alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jasper Koons *vs.*John Dyer.

*Error to Louisa.*

The District Courts of this territory, have jurisdiction of cases where the amount in controversy is less than fifty dollars.

Action, assumpsit. The plaintiff claimed by his declaration $146, but failing to prove one of the items, amounting to $100, defendant moved for a non-suit, on the ground that the amount to be recovered being less that $50, the Disrtict Court had no jurisdiction of the matter. This *94motion being sustained by the court, the plaintiff excepted and brought the cuase up by writ of error.

Thomas, for plaintiff in error.

Whicheb, for defendant in error.

By the Court,

Mason, Chief Justice.

We think the District Court erred in granting the nonsuit. Although justices of the peace have jurisdiction of suits for less that fifty dollars, we know of no law which deprives the District Courts of the jurisdiction of that class of cases. However desirable some restriction of this kind might be, the courts cannot fix one. The District Court is a court of general jurisdiction. To remove any class of cases out of such jurisdiction requires legislative action. Something more too, than merely conferring jurisdiction upon another court. As the law now stands the District Court has concurrent jurisdiction with justices of the peace, for all sums of fifty dollars and under and exclusive jurisdiction for all sums over that amount. The nonsuit granted in this case, will therefore be set aside and a writ of procedendo awarded to the District Court.
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, 2020 a0429

Order 

Clerk

May 6, 2020

160585

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 160585

COA: 343738

Macomb CC: 2017-000677-FH

STEVEN NICHOL,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 8, 2019 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                            <C>                <C>              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS              9-MOS            YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>           DEC-31-1998        DEC-31-1998      DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                SEP-30-1998        SEP-30-1998      DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                               0             97,988           21,310
<SECURITIES>                         0                  0                0
<RECEIVABLES>                        0                  0                0
<ALLOWANCES>                         0                  0                0
<INVENTORY>                          0                  0                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     0          6,353,341        5,411,477
<PP&E>                               0                  0                0
<DEPRECIATION>                       0                  0                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       0          6,353,341        5,411,477
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                0            110,059          129,114
<BONDS>                              0                  0                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                0                  0                0
<PREFERRED>                          0                  0                0
<COMMON>                             0                  0                0
<OTHER-SE>                           0          6,243,282        5,282,363
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         0          6,353,341        5,411,477
<SALES>                              0                  0                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 1,089              8,971                0
<CGS>                                0                  0                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        0                  0                0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                24,277             75,977                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     0                  0                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   0                  0                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                309,218            960,919                0
<INCOME-TAX>                   309,218            960,919                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  0                  0                0
<DISCONTINUED>                       0                  0                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      0                  0                0
<CHANGES>                            0                  0                0
<NET-INCOME>                   309,218            960,919                0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        0                  0                0
<EPS-DILUTED>                        0                  0                0
        

</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 32
  Certification
  Pursuant
    to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
    Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)
  Company
  Form 10-Q Form 10-Q) Form 10-Q
  Dated: May 2, 2008

/s/  MIKE
    S. ZAFIROVSKIMike
    S. Zafirovski
    President and Chief Executive Officer   Dated: May 2, 2008

/s/  PAVITER
    S. BINNINGPaviter
    S. Binning
    Executive Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer
# C_2013009EN.01003301.xml

| 12.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/33

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 5 November 2012 — Eli Lilly and Company Ltd v Human Genome Sciences Inc

(Case C-493/12)

2013/C 9/55

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eli Lilly and Company Ltd

Applicant:

Defendant: Human Genome Sciences Inc

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| (a) | What are the criteria for deciding whether ‘the product is protected by a basic patent in force’ in Article 3(a) of Regulation 469/2009/EC (1) (the ‘Regulation’)? |
| --- | --- |

(a)

What are the criteria for deciding whether ‘the product is protected by a basic patent in force’ in Article 3(a) of Regulation 469/2009/EC (1) (the ‘Regulation’)?

1

| (b) | Are the criteria different where the product is not a combination product, and if so, what are the criteria? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Are the criteria different where the product is not a combination product, and if so, what are the criteria?

| (c) | In the case of a claim to an antibody or a class of antibodies, is it sufficient that the antibody or antibodies are defined in terms of their binding characteristics to a target protein, or is it necessary to provide a structural definition for the antibody or antibodies, and if so, how much? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

In the case of a claim to an antibody or a class of antibodies, is it sufficient that the antibody or antibodies are defined in terms of their binding characteristics to a target protein, or is it necessary to provide a structural definition for the antibody or antibodies, and if so, how much?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (Codified version) (Text with EEA relevance)

1

OJ L 152, p. 1

---
Form of Supply Agreement



 Exhibit 10.II.E 
 

 
 SUPPLY AGREEMENT 
 FEED GRADE PHOSPHATES (BIOFOS) 
 VIETNAM, INDONESIA AND TAIWAN 
  

			
	DATE:	  	September 12, 2007
		
	SELLER:	  	 MOSAIC FERTILIZER LLC, d.b.a.
 MOSAIC FEED
INGREDIENTS
 8813 HWY 41 SOUTH
 RIVERVIEW, FL
33569

		
	BUYER:	  	 CARGILL ANIMAL NUTRITION, INC.
 TRADICO
INTERNATIONAL
 P.O. BOX 5614
 MINNEAPOLIS, MN
55440-5614

		
	PRODUCT:	  	BIOFOS
		
	SPECIFICATIONS:	  	SPECIFICATIONS ATTACHED PURSUANT TO GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS
		
	MARKET:	  	VIETNAM, INDONESIA AND TAIWAN
		
	PERIOD:	  	June 1, 2007 – May 31, 2008
		
	PRICING:	  	TO BE NEGOTIATED AT TIME OF PURCHASE
		
	QUANTITY:	  	TO BE NEGOTIATED AT TIME OF PURCHASE
		
	DELIVERY:	  	TO BE NEGOTIATED AT TIME OF PURCHASE
		
	PAYMENT:	  	30 DAYS
		
	TERMS:	  	TRADICO TERMS AND CONDITIONS TO APPLY. (ATTACHED)

  

									
	 CARGILL ANIMAL NUTRITION, INC.
	 		 	MOSAIC FERTILIZER, LLC
					
	By:	 	  
	 		 	By:	 	  

	Name:	 	  
	 		 	Name:	 	  

	Its:	 	  
	 		 	Its:
EXHIBIT 32.1

           WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                        Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

    Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, I,
the undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer of Digital
Fusion, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge,
that the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year
ended December 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.



Date: April 14, 2004                  By:  /s/ Roy E. Crippen, III
                                           -----------------------
                                            Roy E. Crippen, III
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-2637

___________

Arlie Nelson; Alice Nelson; Charles *

Nelson; Woodrow Nelson, *

 *

Appellants, *

v. *

 *

Federal Land Bank of Omaha, also *

known as Federal Intermediate Credit * Appeal from the United States

Bank of Omaha, also known as Farm * District Court for the

Credit Bank of Omaha; Federal Land * District of Nebraska.

Bank of the Midlands, A Corporation; *

Farm Credit Services of Norfolk, A * [UNPUBLISHED]

Corporation; Norwest Bank of Sioux *

City; Sid Copeland; Merritt C. Warren; *

Edward G. Hannon; James A. Heimes; *

John Does, *

 *

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: February 6, 1998

 Filed: February 26, 1998

___________

Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
The HONORABLE WILLIAM G. CAMBRIDGE, Chief Judge, United States 1

District Court for the District of Nebraska.

-2-

Arlie Nelson, Alice Nelson, Charles Nelson, and Woodrow Nelson appeal the

district court&s dismissal of their complaint for failure to state a claim under Fed. R.

1

Civ. P. 12 (b)(6). After careful review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we

conclude defendants Merritt Warren and Edward Hannon are entitled to absolute

immunity and the Nelsons& claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations.

We deny the Nelsons& motion for leave to file affidavits and exhibits. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Charles HIGGENBOTHAM, Appellant.

No. 74792.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

June 22, 1999.

Irene C. Karns, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Shaun J. Mackelprang, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before JAMES A. PUDLOWSKI, P.J., WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, Jr., and CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Charles Higgenbotham, appeals from a judgment of conviction, after a jury trial, of committing violence against an offender housed in a department correctional center. Section 217.385 RSMo Cum.Supp.1997. He was sentenced as a prior offender to a term of fifteen years imprisonment to be served consecutively to a sentence imposed for a previous conviction.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
#### Marguerite Benson, Respondent, *v.*Avel B. Silverman, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

March 24, 1966.

*Avel B. Silverman,*appellant in person. *Marguerite Benson,*respondent in person.

*Per Curiam.*

For two an one-half years the defendant served as attorney for the plaintiff. He did so with the acquiescence of her former attorney and he was so accepted by the court and by the plaintiff’s opponent. In the circumstances his failure to effect a formal substitution of attorneys, which did not result in prejudice to the plaintiff, cannot be said to have been a breach of his retainer agreement so as to deprive him of compensation for his services.

The judgment should be reversed and complaint dismissed, without costs.

Tilzeb, J. P., Hoestadteb and Gold, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.
No. 54952.

#### Alpine Leather Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 125404-K, etc. (New York).

*337Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the Federal Reserve bank certified dual rates of exchange for the currencies involved in the liquidation of the entries for the dates of exportation of the merchandise covered by the entries and that the circumstances relating to the liquidation of the said entries are-similar in all material respects to those in Abstract 54732. In view of this stipulation and following the cited decision it was held that the currencies of the invoices covered by certain enumerated entries should have been converted in the manner directed by the judgment of this court in said Abstract 54732, in accordance with Bureau of Customs Circular Letter No. 2675, dated October 19, 1949.
Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION 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 Annual Report of Mexicana de Cobre, S.A. de C.V. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Héctor Nieto Castilla, Finance Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|Date: July 14, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/HÉCTOR NIETO CASTILLAName:    Héctor Nieto Castilla
Title:    Finance Director
|------------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Mexicana de Cobre, S.A. de C.V. and will be retained by Mexicana de Cobre, S.A. de C.V.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 23.2


                      Consent of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

                       Consent of Independent Accountants


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-47101, 333-56615, 333-56675) of U.S.
Industries, Inc. of our report dated November 14, 1997 appearing on page 24 of
the U.S Industries, Inc. Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September
30, 1998



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Florham Park, New Jersey
December 11, 1998












NYFS11...:\95\78595\0001\2041\EXHD148S.320
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          12,722
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    242,611
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          26,341
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            26,535
<LOANS>                                        578,099
<ALLOWANCE>                                     14,296
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 881,139
<DEPOSITS>                                     591,814
<SHORT-TERM>                                    28,445
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             41,539
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           179
<OTHER-SE>                                     219,162
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 881,139
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 47,503
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               13,307
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 2,716
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                63,526
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              25,844
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,000
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           37,526
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    7,341
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  36
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 26,612
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,991
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       5,991
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,807
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .17
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.82
<LOANS-NON>                                      9,944
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  4,300
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 8,227
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    3,191
<RECOVERIES>                                     1,919
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               14,296
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            12,467
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          1,829


</TABLE>
#### C. L. Rhea v. Sherman Williams.

No. 15,943.

*Ejectment*— Petition—Publication *Service.*A petition in ejectment and the publication service held sufficient.

Error from Stanton district court; William H. Thompson, judge.

Opinion filed July 3, 1909.

Affirmed.

*George Getty,*for the plaintiff in error.

*T. W. Marshall,*and *Herbert Rhoades,*for the defendant in error.

*Per Curiam:*

The action was in ejectment, and service was made by publication. The defendant, Rhea, moved to set aside the service. The journal entry denying this motion recites:

> “Said motion coming on to be heard, and the court being duly advised in the premises, overruled the same by agreement of counsel and defendant given leave to answer, to which ruling the defendant then and there excepted.”

Thus it appears that the defendant is seeking the review of an order made by his consent. But it is said that the words “by agreement of counsel and defendant given leave to answer” were interlined and inserted only for the purpose of giving defendant leave to answer out of time, and that the word “and” was inadvertently used, thus changing in a material matter the import of the entry. If this is a correct explanation *699and the entry is deemed important an application should have been made to the district court to correct the record. We must consider it as it is certified to this court. In view of the possible mistake, however, we have carefully examined the affidavit for publication and the notice claimed to be defective, and find that they are sufficient and that the motion was properly denied.

The answer contained the language of a general demurrer — that the petition did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. It is contended that the court erred in treating the petition as sufficient. The only defect claimed is that it states that the defendant *wrongfully*keeps the plaintiff out of possession instead of using the language of section 595 of the civil code “that the defendant *unlawfully*keeps him out. of the possession.” Comment is scarcely necessary. The code does not prescribe an exact form. It only declares that “it shall be sufficient” to state certain facts. If the required facts constituting the cause of action are stated in appropriate terms, the pleading is not demurrable.

The specifications of alleged errors referred to are the only ones stated in the brief. The judgment is affirmed.
No. 46457.

#### Protest 873992-G of New York Merchandise Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstracts 29990 and 38680, the articles in question were held dutiable at 40 percent under paragraph 339 as claimed.
33651.

#### CARNES v. THE STATE.

Per curiam.

This is an interlocutory appeal in which Carnes challenges his prosecution as a habitual traffic violator as defined in Code § 68B-308.

Carnes and the prosecutor stipulated as follows: On August 29, 1977, Carnes (who had previously been adjudicated a habitual violator in 1976) was charged with failure to have proof of insurance, failure to control his vehicle, and driving with a suspended license; he pled guilty; out of this conduct arose the subsequent indictment as a habitual traffic violator.

1. Carnes’ constitutional attacks on the habitual violator statute must fall for the reasons stated in *Weaver v. State,*242 Ga. 8 (1978), in which this court considered and rejected these same arguments.

2. Carnes additionally argues that the trial court erred in overruling his plea of former jeopardy, which was based upon the fact that the habitual violator charge was known to the prosecuting officer to have arisen out of the same conduct as the other offenses to which he had previously pled guilty and lay within the jurisdiction of a single court, thus requiring the state under Code § 26-506 (b) to press these matters in a single prosecution, with the result that the habitual offender charge may not be belatedly brought. Carnes is correct. *State v. Gilder,*145 Ga. App. 731 (245 SE2d 3) (1978) affd., 242 Ga. 285 (1978).

*287Argued June 19, 1978

Decided September 28, 1978.

*Kinney, Kemp, Pickell, Avrett & Sponcler, Allen F. Wallace,*for appellant.

*Charles A. Pannell, Jr., District Attorney, Stephen A. Williams, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

*Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, Kirby G. Atkinson, Assistant Attorney. General,*amicus curiae.

The trial court erred in overruling Carnes’ plea of former jeopardy.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*