alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, Appellee. (two cases).

Nos. 40551, 40607.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 24, 1971.

*864Richard E. Gerstein, State’s Atty., and Milton Robbins, Asst. State’s Atty., for appellant.

Joseph A. Wanick, City Atty., for appel-lee.

DEKLE, Justice.

Before us for validation are City of Miami Beach bond issues of $2.5 million for sanitation disposal facilities and another $2.5 million for public parks and extension of a community center there. Instead of submitting these proposed issues for vote of only the qualified freeholders in accordance with then effective provisions of the Florida Constitution,1 statutes,2 and City Ordinances,3 the City, with advice of its able counsel, submitted the bond issues for separate votes, one by the freeholders and a second by ALL qualified electors, in anticipation of a ruling on this point by the U. S. Supreme Court in City of Phoenix, Arizona v. Kolodziejski, 399 U.S. 204, 90 S.Ct. 1990, 26 L.Ed.2d 523 (June 23, 1970), then pending, and earlier similar decisions.4 All bond issues passed by the vote of all electors and only one passed (sanitation facilities) in the separate vote limited to qualified freeholders as in the past.

The City’s clairvoyance was confirmed by the later holding in Phoenix requiring the vote upon such bond issues to be only by all electors and holding unconstitutional a vote which has been limited to freeholders. The wisdom of the City Fathers resulted in a rare savings for the taxpayers by their wise anticipation in providing the dual vote.

This vote was in April preceding the Phoenix decision in June. The State Attorney argues that the decision in Phoenix requiring bond approval by all electors left the City without *any*authorization for *any*election on bonds. This does not follow. A change of the *class*qualified to vote does not ipso facto void the entire authorization for an election to be held.

Phoenix did not declare unconstitutional the election procedure contained in the Constitution, statutes and City Charter. Only the limitation to freeholders was voided; the remainder was in effect and therefore the vote was perfectly valid, without the aid of subsequent enabling legislation passed on May 12, 1970, by the Florida Legislature which made express provision for such special elections. The authorizing City Resolutions for issuance of the bonds were therefore also valid and timely.

*865The question is settled by Phoenix and related U. S. Supreme Court cases 5 and we are accordingly mandated to approve the vote by all qualified electors and the ensuing City Resolutions thereon. The vote being otherwise valid and no other valid objection appearing, the trial court’s validation of the proposed bonds is

Affirmed.

ROBERTS, C. and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.

1

. Fla.Const. art. VII, § 11, F.S.A. (1968).

2

. Chapter 22401, Fla.Laws 1943.

3

. Charter of Miami Beach, Subsection (y) of § 29 and § 30.

4

.Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15, 395 U.S. 621, 89 S.Ct. 1886, 23 L.Ed.2d 583 (1969) ; Cipriano v. City of Houma, 395 U.S. 701, 89 S.Ct. 1897, 23 L.Ed.2d 647 (1969).

5

. *Id.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       6,724,353
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  135,534
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,257,668
<PP&E>                                       1,516,475
<DEPRECIATION>                                 219,708
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,876,704
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,939,058
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       11,555,867
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       130,717
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,529,316)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,876,704
<SALES>                                        103,546
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               103,546
<CGS>                                           26,533
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,960,082
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              30,766
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,675,199)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,675,199)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,675,199)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.28)


</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 10.8
   
  
    Term of Agreement




---



##### 



Definitions
 Change in Control of the Company
      -2-




---



##### 



Potential Change in Control of the Company
   -3-




---



##### 



Good Reason
     -4-




---



##### 



Severance Payment Date
  Agreement to Continue Employment
 -5-




---



##### 



Acceleration of Vesting Upon a Change in Control
    Termination Following Change in Control
 Disability; Retirement
 Cause
 -6-




---



##### 



Voluntary Resignation
 Notice of Termination
 Date of Termination, Etc
   provided however
 -7-




---



##### 



Compensation Upon Termination or During Disability Following a Change in Control of the
Company
     -8-




---



##### 



plus plus
  -9-




---



##### 



-10-




---



##### 



Excise Tax; Gross-Up Payments
    -11-




---



##### 



Successors; Binding Agreement
   Notice
 -12-




---



##### 



Miscellaneous
 Validity
 Execution in Counterparts
 Arbitration
 Similar Provisions in Other Agreements
 -13-




---



##### 



-14-




---



##### 



Very truly yours,Company Address:545 E. John Carpenter Frwy.
Suite 1300
Irving, Texas 75062
Attention: Corporate Secretary
    
    FELCOR LODGING TRUST INCORPORATED,
acting individually and as the sole
general partner of FelCor Lodging
Limited PartnershipBy:Name:Title:Accepted and Agreed to this ___ day ofOctober, 2006:Name:Address:
 -15-
#### FEI v. SCOTT.

No. 36921.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 1968.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 203 So.2d 372.
rva-ex101_92.htm



EXHIBIT 10.1

 

 

 

CERTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT, MARKED BY BRACKETED ASTERISKS [***], HAS BEEN OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO RULE 24B-2 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED.

 

 

 

ConfidentialPage # 1

 

AMENDMENT #3

TO EXCLUSIVE LICENSE AGREEMENT # 2

 

WHEREAS Reva Medical Inc. (“REVA”) and Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (“Rutgers”), referred to collectively herein as “the Parties”, entered into an EXCLUSIVE LICENSE AGREEMENT NUMBER 2 (“License #2) effective July 1, 2010; and,

 

WHEREAS Section 6.3 (i)(b) of License #2, as amended by the signed Request for Extension letter dated July 1, 2014, requires REVA to file an application with the USFDA or a comparable agency in another Major Market Country no later than the end of 2015; and

 

WHEREAS Section 6.3 (ii) (b), as amended by Amendment #2, requires REVA to Pay Rutgers an annual amount of $[***] in order to extend REVA’s rights in the field of Non-Stent Products for as long as the necessary regulatory filing for Non-Stent Product has not been effected; 

 

THEREFORE, the Parties hereby mutually agree to amend License #2 as of August 31, 2016 as follows:


	
 
	
1.
	
Section 6.3 (i)(b) will be replaced with the following:




“Licensee or its Sublicensees will submit a complete application to either an appropriate regulatory body in the European Community or to the USFDA for a CE Marking or a Pre-Market Approval for at least one Coronary Stent Product, not later than by September 1, 2016.”

 


	
 
	
2.
	
The following language will be added at the end of the first paragraph of Section 6.3 (ii)(b):




 

_________________

*** Portions of this page have been omitted pursuant to a request for Confidential Treatment filed separately with the Commission. 



ConfidentialPage # 2

“Starting on June 30, 2016, for each annual filing extension desired by Licensee, Licensee will pay Rutgers an amount of $[***] on July 1 of the year for which the extension is granted, and an additional amount of $[***] immediately upon the earliest to occur of the following events:

 


	
 
	
1.
	
Termination of License #2 for any reason





	
 
	
2.
	
Change of Control as defined in License #2





	
 
	
3.
	
January 1, 2019”




 

 

IN WITNESS HEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives.

 

 


			
	
RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY
	
 
	
REVA MEDICAL, INC.

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
/s/  S. David Kimball
	
 
	
/s/  Robert K. Schultz

	
Signature
	
 
	
Signature

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
S. David Kimball, Ph.D.
	
 
	
Robert K. Schultz, Ph.D.

	
Associate Vice President
	
 
	
President & COO

	
Office of Research Commercialization
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
Date:  9/12/2016
	
 
	
Date:  9-8-16 

	
 
	
 
	
 




 

_________________

*** Portions of this page have been omitted pursuant to a request for Confidential Treatment filed separately with the Commission.
, '27/2021 17:05 FAX

IN THE SUPREME COURT OFTHE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21-W ) ****** RANDY LAEDEKE, and, DARLA PItENN, for THE ESTATE OF LILA M. LAEDEKE, PlaintiffAppellee,

-vsBILLINGS CLINIC,

Defendant Appellant. * * * * * ORDER 

# FILED SEP 2 8 2021 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court Statw of Montana GRANTING APPELLANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OFTIME TO FILE OPENING BRIEF Appellant has filed an unopposed motion for a 30 day exten.sion of time frorn September 27, 2021 to October 27, 2021 to file Appellant's Opening Brief in the abc\•eentitled case.Appellant's brief is now due September 27,2021. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Appellant's motion for an extension oftime is GRANTED AND APPELLANT and shall file and serve his opening brief on or becore October 27,2021. Dated this 20 1

- day ofSeptember,2021.

Etc 09/28/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0390
<PAGE>



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statement of Cooperative Bankshares, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No.
333-22335) of our report dated January 22, 1999, on our audits
of the consolidated financial statements of Cooperative
Bankshares, Inc. as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and for each
of the three years in the period ended December 31, 1998, which
report is incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Raleigh, North Carolina
March 18, 1999
# C_2016353EN.01016901.xml

| 27.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 353/169 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 353/169

---

P8_TA(2015)0200

Trade, Development and Cooperation Agreement with South Africa (Protocol to take account of the accession of Croatia) ***

European Parliament legislative resolution of 20 May 2015 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union and its Member States, of the Additional Protocol to the Agreement on Trade, Development and Cooperation between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of South Africa, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union (07657/2015 — C8-0103/2015 — 2014/0236(NLE))

(Consent)

(2016/C 353/24)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (07657/2015), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (07657/2015),

| — | having regard to the draft Additional Protocol to the Agreement on Trade, Development and Cooperation between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of South Africa, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union (13175/2014), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Additional Protocol to the Agreement on Trade, Development and Cooperation between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of South Africa, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union (13175/2014),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 217 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a) (v) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0103/2015), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 217 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a) (v) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0103/2015),

| — | having regard to Rule 99(1), first and third subparagraphs, Rule 99(2), and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 99(1), first and third subparagraphs, Rule 99(2), and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Development (A8-0146/2015), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Development (A8-0146/2015),

| 1. | Gives its consent to the conclusion of the protocol; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Gives its consent to the conclusion of the protocol;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Republic of South Africa. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Republic of South Africa.

---
#### Peter JENIN and Blanche Jenin, his wife, a/k/a Peter Janjanin and Blanche Janjanin, his wife, Appellants, v. Nancy M. GERARDI, Appellee.

No. 73-640.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 15, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 21, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 42279]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17998]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER18-2214-000]


Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing 
Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization; Stryker 22, LLC

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Stryker 22, LLC`s application for market-based rate authority, with an 
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a 
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is September 4, 2018.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive 
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). 
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dc9a998e9f93b2b0b5b2b98fa9acacb3aea89cbab9aebff2bbb3aa"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="92d4d7c0d1ddfcfefbfcf7c1e7e2e2fde0e6d2f4f7e0f1bcf5fde4">[email protected]</span></a>. or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 15, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-17998 Filed 8-20-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Exhibit        32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS        PURSUANT TO **

**SECTION        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(18        U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

|                                    |                                                                |                                                |
|-----------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                               |                                                           |                                           |
| Date: June                14, 2007 | By:                                                       | /s/ John                B.                Rush |
|                                    | John                B. Rush                                         |
|                                    | President                and                Chief Executive Officer |

|                                    |                                                                            |                                                                       |
|-----------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                               |                                                                       |                                                                  |
| Date: June                14, 2007 | By:                                                                   | /s/ James                W.                Klingler    |
|                                    | James                W. Klingler                                                |
|                                    | Senior                Vice President and Chief Financial                Officer |

----
#### Lennie Elizabeth PATE, Appellant, v. F. Churchill MELLEN, as Administrator of the Estate of Henrietta Farnham, Deceased, Appellee.

No. P-356.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 18, 1971.

Charles L. Cetti, of Phillips, Williams, McGrau & Cetti, Pensacola, for appellant.

Joe J. Harrell and Donald H. Parting-ton, of Harrell, Wiltshire, Bozeman, Clark & Stone, Pensacola, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K, Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
#### AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., INC., et al., Respondents.

No. 43535.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 13, 1973.

Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, C. J„ and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
1996 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

10-9-1996

Harrison v. Nissan Motor Corp

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 95-1300

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1996

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1996 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Harrison v. Nissan Motor Corp" (1996). 1996 Decisions. Paper 43.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1996/43
 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 ________________________ 

 NO. 95-1300 

 ________________________ 

 FANNIE HARRISON, 

 Appellee 

 v. 

 NISSAN MOTOR CORPORATION IN U.S.A., 

 Appellant 

 (D.C. Civ. No. 94-cv-06791) 

 _________________________ 

 BEFORE: BECKER, ROTH, AND McKEE, Circuit Judges 

 _______________ 

 ORDER 

 ________________ 

 The Petition for Panel Rehearing is granted, and the 

opinion of the panel filed October 9, 1996 is vacated. The Clerk 

shall relist the matter before the panel at the convenience of 

the Court. 

 The Petition has been granted because, upon 

investigation after the Petition for Panel Rehearing was 

received, it appeared that neither the papers filed by Nissan 

pursuant to the remand for supplementation of the record, nor the 

certification of the district court supplementing the record were 

ever received by the panel. It appears that, although they were 

docketed in the district court, they were never transmitted to 

the Clerk of this Court. The only supplementation that the panel 

saw was that submitted by the plaintiff, which apparently had 

been filed directly by the plaintiff in this Court, and the Court 

filed its opinion based on a one-sided supplementation. 

 BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Edward R. Becker 

 Circuit Judge 

DATED: November 4, 1996
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 23.7

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-38521, 333-38523, 333-38525, 333-38527,
333-38531, 333-38533, 333-38537, 333-38539, 333-48167, 333-61395, 333-65688 and
333-65704), Forms S-4 (No's. 333-61401 and 333-47926) and Form S-3
(No. 333-64979) of Security Capital Group Incorporated of our report dated 21
March 2002 relating to the financial statements of Security Capital (EU)
Management Holdings S.A., which is included in the Security Capital Group
Incorporated Annual Report on Form 10-K.

PricewaterhouseCoopers
London
28 March 2002