alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### ROWELL v. McLENDON, TREAS. OF FLORENCE CO.

Action by W. B. Rowell, as a taxpayer and as guardian ad *litem*of Herbert M. Rowell, Ann E. Rowell and Emma G. Rowell, on behalf of himself and his wards and all others of like interest, against J. O. McLendon, as treasurer of Florence County, and W. H. Malloy, E. P. Covington, P. A. Wilcox, John L. Barringer and V. M. Hanner, as commissioners of the Florence Graded School, for injunction. Heard by Judge Gary, September, 1900, and complaint dismissed. From this judgment plaintiffs appeal.

*48
      *Messrs. W. F. Clayton*and *Wm. J. Cherry,*for appellants.

*Messrs. S. W. G. Shipp*and *F. S. Willcox,*contra,

cite: *Legislature permitted various localities to levy additional taxes for schools:*18 Stat., 640, 231; 19 Stat., 613, 1167; 20 Stat., 1402. *Con. 1895, art.*17, *sec. XI., par. 1, does not repeal such acts:*22 Stat., 485, 5x4; proviso to art. 17, sec. XI., par. 1. *Such acts not contrary to Con. 1868:*Con. 1868, art. X.; 13 S. E. R., 120; 57 S. C., 126.

March 28, 1901.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Judge Townsend,

*acting Associate Justice in place of*Justice Gary. The object of this action .is to enjoin the commissioners of the Florence Graded School from collecting from the plaintiffs supplementary tuition fees, and to enjoin the county treasurer from paying the poll and constitutional three mill tax for the use of said schools.

This case involves the same principles of law as the case of George P. Ploller and others against the Rock Hill School District and others; and, as the facts in the two cases are similar, the two cases were heard together in this Court. This being the case, it is deemed unnecessary to repeat what has been said in that case. Applying the principles announced in that case to the issues in this case, the Circuit Judge should be sustained.

It is the judgment of this Court, that the judgment of the Court below be affirmed.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     I, Shmuel Arvatz, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of ClickSoftware Technologies Ltd. on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended
June 30, 2001 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of ClickSoftware Technologies Ltd.


                                     By:     /s/ SHMUEL ARVATZ
                                            -----------------
                                     Name:  Shmuel Arvatz
                                     Title: Executive Vice President and
                                            Chief Financial Officer


                                       38
J-A21003-14

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

LISA A. KETCHUM AND JEFFREY A. 

KETCHUM, H/W, 

 AppellantS 

v.

GIANT FOOD STORES LLC, 

 Appellee 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

 

 No. 379 EDA 2014 

Appeal from the Judgment Entered December, 17, 2013 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,

Civil Division at No(s): June Term, 2012 No. 002302 

BEFORE: BOWES, OTT, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ. 

CONCURRING MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.:FILED SEPTEMBER 30, 2014 

 I join the Majority Memorandum because it accurately sets forth 

Pennsylvania law. 

 I write separately to reiterate what I have been asserting for at least 

two decades - this law is fundamentally unfair to injured customers. Duff v. 

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. GD-01-13235, 2002 WL 34098098 (Allegheny 

Cty. June 12, 2002) (Strassburger, J.); Landis v. Giant Eagle, Inc., GD91–7779, 142 PLJ 263 (1994) (Strassburger, J.), aff'd 440 Pa.Super. 658, 

655 A.2d 1052 (1994) (unpublished memorandum). 

 As I noted in Duff: 

Where a customer has sustained injuries although neither the 

customer nor the store has behaved negligently, it would be 

more fair to hold the store responsible than to place the risk on 

the consumer. Accidents such as these are foreseeable risks of 

conducting this type of business, and commercial businesses are 
J-A21003-14

- 2 - 

in a far better financial position to absorb the cost by spreading 

the risk among thousands of customers. Between these two 

innocent parties, fairness should require the store to pay as a 

cost of operating its business.
& b 8

6 œ

>

œ

>

œ

> œ.>

Allegro

f œ œ

>

œ

>

œ.

> œ œ>

œ

>

œ

>

œ

>

œ

>

For ceremonial version,

jump to m.100, 2nd beat

fi j

œ

^

‰ ‰ Œ. 8

5

8

13

8

21

8

29

& b Œ j

œ

. œ

. œ

. œ. F

37 Str. Mute

 ̇. Œ J

œ

. œ

. œ

. œ

.  ̇.

4

Œ j

œ

. œ

. œ

. œ. F

45

 ̇. Œ j

œ

. œ. œ

. œ

. j

œ

.

‰ ‰ Œ. ‰ œ

. œ. œ.

& b Œ J

œ

. œ

. œ

. œ

.  ̇. j

œ

‰ ‰ Œ. 53 3

œ

.

œ

. œ. œ. ‰

œ

. œ. œ. œ œ. œ. œ. œ. œ.  ̇. j

œ ‰ ‰ Œ.

& b !

61

‰ œ

. œ. œ. œ. œ. ! ‰ œ. œ. œ. œ. œ. ‰

œ

. œ. œ. ‰ œ

. œ. œ j

œ

.  ̇. j

œ ‰ ‰ Œ.

Open

Œ j

œ

.

œ

. œ

. œ.

69

p  ̇.

& b Œ J

œ

. œ

. œ

. œ

.  ̇.

4

Œ j

œ

. œ

. œ

. œ.

77

p  ̇. Œ j

œ

. œ. œ

. œ

. j

œ

.

‰ ‰ Œ. ‰ œ

. œ. œ. Œ J

œ

. œ

. œ

. œ

.  ̇.

& b j

œ

‰ ‰ Œ. 3

85

œ

.

œ

. œ. œ. ‰

œ

. œ. œ. œ œ. œ. œ. œ. œ.  ̇. j

œ ‰ ‰ Œ. !

93

‰ œ

. œ. œ. œ. œ.

& b ! ‰ œ

. œ. œ. œ. œ. ‰

œ

. œ. œ. ‰ œ

. œ. œ j

œ

.  ̇.

fi

j

œ ‰ ‰

œ.

>

Ceremonial version,

from m.4

f

 ̇.

>

101

œ. œ.

>  ̇.

>

j

œ ‰ ‰ œ

- œ œ

& b œ. œ. œ. œ.  ̇. j

œ ‰ ‰

œ.

>  ̇.

>

109

œ. œ

- œ œ œ. œ. œ ‰ œ

- œ- j

œ

- œ. œ. œ. œ.  ̇.

& b j

œ ‰ ‰ œ.

>  ̇.

>

117

œ j

œ

> œ

>

j

œ

>  ̇.> œ ‰ œ

- œ- j

œ

- œ. œ. œ. œ.  ̇. j

œ ‰ ‰ œ.

>  ̇.>

125

& b œ œ

> œ>

œ

> œ

> œ>  ̇.>

j

œ ‰ ‰ œ

>

j

œ

- œ.

> œ.> œ.

> œ.> œ.

>

œ

> œ>

2 ƒ

œ.

>

œ

> œ>

2

œ

> j

œ

> œ

> œ

>

2

j

œ

v

‰ ‰ Œ.

ALWAYS READY, ALWAYS THERE

The Official Song of the National Guard Bureau Words and Music by

CW4 David A. Myers

 40th Army Band, VTARNG

3rd Bb Trumpet Dedicated to the Men and Women, Soldiers and Airmen of America's National Guard
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10
- 19
- 00069
- CV IN RE JASON PAUL MIL LER
Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this original proceeding for a writ of mandamus, Relator Jason Paul Miller
contends that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to disqualify opposing
counsel , Micah Haden, from representing the Real Party in Interest Heather Lynn Miller

. Relator , however, has now filed a second original mandamus proceeding , Cause No. 10

- 19

- 00107

- CV, arising from the same underlying case , in which he represents that Haden is no longer representing the Real Party in Interest. Appellate courts lack jurisdiction to decide moot controversies. See Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Jones , 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex. 1999). “A case becomes moot if, since the time of filing, there has ceased to exist a justiciable controversy between the parties

— that is, ifIn re Miller Page 2

the issues presented are no longer ‘live,’ or if the parties lack a legally cognizable interest
in the outcome.” Heckman v. Williamson Cty. , 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012). By letter dated April 2, 2019, the Clerk of this Court notified Relator that it appeared that this original proceeding had become moot and that the Court may dismiss this original proceeding unless, within ten days from the da te of the letter, a response

wa s filed showing grounds for continuing the original proceeding. No response has been
received. Accordingly, Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed. Relator’s emergency motion to stay is dismissed as moot.

REX D. DAVIS Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis , and Justice Neill Petition dismissed Opinion delivered and filed April 24, 2019 [ OT06]
Summary Translation	Exhibit 4.29


 


 


Loan Agreement


 


Contract No. : 2012JIYINDAIZIDI12100701


 


Borrower
: Hebei Chuanglian Finance Leasing Co., Ltd.


Lender :
CITIC Shijiazhuang Branch


Signing
Date : August 30, 2012


Loan Amount
: RMB20,000,000


 


Length of maturity : From August 30, 2012 to August 30, 2013


Use of Loan : Working Capital


Loan Interest : 6.90%


Date of
Draft :August 30, 2012


Withdrawal
Amount : RMB20,000,000


Payment Method : The interest should be repaid by monthly. The
principal shall be fully repaid at the maturity date of the loan.


Repayment
Date :August 30, 2013


 


Loan Guarantee : Guaranty of Pledge


 


- Ganglian Finance Leasing Co., Ltd entered into The Maximum
Pledge Contract with the lender, with the contract no.2012JIYINZUIQUANZHIZIDI12140695.
321, 324 (1996). We therefore conclude that the district court did not err 

in denying appellant's motion. 3Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

/ 

Hardesty 

pe 

Parraguirre 

J. 

cc: Hon. Stefany Miley, District Judge 

Cory Kay Winans 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

3We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in 

denying appellant's motion for the appointment of counsel. We further 

deny appellant's request for appellate counsel. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME ON PAGES F-3
AND F-4 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                      31,272,048
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               16,475,453
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (443,774)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            50,300,963
<PP&E>                                      11,161,895
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,163,265)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              79,520,586
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,738,260
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        62,202
<OTHER-SE>                                  69,928,357
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                79,520,586
<SALES>                                      6,364,042
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            27,969,136
<CGS>                                        2,014,096
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               21,854,082
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               100,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (752,960)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              7,063,675
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,614,260
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,449,415
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,449,415
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .71
        

</TABLE>
February 1810.

casesyu.

#### Peter Trezevant, escheator, *vs.*Robert Howard, administrator of Henry Osborne.

[Tried before Chancellor Desaussure, Circuit Court of Equity, Charleston,

Nov. 1810.]

The Court ^al^es" ^teescj1’*'{e^ sold to pay j“t personal estate °*0 ovev to aliens.

IT appeared from the report of the master that the assets in the hands of the administrator of the estate of Henry Osborne, deceased, are inadequate to the payment of the debts of the estate, and that there is a b lance of cash in the hands of the said administrator not yet applied. The Court decreed that the said balance * A A „ be immediately paid over by the said administrator to the judgment creditors of the estate ; and that the real estate of the said Henry Osborne, be sold in February next, by the master, on the terms of as much cash as will pay what may be duchy the said estate, after the appropriation of the balance of cash in the administrator’s hands as directed above, and the costs of this suit, and the remainder of the purchase money payable in twelve months from the sale, and secured by a bond and mortgage of the property. The Court further decreed that the said administrator deliver up the title deeds of the said real property, and prodded to collect the debts due to the said estate, and payHtém over to the master; which money together with-the bonds and securities given for the-purchase of the real estate, the said master shall deliver to the escheator, should the Constitutional Court determine that the said real estate is an escheat j or to the relatives of the said Henry Osborne, who claim as his heirs, should the determination of that Court he otherwise. The Court further decreed that the judgment creditors of the said estate be stayed from proceeding at law against the said’Iands.*

*

 I have no noie of the argument in this case, but X have understood that the real point made was, that Henry Osborne being supposed lo be an al.en, and the escheator having commenced process, and 0.;b.>. hav-Jnjr relatives abroad, but incapable of inheriting, it was insisted that *88the real estate liable to escheat, should be sold to pay debts of the estate of H. Osborne; so that the personal estate which is not liable to escheat might go to his relations. But the Court refused to make such order, and decrecí as appears above. Measures had also been taken in concert with some of the creditors to enforce the judgments by selling the land under them, and thus paying the debts, which would leave the personal property in the hands of the administrator to be paid over to the alien relations. Bat the Court on motion of the escheator’s counsel granted the injunction above stated, prohibiting the judgment creditors from proceeding against the land, till the perenal estate was oxhatKcd.
<Page>

                                                                        EX 10.17

                     FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

EFFECTIVE DATE: AS OF JANUARY 1, 2001

WOOLEY:         {NAME}

COMPANY:        SCHLOTZSKY'S, INC., a Texas corporation
                203 Colorado Street
                Austin, Texas  78701

AGREEMENT:      Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, effective as of
                January 1, 2001, by and between WOOLEY and COMPANY.

WHEREAS, the Parties listed above entered into the AGREEMENT described above;
and

WHEREAS, WOOLEY and COMPANY have determined that it is in their mutual best
interest to modify the terms of the AGREEMENT; and

WHEREAS, this amendment has been approved by an action of the Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of the COMPANY dated December 28, 2001;

NOW, THEREFORE, for the mutual obligations contained herein and other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:

1. EFFECT OF AMENDMENT. The AGREEMENT is hereby supplemented and modified by the
provisions of this First Amendment to Employment Agreement ("AMENDMENT").
Wherever there is any conflict between the provisions of the AGREEMENT and the
provisions of this AMENDMENT, the provisions of this AMENDMENT are paramount and
shall control, and the AGREEMENT shall be construed accordingly. Any terms that
are defined in the AGREEMENT shall have the same meanings in this AMENDMENT. Any
provision in the AGREEMENT not expressly changed by or inconsistent with the
provisions of this AMENDMENT shall remain the same.

2. AMENDMENT OF ADVANCE. The AGREEMENT is hereby amended to restate Section 5 as
follows:

     5. ADVANCE. On or before January 31, 2001, the Company shall pay Wooley a
     cash advance against Wooley's future bonuses earned in the amount of
     ${Amount of Advance}. The advance shall be recovered by applying the
     following amounts until the full amount is recovered: ${One-Third of
     Advance} of the 2002 bonus, ${One-Third of Advance} of the 2003 bonus, and
     ${One-Third of Advance} of the 2004 bonus. If all or any portion of the
     advance remains after application of the 2004 bonus, such remainder shall
     be deemed fully earned by Wooley and not to be recovered by the Company.

3. AMENDMENT REGARDING STOCK OPTIONS. The AGREEMENT is hereby amended to restate
Section 6 as follows:

     6. [This Section is intentionally omitted in its entirety.]

<Page>

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this original of this
AMENDMENT to be effective on the EFFECTIVE DATE.

COMPANY:
SCHLOTZSKY'S, INC.,
a Texas corporation

By:
        --------------------------------------
        Richard H. Valade
Title:  Executive Vice President & Treasurer
        Chief Financial Officer

WOOLEY:

----------------------------------------------
        {Name}
12:00 P.M.

United States Department of Agriculture

National Agricultural Statistics Service

December Crop Production

Executive Summary

Lance Honig, Chief

Crops Branch

December 9, 2016
USDA-NASS

12-9-16

Field Crops Fruit & Nuts

Cotton Citrus

Cottonseed

Sugarcane

Contents
USDA-NASS

12-9-16

Survey Overview

Florida Citrus

Objective Surveys

(Size and Drop)

Fruit Maturity

Survey Type Field Observations Laboratory Tests

Crops Included All Oranges, Grapefruit

Sample Size 1,681 groves 418 samples

Collection Period Nov 8-23 Nov 28-29

Testing Period Nov 30-Dec 2
USDA-NASS

12-9-16

December 2016 Crop Production

% Change % Change

From From

Crop Unit December Previous Previous

2016 Forecast Season 

Production

Oranges Mil Tons 5.32 NC -10.0

Grapefruit Thou Tons 743 -1.7 -7.5

Tangerines & 

Mandarins Thou Tons 990 -0.2 +5.9
12.7

13.7

9.80

13.0

12.2 12.4

11.5

12.9

9.30

9.02

7.63

10.1

9.10

8.24

8.91 8.98

8.27

6.77

6.35

5.91

5.32

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017

Million Tons

Orange Production

United States

USDA-NASS

12-9-16
USDA-NASS

12-9-16

Ginnings Objective Yield

Crops Included Cotton Cotton

Sample Size ~600 1,197

Collection Period First Week of Dec Nov 25 – Dec 1

Survey Overview
USDA-NASS

12-9-16

December 2016 Crop Production

% Change % Change

From From

Crop Unit December Previous Previous

2016 Forecast Season 

All Cotton

Harvested Mil Ac 9.66 NC +19.6

Yield Lb/Ac 821 +2.2 +7.2

Production Mil Bls 16.5 +2.2 +28.2
USDA-NASS

12-9-16

18.9 18.8

13.9

17.0 17.2

20.3

17.2

18.3

23.3

23.9

21.6

19.2

12.8

12.2

18.1

15.6

17.3

12.9

16.3

12.9

16.5

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21

Million Bales

All Cotton Production

United States
USDA-NASS

12-9-16
USDA-NASS

12-9-16

December 2016 Crop Production

% Change % Change

From From

Crop Unit December Previous Previous

2016 Forecast Season 

Production

Sugarcane Mil Tons 33.7 +0.4 +4.4

Cottonseed Mil Tons 5.27 +2.2 +30.4
USDA-NASS

12-9-16

Release Date Report Title

December 15 County Estimates: Small Grains

December 20 Local Foods

December 23 Cattle on Feed

Quarterly Hogs and Pigs

December 29 Agricultural Prices

January 3

CAIR: Cotton System

CAIR: Grain Crushing

CAIR: Fats & Oils

January 12

Crop Production

Crop Production – Annual

Grain Stocks

Rice Stocks

Cotton Ginnings

Winter Wheat and Canola Seedings

Upcoming Reports
United States Department of Agriculture

National Agricultural Statistics Service

All Reports Available At

www.nass.usda.gov

For Questions

202-720-2127

800-727-9540

nass@nass.usda.gov
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1309

PAUL A. MITCHELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

PHILIP A. BADDOUR, JR., In individual and official capacity 

as Board of Trustees Attorney, Wayne Community College; KAY 

ALBERTSON, In individual and official capacity as President 

and Secretary to the Board of Trustees, Wayne Community 

College,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief

District Judge. (5:15-cv-00083-H)

Submitted: July 21, 2015 Decided: July 23, 2015

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul A. Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Margaret Dillon, ELLIS 

& WINTERS, LLP, Cary, North Carolina; Nora F. Sullivan, ELLIS & 

WINTERS, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Jason Vincent Federmack, 

Joshua Mark Krasner, JACKSON LEWIS PC, Raleigh, North Carolina,

for Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Paul A. Mitchell seeks to appeal the district court’s 

reassignment orders. This court may exercise jurisdiction only 

over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain 

interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 

541, 545-46 (1949). The orders Mitchell seeks to appeal are

neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral 

orders. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED