alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BURT FURNITURE COMPANY v SMITH

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist., Cuyahoga Co

Decided June 24, 1929

Messrs. Mooney, Hahn, Loeser, & Keough, Cleveland, for Furniture Co.

Mjessrs. Anderson & Lamb, Cleveland, for Smith.

JUDGES KUNKLE, ALLREAD & HORN-BECK (2nd Dist) sitting.

KUNKLE, J.

Counsel for plaintiff in error rely principally for a reversal of t}fis judgment upon the ground that the record shows the injuries received by defendant in error were due to the contributory negligence upon his part. We have read the record in this case and have also considered the very helpful briefs which have been filed by counsel and in which not only many of the pertinent portions of the testimony are set forth, but in which the controlling decisions of our courts are cited and commented upon. We shall not attempt to quote from the testimony in detail, nor shall we undertake a discussion of the authorities. We deem the same unnecessary as counsel are thoroughly familiar with not only the evidence, but with the respective authorities relied on. We shall merely announce the conclusion at which we have arrived after reading the same.

We think there is evidence in the record which justified the finding of the jury, namely that plaintiff in error was guilty of negligence and that under the circumstances disclosed by the record the defendant in error was not guilty of contributory negligence.

This is not a case in which the injured person was required to open a door or a gate before injury could result as in some *612of the cases cited. The gates in question were up, and we think defendant in error had a right to assume that the elevator was in proper place at the floor landing, and that the passage way to the place where he was required to go was safe. The question of contributory negligence was an issue of fact fo~ the jury.

We think the trial court porperly refused the two special instructions requested by counsel for plaintiff in error. We are also of the opinion that the trial court in its charge to the jury fully and fairly presented the issues in this case for its consideration.

We have considered all of the errors urged by counsel for plaintiff in error in their brief, but finding no error in the record which we consider prejudicial to plaintiff in error, the judgment of the lower court will be affirmed.

Allread and Hombeck, JJ, concur.
#### In the Matter of Jo A. Yeager, Respondent, v Robert Yeager, Appellant.

[697 NYS2d 170]

—In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Tolbert, J.), entered June 26, 1997, which, upon denying his objections to two orders of the same court (Mrsich, H.E.), both dated January 3, 1997, *inter alia,*denying his petition for downward modification, found him in willful violation of a prior order of support dated September 10, 1991, assessed child support arrears in the sum of $13,084, and directed him to pay $100 a week in child support.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the facts, by deleting the provisions thereof which denied the appellant’s objections to those portions of the Hearing Examiner’s orders which directed him to pay the sum of $100 per week in child support, and substituting therefor a provision directing the appellant to pay child support in the decreased sum of $33.33 per week, effective October 2, 1996; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, the orders dated January 3, 1997, are modified accordingly, and the matter is remitted to *224the Family Court, Westchester County, to determine the amount of any credit due the appellant and to apply that credit to any arrears he still owes.

The appellant father established a change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a downward modification of child support (see, Family Ct Act § 461 [b] [ii]; *Dowd v Dowd,*178 AD2d 330). Thus, as of October 2, 1996, the date of his petition, the support payments should be reduced to the extent indicated (see, *Matter of Dox v Tynon,*90 NY2d 166, 173-174).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1



Section 906 Certification of Chief Executive Officer



I, Michel Attias, Chief Executive Officer of Patriot Motorcycle Corporation (the
Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | (1) | the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: November 22, 2005



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Michel Attias                    
|Michel Attias Chief Executive
Officer
#### PEEKE v BOARD OF EDUCATION

Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist, Erie County

No 295.

Decided April 22, 1929

H L Peeke and E C Krueger, Sandusky, for Peeke.

Henry Hart and J F Hertlein, Sandusky for Board.

BY THE COURT

A decree may be entered in this court for the plaintiff, but we know of no authority authorizing the court to make an allowance of attorney fees in this case. The efforts of the plaintiff to prevent the holding of an election and the unlawful issuance of bonds were fully justified and if we had authority we would make an allowance of attorney fees in his behalf. The statute provides for such allowance in certain cases brought by a taxpayer against county commissioners and municipalities, but there is no such statute covering a similar action brought against a board of education. Even in a case where the action is brought against a municipality it is held that no authority exists for the allowance of attorney fees when there is no solicitor for the village. Brundage vs. Village of Ashley, et al., 62 Ohio St., 526. In that case the court stated in the course of the opinion that money could not be drawn out of the public treasury unless authorized by statute.

The application, therefore, for the allowance of attorney fees is overruled, but the other costs are adjudged against the defendants.

■ Williams, Lloyd and Richards, JJ, concur.
§ 102.97 Expeditious processing of Section 10(l) and (m) cases in successive stages. ( a ) Any complaint issued pursuant to § 102.95(a) or, in a case in which it is deemed appropriate to seek injunctive relief of a district court pursuant to Section 10(l) of the Act, any complaint issued pursuant to § 102.93 or Notice of Hearing issued pursuant to § 102.90 will be heard expeditiously and the case will be given priority in such successive steps following its issuance (until ultimate enforcement or dismissal by the appropriate circuit court of appeals) over all cases except cases of like character.
( b ) Any complaint issued pursuant to § 102.95(b) will be heard expeditiously and the case will be given priority in its successive steps following its issuance (until ultimate enforcement or dismissal by the appropriate circuit court of appeals) over all cases except cases of like character and cases under Section 10(l) of the Act.
Exhibit 10.9

 

Second Amendment to Patent License Agreement

 

This second amendment to the PATENT LICENSE AGREEMENT, LSU FILE 4-01-09 (hereinafter referred to as the “Second Amendment”) is entered into between the Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, a public constitutional corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Louisiana (“LSU”); and Anterios, Inc., a Delaware corporation, with offices located at 60 East 42nd St, New York, New York 10165 (“LICENSEE”); and is made as of September 22, 2014.

 

Background

 

LICENSEE and LSU are parties to a PATENT LICENSE AGREEMENT, LSU FILE 4-01-09 that was effective June 12, 2008 (the “License Agreement”).

 

LICENSEE and LSU desire to amend the License Agreement for the purpose of extending certain terms of the diligence periods.

 

Therefore, LICENSEE and LSU hereby agree as follows:

 

I.                                        Milestone 2 of Paragraph 5.3 of the License Agreement, “Diligence,” is replaced in its entirety with the following:

 

2.                                      The first dosing of a patient with a LICENSED PRODUCT or LICENSED PROCESS in an FDA-approved Phase III clinical trial for the treatment of acne with botulinum toxin, by the [*] anniversary of the Effective Date;

 

II.                                   Milestone 3 of Paragraph 5.3 of the License Agreement, “Diligence,” is replaced in its entirety with the following:

 

3.                                      The FIRST COMMERCIAL SALE of a LICENSED PRODUCT or LICENSED PROCESS, by the [*] anniversary of the Effective Date.

 

III.                              Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Second Amendment, all of the terms and conditions of the License Agreement, as originally drafted, shall remain in full force and effect.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Second Amendment effective as of the date first above written.

 

THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ANTERIOS, INC.

LOUISIANA  STATE UNIVERSITY AND

AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL

COLLEGE

 

	
By:
    	
/s/   Larry H. Hollier
    	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Jon Edelson
    
	
Typed   Name:
    	
Larry   H. Hollier, MD
    	
 
    	
Typed   Name:
    	
Jon   Edelson, MD
    
	
Title:
    	
Chancellor,
    	
 
    	
Title:
    	
CEO &   President
    
	
 
    	
LSUHSC   — New Orleans
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
							


 











 

	
Date:
    	
9/22/14
    	
 
    	
Date:
    	
September 22,   24
§ 1988.107 Hearings. ( a ) Except as provided in this part, proceedings will be conducted in accordance with the rules of practice and procedure for administrative hearings before the Office of Administrative Law Judges, codified at subpart A of part 18 of this title.
( b ) Upon receipt of an objection and request for hearing, the Chief Administrative Law Judge will promptly assign the case to an ALJ who will notify the parties of the day, time, and place of hearing. The hearing is to commence expeditiously, except upon a showing of good cause or unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. Hearings will be conducted de novo on the record. ALJs have broad discretion to limit discovery in order to expedite the hearing.
( c ) If both the complainant and the respondent object to the findings and/or order, the objections will be consolidated and a single hearing will be conducted.
( d ) Formal rules of evidence will not apply, but rules or principles designed to assure production of the most probative evidence will be applied. The ALJ may exclude evidence that is immaterial, irrelevant, or unduly repetitious.
[81 FR 13984, Mar. 16, 2016, as amended at 86 FR 1794, Jan. 11, 2021]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7611

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOHN AUSTIN EDWARDS, a/k/a Shakim, a/k/a

Doquan Cooper,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.

(CR-94-163, CA-98-225-2)

Submitted: January 7, 1999 Decided: January 20, 1999

Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and ERVIN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Austin Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. Laura P. Tayman, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

John Austin Edwards seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motions filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998), and for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record

and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States

v. Edwards, Nos. CR-94-163; CA-98-225-2 (E.D. Va. Sept. 9, 1998).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 888 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 30, 2007 

Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

AN ACT 

To amend section 1091 of title 18, United States Code, 

to allow the prosecution of genocide in appropriate circumstances. 

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 ‘‘Genocide Account5 ability Act of 2007’’. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

S 888 RFH

1 SEC. 2. GENOCIDE. 

2 Section 1091 of title 18, United States Code, is 

3 amended by striking subsection (d) and inserting the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘(d) REQUIRED CIRCUMSTANCE FOR OFFENSES.— 

6 The circumstance referred to in subsections (a) and (c) 

7 is that— 

8 ‘‘(1) the offense is committed in whole or in 

9 part within the United States; 

10 ‘‘(2) the alleged offender is a national of the 

11 United States (as that term is defined in section 101 

12 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

13 1101)); 

14 ‘‘(3) the alleged offender is an alien lawfully ad15 mitted for permanent residence in the United States 

16 (as that term is defined in section 101 of the Immi17 gration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101)); 

18 ‘‘(4) the alleged offender is a stateless person 

19 whose habitual residence is in the United States; or 

20 ‘‘(5) after the conduct required for the offense 

21 occurs, the alleged offender is brought into, or found 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

S 888 RFH

1 in, the United States, even if that conduct occurred out2 side the United States.’’. 

Passed the Senate March 29, 2007. 

Attest: NANCY ERICKSON, 

Secretary. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
----

Action brought on 13 May 2004 by Carmelo Morello against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-166/04)

(2004/C 179/27)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 13 May 2004 by Carmelo Morello, living in Brussels, represented by Jacques Sambon and Pierre Paul Van Gehuchten, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a Commission official, had applied in the context of another case for the annulment of the nomination of another official to a post of head of unit for which he had himself applied. The Court of First Instance upheld his action by annulling the appointment in question.

At the time of the delivery of the judgment in the previous case, the official appointed to the post in question had already been promoted and moved to another post, while the post of head of unit thus vacated had been filled by the reinstatement of another official at the end of his leave on personal grounds.

After the delivery of the judgment in the previous case, the applicant applied to the Commission for implementation of the judgment in question, and then lodged a complaint against the implied rejection of his application. The Commission rejected that complaint, holding that, in the absence of an available post, it was unable to take measures implementing the previous judgment.

The present action is directed against the rejection of the applicant's application. In support of his claims, the applicant pleads infringement of Article 233 EC, infringement of Articles 4, 7, 24, 25 and 45 of the Staff Regulations, infringement of the principle of sound administration and misuse of powers or procedure. He also claims to have suffered material and non-material damage by losing a serious chance of reaching Grade A3 by the end of his career, and seeks compensation in that regard.

----
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 89 

To prohibit authorized committees and leadership PACs from employing the 

spouse or immediate family members of any candidate or Federal office 

holder connected to the committee. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. VITTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Rules and Administration 

A BILL 

To prohibit authorized committees and leadership PACs from 

employing the spouse or immediate family members of 

any candidate or Federal office holder connected to the 

committee. 

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


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•S 89 IS

1 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON EMPLOYMENT OF FAMILY 

2 MEMBERS OF A CANDIDATE OR FEDERAL OF3 FICE HOLDER BY CERTAIN POLITICAL COM4 MITTEES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Title III of the Federal Election 

6 Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is amended 

7 by inserting after section 324 the following new section: 

8 ‘‘SEC. 325. PROHIBITION ON EMPLOYMENT OF FAMILY 

9 MEMBERS OF A CANDIDATE OR FEDERAL OF10 FICE HOLDER BY CERTAIN POLITICAL COM11 MITTEES. 

12 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—It shall be unlawful for any au13 thorized committee of a candidate or any other political 

14 committee established, maintained, or controlled by a can15 didate or a person who holds a Federal office to employ— 

16 ‘‘(1) the spouse of such candidate or Federal 

17 office holder; or 

18 ‘‘(2) any immediate family member of such can19 didate or Federal office holder. 

20 ‘‘(b) IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBER.—For purposes of 

21 subsection (a), the term ‘immediate family member’ means 

22 a son, daughter, stepson, stepdaughter, son-in-law, daugh23 ter-in-law, mother, father, stepmother, stepfather, mother24 in-law, father-in-law, brother, sister, stepbrother, or step25 sister of the Member.’’. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
3 

•S 89 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment 

3 of this Act. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
#### § 1905.21 Manner of service.

Service of any document upon any party may be made by personal delivery of, or by mailing, a copy of the document to the last known address of the party. The person serving the document shall certify to the manner and the date of the service.
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.                  

###### Legal Services Corporation

# LOCATION:

750 First Street, NE, 11th Floor, Washington, DC 20002, in Room 11026.

# STATUS OF MEETING:

Open.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. Approval of the agenda.

2. Consider and act on the Board of Director's comments on the Inspector General's Semiannual Report to Congress for the Period October 1, 1999 to March 31, 2000.

3. Consider and act on other business.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR INFORMATION:

Victor M. Fortuno, Vice President for Legal Affairs, (202) 336-8800.

# SPECIAL NEEDS:

Upon request, meeting notices will be made available in alternate formats to accommodate visual and hearing impairments, Individuals who have a disability and need an accommodation to attend the meeting may notify Shannon Nicko Adaway, at (202) 336-8800.

Dated: May 12, 2000

Victor M. Fortuno,

Vice President for Legal Affairs.

[FR Doc. 00-12558 Filed 5-15-00; 3:11 pm]

BILLING CODE 7050-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE 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 Report of Kewaunee
Scientific Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, William A. Shumaker, President and Chief Executive 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, 2008, 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, 2008, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: July 18, 2008



/s/ William A. ShumakerWilliam A. Shumaker President and Chief Executive
Officer
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Consent of KPMG LLP**

**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

The Board of Directors 

Pulaski Financial Corp.: 

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-32986, No. 333-84392, No. 333-84515 and No. 333-112962) on Form S-8 of Pulaski Financial Corp. of our report dated December 8, 2004, with respect to the consolidated balance sheetsof Pulaski Financial Corp. as of September 30, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the two–year period ended September 30,2004, which report appears in the September 30, 2004, annual report on Form 10-K of Pulaski Financial Corp. 

 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

 

St. Louis, Missouri 

December 13, 2004