alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Argued November 24,

affirmed December 18, 1969,

petition for rehearing denied January 27, 1970.

Petition for review denied by Supreme Court February 26, 1970

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*EMERY LLEWELLYN ALBERTSON and JOAN ELIZABETH ALBERTSON, *Appellants.*

462 P. 2d 458

*487
      *G. Bernhard Fedde,*Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellants.

*Jacob B.*Tanser, Solicitor General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was George Van Hoomissen, District Attorney, Portland.

LANGTRY, J.

Defendants, having waived a jury trial, were convicted by the court of illegal possession of narcotics (marihuana), under ORS 474.020(1).

The substance of their assignments of error is that evidence upon which a search warrant was issued was illegally obtained, and should have been suppressed.

The defendants were tenants of about one-half of a small acreage owned by a Mrs. Adams. Mrs. Adams took Officer Zahn to the premises and gave him a marihuana plant which she said had been growing there. Prom what part of the premises she had taken it was not made clear. The affidavit for the warrant was made by Officer Perkins, who related in it the above facts and the hearsay of Mrs. Adams and Officer Zahn. He added that he investigated the premises by observing from neighboring property, through binoculars, plants that appeared to be marihuana growing on the defendants’ premises. He then entered the premises, past a “No Trespassing” sign, and observed on the window sill inside the house a potted *488plant that appeared to be marihuana, and other cultivated marihuana adjacent to the defendants’ house.1

In *State v. Brown,*1 Or App 322, 461 P2d 836 (1969) Sup Ct review denied (1970), we held that observation of what is in plain and open view may be used as the basis for a search warrant. Each case must be determined on its facts.

The trial court ruled that the hearsay from Mrs. Adams and Officer Zahn, related in the affidavit, and the observations of Officer Perkins made from off the premises, could be considered. These, the trial court held, without the evidence allegedly obtained through trespass, constituted probable cause for' the warrant. We hold this ruling was correct. The recital of illegally obtained evidence, if any, in the affidavit which supports the warrant, does not invalidate, such warrant, provided the other information therein shows probable cause to issue the warrant. *United States v. Sterling,*369 F2d 799, 802 (3rd Cir 1966), and *Chin Kay v. United States,*311 F2d 317, 320, 321 (9th Cir 1962). The hearsay information in the affidavit herein was not like that in *State v. Flores,*251 Or 628, 447 P2d 387 (1968), where.the informant was not identified. Here, the informant, with evidence in hand, was the named owner of the property.

Affirmed.

In view of the basis for our decision in this case, it is unnecessary for us to discuss whether this was such a trespass as would require suppression of any evidence seized as its result.
# Official Journal L 190/2019

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 190 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6216 July 2019 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 190

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6216 July 2019

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/1205 of 12 July 2019 granting a derogation requested by Belgium with regard to the region of Flanders pursuant to Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources
  (notified under document C(2019) 5180) | 1 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/1206 of 12 July 2019 amending Part 1 of Annex E to Council Directive 92/65/EEC as regards the animal health certificate for trade in dogs, cats and ferrets
  (notified under document C(2019) 5210)

   (
  1
  ) | 11 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

*

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/1205 of 12 July 2019 granting a derogation requested by Belgium with regard to the region of Flanders pursuant to Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources
  (notified under document C(2019) 5180)

(notified under document C(2019) 5180)

1

*

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/1206 of 12 July 2019 amending Part 1 of Annex E to Council Directive 92/65/EEC as regards the animal health certificate for trade in dogs, cats and ferrets
  (notified under document C(2019) 5210)

   (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2019) 5210)

1

11

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
#### Pulliam vs. Booth.

The plaintiff having called on defendant for settlement and payment of a fee due him as attorney, and the parties having agreed as to the amount, which the defendant promised to pay, the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict for the amount, as upon an account stated between the parties.

*Writ of Error to Sebastian Circuit Court.*

Hon. Felix I. Batson Circuit Judge.

Duval & King, for plaintiff.

Mr. Chief Justice English

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The plaintiff in error sued the defendant for services as an attorney. On the trial the plaintiff proved that the defendant *421employed Mm to assist other counsel in prosecuting a claim made by him to a large estate; that he rendered services for the defendant, was present and assisted in several consultations about the claim, at one of which he wrote down the facts of the case; and assisted in procuring an administration upon the estate. That after the claim was established, the plaintiff called on defendant for settlement and payment of Ms fee, they disagreed about the amount at first, but finally agreed upon $000, which the defendant promised to pay, and afterwards directed the administrator, who had charge of the estate, to pay the plaintiff that sum, but after that, countermanded the order, and plaintiff sued him.

The evidence for the defendant was negative, the witnesses stating that they did not know of any services rendered for him by the plaintiff.

The jury found a verdict for the defendant, and the court refused a new trial.

We think, upon the whole evidence, the plaintiff was clearly entitled to a verdict for $600, as upon an account stated between the parties, and that the court erred in refusing a new trial.

The evidence in this case is much stronger for the plaintiff than the evidence for plaintiff in the case of *Wilcox vs. Boothe,*19 *Ark.*684.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded with instructions to the court below to grant the plaintiff a new trial.
# C_2021412EN.01001202.xml

| 11.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 412/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 412/12

---

Order of the General Court of 29 July 2021 — ClientEarth v Commission

(Case T-52/21) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Aarhus Convention - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Documents held by the Commission concerning the control system established for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy - Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 - Implied refusal of access - Express decision adopted after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate)

(2021/C 412/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ClientEarth AISBL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O.W. Brouwer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Spina and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the Commission’s implied decision of 16 November 2020 rejecting the confirmatory application for access to several documents concerning the control system established for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The European Commission shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.

---
#### Milton GREEN, Appellant, v. ROYAL PALM BEACH COLONY, INC., Appellee.

No. 73-971.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 2, 1974.

*389Mamber, Gopman, Epstein & Foosaner, N. Miami Beach, for appellant.

Orr, Nathan & Williams, Miami, for ap-pellee.

Before PEARSON, CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

CARROLL, Judge.

This appeal is by the plaintiff below from a summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant. The ground upon which the judgment was based was that the contract declared upon was barred by the statute of frauds, § 725.01 Fla.Stat., F. S.A.

Relied upon by the plaintiff to satisfy the statute of frauds was a letter to him from the defendant, as follows:

> “This is to serve as a formal understanding between Royal Palm Beach Colony, Inc. and yourself that you will be in the employ of Royal Palm Beach Colony, Inc. during the seasonal months of the business, namely December through April, for the next three years, 1971— 1972-1973 seasons.”

That writing failed to contain the requisites for a written contract or memorandum, signed by the party to be charged, sufficient to avoid the statute of frauds. It does not express the essential terms of the employment contract with a degree of certainty by which they could be known or understood without recourse to parol evidence. See Ocala Cooperage Co. v. Florida Cooperage Co., 59 Fla. 390, 52 So. 13; Gautier v. Bradway, 87 Fla. 193, 99 So. 879; Alton Beach Realty Co. v. Henderson, 92 Fla. 689, 110 So. 256; Webster Lumber Co. v. Lincoln, 94 Fla. 1097, 115 So. 498; Minsky’s Follies of Florida, Inc. v. Sennes, 5 Cir. 1953, 206 F.2d 1.

Affirmed.
ubx-ex1019e_233.htm



Exhibit 10.19E

 

AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO EXCLUSIVE LICENSE AGREEMENT

 

THIS Amendment No. 4 to Exclusive License Agreement ("Amendment No. 4") is made and entered into this 15th day of September 2016 ("Effective  Date of Amendment No. 4"), by and  between  the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research ("Mayo") having its  principal  place  of  business at 200 First Street SW, Rochester, Minnesota 55905, and Unity Biotechnology, Inc. (formerly known as Cenexys, Inc.), a Delaware corporation, having a place of business at 3280 Bayshore Blvd, Brisbane ("Company"), for purposes of confirming the parties' intent and agreement as set forth herein.

 

BACKGROUND

 

Mayo and Company  are parties to an Exclusive License Agreement, with an effective date of the

h

 
28th day of  June,  2013  ("Agreement"),  which  confirms  the  parties'  intent  and  agreement  to grant an exclusive license to Mayo's certain patent rights and a nonexclusive license to certain know-how along  with Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2, and Amendment No. 3 to the  Agreement.  Mayo  and Company agree that there is no need to amend Exhibit C listing the proprietary research tools. Mayo and Company wish to amend the Agreement as set forth  in  this Amendment  No. 4, and, accordingly, Mayo and Company agree as follows:
 

AMENDED TERMS

 

 

1.    Exhibit A in its entirety will be deleted and replaced with the exhibit attached to this Amendment   No. 4.

 

All other terms of the Agreement and Amendment No. 3 shall remain in full force and effect for  the term of the Agreement and as set forth in the Agreement.




***Certain information contained herein has been omitted pursuant to Regulation S-K 601(b)(10).

Confidential treatment has been granted with respect to the omitted portions.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Mayo and Company hereby enter into this Amendment No. 4, effective as of the date first set forth above.

 


	
Unity Biotechnology, Inc.
	
 
	
Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research

	
By:/s/ Nathaniel E. David

 

 
	
 
	
By: /s/ Daniel D. Estes

Name: Daniel D. Estes

Title: Assistant Treasurer




 




2

***Certain information contained herein has been omitted pursuant to Regulation S-K 601(b)(10).

Confidential treatment has been granted with respect to the omitted portions.





EXHIBIT A

PATENT RIGHTS

 

[***]

3

***Certain information contained herein has been omitted pursuant to Regulation S-K 601(b)(10).

Confidential treatment has been granted with respect to the omitted portions.
Exhibit 99.2

                            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 SurgiCare, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Phillip C. Scott,
Chief Financial Officer 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
to the best of my knowledge:

(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.





Phillip C. Scott, Chief Financial Officer(1)
April 14, 2003






(1) A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to SurgiCare, Inc. and will be retained by SurgiCare, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, 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.

 February 28, 2014

t0224

Order 

Clerk

February 28, 2014

147896

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147896

COA: 316088 

St Clair CC: 12-000360-FC

THOMAS HORACE LAPPIN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 25, 2013 order 

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.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                        REQUIRED BY RULE 13A-14(B) OF THE
                SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED, AND
                 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of International Wire Group,
Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that:

         (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter
ended March 31, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended; and

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



Dated:  May 15, 2006                     /s/ RODNEY D. KENT
                                         ----------------------------------
                                         Name: Rodney D. Kent
                                         Title: Chief Executive Officer
#### ISAAC DAVIS vs. JOHN DENNING, THOMAS DUHADAWAY, and JOHN M. DENNING.

If referees report against a person not regularly a party in the cause the report as to him is a nullity and no judgment can be rendered upon it; but it will not vitiate the report as to other parties.

Certiorari to justice.

Thomas Duhadaway and John M. Denning had been duly sum® maned by the constable and non est inventus returned as to John Denning. J. M. Denning and Duhadaway appeared and claimed a trial by freeholders who were appointed. John Denning did not appear. The referees reported no cause of action against Duhadaway and J. M. Denning and that *$35 29*was due from John Denning to plff. whereupon the justice gave judgment against Davis for costs.

*Per curiam.*

—In this case Duhadaway and J. M. Denning were the only parties before the justice. They submitted the matters in controversy to referrees, who decided that *they*were not indebted to the plff., and on this part of their award the justice properly gave judgment against Davis for-costs. They further reported that John Denning was indebted to the plff. in the sum of *$35 29.*They might with equal propriety have reported that any other person not a party to the record was so indebted. John Denning was not before them and they had no authority to pass upon his rights. The award therefore against John Denning being against a person not a party to the record is a nullity and void; the justice could not have given any judgment against him upon that award; and therefore the judgment against Davis for costs was a proper judgment and the proceedings below must be affirmed with costs.

Judgment affirmed.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**482 KA 08-02524** 
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ERIC MCMULLEN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (PHILIP ROTHSCHILD OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JAMES P. MAXWELL OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Joseph E. Fahey, J.), rendered November 13, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [3]). The record of the plea colloquy establishes that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to appeal ( see People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 256; People v Eatmon , 66 AD3d 1453, 1453). That valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses defendant’s contention that imposition of the maximum period of postrelease supervision rendered the sentence unduly harsh and severe ( see People v Hidalgo , 91 NY2d 733, 737; People v Wilson , 53 AD3d 928, 929, lv denied 11 NY3d 858). Defendant’s further contention that County Court erred in failing to apprehend the extent of its discretion in imposing a period of postrelease supervision survives the waiver of the right to appeal ( see People v Montgomery , 63 AD3d 1635, 1636, lv denied 13 NY3d 798; People v Burgess , 23 AD3d 1095, lv denied 6 NY3d 810). We conclude, however, that “[t]he court’s statement at the plea proceeding with respect to the imposition of a five-year period of postrelease supervision does not, without more, indicate that the court erroneously believed that it lacked discretion to impose a shorter period” ( People v Porter , 9 AD3d 887, lv denied 3 NY3d 710).

Entered: April 20, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
EXHIBIT 10.3
 
 INCREASE REGISTERED CAPITAL AND ENLARGE SHARES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
 HUBEI SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT CO., LTD
 AND
 EVERGREEN SOLAR, INC.
 ON
 EVERGREEN SOLAR (WUHAN) CO., LTD.
          1




---



##### 



Article 1, DEFINITION
   2




---



##### 



3




---



##### 



Headings
   Article 2 INCREASE REGISTERED CAPITAL AND ENLARGE SHARES
    Article 3 APPROVE AND CONFIRM
  Article 4 PRECONDITIONS OF PARTY BS INVESTMENT AND PAYMENT
  th
 4




---



##### 



st
        Article 5 RIGHT & RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES
      5




---



##### 



,
          6




---



##### 



Article 6 BOARD OF DIRECTORS
       7




---



##### 



8




---



##### 



th
   9




---



##### 



.
    Article 7 TAKE OVER BY PARTY B
      10




---



##### 



Article 8 TECHNOLOGY LICENSE
    11




---



##### 



12




---



##### 



Article 9 LABOR MANAGEMENT
    Article 10 TAXATION, ACCOUNTING AND AUDITING
    st st
   13




---



##### 



Article 11 INSURANCE
  Article 12 DURATION
   Article 13 DISSOLUTION AND LIQUIDATION
     14




---



##### 



Article 14 REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES, PROMISES
   15




---



##### 



ARTICLE 15 CONFIDENTIALITY
       16




---



##### 



Article 16 BREACH OF CONTRACT
      Article 17 TERMINATION
  17




---



##### 



Article 18 FORCE MAJEURE
   18




---



##### 



Article 19 SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTE
  Article 20 EFFECTIVE
  Article 21 MISCELLANEOUS
    19




---



##### 



20




---



##### 



1.
    
    Certificate of incorporation of Evergreen Solar, Inc.2.
    
    Business license of Evergreen Solar (Wuhan) Co.,LTD;3.
    
    Business license of Hubei Science and Technology Investment Co., LTD;4.
    
    Minutes of Board meeting of Evergreen Solar, Inc.5.
    
    Minutes of shareholder meeting of Hubei Science and Technology Investment Co.,LTD6.
    
    Meeting Notes of Committee of Wuhan Donghu New Technical Developing Zone7.
    
    Minutes of Board meeting of Evergreen Solar (Wuhan) Co.,LTD8.
    
    Capital verify report of Evergreen Solar (Wuhan), Co., LTD9.
    
    Letter of guarantee for the equipment with a value equal to USD2 million10.
    
    Articles of Association of Evergreen Solar (Wuhan), Co., LTD11.
    
    Share transfer agreement12.
    
    Technology license agreement13.
    
    Trademark license agreement14.
    
    Manufacturing Services agreement15.
    
    Export license issued by the United States government for Silicon Carbon Monofilament16.
    
    Minutes of Board Meeting of Evergreen Solar (Wuhan) Co., Ltd.17.
    
    Letter of authorization of Chairman of Evergreen Solar (Wuhan) Co., Ltd.
  
   21
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 19 - 0545

_________________ ST ATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. RANDY CHRISTOPHER ARCHIBALD, SR.,

Defendant and Appellant. O R D E R

___________

______ Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the Honorable John W. Parker , District Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 28 2021

04/28/2021
Case Number: DA 19-0545
EXHIBIT 10.28

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE

$   500,000.00                                   Date      June 9, 2001


     On June 8, 2002 SANDATA, INC. promises to pay to the order of

     NATIONAL MEDICAL HEALTH CARD SYSTEMS, INC.

     FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND AND NO CENTS ($500,000.00) Dollars

     Payable at 26 Harbor Park Drive, Port Washington, NY 11050

     for  value  received  with  interest  at  seven  (7%)  per  annum,  payable
quarterly.

                                                   SANDATA, INC.
                                                   By:


                                                   /s/Bert E. Brodsky
                                                   Bert E. Brodsky, Chairman