alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Leftwich *v.*Cash Lumber Company.

4-8740

217 S. W. 2d 357

Opinion delivered February 14, 1949.

*Rams*& *Rains,*for appellant.

*Daily*& *Woods,*for appellee.

George Rose Smith, ' J.

Appellee brought this action to establish a materialman’s lien for $103.86, the defense being that part of the lumber was never delivered and part was rejected as defective. One of appellee’s officers testified to the delivery and acceptance of the material, while appellant gave his version of the transaction. *587Three carpenters who worked on appellant’s house were called to corroborate his evidence, but they knew only that some lumber had been rejected. They were unable to say that the material refused had been supplied by appellee, while appellant admitted buying lumber from several other dealers. Thus the question narrowed down to one of credibility as between the uncorroborated testimony of the litigants. In this situation we are guided by the chancellor’s conclusion. *Souter*v. *Witt,*87 Ark. 593, 113 S. W. 800, 128 Am. St. Rep. 40. Affirmed.
#### Hickey *v.*Faucette.

4-8724

217 S. W. 2d 253

Opinion delivered February 7, 1949.

*Talley*& *Owen*and *Robert L. Rogers II,*for appellant.

*Warren E. Wood*and *Griffin Smith, Jr.,*for ap-pellee.

*561Ed. F. McFaddiN, Justice.

This is a boundary line dispute between neighbors. Mrs. Faucette owns lot 4, and Mrs. Hickey owns the west half of lot 5 lying south of lot 4. The property in dispute is a strip off of the north side of lot 5, being six inches wide at the west and two inches wide at the east.

The evidence shows that prior to 1908 there was a fence on the south side of the disputed strip; when the fence became in disrepair, Mrs. Faucette removed it, and placed a hedge on the same line where the fence had been, and for more than seven years has held adverse .possession up to the hedge. She testified: “I intended for the hedge to be the true boundary line. ... I counted the hedge the line. ... I am sticking to the hedge. ... I put it there for the line. . .* . I put it there because I intended for it to be there.”

In short, Mrs. Faucette definitely established that she was all the time claiming adverse possession of the disputed strip, regardless of the surveyor’s line.

The applicable rule of law was well stated by Mr. Justice Riddick in *Goodwin*v. Garibaldi,183 Ark. 74, 102 S. W. 706:

> “When a landowner, through mistake as to his boundary line, takes possession of land of an adjacent owner intending to claim only to the true boundary, such possession is not adverse, and, though continued for the statutory period, does not divest title; *but when he takes possession of the land under the belief that he owns it, encloses it and holds it continuously for the statutory period under claim of ownership without any recognition of the possible right of another thereto on account of mistake in the boundary line, such possession and holding is adverse, and, when continued for the statutory period, will divest the title of the former owner who has been thus excluded from possession:”*(Italics supplied).

*562Testimony on behalf of the appellee brings the case within the pnrview of the italicized portion of the above quotation. The Chancery Court so found and decreed. Affirmed.

The Chief Justice not participating.

1

 Recent cases following the Garibaldi case are: *DeWeese*v. *Logue,*208 Ark. 79, 185 S. W. 2d 85; *Martin*v. *Winston,*209 Ark. 464, 190 S. W. 2d 962; *Hull*v. *Hull,*212 Ark. 808, 205 S. W. 2d 211; *Pitts*v. *Pitts,*213 Ark. 397, 210 S. W. 2d *502; Lollar*v. *Appleby,*213 Ark. 424, 210 S. W. 2d 900.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

STEVE SNYDER-HILL, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, 

Defendant. 

 Case No. 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD 

 Judge Michael H. Watson 

 Chief Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers 

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY 

Plaintiffs submit the attached opinion as supplemental authority. See Exhibit 1 (Karasek 

v. Regents of the University of California, 2020 WL 6684869, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2020)).

Karasek held that “a plaintiff's Title IX pre-assault claim” against a university “accrues when the 

plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the school’s policy of deliberate indifference that 

created a heightened risk of harassment.” Id. at *8. The district court explained that “[i]n a preassault case . . . [a] school is not liable because it assaulted a plaintiff. A school is instead liable 

for its policy of deliberate indifference that created a heightened risk of harassment, which is 

ultimately causally connected with the assault.” Id. The court denied the university’s motion to 

dismiss the plaintiff’s claim as time-barred because the plaintiff was unaware of the university’s 

alleged policy of deliberate indifference until an audit report was publicly released years after her 

assault. Id. at *10-11. Karasek provides further support that Plaintiffs’ Title IX claims against 

OSU for the university’s deliberate indifference did not accrue until Plaintiffs knew or should 

have known of OSU’s role in enabling Dr. Strauss’s abuse. See also Dkt 133 (Pl. Opp.) at 15-18. 

Dated: Columbus, OH Respectfully submitted, 

 November 18, 2020 

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 144 Filed: 11/18/20 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 2649
2 

By: /s/ Scott Smith, with email permission to 

Debra L. Greenberger 

SCOTT ELLIOTT SMITH, LPA 

Scott E. Smith (0003749) 

Michael L. Dillard, Jr. (0083907) 

5003 Horizons Drive, Suite 100 

Columbus, Ohio 43220 

Phone: (614) 846-1700 

Fax: (614) 486-4987 

E-Mail:ses@sestraillaw.com 

E-Mail: mld@sestriallaw.com 

Ilann M. Maazel (admitted pro hac vice) 

Debra L. Greenberger (admitted pro hac vice) 

Marissa Benavides (admitted pro hac vice) 

EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF ABADY 

WARD & MAAZEL LLP 

600 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor 

New York, New York 10020 

Phone: (212) 763-5000 

Fax: (212) 763-5001 

E-Mail: imaazel@ecbawm.com 

E-Mail: dgreenberger@ecbawm.com 

E-Mail: mbenavides@ecbawm.com 

Adele P. Kimmel (admitted pro hac vice) 

Alexandra Brodsky (admitted pro hac vice) 

PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C. 

1620 L Street, NW, Suite 

630 Washington, DC 20036 

Phone: (202) 797-8600 

Fax: (202) 232-7203 

E-mail: akimmel@publicjustice.net 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

 

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 144 Filed: 11/18/20 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 2650
3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 It is hereby certified that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was filed and 

served, via the Court’s CM/ECF system on November 18, 2020, on all counsel of record. 

 By: /s/_Debra L. Greenberger 

 Attorney for Plaintiffs 

Case: 2:18-cv-00736-MHW-EPD Doc #: 144 Filed: 11/18/20 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 2651
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15 (D) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
OF 1934 FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       3,722,971
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,124,652
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                      33,430,248
<DEPRECIATION>                              13,166,610
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              43,999,441
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  26,306,052
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                43,999,441
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,995,985
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,123,050
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             791,721
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                482,266
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            482,266
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   482,266
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    13.09<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    13.09<F2>
<FN>
<F1>REGISTRANT HAS AN UNCLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET.
<F2>EPS IS NET INCOME PER $1,000 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP UNIT.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.2











CONSENT OF RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.





We hereby consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-19652, 33-44103, 33-49724, 33-64323, 33-53542, 333-38166, 333-39584, 333-135194, 333-137857 and 333-166605) of Unit Corporation of the reference to our report for Unit Corporation, which appears in the December 31, 2009 annual report on Form 10-K of Unit Corporation filed on February 23, 2010, and our summary report attached as Exhibit 99.1 to the amendment on Form 10-K/A to such annual report filed on September 17, 2010.








/s/ Ryder Scott Company, L.P.





RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.





Houston, Texas


September 17, 2010
From: Wayland, Robertj [mailto:Wayland.Robertj@epa.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 11:14 AM 

To: Cortney Higgins 

Cc: Culligan, Kevin; Harvey, Reid; Conner, Lisa 

Subject: TSD Delivery Schedule 

Cortney – 

I apologize for not getting this back to you yesterday, but here is our anticipated schedule for 

delivery of the TSDs to you for OMB/interagency review. If you have any questions or concerns 

regarding the schedule below, please feel free to give either Kevin(202-564-0611) or me a call. 

Thanks again for your patience. 

thanx! 

bob 

Robert J. Wayland, Ph.D. 

Leader, Energy Strategies Group 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

Mail Code D243-01 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 

Office: (919) 541-1045 

Cell: (919) 306-2290 

Fax: (919) 541-5450 

Email: wayland.robertj@epa.gov 

************************************* 

 DRAFT/Deliberative Document - FOIA Exempt 

************************************* 
From: Culligan, Kevin 

Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2014 10:07 PM 

To: Wayland, Robertj 

Cc: Harvey, Reid; Conner, Lisa; Dalcher, Debra; Stenhouse, Jeb; Srivastava, Ravi 

Subject: TSD list 

Tomorrow (April 3, 2014): 

 

Survey of Existing State Policies and Programs – note we are changing it to be an appendix to the 

State Plans Considerations TSD 

 

Friday (April 4, 2014): 

 

Several chapters of GHG Abatement meausres TSD 

 

Tuesday (April 8, 2014): 

 

State Emission Goals 

 

Wednesday (April 9, 2014): 

 

State Plan Considerations 

Upstream methane emissions 

Net output monitoring 

 

 

Thursday (April 10, 2014): 

 

Projecting EGU Emissions 

 

Friday (April 11, 2014): 

 

Legal TSD 

Rest of GHG Abatement TSD
EX-4.5






Exhibit 4.5




Consent of Dr. Mark O’Dea




     I, Dr. Mark O’Dea, hereby confirm that I have read the Notice of Meeting and Management
Information Circular of Aurora Energy Resources Inc. (“Aurora”) dated March 20, 2009 (the
“Circular”) relating to the special meeting of shareholders of Aurora to approve the amalgamation
of Aurora and 59801 Newfoundland & Labrador Inc., which Circular incorporates by reference the
annual information form of Fronteer Development Group Inc. (“Fronteer”) dated March 27, 2008 for
its year ended December 31, 2007 (the “AIF”).



     I hereby consent to the use of my name in connection with references to my preparation or
involvement in the preparation of the technical report dated November 20, 2007 entitled “An Update
on the Exploration Activities of Aurora Energy Resources Inc. on the CMB Uranium Property,
Labrador, Canada, During the Period January 1, 2007 to October 31, 2007” prepared together with
Gary Giroux, Dr. D.H.C. Wilton, Jim Lincoln, Christopher Lee and Ian Cunningham-Dunlop (the
“Technical Report”) in the AIF or other documents incorporated by reference therein. I further
consent to the inclusion in the Circular and Fronteer’s registration statement on Form F-8 relating
to the Circular filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Registration
Statement”) of the Technical Report (through the inclusion by way of incorporation by reference of
the AIF in the Circular) and of extracts from or a summary of the Technical Report in the Circular
and the Registration Statement or any documents incorporated by reference therein.



     I also hereby confirm that I have read the Technical Report and extracts from or a summary of
the Technical Report contained in the Circular and the Registration Statement by way of
incorporation by reference of the AIF and that I have no reason to believe there are any
misrepresentations in the information contained therein that is derived from the Technical Report
or that is within my knowledge as a result of the services that I have performed in connection with
the Technical Report.



	 	 	 	 	 
	March 20, 2009

	 	(signed) Dr. Mark O’Dea
 

Dr. Mark O’Dea, P.Geo.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

CHARLES HENRY MOORE, III, : Case No. 3:18-cv-145 

 Also Case No. 3:18-cr-21 

Petitioner, 

- vs - District Judge Thomas M. Rose 

Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent. : 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendations of United States Magistrate 

Judge Michael R. Merz (ECF No. 2), to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '

636(b), and noting no objections were filed, and that the time for filing such objections under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) has expired, hereby ADOPTS said Report and Recommendations. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Petition be DISMISSED without prejudice. 

Petitioner is DENIED any requested certificate of appealability and the Court hereby certifies to the 

United States Court of Appeals that an appeal would be objectively frivolous and therefore should 

not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. 

May 30, 2018 *s/Thomas M. Rose 

 Thomas M. Rose 

United States District Judge
Amendment to Offer Letter - Michael L. Kranda



 Exhibit 10.82 
 

 
 November 17, 2008 
 Michael
L. Kranda 
 Dear Michael: 
 Anesiva, Inc. (the
“Company”) is pleased to offer you an amendment (the “Amendment”) to your employment terms, as set forth in the offer letter between you and the Company, dated June 16, 2008 (the “Offer Letter”). The employment
terms set forth in this Amendment are effective as of November 17, 2008 (the “Amendment Date”). Unless this Amendment specifically states that it supersedes a term in the Offer Letter, the terms of the Offer Letter shall remain
binding and in full force and effect. 
 1. Retention Bonus. You will be eligible to receive a Retention Bonus in an amount equal to
two (2) months of your base salary currently in effect, to be earned and payable on the following schedule: (i) 50% of the bonus on November 17, 2008, (ii) 25% of the bonus on November 26, 2008, and (iii) 25% of the
bonus on December 15, 2008. 
 In the event that you resign from employment with the Company for any reason before February 9,
2009, you agree that you will repay to the Company this Retention Bonus amount paid to you (“Retention Repayment Amount”) pursuant to this Section. Any Retention Repayment Amount that must be repaid pursuant to this paragraph will be paid
within thirty (30) days following your last date of employment with the Company. 
 In the event that you are involuntarily terminated
from employment with the Company, you will not be liable for repayment of the Retention Bonus. 
 2. Employment Relationship.
Your employment with the Company is and continues to be “at will” as described in Section 10 of the Offer Letter. 
 3.
Supersedes. This Amendment supersedes and replaces any prior agreements, representations or understandings, whether written, oral or implied, between you and the Company regarding this subject matter described herein, provided that unless
specifically superseded by this Amendment, the terms of the Offer Letter remain in full force and effect. 
 We hope that you find the
forgoing terms acceptable. You may indicate your agreement with these terms and accept this Amendment by signing and dating the Amendment and returning it to me. 
  

			
	Very truly yours,
	
	ANESIVA, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Jean-Frederic Viret
		 	Jean-Frederic Viret
		 	 Vice President & Chief Financial Officer



 I have read, and accept and agree to, the terms of this Amendment to my Offer Letter: 
  

	
	/s/ Michael L. Kranda
	Michael L. Kranda

 Dated: 11-19-08
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

 

 : 

__________________________________ : Case No. _________________ 

 : Judge: ___________________ 

 v. : Corporate Disclosure Statement 

 : 

__________________________________ : 

 : 

 

Pursuant to the Corporate Disclosure Statement provisions in Local Civil Rule 7.1.1: Any nongovernmental corporate party to a proceeding must file a Corporate Affiliations/Financial Interest 

statement identifying all of its parent, subsidiary and other affiliate corporations and listing any publicly 

held company that “controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with a publicly controlled 

corporation.” A party must file the statement upon filing a complaint, answer, motion, response or other 

pleadings in this Court, whichever occurs first. The obligation to disclose any changes will be continuing 

throughout the pendency of this case. 

 In Compliance with those provisions, this Corporate Disclosure Statement is filed on behalf of: 

 _______________________________________________________________________. 

1. Is said party a parent, subsidiary or other affiliate of a publicly owned corporations? 

 ___ YES ___ NO 

If the answer is YES, list below the identity of the parent, subsidiary or other affiliate corporation 

and the relationship between it and the named party: 

________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________ 

2. Is there a publicly owned corporation, not a party to the case, that has a financial interest in the 

outcome? 

 ___ YES ___ NO 

 If the answer is YES, list the identity of such corporation and the nature of the financial interest. 

 ________________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________________ 

 ________________________________________________________________________ 

 ______________________________ ________________________ 

 Signature of Counsel Date 

“Certificate of Service” 

COUNSEL ARE REMINDED OF THEIR CONTINUING OBLIGATION 

TO UPDATE AND SUPPLEMENT THIS STATEMENT

Uber, Inc., a New York corporation Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company Uber, Inc., a New York corporation ✔

✔

/s/ Robert E. DeRose II, Trial Atty. July 2, 2018 EASTERN DIVISION

Case: 2:18-cv-00648-EAS-EPD Doc #: 1-4 Filed: 07/02/18 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 27
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE QUARTERLY
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE FISCAL QUARTERS ENDED OCTOBER 1, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-27-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-01-2000
<CASH>                                       9,877,242
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,960,770
<ALLOWANCES>                                   622,099
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            33,214,569
<PP&E>                                     109,962,342
<DEPRECIATION>                              22,535,967
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             207,394,610
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,188,253
<BONDS>                                     91,708,001
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  92,169,664
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               207,394,610
<SALES>                                     43,316,246
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            55,341,645
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               61,663,680
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           8,311,781
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (3,905,066)
<INCOME-TAX>                                (1,169,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (2,736,066)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              4,456,905
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,720,839
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.31


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-40331

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSEPH PAUL PEREZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-95-CR-206-1

- - - - - - - - - -

September 30, 1996

Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Joseph Paul Perez appeals his conviction and sentence for

possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C), and possession of marijuana,

in violation of § 841(a). Perez argues that the district court

erred in denying his motion to suppress the controlled substances

discovered in his vehicle in which he was traveling. Perez

argues that the traffic stop resulted in a custodial
No. 96-40331

- 2 -

** Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

interrogation which required Miranda** warnings prior to

obtaining his consent to search the vehicle.

The district court did not err in denying Perez’s motion to

suppress seized evidence because Perez was not in custody prior

to his arrest and, therefore, his rights under Miranda did not

attach. See Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 439 (1984). 

Assuming arguendo that Perez was in custody at the time the

police officer requested consent to search, the failure to give

Miranda warnings to a suspect during a custodial interrogation

does not vitiate a valid, voluntary consent. See United States

v. Garcia, 496 F.2d 670, 673-75 (5th Cir. 1974) (holding that

Miranda warnings are not required to be administered to a suspect

in custody in order to validate a consensual search), cert.

denied, 420 U.S. 960 (1975).

AFFIRMED.