alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[No. 1511.]

#### The Grande Ronde Lumber Co. v. Cotton.

Corporations — Proof of Corporate Existence — Estoppel.

One wlio contracted with, a lumber company for lumber under its corporate name, and in settlement acknowledged his indebtedness to the corporation, is estopped to question the capacity of the corporation to sue in an action for the price of the lumber, and cannot object that plaintiff’s corporate existence was not proven.

*Appeal from the County Court of HI Paso County.*

Mr. Owen Prentiss, for appellant.

Mr. J. W. Horner, for appellee.

Thomson, P. J.

The Grande Rondo Lumber Company brought this suit to recover the price of lumber sold and delivered to the defendant. The plaintiff’s office and place of business was at Perry, Oregon. The lumber was sold and shipped by the plaintiff ■ upon written orders from the defendant, who was doing business at Gillett, Colorado. In these orders the defendant addressed the plaintiff as the Grande Ronde Lumber Company, and requested the shipment of lumber as therein speci- . fied. The defendant received invoices of the lumber shipped, which were headed with the name of the company, and the names of its president, vice president, general manager, sec*376retary and treasurer. After the lumber was received, a settlement of accounts was had between the plaintiff’s agent and the defendant, upon which it was found and agreed between them that the amount due from the defendant to the plaintiff was $239.75. This amount the defendant agreed to pay.

At the trial the defendant testified that he gave the orders and received the lumber, and that he had not paid for it. Judgment was rendered for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.

The sole contention of the defendant in support of the judgment is that the plaintiff did not show by proper evidence that it was a corporation, but the defendant, by virtue of his dealings with the plaintiff, estopped himself to question its capacity to sue. He contracted with the Grande Ronde Lumber Company; at the settlement, and on the trial, he acknowledged that he was indebted to the Grande Ronde Lumber Company, and he was therefore in no position to require proof that the plaintiff was a corporation. *Plummer v. Mercantile Co.,*23 Colo. 190. By contracting with the plaintiff he admitted that it was a legal entity, in whose favor a liability might be incurred, and at whose suit the liability might be enforced, and in this proceeding the admission is conclusive upon him. He is precluded from alleging the incompetency of the plaintiff, and his objection that its corporate existence was not proved cannot be listened to. Bigelow on Estoppel (2d ed.), 424. Upon the undisputed evidence in the case, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment against the defendant for $239.75, with legal interest from the time of the institution of the suit.

The judgment of the county court is reversed.

*Reversed.*
# CongressionalCandidate Table 9g

&"Arial,Bold"&10&KFF0000This table was generated on 5/11/20.
§ 4.14 Open container of alcoholic beverage. ( a ) Each person within a motor vehicle is responsible for complying with the provisions of this section that pertain to carrying an open container. The operator of a motor vehicle is the person responsible for complying with the provisions of this section that pertain to the storage of an open container.
( b ) Carrying or storing a bottle, can or other receptacle containing an alcoholic beverage that is open, or has been opened, or whose seal is broken or the contents of which have been partially removed, within a motor vehicle in a park area is prohibited.
( c ) This section does not apply to: ( 1 ) An open container stored in the trunk of a motor vehicle or, if a motor vehicle is not equipped with a trunk, to an open container stored in some other portion of the motor vehicle designed for the storage of luggage and not normally occupied by or readily accessible to the operator or passengers; or
( 2 ) An open container stored in the living quarters of a motor home or camper; or
( 3 ) Unless otherwise prohibited, an open container carried or stored in a motor vehicle parked at an authorized campsite where the motor vehicle's occupant(s) are camping.
( d ) For the purpose of paragraph (c)(1) of this section, a utility compartment or glove compartment is deemed to be readily accessible to the operator and passengers of a motor vehicle.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 8078** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. MICHAEL WALLACE RICE , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Easter n District of Virginia , at Richmond
. Robert E. Payne , Senior District Judge. ( 3:05

- cr - 00011

- REP

- 2; 3:08

- cv - 00403

- REP )

Submitted : March 16, 2010 Decided: March 23, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Michael Wallace Rice, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Wu, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Michael Wallace Rice seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2009 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (200 6 ). A certificate of app ealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutio nal claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);
Rose v. Lee , 25 2 F.3d 676, 683

- 84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rice has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because t he facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
# EUR-Lex - 12006E234 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12006E234

**Treaty establishing the European Community (consolidated version) - Part Five - Institutions of the Community - TITLE I - Provisions governing the institutions - Chapter 1 - The institutions - Section 4 - The Court of Justice - Article 234 **

*
Official Journal C 321 E , 29/12/2006 P. 0147 - 0148 Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0127 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0273 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 224 , 31/08/1992 P. 0063 - Consolidated version (EEC Treaty - no official publication available) *

Article 234

The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning:

(a) the interpretation of this Treaty;

(b) the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions of the Community and of the ECB;

(c) the interpretation of the statutes of bodies established by an act of the Council, where those statutes so provide.

Where such a question is raised before any court or tribunal of a Member State, that court or tribunal may, if it considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment, request the Court of Justice to give a ruling thereon.

Where any such question is raised in a case pending before a court or tribunal of a Member State against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, that court or tribunal shall bring the matter before the Court of Justice.

--------------------------------------------------
#### § 906.10 Confidentiality.

All information submitted to the Corporation pursuant to this subpart A will be kept confidential, except as availability to the public may be required by the Freedom of Information Act.
§ 291.18 Modification or cancellation of permits. The Authorized Officer may modify a permit, consistent with applicable laws and policies, when: ( a ) The Authorized Officer determines that there are management, administrative, or safety reasons to modify a permit; or
( b ) A permittee requests a modification in writing.
§ 13.315 Preferred operators. ( a ) In selecting persons to provide visitor services for a park area, the Director will, if the number of visitor services authorizations is to be limited, give a preference (subject to any rights of historical operators or CIRI under this subpart) to preferred operators determined qualified to provide such visitor services.
( b ) In such circumstances, the Director will publicly solicit competitive offers for persons to apply for a visitor services authorization, or the renewal of such an authorization, to provide such visitor services pursuant to 36 CFR part 51 and/or other National Park Service procedures. All offerors, including preferred operators, must submit a responsive offer to the solicitation in order to be considered for the authorization. If the best offer from a preferred operator is at least substantially equal to the best offer from a non-preferred operator, the preferred operator will receive authorization. If an offer from a person besides a preferred operator is determined to be the best offer (and no preferred operator submits a responsive offer that is substantially equal to it), the preferred operator who submitted the best offer from among the offers submitted by preferred operators will be given the opportunity, by amending its offer, to meet the terms and conditions of the best offer received. If the amended offer of such a preferred operator is considered by the Director as at least substantially equal to the best offer, the preferred operator will receive the visitor service authorization. If a preferred operator does not amend its offer to meet the terms and conditions of the best offer, the Director will issue the authorization to the person who submitted the best offer in response to the solicitation.
( c ) The Native Corporation(s) determined to be “most directly affected”under this subpart and local residents have equal preference. The rights of preferred operators under this section take precedence over the right of preference that may be granted to existing satisfactory National Park Service concessioners pursuant to the Concessions Policy Act (16 U.S.C. 20) and its implementing regulations and procedures, but do not take precedence over the rights of historical operators or CIRI as described in this subpart.
( d ) An offer from a preferred operator under this subpart, if the offer is in the form of a joint venture, will not be considered valid unless it documents to the satisfaction of the Director that the preferred operator holds the controlling interest in the joint venture.
( e ) Nothing in this subpart will prohibit the Director from authorizing persons besides preferred operators to provide visitor services in park areas as long as the procedures described in this section have been followed. Preferred operators are not entitled by this section to provide all visitor services in a park area.
( f ) The preferences described in this section may not be sold, assigned, transferred or devised, directly or indirectly.
# PAC Table 7b
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 6 , 2019

Order 

Clerk

May 6, 2019

156849(110)

RAFAELI, LLC, and ANDRE OHANESSIAN,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

SC: 156849

v COA: 330696

Oakland CC: 2015-147429-CZ

OAKLAND COUNTY and ANDREW MEISNER,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion for the temporary admission of out-ofstate attorney Daniel B. Kohrman to appear and practice in this case under MCR 8.126(A) 

is GRANTED.
# EUR-Lex - 12008E352 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12008E352

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - PART SEVEN: GENERAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS - Article 352 (ex Article 308 TEC) **

*
Official Journal 115 , 09/05/2008 P. 0196 - 0196 *

Article 352

(ex Article 308 TEC)

1. If action by the Union should prove necessary, within the framework of the policies defined in the Treaties, to attain one of the objectives set out in the Treaties, and the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall adopt the appropriate measures. Where the measures in question are adopted by the Council in accordance with a special legislative procedure, it shall also act unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

2. Using the procedure for monitoring the subsidiarity principle referred to in Article 5(3) of the Treaty on European Union, the Commission shall draw national Parliaments' attention to proposals based on this Article.

3. Measures based on this Article shall not entail harmonisation of Member States' laws or regulations in cases where the Treaties exclude such harmonisation.

4. This Article cannot serve as a basis for attaining objectives pertaining to the common foreign and security policy and any acts adopted pursuant to this Article shall respect the limits set out in Article 40, second paragraph, of the Treaty on European Union.

--------------------------------------------------
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 208 (Friday, October 27, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 63028]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-8920]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Environmental Health Sciences Review 
Committee.
    Date: November 8, 2006.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hawthorne Suites Hotel, 300 Meredith Drive, Research 
Triangle Park, NC 27713.
    Contact Person: Linda K. Bass, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Nat'l Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 
P.O. Box 12233, MD EC-24, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, (919) 
541-1307.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.115, 
Biometry and Risk Estimation--Health Risks from Environmental 
Exposures; 93.142, NIEHS Hazardous Waste Worker Health and Safety 
Training; 93.143, NIEHS Superfund Hazardous Substances--Basic 
Research and Education; 93.894, Resources and Manpower Development 
in the Environmental Health Sciences; 93.113, Biological Response to 
Environmental Health Hazards; 93.114, Applied Toxicological Research 
and Testing, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: October 19, 2006.
Anna Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 06-8920 Filed 10-26-06; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
<PAGE>

                                                              EXHIBIT 10(viii)





                                                              September 15, 2000




Mr. Seymour Lichtenstein


Dear Seymour:

      We are writing to amend, effective October 1, 2000, the agreement between
you and Garan, Incorporated ("Garan") originally entered into as of October 1,
1986, and subsequently amended and restated (the agreement, as amended and
restated and now again amended, "Employment and Consulting Agreement"), with
respect to your (i) continuing employment by Garan and (ii) retention by Garan
as a consultant. We have agreed that:

            A.    Section 1.3, Period of Employment, shall be amended to read as
follows:

                  "Your employment under this Employment and Consulting
Agreement shall be for a term ("Employment Term") ending September 30, 2003
("Term End")."

            B. Section 3.2, Termination by Garan Other Than for Cause, shall be
amended (i) by changing the date in the first paragraph from "October 1, 2000"
to "October 1, 2003", and (ii) by changing the date in Paragraph 3.2.b from
"September 30, 2000" to September 30, 2003."


<PAGE>

            C.    In all other respects, the Employment and Consulting Agreement
shall be unchanged.

      If the foregoing correctly sets forth our agreement, please sign and
return the enclosed copy of this letter.


                                          Sincerely,

                                          GARAN, INCORPORATED


                                          By: /s/ Jerald Kamiel
                                             ---------------------------
                                              Jerald Kamiel, President



AGREED AND ACCEPTED:


/s/ Seymour Lichtenstein
----------------------------
    Seymour Lichtenstein
#### Catherine Tiehen, Administratrix, appellee, v. Nettie M. Cornell, appellant; Farmers Bank of Prairie Home, appellee.

Filed December 24, 1913.

No. 17,976.

Appeal from the district court for Richardson county: John B. Raper, Judge.

*Appeal dismissed.*

*722
      *E. Falloon*and *Burkett, Wilson & Brovm,*for appellant.

*John C. Mullen*and *O. S. Folk, contra.*

Per Curiam.

This is a motion to dismiss an appeal from an order confirming a judicial sale, for the reason that the appeal is without merit and frivolous. No defense was made to. the foreclosure of the mortgage and no objections were made to the appraisement before the sale, but objections were thereafter filed to the confirmation. A number of affidavits were used at the hearing, but none of them have been preserved in a bill of exceptions. Six objections are made to the confirmation. The first, second, third and fifth are to the appraisal, and Avere waived by reason’ of not being filed before the sale. The fourth objection is that the. notice was published in a paper dated July 24, and the paper was not placed in the mail until July 27. The sixth objection is that the sheriff had not taken or received, at the time of the sale, the cash for which the land was sold. There is no proof of either of these facts in the record.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is

Sustained.
§ 73.17 Public information and education activities. ( a ) To the extent that time and resources permit, owners of U.S. properties approved for inclusion on the World Heritage List are encouraged to publicize the status of the property, through appropriate signs, plaques, brochures, public dedication ceremonies, and interpretive displays or programs.
( b ) The Department, through the NPS, may provide guidance to owners of U.S. World Heritage properties in developing publicity, educational, and/or interpretive programs.
( c ) The NPS is responsible for developing and distributing general information materials on the World Heritage Convention, including brochures, slideshows, lectures, or other presentations in order to strengthen appreciation and understanding of the importance of World Heritage as set forth in Article 27 of the Convention.
#### § 228.11 Prevention and control of fire.

Operator shall comply with all applicable Federal and State fire laws and regulations and shall take all reasonable measures to prevent and suppress fires on the area of operations and shall require his employees, contractors and subcontractors to do likewise.
Exhibit 10.3
​
FIFTH AMENDMENT TO CASINO OPERATIONS LEASE
​
THIS FIFTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT (the “Fifth Amendment”) is made as of the 31st day of July, 2020 by and between Hyatt Equities, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company (hereinafter called “Hyatt”) and Gaming Entertainment (Nevada) LLC, a Nevada limited liability company (hereinafter called “Tenant”).
WITNESSETH:
​
WHEREAS, Hyatt and Tenant entered into that certain Agreement, effective as of June 28, 2011 (the “Original Lease”), as amended by that certain First Amendment to Casino Operations Lease dated April 8, 2013 (the “First Amendment”), that certain Second Amendment to Casino Operations Lease dated November 25, 2015 (the “Second Amendment”), that certain Third Amendment to Casino Operations Lease dated August 29, 2016 (the “Third Amendment”), and that Fourth Amendment to Casino Operations Lease dated November, 13, 2019 (the “Fourth Amendment”; collectively, the Original Lease, the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Third Amendment and the Fourth Amendment shall be referred to herein as the “Original Amended Lease”);
WHEREAS, the parties, among other things, desire to confirm, in connection with this Fifth Amendment, certain terms and conditions with respect to the Original Amended Lease.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto amend the Agreement by this instrument as follows:
​
1.Recitals. The foregoing recitals shall constitute an integral part of this Fifth Amendment, and this Fifth Amendment shall be construed in consideration thereof. All capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Original Amended Lease.
​
2.Rent. Section 4.1 of the Casino Lease is temporarily amended in respect to the pandemic COVID-19 and the Nevada Governor’s Risk Mitigation Initiatives, casinos were ordered to be closed March 17 through June 3, 2020.
		a.	March 2020 rent to be reduced to 75% or $125,000.00.

		b.	April 2020 rent to be reduced to 50% or $83,333.33.

		c.	May 2020 rent to be reduced to 50% or $83,333.33.

Except as herein expressly modified, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, subject to all terms and conditions contained therein.
​



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Fifth Amendment has been executed by Hyatt and Tenant as of the day and year first hereinabove set forth.
	​


	​


	​



	HYATT EQUITIES, L.L.C., a Delaware
limited liability company
	​
	Gaming Entertainment (Nevada) LLC, a 
Nevada limited liability company

	​
	​
	​

	By: /s/ Robert Mangiarelli
	​
	By: /s/ Daniel R. Lee

	Name: Robert Mangiarelli
	​
	Name: Daniel R. Lee

	Title: Vice President
	​
	Title: CEO / President



​
Case 16-28285 Doc 7 Filed 09/01/16 Entered 09/01/16 17:09:17 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 1
#### William R. Strickland, Respondent, *v.*Francis P. Magoun, et al., Individually and as Surviving Partners of the Firm of Magoun Brothers & Company, Defendants, and Annie D. Quigley, as Executrix of James M. Quigley, Deceased, Appellant.

*Strickland*v. Magoun, 119 App. Div. 113, affirmed.

(Argued December 5, 1907;

decided December 20, 1907.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered April 27, 1907, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term without a jury in an action for conversion.

*Alfred 8. Brown*for appellant.

*Romaine II. Crosby*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion below.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., O’Brien, Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Yann, Hiscock and Chase, JJ.