alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### WEISBERGER et al. v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO.

No. 32638.

Jan. 13, 1948.

*188 P. 2d 864.*

*567A. C. Markley, of McAlester, for plaintiffs in error.

Jack Bradley, of Wilburton, for defendant in error.

HURST, C.J.

Weisberger and Weisberger, doing business as National Products Company, sued United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, surety on the official bond of the county clerk of Latimer county, to recover the purchase price of janitor’s supplies. From a judgment for the defendant, the plaintiffs have appealed. The plaintiff joined the county clerk and the board of county commissioners as defendants, but they are no longer in the case.

The issue made by the pleadings was whether the supplies were purchased for the office of the county clerk. The defendant alleged that they were purchased for Latimer county and not for the office of the county clerk. The only evidence in the record on this issue is the two invoices showing the name of the buyer to be “Sam Riddle, Clerk,” and that the supplies were “sold to Latimer County Courthouse”. This was insufficient to prove that the supplies were for the county clerk’s office so as to make the surety on his official bond liable under 62 O. S. 1941 §315, which commits the purchase of supplies, etc., for the various county and municipal officers to the officer in charge of the office or department, and provides that “the county and municipal officers referred to herein are hereby made responsible on their official bond for any and all purchases of supplies, equipment, printing and sundry maintenances for their respective offices.” (Emphasis ours.) The defendant says that this is the only statute imposing liability on the surety on the official bond under which it could be held liable, and the plaintiffs point to no other statute. American Asbestos Products v. Ind. School District, 196 Okla. 274, 164 P. 2d 619, relied upon by plaintiffs, is not in point, since there the members of the school board were the proper purchasing agents and, furthermore, it does not appear that liability of the sureties on the official bonds was involved.

We conclude that, since plaintiff failed to prove that the supplies were purchased for the county clerk’s office, the defendant as surety on the county clerk’s official bond is not liable to plaintiff for the supplies.

Affirmed.

DAVISON, V.C.J., and RILEY, BAY-LESS, GIBSON, ARNOLD, and LUTTRELL, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 10.43


                       TERMINATION Of CONSULTING AGREEMENT
                                 AMENDMENT NO. I

JDK & Associates, Inc.
19800 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 990
Irvine, California 92612

Please take notice that The RiceX Company ("RiceX") hereby elects to
terminate the CONSULTING AGREEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 1 ("Consulting Agreement")
dated as of October 20,1999, by and between RiceX and JDK & Associates, Inc.
This termination is given pursuant to paragraph I of the Consulting Agreement
and shall be effective sixty (60) days after the date hereof.

DATED: February 17,2000

                                                    THE RICEX COMPANY

                                                   /s/Daniel L. McPeak

By:

DANIEL L. MCPEAK, SR.
                                                              Chairman and CEO
#### Garvis SELLS, Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO., INC., Defendant-Appellant, v. BROOKSIDE CORP., Defendant-Appellee

No. 74—4196

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 29, 1975.

*763Samuel M. McMillan, Mobile, Ala., for defendants-appellants.

Robert H. Smith, Mobile, Ala., for ap-pellee.

Paul D. Owens, Jr., Brewton, Ala., for Sells.

Before THORNBERRY, MORGAN and RONEY, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

On June 29, 1972 Garvis Sells was driving a truck at or near the intersection of Alabama Highway 21 and Interstate Highway 65 when a fan blade broke off from the engine, penetrated the floorboard, . and severely cut Sells’ foot. He sued the truck manufacturer, International Harvester Co., and the fan blade manufacturer, Brookside Corporation. International Harvester cross-claimed against Brookside for indemnity. Both Sells and International Harvester served Brookside under the Alabama Long-Arm Service Statute, and Brook-side filed motions to dismiss both the complaint and cross-complaint for lack of in personam jurisdiction. The district court dismissed Sells’ claim against both defendants with prejudice when the parties reached a settlement agreement. It then granted Brookside’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction in the cross action. International Harvester now appeals, claiming that the trial court erred in dismissing the cross action. We find merit in International Harvester’s position and reverse.

This court has considered the Alabama substituted service statute in the past, and noted that it extends to the limits of due process. “The Supreme Court of Alabama has consistently recognized that the issue of jurisdiction pursuant to substituted service of process under Alabama’s long-arm statute is not controlled by state law but rather poses a federal question of whether subjection of the nonresident defendant to the sovereignty of Alabama comports with federal due process.” King & Hatch, Inc. v. Southern Pipe & Supply Co., 435 F.2d 43, 44 (5th Cir. 1970). See In re Martin, 281 Ala. 135, 199 So.2d 836 (1967); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 273 Ala. 656, 144 So.2d 25 (1962), rev’d on other gds., 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1963); Boyd v. Warren Paint & Color Co., 254 Ala. 687, 49 So.2d 559 (1950). Where, as here, a manufacturer sells its product to a national distributor, knowing the product will be used in all states, it does not violate due process to require the manufacturer to defend a products liability suit in that state where the accident occurs. *See*Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Arrow Aluminum Castings Co., 510 F.2d 1029 (5th Cir. 1975); Coulter v. Sears *764Roebuck, Inc., 426 F.2d 1315 (5th Cir. 1970). Since the Alabama long-arm statute extends to due process limits, the district judge improperly dismissed International Harvester’s cross-claim for lack of jurisdiction. Therefore we reverse and remand for consideration of the merits of the cross-claim.
§ 26.1 Purpose and scope. ( a ) This part establishes requirements for support of the continued airworthiness of and safety improvements for transport category airplanes. These requirements may include performing assessments, developing design changes, developing revisions to Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA), and making necessary documentation available to affected persons. Requirements of this part that establish standards for design changes and revisions to the ICA are considered airworthiness requirements.
( b ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, this part applies to the following persons, as specified in each subpart of this part: ( 1 ) Holders of type certificates and supplemental type certificates.
( 2 ) Applicants for type certificates and supplemental type certificates and changes to those certificates (including service bulletins describing design changes).
( 3 ) Persons seeking design approval for airplane repairs, alterations, or modifications that may affect airworthiness.
( 4 ) Holders of type certificates and their licensees producing new airplanes.
( c ) An applicant for approval of a design change is not required to comply with any applicable airworthiness requirement of this part if the applicant elects or is required to comply with a corresponding amendment to part 25 of this chapter that is adopted concurrently or after that airworthiness requirement.
( d ) For the purposes of this part, the word “type certificate” does not include supplemental type certificates.
#### § 298.33 Security requirements.

In conducting operations under this part, an air taxi operator or a commuter air carrier is required to adhere to all security requirements established by the Department of Transportation and the Department of Homeland Security applicable to such operations.
Am. 4 to employment agreement between DePond and Notify



 
EXHIBIT 10.2

 
AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO 
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 
This Amendment No. 1 (the “Amendment”) to that certain Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated as of August 1,
1997 between Notify Technology Corporation (the “Company”) and Paul DePond (the “Employee”) is made as of February 23, 2000. 
 
In consideration of good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Company and Employee agree as
follows: 
 
1.    Section 3(a)
of the Agreement shall be amended so that it reads in its entirety as follows: 
 
“Base Compensation.    The Company shall pay the Employee as compensation for services a base salary at an annualized rate of $225,000. Such salary shall be reviewed at least annually and shall be
increased from time to time subject to accomplishment of such performance and contribution goals and objectives as may be established from time to time by the Board. Such salary shall be paid periodically in accordance with normal Company payroll.
The annual compensation specified in this Section 3(a), together with any increases in such compensation that the Board may grant from time to time, is referred to in this Agreement as “Base Compensation”.” 
 
This Amendment has been executed effective as of the first
date set forth above. 
 

	 NOTIFY TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
	 	 	 	 EMPLOYEE

	
	 /s/    PAUL
DEPOND

	 	 	 	 /s/    PAUL F.
DEPOND


	 Paul DePond, Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	 	 Paul F. DePond
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1

(PRG SCHULTZ LOGO)



March 07, 2003



Mr. John Cook
40 Cates Ridge
Atlanta, GA 30327

Dear Mr. Cook:

This letter confirms our agreement to amend, effective February 24, 2003, your
Employment Agreement with PRG-Schultz USA, Inc., dated March 20, 1996 (the
"Agreement") in the following manner:

Base salary increase from $500,000.00 per annum paid $19,230.77 bi-weekly to
$600,000.00 per annum paid $23,076.93 bi-weekly in accordance with the
Company's customary payroll procedures.

Except for the adjustment above, the terms of the Agreement shall continue in
full force and effect as originally executed.

Should you have any questions, please give me a call.

Best wishes,


/s/ MARIE A. NEFF
---------------------------
Marie A. Neff
Executive Vice President, Human Resources
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

EXPLANATION
Lithologic symbols

Sond

Es

Organic material

(4)

{ron cementation or
stoining; "hardpan"

Clay

Phosphate nodules

No recovery, core lost
‘A mixture of symbols indicates
a mixed lithology
Other symbols
Lithologic correlation
Strotigraphic correlation
Limits of aluminum ond
calcium phosphate zones

Alternating symbols indicate two or
three of the above correlations
follow the some line

6
Sample number and interval
sampled from lot 2545

900
Surtace ee

Trace of gomma-ray log showing
intensity of radiation; cpm =
counts per minute

PLEISTOCENE
Terrace sand

Southwest

5

Sh
Sec, 24, T. 335., R. 20E.

‘cpm

PLIOCENE
Bone Valley formotion

MIDDLE MIOCENE
Hawthorn formation

4

SWA
Sec. 20, T. 33S., R. 21 E.

2/900 1800 cpm

3

NENW
Sec. 7, T. 335., R. 22 E.

© 1800 cpm

Scale, in feet
°

20

CROSS SECTION 7, LAND-PEBBLE PHOSPHATE DISTRICT, FLORIDA

2

NWYSE%
Sec. 30, T. 325S., R. 22 E.

1800 2700 cpm

BULLETIN 1046 PLATE 22

Elevation, in feet

7 '40
Northeast

NWANWY,
Sec. 16, T. 325., R. 22 E.

FY 2700 cpm

[120

f- 100

40

- 20

466352 © = 59 (In pocket)
§ 25.683 Operation tests. ( a ) It must be shown by operation tests that when portions of the control system subject to pilot effort loads are loaded to 80 percent of the limit load specified for the system and the powered portions of the control system are loaded to the maximum load expected in normal operation, the system is free from— ( 1 ) Jamming;
( 2 ) Excessive friction; and
( 3 ) Excessive deflection.
( b ) It must be shown by analysis and, where necessary, by tests, that in the presence of deflections of the airplane structure due to the separate application of pitch, roll, and yaw limit maneuver loads, the control system, when loaded to obtain these limit loads and operated within its operational range of deflections, can be exercised about all control axes and remain free from— ( 1 ) Jamming;
( 2 ) Excessive friction;
( 3 ) Disconnection; and
( 4 ) Any form of permanent damage.
( c ) It must be shown that under vibration loads in the normal flight and ground operating conditions, no hazard can result from interference or contact with adjacent elements.
[Amdt. 25-139, 79 FR 59430, Oct. 2, 2014]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

Transmittal of Record to the Court of Appeals

DATE: July 18, 2018 

 

BK #: 17-BK-3283-LTS 

Prior USCA Case #: N/A

 

APPEAL FEE PAID: YES X _ NO 

 

 

CASE CAPTION: THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, 

as representative of The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, et al.

 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS: YES NO X 

MOTIONS PENDING: YES NO X _ 

 

 

NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED BY: Aurelius Investment, LLC, Aurelius Opportunities Fund, LLC, 

Lex Claims, LLC. 

 

APPEAL FROM: Opinion & Order entered on 7/13/2018. 

 

SPECIAL COMMENTS: Copies of original documents 

INDEX OF DOCUMENTS INCLUDED AS THE RECORD ON APPEAL: 

DOCUMENTS: 

 VOLUMES: 

Docket Entries 3594, 3503, 913, 914 I 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed documents contained herein are copies or the original pleadings as 

described above and constitute the record on appeal in the case. 

 

 FRANCES RIOS DE MORAN 

 Clerk of the Court 

 S/ Marian B. Ramirez-Rivera 

 Marian B. Ramirez-Rivera 

 Deputy Clerk 

Acknowledgment of Receipt: 

Received By: ________________ 

USCCA #: ________________ 

s/c: CM/ECF Parties, Appeals Clerk

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3602 Filed:07/18/18 Entered:07/18/18 13:31:38 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

BULLETIN 1046 PLATE 10

2100 N 5
2
= ES

Io
iS
a

2000 N

700 Ww

600 W

500 W.

400 W

woe N
ow

300 W
\
200 W

2000 N.

1900 N

Quartz, tourmaline, fluorite—

‘Quartz, tourmaline, fluorite

1900 N

1800 N

1700 N

1800 N

i Diamiond-drill sump
Raise 16 ft

Quartz, fluorite, secondary copper minerals

syoson Vane Mine
oso ¥2

_b-

Mine CO. -——

200 W

300 W

1700N

1600 N

line, fluorite

1600 NJ

1500 N

1500 N

1400 _N

‘TRUE NORTH

1400 Nv

EXPLANATION

Talus, alluvium, and
fanglomerate

Rhyolite porphyry

Intrusive breccia; in part
younger than rhyolite porphyry

QUATERNARY

1300 N

TERTIARY (?)

Earlier rhyolite

N

TRIASSIC(7)

Argillite, slate, phyllite,
and hornfels.

1200 N
|S Contact, showing dip; dashed
where inferred

——

Minor fault, showing dip;
dashed where inferred

90

Vertical minor fault

Fault zone with gouge and breccia,
showing bearing and plunge of
a slickensides; dashed where inferred

ro
Svike and dip of beds

50
a

Strike and dip of overturned beds

66

_——

Strike and dip of mineralized
fissure. Thickness less than
1 ft, mineral content indicated
by note

poco N Tourmaline

Copper minerals

Uranium minerals

Q

Foot of raise or winze

@

Raise or winze extending
through level

900_N

Filled working

D.D.H. N 80°E (~43°) 350 ft,
Bearing, inclination, and length
of diamond-drill hole

300 W
800 W

800 N

1300 N

iron oxides

11200 Nv

900 W

500 W

1100 Nv

1000 Nv

(Quartz, iron oxides, secondary
Copper minerals

900.N

600 W

800 Nv

rf Lia 300 N

200 N

Quartz, iron oxide

Quartz, iron oxides, manganese,
secondary copper, minerals

Quartz, iron oxides, manganese,
‘secondary copper minerals

Quartz, manganese, iron oxides,

100 N

900 W.

Altitude of portal 574 ft,
datum mean sea level

700 W

800 W

00

Geology by Ralph H. Thurston and Albert F. Trites, Jr., January-May 1949

GEOLOGIC MAP OF LOWER ADIT LEVEL, MAJUBA HILL MINE, PERSHING COUNTY, NEVADA

1 200 Feet
#### HENDON HARDWARE CO. v. GENEVA MFG. CO.

(Decided January 20, 1916.)

Appeal from Walker Law and Equity Court.

Heard before Hon. T. L. Sowell.

Gray & Wiggins, for appellant. M. E. Nettles, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Affirmed on motion of appellee.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - 40 CFR Parts 141 and 142 
          - [FRL-6587-8] 
          - RIN 2040-AA97 

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

# ACTION:

Notice of public meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is holding a public meeting on May 18, 2000 in the EPA auditorium in Washington, DC. The meeting will provide a description and summary of the proposed Ground Water Rule (GWR) to be published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on May 10, 2000.                     

EPA is inviting all interested members of the public to attend the meeting. EPA is instituting an open door policy to allow any member of the public to attend the meeting for any length of time. Approximately 150 seats will be available for the public. Seats will be available on a first-come, first served basis. 

# DATES:

The meeting will start at 2 PM on May 18, 2000 and will adjourn at 4:00 PM. 

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held in the EPA auditorium located at 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460. 

For information about the meeting, contact the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (MC 4607), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202) 260-3309. The GWR proposal, GWR fact sheet, and GWR draft implementation guidance may be obtained from www.epa.gov/​safewater or by calling the Safe Drinking Water Hotline, telephone (800) 426-4791. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For general information, contact the Safe Drinking Water Hotline, telephone (800) 426-4791. The Safe Drinking Water Hotline is open Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays, from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time. 

Dated: April 28, 2000. 

Cynthia C. Dougherty, 

Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. 

[FR Doc. 00-11136 Filed 5-3-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
#### BENTON COUNTY TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION, Inc., by and through Lloyd EVANS, Sec. *v.*Ralph BOLAIN, County Judge etal

5-5866

S.W. 2d 566

Opinion delivered May 1, 1972

*Reed ir Reed,*by *Herbert L. Ray,*for appellants.

Conley Byrd, Justice.

Appellant Benton County Taxpayers Association, Inc., by and through Lloyd Evans, Secretary, brought this action against appellees Ralph Bolain, County Judge; Appraisal Consultants, Inc.; and Harry Pratt, County Clerk, to enjoin expenditure of county funds for a tax reappraisal upon the ground that no valid appropriation had been made by the county quorum for expenditure of the funds. The Chancellor sustained appellees’ demurrer. We agree with the Chancellor.

Appellant’s main contention is that Ark. Stat. Ann. § 17-401 (Repl. 1968), requires the affirmative votes of a majority of the duly elected, qualified and acting justices of the peace of the county. In this connection they alleged that there are 101 positions for justice of the peace in Benton County and that at the special session of the Quorum Court where the money was appropriated only 71 justices of the peace were present and that of those present 37 voted in favor of the appropriation and 34 voted against it.

The appellees on the other hand contend, among other things, that only a majority of a quorum is neces*473sary pursuant to Ark. Stat. Ann. § 17-401 to make a valid appropriation. That statute provides:

> “The county Judge, with a majority of the Justices of the Peace of each county, shall constitute a court for levying the taxes and making necessary appropriation for the expenses of the county and shall meet annually at the court house in their respective counties and districts, on the third Monday in November of each year, and at such other time or times as the county court may direct, for the purposes of levying taxes and making said appropriations; and if said court cannot complete its work in one (1) day, by a majority vote it may adjourn to a future fixed day. In case of emergency, the county court may call a special meeting of said court, and a majority shall have jurisdiction and power to act upon any matter authorized by law and designated in the order calling such meeting.”

The applicable rule of law is set forth in 45 ALR 2d 716 in this language:

> “Where no statute has required a contrary result, the courts have applied the common law rule that action may be taken by a majority of the members present, provided, of course, that they are sufficient in number to constitute a quorum of the body.”

This same rule was recognized in *Hillard*v. *Bunker,*68 Ark. 340, 58 S.W. 362 (1900). Thus as can be seen, nothing in the statutes, *supra,*requires anything more than a majority of a quorum. It follows that the chancellor properly dismissed the complaint.

Affirmed.