alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Platt *vs.*Halen.

An action may bo maintained in the name of one of two partners of a law firm, where the particular business respecting which the suit is brought is unifoimiy done in the name of the partner suing.

*456A *sel-off*will, however, be allowed in sueli suit of a demand against the firm.

In an action by an attorney against his client, the defendant is not allowed to raise objections * to the *items*of the plaintiff’s bill, if the bill has been duly taxed on notice.

This was an action of *assumpsit,*tried at the Seneca circuit, in November, 1838.

The plaintiff and *L. F. Stevens,*were members of a law firm, and were retained by the defendant to prosecute a *suit in chance- [ 457 ] ry. A bill ivas accordingly filed in the name of *Platt*alone, as solicitor, the *chancery business*of the firm being uniformly done in his name. The plaintiff produced a taxed bill of costs, a copy of which, *previous to the taxation,*was served, together' with notice of taxation, on the defendant. The defendant moved for a nonsuit, on the grounds, 1. That the proof was insufficient to sustain the action; and 2. If it was sufficient, the action should have been brought in the joint names of *Platt*and *Stevens.*The motion was denied, and the jury, under the charge of the circuit judge, found a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant moved for a new trial.

*S. Stevens,*for the defendant.

*A. Taber,*for the plaintiff.

Nelson, Ch. J.

*By the Court,*I am of opinion that *Stevens*may be regarded in the light of a dormant partner in respect to the chancery suits conducted by the firm of which he was a member ; and that the suit is well enough in the name of the plaintiff alone. The point, I think, has been heretofore decided, but it seems not to have been reported. The chancery business of the office was uniformly done in the name of *Platt,*as solicitor, the other partner not being known therein on the papers. *Collyer on Part.*2, 3, 153. *Cary on Part.*97. 3 *Cowen,*85. Sutherland, J. was inclined to this opinion in *Warner*v. *Griswold,*8 *Wendell,*666, when it was made a question whether in such cases both partners *could*sue.

The objection urged on the argument that the suit in the name of one would exclude a set-off against the partnership, is not sound; the suit is for the benefit of the firm, and in a name by which it is represented, and a set-off would be allowed. 7 *Cowen,*416.

It was not competent for the plaintiff to litigate the *items*of the bill on the trial. It had been regularly taxed on notice, and the remedy for the allowance of improper items was by appeal from taxation. *Doug.*198. 12 *Johns. R.**315. Though the bill need not now be serv- [ *458 ] ed before suit brought, the effect of a regular taxation is the 6ame as before.

New trial denied.
Consulting Agreement - Dr. William Perry



 Exhibit 10.8 
 

 
 C/O Fabrinet Pte., Ltd. 
 No. 7 Temasek Boulevard 
 #20-03 Suntec City Tower One 
 Singapore 038987 
 November 8, 2008 
 Mr. William Perry 
 [Home Address] 
 Re: Consulting Agreement 
 Dear Bill, 
 We are pleased to extend this
consulting agreement (“Agreement”) to you, effective October 1, 2008, to act as an advisor to Fabrinet. Your responsibilities will include advising our executive staff on relevant technology trends, market trends, political trends and
regulatory issues and, when appropriate, serving as a liaison to Fabrinet’s subsidiaries, suppliers, and customers. Any travel will be reimbursed to you at your actual costs. 
 The terms of this Agreement are as follows: 
 Your cumulative annual compensation from Fabrinet
will be $150,000, comprised of the following: 
  

	 	•	 	 Compensation for your participation in special and general Board meetings as a member of the Fabrinet Board of Directors (“BOD”);



  

	 	•	 	 The present value of any share option grants, valued using a binomial pricing model, amortized over the vesting period of the grant; and,



  

	 	•	 	 Retainer fee, payable quarterly. 


 Every twelve months, beginning October 1, 2008, we will provide you with notice of: 
  

	 	1)	the anticipated Board fees that would result from participating in the anticipated number of BOD meetings for the following 12 month period at the standard independent
board member rate; and, 

  

	 	2)	the present value of any option grants. 

  

 -1- 








 We expect this Agreement will be effective during the time you continue to be a member of the Fabrinet BOD,
however, we reserve the right to terminate the Agreement for any reason on 90 days notice. Similarly, you are free to terminate this engagement for any reason at any time with 30-day prior notice. 
 I trust this offer letter meets your expectations and would appreciate your signing and returning it to me. Should you have any questions or concerns about
any of the terms or other conditions of this agreement, please do not hesitate to contact me. 
  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	/s/ Tom Mitchell
	 Tom Mitchell
 CEO &
Chairman of the Board
 Fabrinet


 I, William Perry, understand and agree to the terms of the Agreement as set out herein. 

 

	
	/s/ William Perry
	William Perry

  

 -2-
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 accompanying Annual Report
of Kewaunee Scientific Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, D. Michael Parker, Senior Vice President, Finance
and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | such Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended April 30, 2011, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in such Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended April 30, 2011, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: July 15, 2011



/s/ D. Michael ParkerD. Michael Parker Senior Vice
President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer




48
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 201 3

- NM

- 1 75

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
# Úřední věstník C 194A/30.

| | ISSN 1725-5163 |
| --- | --- |
| Úřední věstník
  Evropské unie | C 194A |
| | |
| České vydání | Informace a oznámení | Svazek 4730. července 2004 |

ISSN 1725-5163

Úřední věstník

Evropské unie

C 194A

České vydání

Informace a oznámení

Svazek 4730. července 2004

---

| Oznámeníč. | Obsah | Strana |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Oznámení |
| | Rada |
| 2004/C 194A/1 | Oznámení o volných místech — Evropská obranná agentura — Ředitelé | 1 |
| | Evropské středisko pro sledování rasismu a xenofobie |
| 2004/C 194A/2 | Oznámení o přijímání přihlášek HOUA-A-2004 | 2 |

Oznámeníč.

Obsah

Strana

III   Oznámení

Rada

2004/C 194A/1

Oznámení o volných místech — Evropská obranná agentura — Ředitelé

1

Evropské středisko pro sledování rasismu a xenofobie

2004/C 194A/2

Oznámení o přijímání přihlášek HOUA-A-2004

2

| CS | |
| --- | --- |

CS

---

III Oznámení

Rada

| 30.7.2004 | CS | Úřední věstník Evropské unie | CA 194/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.7.2004

CS

Úřední věstník Evropské unie

CA 194/1

---

OZNÁMENÍ O VOLNÝCH MÍSTECH

Evropská obranná agentura

Ředitelé

(2004/C 194 A/01)

Evropská obranná agentura má v úmyslu přijmout čtyři ředitele pro svá čtyři ředitelství:

| — | Rozvoj vojenských kapacit (čj. EDA/A/2004/012), |
| --- | --- |

—

Rozvoj vojenských kapacit (čj. EDA/A/2004/012),

| — | Výzkum a technika (čj. EDA/A/2004/0029), |
| --- | --- |

—

Výzkum a technika (čj. EDA/A/2004/0029),

| — | Vyzbrojování (čj. EDA/A/2004/042), |
| --- | --- |

—

Vyzbrojování (čj. EDA/A/2004/042),

| — | Obranný průmysl a trh (čj. EDA/A/2004/051). |
| --- | --- |

—

Obranný průmysl a trh (čj. EDA/A/2004/051).

Více informací (dostupných v angličtině) a přihlášky lze získat na internetové adrese Rady: http://ue.eu.int

Lhůta: 3. září 2004, přičemž rozhodující je razítko podací pošty.

---

Evropské středisko pro sledování rasismu a xenofobie

| 30.7.2004 | CS | Úřední věstník Evropské unie | CA 194/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.7.2004

CS

Úřední věstník Evropské unie

CA 194/2

---

OZNÁMENÍ O PŘIJÍMÁNÍ PŘIHLÁŠEK HOUA-A-2004

(2004/C 194 A/02)

Evropské středisko pro sledování rasismu a xenofobie (EUMC) hledá kandidáty, kteří by obsadili určité funkce. Podrobné informace o těchto volných místech, o poslání Střediska a o postupu při vypracovávání přihlášky jsou zveřejněny na internetových stránkách EUMC, a to na adrese: http://eumc.eu.int.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 21

                          PARENTS AND SUBSIDIARIES

The Company and its subsidiaries* as of March 5, 2005 are as follows:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                             State (Country) of        Percentage of Voting
Name of Company                              Incorporation             Securities Owned
---------------                              ------------------        --------------------
<S>                                          <C>                       <C>
Kellwood Company                             Delaware                  Parent
American Recreation Products, Inc.           Delaware                  100%
Kellwood Asia Limited                        Hong Kong                 100%
Smart Shirts Limited                         Hong Kong                 100%
South Asia Garment Limited                   Hong Kong                 100%
Kellwood Trading, Ltd.                       Hong Kong                 100%
KWD Holdings, Inc.                           Delaware                  100%
Robert Scott & David Brooks
   Outlet Stores, Inc.                       Delaware                  100%
Tri-W Corporation                            North Carolina            100%
Halmode Apparel, Inc.                        Delaware                  100%
Koret of California, Inc.                    California                100%
Koret Outlet Stores, Inc.                    Delaware                  100%
Biflex International, Inc.                   New York                  100%
Kellwood Financial Resources, Inc.           Tennessee                 100%
Kellwood Shared Services, Inc.               Delaware                  100%
Dorby Frocks, Ltd.                           New York                  100%
Gerber Childrenswear, Inc.                   Delaware                  100%
Briggs New York, Inc.                        Delaware                  100%
Phat Fashions, LLC                           New York                  100%


<FN>
* Some of the above subsidiaries also have subsidiaries which are not listed
because, in the aggregate, they are not considered to be significant.
</TABLE>
#### STATE ex rel. BISHOP, County Atty., v. OKLAHOMA KENNEL CLUB et al.

No. 19872.

Opinion Filed Feb. 17, 1931.

Edwin Dabney, Atty. Gen., Pred' Hanson, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Homer Bishop, Co. Atty. for plaintiff in error.

Wells & Greer, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the order of the district court of Seminole county in an action wherein the plaintiff in error was plaintiff. The plaintiff in errot in due time served and filed its brief in full compliance with the rules of this court, but the defendant iu error has wholly failed to file any brief or to otherwise appear in this cause in this court upon the merits of the case nor has he offered any excuse for his failure to do so.

“Where plaintiff in error has served and filed' its brief in compliance with the rules of this court, and the defendant in error has neither filed a brief nor offered any excuse for his failure to do so, this court is not required to search the record to find

In this case the petition in error prays that the order appealed from be reversed', set aside, and held for naught and that judgment be rendered for the plaintiff in error setting aside the order allowing and approving the supersedeas bond and decreeing and adjudging said supersedeas bond vacated. We find upon examination, the authorities cited by the plaintiff in error reasonably! support the contention of the plaintiff, and we therefore reverse the judgment of the lower court and direct it to vacate its former order and judgment and enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff in error.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50889 Summary Calendar

SAMUEL FIACRO PENA,
Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

JOE AGUIRRE, Warden, El Paso Prison Camp,
Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-97-CV-344-H

- - - - - - - - - - July 29, 1998 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *
Samuel Fiacro Pena, federal prisoner #50360-098, appeals the

denial of his application pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in which he

argues: (1) that he was not brought to trial within the time limits
imposed by the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161-3174; (2) that

his guilty plea was not voluntary because his own attorney coerced
him to make it; and (3) that his attorney was ineffective for
failing to investigate possible defenses. Given that each of theseNo. 97-50889 -2-

claims addresses alleged errors that occurred prior to Pena’s

conviction and sentence and that Pena has failed to demonstrate

that relief pursuant to 2 8 U.S.C. § 2255 would be ineffective or
inadequate, the di strict court did not err in dismissing Pena’s

motion. S ee Cox v. Warden, Fed. Detention Ctr. , 911 F.2d 111 1 , 1113 (5th Cir. 1990; see also Lane v. Hanberry , 601 F.2d 805, 806
(5th Cir. 1979).

AFFIRMED.

Pena’s motion for release pending appeal is moot and is DENIED

as such.
#### ALBERT NOWMAN v ALICE NOWMAN et

Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist, Butler Co

No 454.

Decided May 12, 1930

Bolsinger & Black, Cincinnati, for Albert Nowman.

George F. Holland, Dayton, for Alice Now-man, et.

HAMILTON, J.

There is no bill of exceptions filed in the case.

The fixing of fees in such case is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Whether or not the trial court abused its discretion in the amounts awarded must be determined on the facts bearing on the question. These questions of fact can only be presented to the Court in an error proceeding in a bill of exceptions.

It is further argued that the plaintiff in error had no opportunity to prepare a bill of exceptions, for the reason that the award was made in chambers, in the absence of the plaintiff in error, and he had no knowledge of the proceeding, nor opportunity to make a record or reserve an exception. This being true, the plaintiff in error 'should have .appealed his case to this Court. Whereupon, we would have been in a position to review the whole transaction and pass upon the amount of fees commensurate with the services.

If the facts are as stated and argued in the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error, he, having elected to bring his case here in ,a proceeding in error and not by way of appeal, the only proceeding which the plaintiff in error would have to secure relief would be by an independent action, directly 'attacking the, judgment as one procured by irregularity in obtaining the judgment, or fraud practiced by the successful party, under favor of 11631 GC.

Since the only question that the court can consider must necessarily be presented in a bill of exceptions, and there being no such bill, the motion to dismiss the petition in error will be granted, and the petition in error is dismissed.

Cushing, PJ, and Ross, J, concur.
Record of Discussion Docke t No. FAA- Direc torate Identifier:

- AD

With whom outside th e FAA ha s this action bee n di sc ussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA , etc)?

ORGAN I ZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOP I CS DISCUS SE D BO EING VARIOUS 2013 TO PRESENT Other. List below.

Other/Additional Inf ormat i o n: Discussions with Boeing to inv esti gate and to fix the unsafe c ondition.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-11-00715-CV

Carowest Land, Ltd., Appellant

v.

Y.C. Partners, Ltd. d/b/a Yantis Company;

City of New Braunfels, Texas, and Michael Morrison, Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY, 433RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. C2010-1519D, HONORABLE CHARLES R. RAMSAY, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Carowest Land, Ltd. has filed an unopposed motion requesting that this

appeal be dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.

__________________________________________

Diane M. Henson, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Henson and Goodwin

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: May 1, 2012
EXHIBIT
32





CERTIFICATION
OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS*





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, each of the undersigned officers of La-Z-Boy
Incorporated (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that
the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended April 25, 2009
(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d),
as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/ Kurt L. DarrowKurt
      L. DarrowPresident
      and Chief Executive OfficerJune
      15, 2009


/s/ Louis M. Riccio,
    Jr.Louis
      M. Riccio, Jr.Senior
      Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerJune
      15, 2009




*The
foregoing certification is being furnished pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
and the applicable rules of the Securities and Exchange
Commission.  It is not to be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to the liability of
that section and will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any
filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
except to the extent, if any, the Company specifically incorporates it by
reference.
# EUR-Lex - 31999R2719 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 31999R2719

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 2719/1999 of 20 December 1999 amending Regulation (EC) No 1431/94 laying down detailed rules for the application in the poultrymeat sector of the import arrangements provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 774/94 **

*
Official Journal L 327 , 21/12/1999 P. 0048 - 0048 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2719/1999

of 20 December 1999

amending Regulation (EC) No 1431/94 laying down detailed rules for the application in the poultrymeat sector of the import arrangements provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 774/94

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 774/94 of 29 March 1994 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas for high-quality beef, and for pigmeat, poultrymeat, wheat and meslin, and brans, sharps and other residues(1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2198/95(2), and in particular Article 7 thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in poultrymeat(3), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2916/95(4), and in particular Article 15 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1431/94(5), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1514/97(6), lays down detailed rules for the application in the poultrymeat sector of the import arrangements provided for in Regulation (EC) No 774/94.

(2) To ensure better control of imports from certain countries, a supply contract must be demanded when a licence application is lodged.

(3) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for poultrymeat and eggs,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The following paragraph is inserted after Article 4 (1) of Regulation (EC) No 1431/94:

"1a Licence applications must be accompanied by a supply contract specifying that poultry supplies are available for delivery to the European Community during the quota period from the origin requested and up to the quota quantities applied for.

This paragraph shall apply to products in groups 1, 2 and 4 and the quota period shall be the period laid down in Article 5."

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 2000.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 20 December 1999.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 91, 8.4.1994, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 221, 19.9.1995, p. 4.

(3) OJ L 282, 1.11.1975, p. 77.

(4) OJ L 305, 19.12.1995, p. 49.

(5) OJ L 156, 23.6.1994, p. 9.

(6) OJ L 204, 31.7.1997, p. 16.
#### Wilfred Schwab, Appellant, *v.*Globe Indemnity Company, Respondent.

Argued May 27, 1937;

decided June 11, 1937.

*Louis J. Wolff*and *Harding Cowan*for appellant.

*F. A. W. Ireland*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O'Brien, Htjbbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.