alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### David SOLOMON, et al. v. VALCO, INC.

85-202

702 S.W.2d 6

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered January 27, 1986

*Thomas B. Keys, Chris O. Parker*and *Robert L. Wilson,*for appellant.

*Huey & Vittitow,*for appellee.

Darrell Hickman, Justice.

The decision is reversed because this is a suit against the state, and the chancery court had no *107jurisdiction.

Valeo contracted with the Arkansas Highway Commission to improve about one mile of Highway 71 in Scott County. The contract called for the removal of several existing bridge structures. After Valeo obtained the contract, a dispute arose regarding the removal of two bridges, one over Fouche LaFave River and the other over Fouche LaFave Relief. Valeo insisted it was not in the contract to remove these two bridges. The chief engineer for the Highway Commission ruled pursuant to the contract, that Valeo had to remove the bridges.

Valeo filed a suit in the Pulaski County Chancery Court against the Arkansas Highway Commission’s chief engineer, a former member of the commission and the director of the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department to enjoin the Highway Commission from requiring the removal of the bridges. Contemporaneously, a claim was filed by Valeo with the state’s Claims Commission for compensation for the work.

 The chancellor found the contract ambiguous regarding the two bridges, ruled that the chief engineer was arbitrary in resolving the matter against Valeo and issued the injunction. We only need to address the question of jurisdiction. This was simply a suit against the state, prohibited by the Ark. Const. Art. 5 § 20, which provides: “The State of Arkansas shall never be made defendant in any of her courts.” The fact that the state Highway Department director, commission board members, and chief engineer were named parties instead of the state itself is not determinative of whether the state is the defendant. We look beyond the named parties to see if the real claim is against the state. *McCain*v. *Crossett Timber Co.,*206 Ark. 51, 174 S.W.2d 114 (1943). Obviously, the issue here is the business of the state and the defendants, though individuals, were named in their official capacities.

Another factor is whether the suit directly or indirectly coerces the state. *Watson*v. *Dodge,*187 Ark. 1055, 63 S.W.2d 993 (1933). This j udgment directly orders the state not to enforce its contract.

Exceptions to the rule prohibiting suits against the state are few. Two instances which are not considered suits against the *108state are when an agency or officer acts illegally or *ultra vires,*which means beyond the agency’s or officer’s legal power or authority. *Federal Compress & Warehouse Co.*v. *Call,*221 Ark. 537, 254 S.W.2d 319 (1953); *Ark. Game & Fish Comm.*v. *Eubank,*256 Ark. 930, 512 S.W.2d 540 (1974). Condemnation cases are also not considered suits against the state. *Ark. Highway*Comm. v. *Flake,*254 Ark. 624, 495 S.W.2d 855 (1973).

This suit is not within any of these or other exceptions; it is simply a suit directly against the state which is prohibited by the constitution.

Reversed and dismissed.

Purtle, J., not participating.
# Joint Guard Team Prepares for State Partnership Mission

/ Published March 20, 2024

PEASE AIR NATIONAL GUARD BASE, N.H. - Between bouts of misty showers and freezing rain on the flight line at Pease Air National Guard Base, the belly of a C-17 Globemaster III from the 167th Airlift Wing was steadily filled with people and equipment.

Over three cold hours, Soldiers and Airmen from the New Hampshire and West Virginia National Guard loaded all mission-essential equipment needed to support “Granite Falco,” a four-week training exercise with the Cabo Verdean Armed Forces beginning March 18.

“This was an incredible opportunity for us,” said U.S. Army Chief Warrant Officer 2 Nicholas Rossetti, an HH-60M Black Hawk pilot with the 238th Medevac Company. “Being able to support the State Partnership Program, learning from the Airmen at the 157th, who have a wealth of knowledge, and getting all of our Soldiers valuable hands-on training has been so rewarding, and it’s just the beginning.”

The team spent three days at Pease ANGB in Newington, New Hampshire, folding the aircraft blades, palletizing gear, completing a joint inspection and loading the equipment onto the C-17.

Rossetti and U.S. Air Force Master Sgt. Andrew Norton, noncomissioned officer in charge of the air transportation function with the 157th Logistics Readiness Squadron, said the exercise was crucial for deployment cycle preparation and becoming accustomed to working in joint environments.

“We would normally have to fly somewhere for a joint opportunity like this,” said Norton. “This mission gives our newer Airmen a chance to touch C-17s and complete a huge variety of real-world training while working alongside the Army, and that was really exciting.”

The aeromedical evacuation company traveled from the United States to Mindelo, Cabo Verde, for Exercise Granite Falco. There, they will conduct simulated flying missions in two Black Hawk helicopters and provide basic medical training to Cabo Verdean military personnel and first responders.

The New Hampshire National Guard and Cabo Verde have been partners in the Department of Defense National Guard Bureau State Partnership Program since 2021. 

“The exercise gives our Soldiers an exciting training opportunity while being able to support our State Partnership Program and the military and government of Cabo Verde,” said U.S. Army Maj. Braden Hunter, commander of the 238th. “We look forward to working with and learning from our Cabo Verdean allies.”

The joint group safely packed two Black Hawks, one Humvee, eight tri-wall containers and other critical equipment for the overseas journey.

“This is a dynamic mission,” said Rossetti. “We’ve been lucky to have the support of our leaders, the support of our partners in Cabo Verde, of the West Virginia Air Guard and the Airmen at the 157th. It wouldn’t be possible without the whole team.”
**Exhibit 31.1**

** **

Certificationof Chief Executive Officer

 

I, Gerald D. Putnam, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-Q of Archipelago Holdings, Inc.;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.               The registrant’s other certifying officer andI are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

 

a)              Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)             Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c)              Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifying officer andI have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a)              All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)             Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  November 9,  2004 | /s/ Gerald D. Putnam                                 |
|-------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                          | Gerald D. Putnam                                     |
| * *                      | *Chairman  of the Board and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
Exhibit 32.1
  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sinoenergy Corporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Bo Huang, the Chief Executive Officer, and I, Shiao Ming Sheng, the Chief Financial Officer, of the Company, do hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief that:
 
 (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 May 19, 2010/s/ Bo HuangBo HuangChief Executive Officer/s/ Shiao Ming ShengShiao Ming ShengChief Financial Officer
  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
  The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OFOHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

JASON COTTERMAN

Plaintiff

vs.

City of Cincinnati, et al

Defendants

Case No. 1:17-cv-608

Judge William O. Bertelsman

Magistrate Karen L. Litkovitz

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION 

FOR PERMISSION TO FILE CERTAIN

DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

This matter came before the Court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion For Permission to 

File Certain Documents Under Seal. Said Motion is found to be well-taken and is hereby 

granted.

Plaintiff may file the documents containing the Medical and Embarrassing Personal 

Information Under Seal

.IT IS SO ORDERED.

Karen L. Litkovitz

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case: 1:17-cv-00608-WOB-KLL Doc #: 89 Filed: 05/20/20 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 1519
NUMBER 13-14-00540-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

PANGAEA FLOOR COMPANY D/B/A PANGEA 

FLOOR COVERINGS AND JUAN CARLOS CERVANTES 

A/K/A J.C. CERVANTES, Appellants,

v.

INTERCERAMIC, INC., Appellee. 

____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellants, Pangaea Floor Company d/b/a Pangea Floor Coverings and Juan 

Carlos Cervantes a/k/a J.C. Cervantes, filed an appeal from a judgment rendered against 

them in favor of appellee, Interceramic, Inc.. On December 16, 2014, the Clerk of this 

Court notified appellants that the clerk's record in the above cause was originally due on
2

October 13, 2014, and that the deputy district clerk, Ester C. Epinoza, had notified this 

Court that appellant failed to make arrangements for payment of the clerk's record. The 

Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct 

the defect, if it could be done. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3, 42.3(b),(c). Appellants were

advised that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of 

this Court’s notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. 

Appellants have failed to respond to this Court’s notice. Accordingly, the appeal 

is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c). 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

22nd day of January, 2015.
Waiver and Acknowledgement



 EXHIBIT 10.10 

WAIVER AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 

May 27, 2010 
 WHEREAS: 

A. Reference is made to the following agreements dated effective February 24, 2009 between University Health Network (“UHN”) and Med
BioGene Inc. (“MBI”): 
  

	 	(i)	Additional Exclusive License Agreement; 

  

	 	(ii)	Additional Sponsored Research Agreement (“Additional Research Agreement”); 


 

	 	(iii)	Amended and Restated Exclusive License Agreement; and 

  

	 	(iv)	Amended and Restated Sponsored Research Agreement (the “Amended Research Agreement”) 


(collectively, the “Agreements”). 

B. UHN and MBI have agreed, among other things, to undertake certain research (the “Research”) relating to prognostic mRNA expression-based
signatures to be used in the clinical management of lung cancers in accordance with the procedures, specifications and timelines (the “Timelines”) described in each of the Additional Research Agreement and the Amended Research Agreement
and as further described in detail in Schedule A to each of the aforementioned agreements. 
 C. Certain of the Research is, as of the date
hereof, in progress and, as such, has not been completed within the timelines described in Schedule A to each of the Additional Research Agreement and the Amended Research Agreement. 

D. UHN and MBI wish to waive the requirement that the Research be completed in accordance with the Timelines. 

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of terms and conditions outlined below, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged by UHN and MBI, such
parties agree as follows: 
 1. UHN and MBI hereby waive the requirement that the Research be completed in accordance with the Timelines and
further acknowledge and agree that each party will in good faith use commercially reasonable efforts to complete the Research as soon as reasonably practicable, subject to the suspension of the Research by MBI pursuant to section 9.6 of each of the
Additional Research Agreement and the Amended Research Agreement. 
 2. All other terms and conditions of the Agreements remain in full force
and effect and shall be read and interpreted in light of the application of this Waiver and Acknowledgement. 
  

													
	UNIVERSITY HEALTH NETWORK	 	MED BIOGENE INC.
					
	Per:	 	/s/ BRIAN H. BARBER	 		 	Per:	 	/s/ ERINN B. BROSHKO
		 	Name:	 	Brian H. Barber, Ph.D.	 		 		 	Name:	 	Erinn B. Broshko 
		 	Title:	 	Director, Technology Development and Commercialization	 		 		 	Title:	 	Chief Executive Officer
P.1 

OAR Box 1878 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

47) 11-1-26 

Docket Number: 

A-90-19 

Printed 11/28/200811:47:26 AM Sheet 47 of 68 
P.2 

t ' * i A-90-19 

II-I-26 

THE KLINE GUIDE 

TO THE 

CHEMICAL INDUSTRY 

Fourth edition, completely revised 

Susan Curry 

Editor 

^AIRI iOCKE/ 

Susan Rich 

Editor 

It $?•£#$«£ CHARLES H. KLINE & CO. INC. • FAIRFIELD, NJ. 07006 * USA 

TOKYO, JAPAN • BRUSSELS, BELGIUM 
Editorial contributions by. 

Valerie Kollonitsch 

Technical Information Specialist 

Other Kline Publications 

Industrial Marketing Guides 

Packaging Industry (Fourth edition, 1980) 

Paper Industry (Fourth edition, 1980) 

Paint Industry (Fifth edition, 1978) 

Plastics Industry (First edition, 1978) 

Directory oj V.S. and Canadian Marketing Surveys and Services (Third edition) 

\ \ 

Other Kline Services 

As marketing consultants, C. H. Kline & Co. analyzes markets and technology 

in: (1) chemicals, minerals, foodstuffs and other raw materials; (2) paper, packaging 

and the graphic arts; (3) health care; and (4) consumer package goods in the United 

States and abroad. Staffed by personnel with technical and marketing backgrounds, 

Kline & Co. undertakes confidential studies for individual clients and also makes 

studies for groups of companies on topics of general interest. In addition to its headquarters in Fairfield, NJ., USA, the company has a subsidiary, Kline S.A. in 

Brussels, Belgium, and an affiliate, IRM Inc., in Tokyo, Japan. For further information, write for the company's booklets: 

—Kline International Marketing Consultants describes briefly the firm and its work. 

—Client l.iuitiy, names rhe firm's clients classified by country. 

—Fxteiivc-; Rc;?rJ summarizes all the firm's projects bv field. 

—Group Surveys lists the multiclietu surveys and consumer industry analyses currently offered for sale. 

» I 

Copyright o 1980 by 

Charles H. Kline & Co., Inc. 

AH rights reserved. No p«rt of this book may he reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher. Printed in the United States of America. ISBN n.Ql 718-1 x.A
#### Helen P. WASHBURN *v.*STUART’S MUFFLER SHOP & Alfred C. HENDERSON

74-81

513 S.W. 2d 913

Opinion delivered September 30, 1974

*Dodds, Kidd, Hendricks & Ryan,*for appellant.

*60*Whetstone & Whetstone,*by: *Bud Whetstone,*for appellees.

John A. Fogleman, Justice.

Appellant was injured when struck by a motor vehicle driven by Alfred C. Henderson, the agent, servant or employee of Stuart’s Muffler Shop. The incident occurred in the intersection of .Broadway and Eighth Street in Little Rock, which is controlled by traffic lights. When struck, appellant was walking in a painted crosswalk provided for pedestrians. Appellant’s sole point for reversal is the failure of the circuit judge to include Ark. Stat. Ann. § 75-627 (b) (Repl. 1957) as a part of AMI 601 (Violation of Statute or Ordinance as Evidence of Negligence) as she requested. We find no error and affirm.

The statute which appellant insists should have been included in the instruction is a part of § 76 of Act 300 of 1937 and reads thus:

> (b) whenever any vehicle is stopped at a marked crosswalk or at any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway, the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass such stopped vehicle.

Sec. 76 is a part of Art. X of the Act, which is entitled “Pedestrians’ Right & Duties.” Sec. 75 is the opening section of that article. It reads:

> Section 75. *Pedestrians Subject to Traffic-Control Signals.*Pedestrians shall be subject to traffic-control signals at intersections as heretofore declared in this act, but at all other places pedestrians shall be accorded the privileges and shall be subject to restrictions stated in this article.

We take § 75 to be the introductory provision of this article and to govern the remaining sections including 76 (b). The latter section could not be applicable because of the traffic control signals at the intersection. Thus, we cannot say that appellant was “accorded the privileges” of § 76 (b) to the extent that Henderson could have eeen held guilty of a violation of the statute simply because he overtook and passed a vehicle stopped at the crosswalk to permit appellant to *61cross the roadway. For this reason, there was no error in the trial court’s refusal to include § 76 (b) in the instruction. This does not mean that a jury might not have found that appellant’s conduct constituted negligence. It simply means that the court properly refused to tell the jury that a driver’s overtaking and passing a vehicle stopped to permit appellant to pass was, in and of itself, evidence of negligence.

Since we make this disposition of the case on the merits, we do not consider appellee’s argument that the judgment should be affirmed because of appellant’s failure to designate sufficient record for review of the point relied upon by her and because of her failure to file a statement of the points to be relied upon, after having filed a less-then-complete record.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 23.1

**Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors**

 

The Board of Directors andStockholders of Point West Capital Corporation:

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement Nos.333-21825 and No. 333-21827 on form S-8 of Point West Capital Corporation of our reportdated March 22, 2002, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Point WestCapital Corporation included in it Annual report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended December31, 2001, filed with the Securities Exchange Commission.

 

                    

 

                                                                                                                                            /s/Ernst & Young LLP

 

San Francisco, CaliforniaMarch 26, 2002
Exhibit 10.2

 

CONCEPTUS, INC.

 

FIFTH AMENDMENT TO
 1995 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN

 

1995 Employee Stock Purchase Plan  
 Adopted: November 22, 1995
 Approved By Stockholders: January 1996

 

First Amendment to Employee Stock Purchase Plan  
 Adopted: March 23, 2004

 

Second Amendment to Employee Stock Purchase Plan  
 Adopted: March 23, 2004

 

Approved by Stockholders: June 1, 2004

 

Third Amendment to Employee Stock Purchase Plan  
 Adopted: April 3, 2006
 Approved by Stockholders: June 7, 2006

 

Fourth Amendment to Employee Stock Purchase Plan  
 Adopted: April 28, 2008
 Approved by Stockholders: June 4, 2008

 

Fifth Amendment to Employee Stock Purchase Plan  
 Adopted: April 21, 2010
 Approved by Stockholders: June 14, 2010

 

Effective July 1, 2010, pursuant to Sections 19 and 20 of the 1995 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the “ Purchase Plan ”) of Conceptus, Inc. (the “ Company “), the Company hereby amends the Purchase Plan as follows:

 

1.          The first sentence of Section 13(a) is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:

 

“The maximum number of shares of the Company’s Common Stock which shall be made available for sale under the Plan shall be 810,000 shares, subject to adjustment upon changes in capitalization of the Company as provided in Section 19.”

 

* * * * * * * * * *

 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Fifth Amendment to the Plan was duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Company effective as of April 22, 2010 and by the stockholders of the Company effective as of June 14, 2010.

 

Executed on this 14th day of June, 2010.

 

 

	    
    	     
    
	     
    	     
    
	    Julie   A. Brooks, Secretary
    	     
    


 

B-1
#### People v Love,

No. 90635;

Court of Appeals No. 132223.