the mother, is supported by the necessary preponderance of the evidence *(Matter of Robert T.,*270 AD2d 961, *lv denied*95 NY2d 758; *Matter of Vanessa R.,*249 AD2d 27; *Matter of Grace Q.,*200 AD2d 894). Since the hearing was part of the dispositional phase of the proceeding, hearsay evidence was admissible *(Matter of Robert T., supra; Matter of David Michael J.,*217 AD2d 1008, *lv denied*87 NY2d 801). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rubin, Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22I0151. CITY OF WOODSTOCK, GA v. BRANDON HUNT, et al.

The survivors and administrators of the estates of three decedents, Riley Hunt,

Kaitlin Hunt, and Kathleen Deming (the “Plaintiffs”),1sued the City of Woodstock,

Georgia (the “City”), asserting claims of negligence, negligence per se, and nuisance.

The Plaintiffs and the City filed competing motions for summary judgment. In a

single order, the trial court denied the City’s motion for summary judgment but

granted partial summary judgment to the Plaintiffs on the issue of whether the City

owed the decedents a duty of care. The City filed this timely application for

interlocutory review, seeking interlocutory review of the denial of its motion for

summary judgment and the grant of partial summary judgment to the Plaintiffs.

Under OCGA § 9-11-56 (h), the grant of partial summary judgment on any

issue or as to any party is reviewable by direct appeal. Olympic Dev. Group v.

American Druggists’ Ins. Co., 175 Ga. App. 425, 425 (1) (333 SE2d 622) (1985).

Thus, the order that the City seeks to appeal is directly appealable and not subject to

the interlocutory appealrequirements. Moreover, allrulings within that order and any

other non-final rulings entered in the case may also be raised as part of such a direct

appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (d); Southeast Ceramics v. Klem, 246 Ga. 294, 295 (1)

(271 SE2d 199) (1980). “This Court will grant a timely application for interlocutory

1

 Formally, the Plaintiffs are named as Brandon Hunt, As Surviving Father

of Riley Hunt, Deceased, and Administrator of the Estate of Riley Hunt, Brandon

Hunt, As Surviving Husband of Kaitlin Hunt, Deceased, and Administrator of the

Estate of Kaitlin Hunt, and Michael Deming, As Surviving Husband of Kathleen

Deming, Deceased, and Administrator of the Estate of Kathleen Deming.

March 31, 2022
review if the order complained of is subject to direct appeal and the applicants have

not otherwise filed a notice of appeal.” Spivey v. Hembree, 268 Ga. App. 485, 486 n.

1 (602 SE2d 246) (2004).

Accordingly, this application for interlocutory appeal is hereby GRANTED.

The City shall have ten days from the date of this order to file a notice of appeal in

the trial court if it has not already done so. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). The clerk of the

trial court is DIRECTED to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to

the Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

03/31/2022
Case 3:08-cv-01832-CRB Document 12 Filed 04/07/10 Page 1 of 2Case 3:08-cv-01832-CRB Document 12 Filed 04/07/10 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Debra Jean Lockhart, Appellant.

Adjudication unanimously reversed, on the law, and indictment dismissed. Same memorandum as in *People v Morgan*(62 AD2d 1178). (Appeal from adjudication of Monroe County Court—youthful offender.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Moule, Simons, Hancock, Jr. and Witmer, JJ.
###### Editorial Note on Part 217

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 217 appear at 68 FR 51362, Aug. 26, 2003.

#### § 217.61 Procedures.

The procedural provisons applicable to title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 apply to this part. These procedures are found in §§ 209.6-209.13 of this title.
#### Butler *v.*Sansone.

Fish, C. J.

1. The rule that the first grant of a new trial will not be disturbed except where the verdict is demanded by the evidence is applicable to a case where two successive verdicts have been rendered, one for the plaintiff and the other for the defendant, and where in each instance a new trial was granted. *Jordan*v. *Dooly,*129 *Ga,*392 (58 S. E. 879).

2. The first grant of a new trial will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court, unless the plaintiff in error shows that the judge abused his discretion in granting it, and that the law and facts required the *768verdict notwithstanding the judgment of the presiding judge. Civil Code, § 6204.

October 15, 1912.

Eviction. Before Judge Eoan. Troup superior court. August 5, *1911.*

*Hatton Lovejoy,*for plaintiff.

*E. B. Bradfield*and *A. H. Thompson,*for defendant.

*(a)*Under the evidence and the law applicable to the issues made, the verdict rendered was not demanded, and the judge did not abuse his discretion in granting a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### KANRICH v. WISE et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

March 21, 1905.)

sale by Sample—Time fob Inspection.

Though the purchaser by sample is entitled to a reasonable time for examination, hats accepted after inspection cannot be returned a week later because they were crushed or bent and were “oft color.”

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 43, Cent. Dig. Sales, §§ 811-813.]

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Eleventh District.

Action by Simon Kanrich against Benjamin Wise and another. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed. Argued before SCOTT, O’GORMAN, and BLANCHARD, JJ.

Baggott & Ryall, for appellant.

David C. Myers, for respondents.

*791SCOTT, J.

The sale was made by sample, and the well-established rule is that the warranty in such cases does not survive acceptance, provided that the purchaser has a reasonable time for examination, and that the defects are visible upon inspection. In this case it is shown that the purchaser examined the goods upon receipt, and that the defects of which complaint is made, viz., that they were crushed and bent and “off color,” were patent. Some of the hats defendants returned at once, and these plaintiff took back. Those over which this controversy has arisen were not returned until a week later. This was too late, and plaintiff was justified in refusing to receive them.

Judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.
Exhibit 10.9






Exhibit 10.9




AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO WARRANT TO PURCHASE STOCK





THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO WARRANT TO PURCHASE STOCK is made as of September 23, 2010 by and
between SVB Financial Group (“Holder”) and Biolase Technology, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
“Company”).



WHEREAS, Holder is the holder, by assignment from Silicon Valley Bank (“Bank”), of that
certain Warrant to Purchase Stock dated as of May 27, 2010 issued by the Company to Bank (the
“Warrant”); and



WHEREAS, in connection with that certain Waiver and First Loan Modification Agreement, of even
date herewith, to that certain Loan and Security Agreement dated May 27, 2010, among Midcap
Financial, LLC, Silicon Valley Bank and the Company, the parties hereto desire to amend the Warrant
in the manner set forth below;



NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and for other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as
follows:



1. Warrant Amendment. The Warrant is hereby amended so that from and after the date
hereof, the Initial Shares Warrant Price and the Additional Shares Warrant Price (each as defined
in the Warrant, and referred to therein sometimes as the “Warrant Price”) shall be $0.84, subject
to further adjustment hereafter from time to time in accordance with the provisions of the Warrant.



2. No Other Amendments. Except as amended hereby, the Warrant shall remain in full
force and effect as originally written.



3. Governing Law. This Amendment No. 1 shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware, without regard to its conflict of laws
provisions.



[Remainder of page left blank intentionally]




 


 









 







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment No. 1 to Warrant to Purchase
Stock as of the date first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Federico Pignatelli
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Federico Pignatelli 	 
	 	 	Title:  	Chairman and interim Chief Executive Officer 	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	SVB FINANCIAL GROUP

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Marla Johnson
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Marla Johnson 	 
	 	 	Title:  	Senior Advisor 	 




 


2
#### § 909.4 Other decision.

Where the Board's decision requires no action by an Agency, the decision shall be forwarded to the grievant. A copy of the decision shall be supplied to each party.
#### GREENBERG-MILLER CO. *v.*EVERETT SHOE CO.

September 26, 1912.

A corporation which legally acquires all the property of a partnership does not thereby become responsible for the partnership debts.

Complaint. Before Judge Felton. Bibb superior court. July 31, 1911.

Error was assigned upon a judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s case on general demurrer. According to the allegations of the petition, as amended, the plaintiff sold a bill of merchandise to the 'firm of Parks & Everett, composed of J. J. Parks and S. A. C. Everett. Parks sold out his interest to Everett, and the latter organized the defendant corporation, which “took over the stock and assets of the old firm.” Parks had no other property than that transferred to Everett. Everett “put all his stock of merchandise . . into the new corporation, receiving therefor stock” in the corporation. There was no actual sale, but the partnership was merely absorbed by the corporation, and the pretended sale was in fraud of creditors of the partnership,. and the transaction made the partnership insolvent. Everett died, leaving no estate, except the stock in the corporation, and that was hypothecated to his personal creditors. A judgment was prayed against the corporation on account of the alleged debt contracted by Parks and Everett.

*West & Dasher,*for plaintiff.

*John B. L. Smith*and *W. A.'Thompson,*for defendant.

Atkinson, J.

The petition is to be construed most strongly against the pleader. The general allegations as to fraud, insolvency, and absorption of the copartnership by the corporation are mere conclusions of the pleader. The substantive allegations of fact show a sale by Everett to the corporation and receipt of a consideration, the value and sufficiency of which is not questioned. The sale, therefore, must be regarded as lawful. The corporation was a different entity from the firm, and there was no promise by that entity to the firm, or to its creditors, to pay the debts of the firm. The attempt, therefore, is to hold the corporation liable merely because it lawfully acquired the property of the partnership. It has been previously ruled by this court that under the circumstances enumerated the corporation will not incur liability. *Cul*
      *730
      *berson*v. *Alabama Construction Co.,*127 *Ga.*599 (56 S. E. 765, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 411, 9 Ann. Cas. 507).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
<PAGE>

                                                              Exhibit 10.01
                      AMENDMENT TO IRU CAPACITY AGREEMENT

This Amendment ("Amendment"), effective April 30, 1999 (the "Effective Date"),
amends the IRU Capacity Agreement ("Agreement") entered into as of December 19,
1998 between AT&T Corp. ("AT&T"), a New York corporation with offices at 295
North Maple Avenue, Basking Ridge, New Jersey 07920, and At Home Corporation,
("@Home"), a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business located at
425 Broadway, Redwood City, CA  94063, as follows:

                                   BACKGROUND

Pursuant to the Agreement, AT&T granted to @Home an indefeasible right to use
optical fibers and dedicated circuit capacity on the AT&T Network.

Pursuant to Section 3.1 of the Agreement, AT&T agreed to assist @Home's
transition to the AT&T Network, during the period from January 1, 1999 through
Acceptance of the Phase Two Services, by assuming @Home's rights and obligations
under the Sprint ATM Arrangement.

Also pursuant to Section 3.1 of the Agreement, in the event AT&T incurs charges
under the Sprint ATM Arrangement in excess of five million dollars, @Home agreed
to pay the amount of any such excess to AT&T as an Assumption Fee, except that
if AT&T does not deliver the Phase Two Capacity by the Phase Two Commitment
Date, the charges incurred under the Sprint ATM Arrangement from April 1, 1999
through the date on which AT&T delivers the Phase Two Capacity would not be
counted in calculating any Assumption Fee.


THEREFORE, the parties hereby amend the Agreement as follows:

                                   AMENDMENT

1.  In Section 3.1, sentence five (5), replace "five million dollars" with "nine
million dollars."

2.  In Section 5.1, after "ninety million dollars ($90,000,000) (the "IRU
Fee"), add "and four million dollars ($4,000,000) (the "Additional IRU Fee").

3.  In Exhibit I (Payment Terms), add at the end:  "Additional IRU Fee.  @Home
shall pay the Additional IRU Fee on July 1, 1999."

4.  Except as modified above, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement
remain in full force and effect.  Terms used and not defined herein will have
the meanings assigned to them in the Agreement.  In the event of any conflict
between the provisions of the Amendment and the Agreement, the provisions of
this Amendment shall govern.
<PAGE>

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, authorized representatives of the parties have executed this
Amendment as of the Effective Date.



AT&T CORP.                         AT HOME CORPORATION

By: /s/                            By:  /s/ David Pine
   ---------------------------        ---------------------------

Title: Pres. Wholesale Mkts.       Title: VP, General Counsel
      ------------------------           ------------------------

Date:  7/1/99                      Date:  6/28/99
     -------------------------          -------------------------
RB

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0645

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

BRUCE LEON LASTER,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 60-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time 

to and including October 30, 2020, within which to prepare, serve, and file its 

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 24 2020

08/24/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0645
### §3220. Acceptance of certifications by applicants

Under terms and conditions determined by the Secretary, the Secretary may accept the certifications of an applicant for assistance under this chapter that the applicant meets the requirements of this chapter.

(Pub. L. 89–136, title VI, §610, as added Pub. L. 105–393, title I, §102(a), Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3616.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 3220, Pub. L. 89–136, title VII, §710, Aug. 26, 1965, 79 Stat. 574, set forth penalties for false statements, securities overvaluation, embezzlement, misapplication of funds, false book entries, schemes to defraud, and speculation, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 105–393, title I, §102(b)(3), Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3617.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Feb. 11, 1999, see section 105 of Pub. L. 105–393, set out as a note under section 3121 of this title.
§ 1471.1 Request for Panel consideration. If direct negotiations and other voluntary arrangements for settlement, if any, fail to resolve a negotiation impasse: ( a ) Either party, or the parties jointly, may request the Panel to consider the matter by filing a request as hereinafter provided; or
( b ) The Panel may, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 4110(a), undertake consideration of the matter upon request of the Executive Director.
#### Hugh Begley, Jr., Respondent, v. Ruth Begley, Appellant.

Motion for a stay, pending apneal, denied, as unnecessary in view of the stipulation between the parties. Motion to dispense with printing granted; the appeal will be heard on the original papers (including the typed minutes) and upon typewritten briefs. The parties are directed to file five copies and to serve one copy of their respective briefs. Motion by the American Jewish Congress to appear *amicus curies*granted to extent of permitting said party to file a brief on this appeal. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation



 Exhibit 10.2 
 Non-Employee Director Compensation 
  

					
	 Element of Compensation
	  	Dollar Value	 
		
	 Annual Board Retainer:
	  	$	95,000	  
	 Annual Lead Independent Director Retainer:
	  	$	25,000	  
	 Annual Committee Chair Retainer (other than Audit Committee):
	  	$	10,000	  
	 Annual Audit Committee Chair Retainer:
	  	$	17,500	  
	 Annual Audit Committee Member Retainer (other than Audit Committee Chair):
	  	$	10,000	  
	 Annual Equity Award:
	  	$	130,000 	(in restricted stock units) 


Stock Ownership Guidelines: Each director must hold three (3) times the “Annual Board Retainer” in CONSOL Energy Inc.’s
common stock (including any securities convertible or exercisable into its common stock (excluding stock options)) after five (5) years of service on the Board.
§ 521.35 The record. ( a ) The hearing will be recorded and transcribed. Transcripts may be obtained following the hearing from the ALJ at a cost not to exceed the actual cost of duplication.
( b ) The transcript of testimony, exhibits and other evidence admitted at the hearing, and all papers and requests filed in the proceeding constitute the record for the decision by the ALJ and the Director.
( c ) The record of the hearing may be inspected and copied (upon payment of a reasonable fee) by anyone, unless otherwise ordered by the ALJ pursuant to § 521.24.
### §3056b. Participants not Federal employees

#### (a) Inapplicability of certain provisions covering Federal employees

Eligible individuals who are participants in any project funded under this subchapter shall not be considered to be Federal employees as a result of such participation and shall not be subject to part III of title 5.

#### (b) Workers' compensation

No grant or subgrant shall be made and no contract or subcontract shall be entered into under this subchapter with an entity who is, or whose employees are, under State law, exempted from operation of the State workers' compensation law, generally applicable to employees, unless the entity shall undertake to provide either through insurance by a recognized carrier or by self-insurance, as authorized by State law, that the persons employed under the grant, subgrant, contract, or subcontract shall enjoy workers' compensation coverage equal to that provided by law for covered employment.

(Pub. L. 89–73, title V, §504, as added Pub. L. 109–365, title V, §501, Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2575.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 3056b, Pub. L. 89–73, title V, §504, as added Pub. L. 106–501, title V, §501, Nov. 13, 2000, 114 Stat. 2276, related to participants not having status as Federal employees and contractual requirement of workmen's compensation, prior to the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 109–365.

Another prior section 3056b, Pub. L. 89–73, title V, §504, formerly title IX, §904, as added Pub. L. 94–135, title I, §113(a), Nov. 28, 1975, 89 Stat. 723; renumbered title V, §504, and amended Pub. L. 95–478, title I, §105(a), title V, §503(d), Oct. 18, 1978, 92 Stat. 1547, 1559, related to participants not having status as Federal employees and contractual requirement of workmen's compensation, prior to the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 106–501.

Another prior section 504 of Pub. L. 89–73 was classified to section 3041c of this title, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 95–478.
#### James C. Heaney, Appellant, v. County of Erie, Respondent, and Buffalo Philharmonic Orchestra Society, Inc., Intervenor-Respondent.

Respondent’s motion granted to oppose appeal on typewritten briefs as filed.
### §3712h. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3712h was editorially reclassified as section 10109 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.

Section was formerly classified to section 3712d of this title prior to renumbering by Pub. L. 109–271 and transfer to this section.
(May 15, 1962)

#### In the Matter of George Beatty, Doing Business as Beatty Supply Company, Petitioner, v. Temporary State Commission of Investigation, Respondent.

Stay of March 16, 1962 modified to allow respondent Temporary State Commission of Investigation to subpcena and examine in accordance with law the petitioner and relevant hooks or documents in his possession or control. We do not reach or pass upon the merits of the question before the court at Special Term whether the notes and work-produet of the respondent based upon the petitioner’s records, impounded in the office of the Secretary of State by our order, should be returned with the records; or suppressed. The stay of March 16, 1962 to the extent only it precludes present utilization of the impounded material by the respondent, is not affected by this decision. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, 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 Quarterly Report of Pacific Biometrics, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Michael L. Hartzmark, interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     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.






Date:     November 14, 2005                      /s/ Michael L. Hartzmark
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Michael L. Hartzmark
                                                 Interim Chief Financial Officer