alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.21A

                        KEWAUNEE SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
                        COMPENSATION COMMITTEE MEETING
                                 JUNE 17, 1997


                             401+ PLAN RESOLUTION


          RESOLVED, that the Kewaunee Scientific Corporation Executive Deferred
Compensation Plan be amended by the adoption of an amendment in the form
attached hereto as Exhibit 7.

          FURTHER RESOLVED, that the officers of the Corporation are authorized
to take such action as they may determine to be necessary or appropriate to
implement the foregoing resolutions.
<PAGE>
 
                                   EXHIBIT 7

            SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE KEWAUNEE SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
                     EXECUTIVE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN


          THE Kewaunee Scientific Corporation Executive Deferred Compensation
Plan (the "Plan"), as adopted effective January 1, 1992, is hereby amended as
follows, pursuant to the authority retained by the Company pursuant to Article
VII thereof:

          1.  The third sentence of Section 2.2 of the Plan is amended by
striking out the phrase "the Company's Incentive Savings Plan" and by
substituting the phrase "the 401K Incentive Savings Plan for Salaried and Hourly
Employees of Kewaunee Scientific Corporation, as amended from time to time (the
'Incentive Savings Plan')."

          2.  The second sentence of Section 3.1 is amended to read as follows:

          "Such amount or rate of compensation deferred shall not exceed the
          excess of (i) ten percent of the Participant's compensation over (ii)
          the maximum amount of Deferral Contributions that the Participant is
          authorized to elect for the Plan Year under the Incentive Savings
          Plan."

          3.  The amendments made herein shall take effect on a date determined
     by the Committee, not later than January 1, 1998.

          4.  In all other respects, the Plan shall remain in full force and
     effect.

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be
     executed this ___ day of June, 1997.

                                                 KEWAUNEE SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION


                                                 By: ___________________________
                                                 Its: __________________________
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4608 

To amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to provide for the portability 

of professional licenses of members of the uniformed services and their 

spouses, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 17, 2020 

Mr. LEE (for himself, Mr. COTTON, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Ms. 

MCSALLY, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. CRUZ, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. 

DAINES, Mr. BLUNT, Mrs. LOEFFLER, Ms. ERNST, Mr. RISCH, Mrs. 

HYDE-SMITH, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. BRAUN, Mr. ROMNEY, Mr. CORNYN, 

Mr. THUNE, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. HOEVEN, and Mr. TILLIS) introduced 

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to provide 

for the portability of professional licenses of members 

of the uniformed services and their spouses, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Military Spouse Li5 censing Relief Act of 2020’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4608 IS

1 SEC. 2. PORTABILITY OF PROFESSIONAL LICENSES OF 

2 MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES 

3 AND THEIR SPOUSES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Title VII of the Servicemembers 

5 Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. 4021 et seq.) is amended by 

6 inserting after section 705 (50 U.S.C. 4025) the following 

7 new section: 

8 ‘‘SEC. 705A. PORTABILITY OF PROFESSIONAL LICENSES OF 

9 SERVICEMEMBERS AND THEIR SPOUSES. 

10 ‘‘In any case in which a servicemember has a profes11 sional license in good standing in a jurisdiction or the 

12 spouse of a servicemember has a professional license in 

13 good standing in a jurisdiction and such servicemember 

14 or spouse relocates his or her residency because of military 

15 orders to a location that is not in such jurisdiction, the 

16 professional license or certification of such servicemember 

17 or spouse shall be considered valid and in good standing 

18 in the jurisdiction of such new residency for the duration 

19 of such military orders if such servicemember or spouse— 

20 ‘‘(1) provides a copy of such military orders to 

21 the licensing authority in the jurisdiction in which 

22 the new residency is located; 

23 ‘‘(2) remains in good standing with the licens24 ing authority that issued the license; and 

25 ‘‘(3) submits to the authority of the licensing 

26 authority in the new jurisdiction for the purposes of 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4608 IS

1 standards of practice, discipline, and fulfillment of 

2 any continuing education requirements.’’. 

3 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents 

4 in section 1(b) of such Act is amended by inserting after 

5 the item relating to section 705 the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 705A. Portability of professional licenses of servicemembers and their 

spouses.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### Thomas McCarthy, Resp’t, *v.*The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, App’lt.

*(Superior Court of Buffalo,*

*General Term,*

*Filed July 12, 1889.)*

1. Negligence—Personal injuries—Complaint—Sufficiency of.

In an action brought to recover damages for personal injuries occasioned by the negligence of defendant, the complaint alleged that while waiting in the depot to take a train, “ it carelessly and negligently ran and propelled one of its cars upon and against the plaintiff, whereby he was injured,” etc. *Held,*that the complaint states, with sufficient certainty and definiteness, the negligent acts complained of.

2. Same—Pleading—What need not be alleged.

Circumstances tending to prove the facts need not be alleged, and have no place in a pleading.

*White & Simons,*for resp’t; *McMillan, Gluck & Pooley,*for app’lt.

Titus, J.

This is an appeal from an order made at special term, denying a motion to strike out portions of the plaintiff’s complaint as irrelevant and redundant, and to make it more definite and certain.

The action is brought to recover damages sustained by the plaintiff for the negligence of the defendant.

The complaint alleges that while in the depot waiting to take the train, “it carelessly and negligently ran and propelled one of its cars upon and against the plaintiff, whereby he was injured,” etc.

We think under the practice followed by all of the courts, the complaint states with sufficient certainty and definiteness the negligent acts complained of. It is a plain and concise statement of the fact of the injury and the way it was caused, with an allegation of the negligence of the defendant. It is difficult to see how the facts could be more clearly and concisely stated, unless the particular circumstances showing the conduct of the defendant’s servants are required to be given, and such circumstances, merely tending to prove the facts, need not be alleged, and have no place in a pleading. *Hyatt*v. *McMahon, 25*Barb., 457; 59 N. Y., 176; 13 Civ. Pro. Rep., 25.

On the other proposition, while it may not have been necessary to allege the matter complained of, we agree with Judge Beckwith that the words sought to be stricken out “are allegations of the circumstances tending to show the degree of care required on the part of the defendant, *925and the difficul ties on the part of the plaintiff as affecting the question of negligence.”

The order appealed from should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs, and disbursements.

Hatch, J., concurs; Beckwith, Ch. J., not sitting.
#### WILLARD (Village) v McELLIGOTT

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21768.

Decided Dec. 18, 1929

Marshall, CJ., Jones, Matthias and Day, JJ., concur. Robinson, J., dissents.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FORM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS PERIOD ENDED
FEBRUARY 28, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1999
<CASH>                                       1,442,429
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    446,238
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,481,596
<PP&E>                                       3,072,318
<DEPRECIATION>                               (241,897)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,931,120
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           61,117
<BONDS>                                      1,290,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,464
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,572,539
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,931,120
<SALES>                                        210,159
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               380,972
<CGS>                                          169,508
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  169,508
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,186,445
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              89,131
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (805,473)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (805,473)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)
        

</TABLE>
exv10w17wb









Exhibit 10.17(b)







	 	 	 
	March 10, 2005

	 	Monsanto Company

800 North Lindbergh Blvd 

St. Louis, Missouri 63167

http://www.monsanto.com






The Scotts Company

14111 Scottslawn Road

Marysville, OH 43041




Attn: Legal Department, David Aronowitz





	 	Re:	 	Renewal of the initial EU Term of the Amended and Restated Exclusive Agency
and Marketing Agreement (“Agreement”).





Dear Dave:



The initial EU Term under the Agreement expires on September 30, 2005.



Pursuant to Section 10.2 (a) (1) of the Agreement, Monsanto and The Scotts Company hereby
mutually agree to renew the initial EU Term of the Agreement for three (3) years (i.e. extend to EU
Term through September 30, 2008).



Please execute this letter agreement in the space provided below and return this letter of
agreement to me.




Sincerely,




/s/ Kevin M. Holloway                

Kevin M. Holloway

Vice President, Lawn and Garden

Monsanto Company




	 	 	 	 
	 	 
	 	Acknowledged and Agreed:
	 	 
	 	 
	By:  	/s/
Carl M. Casale

	 	/s/ Michael P. Kelty
	 	 

	 	 
	 	Carl Casale

	 	Mike Kelty
	 	Executive Vice President

	 	Vice Chairman and EVP
	 	Monsanto Company

	 	The Scotts Company







			
	Cc:	 	Voyrs, Sater, Seymour & Pease, LLP

52 East Gay Street

Columbus, OH 43216-6223

Attn: Ronald A. Robins, Jr.

Fax: (614) 464-6350
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  Exhibit 10(ah)

                             AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE

                     NONEMPLOYEE DIRECTORS STOCK OPTION PLAN

                                       OF

                            THE LAMSON & SESSIONS CO.


                                    RECITALS
                                    --------

         WHEREAS, The Lamson & Sessions Co., an Ohio corporation (the
"Company"), with the approval of the Company's shareholders, has established the
Nonemployee Directors Stock Option Plan (the "Plan");

         WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company (the "Board") finds that
it is in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders to amend the
Plan to increase the number of Common Shares, without par value, of the Company
available under the Plan each year and increase the number of shares of Common
Stock covered by the options granted to nonemployee directors; and

         WHEREAS, the Board has approved this Amendment No. 1 in accordance with
the provisions of Section 12 of the Plan, subject to approval by the
shareholders of the Company at the 1999 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

         1.       The Plan is amended by deleting "60,000" from Section 3(a) and
                  replacing it with "160,000 (60,000 of which were originally
                  approved in 1994 and 100,000 of which are being added by
                  amendment)."

         2.       The Plan is further amended by deleting the number "1,000"
                  from the first sentence of Section 4 and replacing it with
                  "2,000."

         3.       The Plan is further amended by deleting "April 22, 2000" from
                  Section 12 and replacing it with "April 22, 2004."

         4.       Except as amended by this Amendment No. 1, the Plan shall
                  remain in full force and effect.

         5.       This Amendment No. 1 shall be effective as of April 23, 1999,
                  if approved by the shareholders at the 1999 Annual Meeting of
                  Shareholders.



February 25, 1999
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in United Leisure
Corporation's Registration Statement on Form S-3 dated November 6, 1997 of our
report dated March 6, 1999 with reference to our audit of the consolidated
financial statements of United Leisure Corporation as of December 31, 1998 and
for the year then ended, which report is included in United Leisure
Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 1998.





                                              HOLLANDER, LUMER & CO. LLP


Los Angeles, California
April 12, 1999
Exhibit
32.(b)
 
 This
Certificate is being furnished and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise
subject to the liability of that section. This Certification shall not be
incorporated by reference into any registration statement or other document
pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, except as otherwise stated in such
filing.
 
 
 Certification
Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63
 Of Title
18 of the United States Code
 
 In
connection with the Annual Report of the Companies (as defined below) on Form
10-K (the “reports”) for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Susan Tomasky, the
chief financial officer of
 
 American
Electric Power Company, Inc.
 AEP
Generating Company
 AEP Texas
Central Company
 AEP Texas
North Company
 Appalachian
Power Company
 Columbus
Southern Power Company
 Indiana
Michigan Power Company
 Kentucky
Power Company
 Ohio
Power Company
 Public
Service Company of Oklahoma
 Southwestern
Electric Power Company
 
 (the
"Companies"), certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 that, based on my knowledge (i)
the Reports fully comply with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the
Reports fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Companies.
 
 
 
 
 /s/
Susan Tomasky
 Susan
Tomasky
 Chief
Financial Officer
 
 
 March 1,
2005
 
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
American Electric Power Company, Inc. and will be retained by American Electric
Power Company, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
#### Clarke, Appellant, *v.*Ratcliffe.

The probate court has not jurisdiction to enforce an attorney’s lien for fees on money recovered in that court.

In proceeding to enforce a lien, all persons interested must be made parties to the proceedings.

APPEAL from the probate court of the county of Yazoo.

Clark for appellant.

Miles *contra.*

Mr. Justice Clayton

delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellant, James R. Clarke, entered a motion in the probate court of Yazoo county, against the appellee, Samuel N. Ratcliffe, under the following circumstances:

A suit was brought in that court by Isaac Ratcliffe, as trustee or guardian, against the appellee, Samuel N. Ratcliffe, in which the former recovered a decree for fifteen hundred and eighty-seven dollars. Clarke, the appellant, was the counsel of Isaac Ratcliffe, and he instituted this proceeding against Samuel N. Ratcliffe to obtain an order of the court to subject the amount recovered by the decree above named to the payment of his fee in the case, and the fee of his associate counsel, which had been assigned to him. The amount claimed was three hundred dollars each, and the court was desired to enter up an order requiring the defendant, Samuel N. Ratcliffe, to pay- that sum into court, to be appropriated to his fee; or, if that amount was excessive, then such other sum as the court might deem just.

The court overruled the motion, from which an appeal was taken to this court.

*163The probate court is one of limited and defined jurisdiction, and, while it has ample powers in regard to the matters confided to it, it certainly has no direct authority to adjust differences between counsel and client. Nor does it seem necessary, to the due exercise of any of its granted powers, that this should be assumed as an incident.

There are modes in Avhich counsel may enforce their lien upon the fund recovered, by their services, but this is not the forum in which it can be done.

It is to be observed, too, that, in this case, Isaac Ratcliffe, who recovered the fund, is not a party. It would have been error to have made an order directly affecting his rights, without having him before the court.'

The order of the court below is affirmed.
§ 1630.13 Prohibited medical examinations and inquiries. ( a ) *Pre-employment examination or inquiry.* Except as permitted by § 1630.14, it is unlawful for a covered entity to conduct a medical examination of an applicant or to make inquiries as to whether an applicant is an individual with a disability or as to the nature or severity of such disability.
( b ) *Examination or inquiry of employees.* Except as permitted by § 1630.14, it is unlawful for a covered entity to require a medical examination of an employee or to make inquiries as to whether an employee is an individual with a disability or as to the nature or severity of such disability.
Page 1 of 4
 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 2 of 4
 

Page 3 of 4
Page 4 of 4
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


          We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements on Form S-3 and in the Registration Statements on Form
S-8 listed below of Coyote Network Systems, Inc., formerly The Diana
Corporation, of our report dated September 22, 1997, except as to the last
paragraph of Note 8, which is as of November 4, 1998, relating to the financial
statements and financial statement schedule of The Diana Corporation, which
appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 3).


1.       Registration Statement on Form S-3
         (Registration No. 33-88392)

2.       Registration Statement on Form S-8
         (Registration No. 33-67188)

3.       Registration Statement on Form S-3
         (Registration No. 333-1055)

4.       Registration Statement on Form S-8
         (Registration No. 333-63011)

5.       Registration Statement on Form S-8
         (Registration No. 333-63013)

6.       Registration Statement on Form S-8
         (Registration No. 333-63017)

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

March 13, 2000
§ 1952.16 Hawaii. ( a ) The Hawaii State plan received initial approval on January 4, 1974.
( b ) The Hawaii State plan received final approval on May 4, 1984.
( c ) On September 21, 2012 OSHA modified the State Plan's approval status from final approval to initial approval, and reinstated concurrent federal enforcement authority pending the necessary corrective action by the State Plan in order to once again meet the criteria for a final approval determination. OSHA and Hawaii entered into an operational status agreement to provide a workable division of enforcement responsibilities.
( d ) The plan covers all private-sector employers and employees, with several notable exceptions, as well as State and local government employers and employees, within the State. For current information on these exceptions and for additional details about the plan, please visit *http://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/stateprogs/hawaii.html .*
OPERATIVES- CORPORATIONS.

[Hamilton Circuit Court,

1900.]

Smith, Swing, and Giffen, JJ.

#### In re Assignment of the Armleder Plumbing Company.

Director, oe Corporation may be an Operative.

A director of a corporation performing services for the corporation under a contract with it, is an operative and his claim for wages is preferred where the validitv of his claim has been established by finding of court.

*John Marshall Smedes,*for appellant.

Peck, *Shajfer & Peck,*for appellee.

Swing, J.

We think that the finding of the court as to the facts in this case maybe considered as having found that McDonald performed labor as an operative for the plumbing company within twelve months preceding the'assignment, although the finding is not very definitely made.

As to the question whether McDonald is entitled to the benefit of thifi statute, we are of the opinion that he is. It being admitted that McDonald’s claim is a valid claim against the assigned estate, the act of the legislature makes it a preferred claim. This *preference*is not created by him as a director of the corporation, or by other directors of the corporation acting with him, or for him, but the statute creates it.

The claim itself undoubtedly arose out of a contract made by him while a director of the corporation with the corporation; but whether the contract itself was valid or invalid is not open to question, for the court found the claim a *valid*one, and being a *valid*claim and being for work performed by an operative, the law says it is a preferred claim. The statute makes no exception, and we see no reason why one should be made, the court having found that there was no infirmity attaching to the contract by reason of McDonald having been a director.