alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 35.14 Solicitation of legal business; negotiation of release or settlement; assistance prohibited.

All employees of the Service and all persons attached in any capacity to a station or hospital, including patients, are forbidden to communicate, directly or indirectly, with any person for the purpose of aiding in the solicitation of legal business or in the negotiation of a settlement or the obtaining of a general or special release or statement from any patient with reference to any illness or personal injury for which the patient is receiving care or treatment therein. No patient is prohibited by this section from communicating on his own behalf with an attorney of his choice or with other persons.
#### Stafford *v.*Ames.

Vendee of chattels after rescisión of the bargain is a good witness for his vendor in trover for the goods.

A cropper entitled to a share of the grain may maintain trover against the owner of the land who cnts the grain and refuses to deliver it up.

In error from the Common Pleas of Erie.

Ames and Stafford occupied land together, which was cultivated by Ames for a share of the crop. Ames left the premises, and *344Stafford cut the grain and refused to deliver any part of it to Ames. The court said this gave Ames a sufficient title to the grain to enable him to bring trover.

There was a question of evidence, which is fully stated in the opinion of this court.

Babbitt, for plaintiff in error.

*Galbraith,*contra.

*Oct.*2.

Burnside, J.

On the trial, in the Common Pleas, the plaintiff offered Wm. Nutting as a witness. The defendant requested that he should be sworn and examined on his *voire dire,*which was done by the court. Nutting said, “I made a bargain with Ames, after he sowed the wheat; I was to have it on conditions like this: I bought it, agreeing if it turned out well, to give him thirty bushels; if riot, he should make it up to me. Says he, I will. I was not to lose anything in cutting it. I gave my note to Ames for thirty bushels of wheat; the condition was not in the note. After I was refused leave to cut the wheat, plaintiff gave me up the note. This was before it was harvested. Then our agreement was rescinded.” The witness was then offered in chief, and admitted ; and this forms the first error. The plaintiff in error relies on the case of Clover *v.*Painter, 3 Barr, 46, as supporting his exception. There is but little resemblance between that case and the present; There, Bachman, the witness, was a partner of Painter’s, and the debt in question went into the firm; after that, when the witness left the concern, he re-assigned it to Painter. Although this case differed from Post *v.*Avery, in 5 W. & S. 509, and the like cases, in one particular, yet he was the assignee of the original creditor, and therefore we held him incompetent. But in the case before us, the wheat never passed into the hands or possession of Nutting. The plaintiff in error prevented him from harvesting the wheat and obtaining possession, and the contract was rescinded. It was further contended that the plaintiff had no property in the wheat, and therefore could not maintain trover. It is true, to maintain this action the plaintiff must have property in the goods, and the actual possession, or the right to immediate possession: 3 S. & R. 512-13. The defendant was a cropper, not a tenant; his agent was prevented from cutting and threshing the wheat; he was illegally kept out of the possession, and had a right to the immediate possession. There is no other alleged error worthy of notice.

Judgment affirmed.
ex_232309.htm


Exhibit 10.8a


 


FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE


ALPHA PRO TECH, LTD. 2020 OMNIBUS INCENTIVE PLAN


(December 14, 2020)


 


WHEREAS, the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Alpha Pro Tech, Ltd., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), adopted the Alpha Pro Tech, Ltd. 2020 Omnibus Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) on April 20, 2020, and the Company’s stockholders approved the adoption of the Plan at the 2020 Annual Meeting of Stockholders on June 9, 2020; and


 


WHEREAS, the Board has determined it to be in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders to amend the Plan in order to revise Section 4.4 of the Plan to clarify that the annual limit on awards that may be granted during a single fiscal year to any “Director,” together with any cash fees paid to such “Director” during the fiscal year, was intended to apply solely to any “Non-Employee Director” instead of any “Director” (as such terms are defined in the Plan); and


 


WHEREAS, under the terms of the Plan, the Board has the ability to amend the Plan in order to provide for such clarification.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Plan is hereby amended as follows:


 


	
			 

				
			1.

				
			Amendment to the Plan. Section 4.4 of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

			



 


“4.4         The maximum number of shares of Common Stock subject to Awards granted during a single Fiscal Year to any Non-Employee Director, together with any cash fees paid to such Non-Employee Director during the Fiscal Year, shall not exceed a total value of $400,000 (calculating the value of any Awards based on the grant date fair value for financial reporting purposes).”


 


2.    Effectiveness of Amendment. This Amendment shall be effective as of the date hereof. In the event of any inconsistency or conflict between the Plan and this Amendment, the terms, conditions and provisions of this Amendment shall govern and control.


 


3.    Miscellaneous. Except as herein expressly amended, the Plan is ratified and confirmed in all respects and shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.
Exhibit 10.1


 


Form of Redemption Agreement


 


Redemption Agreement, dated March 4, 2021,
between ________, an individual (the “Holder”), and SunHydrogen, Inc. a Nevada corporation (the “Company”).


 


WHEREAS, in consideration of services rendered
to the Company, the Holder received options to purchase 10,000,000 (the “Options”) shares of common stock of the Company
at an exercise price of $___ per Option;


 


WHEREAS, the Holder desires to have the
Company redeem and cancel _________ Options in exchange for the Redemption Consideration (as defined below), and the Company desires
to redeem from Holder and cancel the Options in exchange for the Redemption Consideration:


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the
mutual covenants contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged,
the parties to this Agreement hereby agree as follows:


 


1. The Company hereby redeems from the
Holder and Holder hereby transfers to the Company the Options free and clear of any encumbrances, which Options shall automatically
be canceled (the “Redemption”) effective as of the Redemption Closing (as defined below). Upon consummation of the
Redemption, Holder will have the right to receive $__________ (the “Redemption Consideration”), which will be paid
by the Company to the Holder no later than (3) business days following the Redemption (the “Redemption Closing”).


 


2. This Agreement constitutes the entire
agreement and supersedes all other prior and contemporaneous agreements and undertakings, both written and oral, among the parties
hereto with regard to the subject matter hereof.


 


3. This Agreement may be executed in any
number of counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be deemed to be an original and shall be binding upon all parties,
their successors and assigns, and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same Agreement. A signature delivered
by facsimile or email shall constitute an original.


 


[Signature Page Follows]


 






     


     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement
as of the date first written above.


 


	SUNHYDROGEN,
    INC.	 
	 	 	 
	By:
    	    	 
	Name: 	              	 
	Title: 	           	 
	 	 	 
	HOLDER:	 
	    	 
	Name:
# C_2005182EN.01002402.xml

| 23.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/24

---

Action brought on 2 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the the Italian Republic

(Case C-194/05)

(2005/C 182/45)

Language of the case: Italian

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. Konstantinidis, of its Legal Service, and G. Bambara, of the Milan Bar.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that the Italian Republic, in so far as Article 10 of Law No 93 of 2001 and Article 1(17) and (19) of Law No 443 of 2001 exclude excavated earth and rocks intended for re-use for re-filling, infilling, embanking and grinding, with the exception of materials from polluted sites and reclaimed land with a concentration of pollutants above the acceptable limits laid down by the applicable rules, from the scope of national rules on waste, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC (1) on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC. (2) |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that the Italian Republic, in so far as Article 10 of Law No 93 of 2001 and Article 1(17) and (19) of Law No 443 of 2001 exclude excavated earth and rocks intended for re-use for re-filling, infilling, embanking and grinding, with the exception of materials from polluted sites and reclaimed land with a concentration of pollutants above the acceptable limits laid down by the applicable rules, from the scope of national rules on waste, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC (1) on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC. (2)

1

2

| 2. | order the the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Commission takes the view that the Italian Republic, in so far as it excludes excavated earth and rocks intended for re-use for re-filling, infilling, embanking and grinding, from the scope of national rules on waste, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(a) of Directive 75/442/EEC on waste as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC.

---

(1)  OJ L 194 of 25.07.1975, p. 39.

1

(2)  OJ L 78 of 26.03.1991, p. 32.

2

---
# C_2005296EN.01000101.xml

| 26.11.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/1

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 6 October 2005

in Case C-204/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Articles 17 and 19 of the Sixth VAT Directive - Subsidies - Limitation of the right to deduct)

(2005/C 296/01)

Language of the case: Spanish

In Case C-204/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: E. Traversa and L. Lozano Palacios) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Díaz Abad) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 14 May 2003 — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), J. Malenovský and U. Lõhmus, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 October 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, by providing for a deductible proportion of value added tax for taxable persons who carry out only taxable transactions, and by laying down a special rule which limits the right to deduct VAT on the purchase of goods and services which are subsidised, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law, and, in particular, Articles 17(2) and (5) and 19 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by providing for a deductible proportion of value added tax for taxable persons who carry out only taxable transactions, and by laying down a special rule which limits the right to deduct VAT on the purchase of goods and services which are subsidised, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law, and, in particular, Articles 17(2) and (5) and 19 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 226 of 20.09.2003.

1

---
#### H. D. WYNN, Appellant, v. Reid F. MOORE, Appellee.

No. 74-352.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 25, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### State of Maine *vs.*Sumner P. Hopkins

York.

Opinion, December 30, 1958.

*William P. Donahue, County Attorney,*

*Marcel R. Viger, County Attorney,*

*Frank F. Harding, Attorney General,*for State.

*Harold D. Carroll,*

*Sidney R. Batchelder,*for defendant.

Sitting: Williamson, C. J., Webber, Tapley, Sullivan, Dubord, Siddall, JJ.

Webber, J.

This case originated upon a complaint lodged in the Kennebunk Municipal Court charging the respondent with a violation of the rules and regulations of the Maine Turnpike Authority with respect to speed. After conviction, the respondent appealed to the Superior Court where demurrer to the complaint was seasonably filed. Exceptions taken to the overruling of this demurrer raise the issue here.

The complaint contains no allegation that the rules and regulations of the Maine Turnpike Authority were ever pub*318lished. Such omission is fatal and the complaint fails to charge an offense. The Private and Special Laws of Maine 1941, Chap. 69, Sec. 19 provides as follows: “Sec. 19. Penalty. Any violation of *published*rules and regulations relating to the turnpike, its use or services * * *, shall be deemed a misdemeanor and shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding $10 * * (Emphasis ours). The necessity of both allegation and proof of publication is not a mere technical requirement. The Legislature obviously intended that the public should have notice by publication before any violation of the rules and regulations could properly be charged. The situation created by failure to allege publication is not unlike that discussed in *State*v. *Merrill,*132 Me. 103, 106.

The respondent relies upon his contention that serious constitutional questions are involved arising out of the alleged delegation of legislative power to the Authority. We neither intimate nor suggest what our holding would be upon these constitutional issues. Following well defined and established precedents, we hold that when reasons are apparent for sustaining a demurrer without resort to any constitutional question, the latter issue is not reached. The failure to allege publication is dispositive of the issue tendered by the demurrer. The entry will be

*Exceptions sustained.*
# C_2006056EN.01001101.xml

| 8.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 56/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/11

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4036 — TPG IV/Apax/Q-Telecom)

(2006/C 56/09)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 13 January 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4036. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4036. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
Editorial Note on Part 413
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 413 appear at 76 FR 50537, August 22, 2014.

§ 413.125 Payment for home health agency services. ( a ) For additional rules on the allowability of certain costs incurred by home health agencies, see §§ 409.46 and 409.49(b) of this chapter.
( b ) The reasonable cost of outpatient rehabilitation services furnished by a home health agency to homebound patients who are not entitled to home health benefits may not exceed the amounts payable under the physician fee schedule for comparable services effective January 1, 1999.
[59 FR 65497, Dec. 20, 1994, as amended at 63 FR 58910, Nov. 2, 1998]
HomeSwitzerland

# Switzerland

143 items

        -    Media Note  		Under Secretary Zeya Travels to Qatar, Switzerland, and Poland	  September 30, 2022 
        -    TIAS  		Switzerland (22-926.1) – Arrangement for the Exchange of Technical Information and Cooperation in Nuclear Safety Matters	  September 26, 2022 
        -    Readout  		Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Participation in   Second U.S.-Switzerland Strategic Partnership Dialogue	  September 16, 2022 
        -    Media Note  		Assistant Secretary Stewart Travels to Geneva, September 13-15	  September 12, 2022 
        -    Media Note  		U.S. Delegation to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination	  August 9, 2022 
        -    Press Statement  		Switzerland’s National Day	  Antony J. BlinkenAugust 1, 2022 
        -    Report  		2022 Investment Climate Statements: Switzerland and Liechtenstein	  July 28, 2022 
        -    Report  		2022 Trafficking in Persons Report: Switzerland	  July 19, 2022 
        -    Media Note  		Assistant Secretary Noyes’ Travel to Uganda and Geneva	  July 10, 2022 
        -    Report  		2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Switzerland	  June 2, 2022 

previous page1…56789…15next page

Back to Top
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         181,932
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,215,225
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         340,526
<DEPRECIATION>                                 120,074
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              55,319,556
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      5,549,657
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       105,710
<OTHER-SE>                                  37,375,722
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                55,319,556
<SALES>                                      5,461,649
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,461,649
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,592,842
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             116,973
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,751,834
<INCOME-TAX>                                   940,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,811,834
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,811,834
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.17
        

</TABLE>
# C_2005330EN.01001306.xml

| 24.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/13

---

Removal from the register of Case C-123/05 (1)

1

(2005/C 330/35)

Language of the case: Italian

Language of the case: Italian

By order of 6 September 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-123/05 Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.

---

(1)  OJ C 115, 14.5.2005.

1

---
§ 403.764 Basis and purpose of religious nonmedical health care institutions providing home service. ( a ) *Basis.* This subpart implements sections 1821, 1861, 1861(e), 1861(m), 1861(y), 1861(ss) and 1861(aaa), 1869 and 1878 of the Act regarding Medicare payment for items and services provided in the home setting furnished to eligible beneficiaries by religious nonmedical health care institutions (RNHCIs).
( b ) *Purpose.* The home benefit provides for limited durable medical equipment (DME) items and RNHCI services in the home setting that are fiscally limited to $700,000 per calendar year, with an expiration date of December 31, 2006, or the date on which the 2006 spending limit is reached.
[69 FR 66419, Nov. 15, 2004]