alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 6043.

#### JULIUS MEYER vs. OSOLINE CHEMICAL COMPANY, LIMITED.

Syllabus.

1. Corporations cannot act judicially *“in propria persona,”*and a pleading filed on behalf of a corporation, is defective, ’ when it names neither officer nor agent, nor counsel through whom the appearance is made.’

2. In judicial proceedings, when names are required, initials do not supply their place; they designate no particular person.

*204Appeal from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Division “E,” No. 106,498. Hon. Gr. H. Theard, Judge.

H. W. Eobinson, for plaintiff and appellee.

James McConnell, Jr., for defendant and appellant.

His Honor, JOHN ST. PAUL,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

Plaintiff brought suit, and defendant was duly cited. On the very day a default became due, but before the opening of Court, some unnamed, unidentified, messenger presented to the Clerk and asked to have filed a dilatory-exception in which the corporation attempted to appear in propria persona; that is to say, said pleading contained the name of the corporation only, in the body thereof, and was signed with the name of the corporation “per M. B.,” presumably the initials of some one’s name that one being also unnamed and unidentified.

This exception, the Clerk refused to receive, on the ground that it was not ‘ ‘ certified by the counsel filing the same” in accordance with the new practice Act (No. 157 of 1912), and the docket appearing clear a default was taken.

On the day following the taking of the default the exception was again presented in the same form and through the same channel, and this time was received and filed by the Clerk.

Two days afterwards the default was confirmed and judgment was entered against defendant; and on the same day the defendant appeared through counsel with a motion to show cause why the exception filed by defendant “in propria persona” (sic) should not be filed nunc pro tunc as of the time when it was first offered.

*205Opinion and decree, April 20th, 1914.

Rehearing refused, May 18th, 1914.

Writ denied, June 30th, 1914.

Pending the trial of this rule, the judgment was signed, and subsequently the rule was made absolute.

Thereafter defendant appealed, complaining 'that “the default was taken and confirmed without any disposition of said previously filed exception.”

The exception was properly disregarded. Corporations cannot act judicially in propria persona, C. P., 112; C. C., 438; and hence a proceeding filed on behalf of a corporation, is defective, when it names neither officer, nor agent, nor counsel, through whom the appearance is made.

Insce. Oil Tank Co. vs. Scott, 33 An., 946, 950.

And in judicial proceedings, when names are required, initials do not supply their place; they designate no particular person.

Lee vs. Rice, 12 La., 254; Conery vs. His Creditors, 115 La., 807.

Judgment affirmed.
### I
.

F XAS

Honorable Carol S. Vance DistrictAttorney Harris County Courthouse Opinion No. M-739 Hous ton, Texas 77002 Re: Surrendering of titles to Dear Sir: salvaged automobiles. In your request for an opinion from this office you set forth the following fact situation:

"Automobileinsurance carriershave made a practice of acquiring salvagedvehicles from their respective insureds'whenever the insureds'have been compensated for the total loss of their vehicles. The certificates of title are endorsed in blank and surrendered to the insurance companypaying the claim. Of course, the licenseplates are surrendered to the insurance companypaying the claim. The carrier, in turn,places the salvaged vehicle in the Houston Salvage Pool, a common pool solely supportedby the insurance industry. Prospectivebuyers are afforded the opportunity to inspect the vehicles placed in the salvagepool and thereafter, submit bids. The highest bidder is awarded the right to purchase the salvagedvehicle, andwhen the purchase is made, the certificate of title and licenseplates are surrendered to him, the buyer. Normally, the bids are submitted by junk dealerswho, in turn, sell the salvaged vehicle,with its accompanying certificate of title and licenseplates, to the generalpublic. The purchaser can rebuild the 'salvagedvehicle' and drive it with the certificateof title and licenseplates being completelyvalid."

-3396-Honorable Carol S. Vance, Page 2, (M-739 )

Article 1436-2, Texas Penal Code states, inter alia:

"Anyperson, associationof persons, corporate or other,who customarilyengages in the business of obtaining motor vehicles for scrap disposal or resale of parts therefrom or any other form of salvage, shall . . . It is further provided that all Certificatesof Title covering such motor vehicles obtained for scrap disposal . . . shall upon demand be surrendered

. . . for cancellation.' Your question is whether the members of the described association (anunincorporatedcommon pool) are subject to the provisions of Article 1436-2, -. Scrap disposal or resale of parts need not be the sole business of a person or corporation in order forArticle 1436-2, Texas Penal Code, to be applicable. It is only necessary that they do so whenever the opportunitypresents itself. Ex Parte Rubin, 362 S.W.2d 331 (Tex.Crim.,1962). Attorney General's OpinionNo. C-707 holds that the statute requires the surrender of the certificateof title. It is therefore the opinion of this office that the described corporationsare subject to the requirementsof Article 1436-2, Texas Penal Code.
SUMMARY The members of an unincorporatedpool dealing in automobile salvage operations are subject to the provisions of Article 1436-2, Texas Penal Code. n

era1 of Texas

-3397-. 1

Honorable Carol S. Vance, Page 3, (M- 739 )
Preparedby Howard M. Fender AssistantAttorney General APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE Kerns Taylor, Chairman w. E. Allen, Co-Chairman Larry Craddock Dunklin Sullivan Jerry Roberts John Reese MEADE F. GRIFFIN Staff Legal Assistant ALFRED WALKER Executive Assistant NOLA WHITE First Assistant

-3398-
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.7  Agreement No. 0«TRSU_Agr»
 SMITH INTERNATIONAL, INC.
RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AGREEMENT
 THIS RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AGREEMENT Agreement Company «Name_First»
«Name_Mi» «Name_Last» Grantee ___th day of ___, 20___ Grant Date Plan
 WHEREAS Units
 WHEREAS
 NOW, THEREFORE
 1. Grant of Units. «Rounded_Trsu» «Rounded_TRSU» Share
 2. Transfer Restrictions Transfer
 3. Vesting and Payment of Units
 Vesting Generally Vesting Date Section 4 Section 3(b)
 Vesting Date
    
    Vested %, 20__
    
    
    25
    %, 20__
    
    
    25
    %, 20__
    
    
    25
    %, 20__
    
    
    25
    %Total
    
    
    100
    %
 68




---



##### 



Settlement of Units Section 6 Section 4
 Dividends, Splits and Voting Rights . Committee Section 3(b)
 4. Forfeiture
 Termination Due to Death or Disability
 Section 4(a) Code
 Termination Other than Death or Disability
 5. Grantees Representations.
 6. Tax Withholding. Withholding Liability
 69




---



##### 



7. Par Value Paid Consideration for Shares
 8. Miscellaneous.
 No Fractional Shares
 No Effect on Employment or Service Section 3
 Dispute Resolution Rules AAA
 Tax Consultation
 Nature of the Grant
       70




---



##### 



Data Privacy Notice and Consent
   Language
 Delivery of Documents and Notices name@smith.com
 Description of Electronic Delivery
 71




---



##### 



Consent to Electronic Delivery Section 8(h) name@smith.com name@smith.com
 Amendment, Termination and Waiver
 Governing Law and Severability
 Successors and Assigns
 Signature page follows
 72




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF , this Restricted Stock Unit Agreement is approved, granted and executed as
of the date first written above.
 SMITH INTERNATIONAL, INC.
 By:Name:Title:
 GRANTEE:
 SignaturePrint Name
 73
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                             TO THE
                  CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                               OF
                         GAVELLA CORP.

GAVELLA   CORP.,  organized  and  existing  under   the   General
Corporation Laws of the State of Delaware (the Corporation), does
hereby certify:

     FIRST:  That the Board of Directors of the Corporation, at a
meeting called for such purpose, duly adopted resolutions setting
forth  the proposed amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation
of the Corporation and calling for the submission of the proposed
amendment  to a vote of the stockholders of the Corporation,  for
their  approval and adoption.  The resolution setting  forth  the
proposed amendment is as follows:

          RESOLVED, that the Corporation amend its certificate of
incorporation so that:

          ARTICLE  4  of  the certificate of incorporation  shall
read as follows:

          4.   The  total number of shares of common stock  which
the  corporation  shall have authority to issue is  Five  Million
(5,000,000), and the par value of each of such shares  is  $.001,
amounting in the aggregate to Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00).

     SECOND:   That the holders of a majority of the  outstanding
shares  of  common stock of the Corporation did duly  adopt  said
amendment  proposed  by  the Board of Directors,  at  the  annual
meeting of shareholders held on May 30, 2001.

     THIRD:   These  amendments were duly adopted  in  accordance
with  the  provisions  of  Section 242 of  the  Delaware  General
Corporation Laws.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused its corporate
seal to be affixed hereto and this Certificate to be executed  by
its  President  and attested by its Secretary, this  7th  day  of
June, 2001.


GAVELLA CORP.

By:  Harry  J. Santoro, President


Attest:   Stephen M. Robinson,  Secretary
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C SECTION 1350,
                                 AS ENACTED BY
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Form 10-Q, Third Wave Technologies, Inc. (the "Company")
for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lance Fors, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.


                                                  /s/ Lance Fors
                                                  -----------------------------
                                                  Lance Fors
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
                                                  May 15, 2003
|   | (a) | the                Form 10-Q of the Company for the Quarterly Period Ended March 31,                2007,                filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission                (the                "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)                or 15(d)                of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|   |   /s/                Joseph E.                Sutaris                          |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Joseph                E. Sutaris                                                                                                                                                                                      |
|   | Secretary,                Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                       |
|   | Date:  May                7, 2007                                                                                                                                                                           |
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |
Cass No. 9,358.

#### MAYOR AND COMMONALTY v. COOKE et al.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 160.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

March 26, 1804.

Baid*— Civil Cases — Chancery Attachment.

The defendant cannot appear to a chancery attachment in Virginia, without giving bail.

Motion by Mr. Simms and C. Lee. for defendants

[Stephen Cooke and others], to appear on a chancery attachment, without giving security according to Act Ya. 1792, c. 78. (1) Because Dr. Cooke has so much real estate in town; (21 because the attachment is for taxes, and taxes can only be recovered by distress and sale.

Appearance refused without security.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. §1350,




AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO




SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the amended Annual Report of Rubicon Minerals Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 40-F/A for the period ended December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David W. Adamson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:






(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;  and




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








December 18, 2012
_/s/ "David W. Adamson"


David W. Adamson


Chief Executive Officer








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Rubicon Minerals Corporation and will be retained by Rubicon Minerals Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 56772.

protests 174135-K, etc. (New York).

#### Davies, Turner *&*Co. and California Radio & Electronics Co. et al, *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of )4-watt and }£-watt carbon resistors composed in chief *512value of metal, used chiefly as parts of radio apparatus, instruments, or devices, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2143 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2143

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify that paper which 
 is commonly recycled does not constitute a qualified energy resource 
   under the section 45 credit for renewable electricity production.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 29, 2012

 Ms. Stabenow introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify that paper which 
 is commonly recycled does not constitute a qualified energy resource 
   under the section 45 credit for renewable electricity production.

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

SECTION 1. EXCLUSION OF PAPER WHICH IS COMMONLY RECYCLED FROM 
              DEFINITION OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE.

    (a) In General.--Section 45(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by inserting ``, except that such term does not include 
paper which is commonly recycled'' after ``(42 U.S.C. 6903)''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to electricity produced and sold after the date of the enactment of 
this Act, in taxable years ending after such date.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2014261EN.01002001.xml

| 11.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/20

---

Order of the President of the Court of 4 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove — Slovakia) — CD Consulting s. r. o. v Marián Vasko

(Case C-558/13) (1)

1

2014/C 261/36

Language of the case: Slovak

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.

1

---
# C_2014315EN.01004601.xml

| 15.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/46

---

Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Vietnam Airlines Co. Ltd v Brigitta Voss, Klaus-Jürgen Voss

(Case C-431/13) (1)

1

2014/C 315/76

Language of the case: German

The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.

1

---
No. 47128.

#### Protests 818182-G, etc., of Amer. Sponge & Chamois Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 43267.

#### Protests 952578-G, etc., of Butler Bros. (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that the harmonicas in question are similar to those involved in Abstract 40586. The claim at 40 percent under paragraph 1541 was therefore sustained.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 148 (Friday, August 1, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 41400]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20325]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; 
Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a meeting of the NIDCD Work Group on Peer 
Review on August 21-23, 1997 in Conference Room 10, Building 31, the 
National Institutes of Health, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892. 
The meeting will be held to discuss issues involving the initial review 
of grant applications and will be held from 3 to 5 p.m. on August 21, 
8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. on August 22, and from 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. on 
August 23.
    The entire meeting is open to the public. Individuals who plan to 
attend and need special assistance, such as sign language 
interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Craig 
A. Jordan, Ph.D., Division of Extramural Activities, NIDCD, EPS Room 
400C, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-8693 in advance of the meeting.

    Dated: July 29, 1997.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-20325 Filed 7-31-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### Abercrombie *&*Fitch Company *v.*United States

No. 7871.

Entry No. 722789/4.

(Decided August 25, 1950)

*Lane, Young & Fox (William H. Fox*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Cole, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement is controlled by *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334, by virtue of a written stipulation submitting the case, wherein it is agreed that the issues presented are the same in all material respects as those decided in the cited case, the record in which has been incorporated.

The cited case determined that the so-called British purchase tax described in the law of the United Kingdom entitled, "Finance (No. 2) Act 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48,” was not an item to be included in foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. §1402 (c)), because said tax was not a part of the price at which such or similar merchandise is freely offered *“to all purchasers for home consumption in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade.”*

Undisputed facts establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise is export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), and that such statutory values for the articles in question are the appraised values, less additions made on entry because of advances in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
A R K A N S A S 

Department of Environmental Quality 

January 20, 2016 

Via U.S. Mail and electronic transmission 

Mr. Ron Curry 

Regional Administrator 

EPA Region 6 

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 

Dallas, Texas 75202 

Dear Mr. Curry: 

On December 15, 2015, the State of Arkansas, through the Arkansas Depat1ment of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ) requested that Crittenden County, Arkansas be redesignated to 

attainment for the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ground-level ozone. At that 

time, ADEQ also submitted a maintenance plan for Crittenden County, Arkansas, which included 

contingency provisions to assure any violations of the NAAQS after redesignation will be corrected. 

This letter is to clarify that ADEQ commits to adopt and implement contingency measures upon a 

violation-triggering event. Crittenden County is part of the Memphis MSA nonattainment area for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. Should a violation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS occur after the area is redesignated 

to attainment, ADEQ will perform a review, in consultation with the Shelby County Health Department 

and the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, to address the probable cause of the violation. 

If it is determined that the violation is caused by a source or sources within Crittenden County, the ADEQ 

will adopt and implement one or more of the contingency measures listed in the submitted maintenance 

plan as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 24 months after the violation, in order to re-attain 

the NAAQS. 

Thank you, again, for your consideration of Arkansas's redesignation packet. As requested by 

Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson in his December 1oth letter to you, I urge you to act promptly and as 

expeditiously as possible in formalizing through a federal determination what has already been borne out 

through monitoring results- that Crittenden County has attained the 2008 ozone standard. 

Sincerely, 

Stuart Spencer, 

ADEQ Associate Director, Office of Air Quality 

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

5301 NORTHSHORE DRIVE I NORTH LITTLE ROCK I ARKANSAS 72118-531 7 I TELEPHONE 501-682-07 44 I FAX 501-682-0880 

www.adeq.state.ar.us