alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CHARLESTON.

#### First National Bank of New Cumberland v. Smith *et al.*

Submitted September 5, 1917.

Decided September 18, 1917.

*Corporations*— Garnishment-^Money *in Sands of Thvrd*Person— *Process.*

To acquire jurisdiction, upon a suggestion, to direct payment of money or appropriation of the property in the hands or under the control of one other than the judgment debtor, in satisfaction of the lien of an execution, the process must be served on the person having such money or property in his custody, or, if it be a foreign or nonresident domestic corporation, upon the auditor. Acceptance of service by either will not suffice.

Certified from Circuit Court, Hancock County.

Execution proceeding by the First National Bank of New Cumberland again'st Lee 0. Smith and Sarah J. Smith, with a suggestion of garnishment against the Eureka Pipe Line Company. Motion by the garnishee to quash the return of service sustained, and ease certified.

*Order affirmed.*

*J. A. McKenzie,*for plaintiff.

*Chas. Powell*and *Kemble White,*for defendants.

Lynch, President:

On a judgment in its favor against Lee 0. Smith and Sarah J. Smith, recovered in the circuit court of Hancock county, *679the First National Bank of New Cumberland sued out an execution to be levied upon the goods and chattels of the judgment debtors, and thereon suggested that by reason of the lien of the writ there was a liability on the Eureka Pipe Line Company for the amount of the judgment. The auditor, on behalf of the pipe line company, accepted service of the process. It had no notice of the pendency.of the proceeding other than that furnished by such acceptance of service. In response to the command of the summons, it appeared specially to move, and did move,' to quash the return of service endorsed on the process. This motion the court sustained, and, upon the joint application of the parties, certified here the question of the propriety of such ruling. upon the sufficiency of the return, under the authority of §1, ch. 135, Code.

As the principles recognized and discussed in *Atkins*v. *Evans,*76 W. Va. 17, are controlling upon this certification, they need not be repeated. The reasons assigned are stated logically and forcefully in the opinion, and leave no room for hesitation in the application of these principles to the acceptance of service of process either in an attachment proceeding or upon an execution issued upon a judgment. Each proceeding is in effect one *in rem,*a species of seizure of the property of the debtor in the hands or under the control of one in nowise bound to satisfy the claim of the creditor. Its ultimate purpose is to appropriate such property to the ex-tinguishment of the lien of an execution. To this end ,no court can acquire jurisdiction except by actual service of the process on the garnishee, or upon the auditor for him when the garnishee is a foreign or nonresident domestic corporation.

Therefore, the ruling upon the motion to quash the return was proper, and our order will approve and affirm it.

*Order affirmed.*
Order entered July 9, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01419-CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF CASEY LEE CROOM AND AUSTIN 

GREGORY CROOM AND IN THE INTEREST OF K.R.C. AND L.R.C., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 429-51917-2010

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s July 7, 2014 unopposed motion to extend time to file reply brief 

and ORDER the brief be filed no later than July 25, 2014. No further extensions will be granted 

absent exigent circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
BRIAN QUINN

Chief Justice

JAMES T. CAMPBELL

Justice

MACKEY K. HANCOCK

Justice

PATRICK A. PIRTLE

Justice

Court of Appeals

Seventh District of Texas

Potter County Courts Building

501 S. Fillmore, Suite 2-A

Amarillo, Texas 79101-2449

www.txcourts.gov/7thcoa.aspx

VIVIAN LONG

Clerk

MAILING ADDRESS:

P. O. Box 9540

79105-9540

(806) 342-2650

October 21, 2015

Adam C. Burney

Mark D. Scott

SCOTT, McNEILL & BURNEY, PLLC

3000 East Loop 820

Fort Worth, TX 76112

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Steven W. Conder

Assistant Criminal District Attorney

401 W. Belknap

Fort Worth, TX 76196

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

RE: Case Numbers: 07-14-00083-CR, 07-14-00084-CR, 07-14-00085-CR

Trial Court Case Numbers: 1328179D, 1328181D, 1344140R

Style: Malishia Lynn Booker v. The State of Texas

Dear Counsel:

The Court this day issued an opinion and judgment in the captioned causes. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 48. 

In addition, pursuant to Texas Government Code, Sec. 51.204(b)(2), exhibits on

file with this Court, if any, will be destroyed three years after final disposition of the case

or at an earlier date if ordered by the Court. 

Very truly yours,

Vivian Long

VIVIAN LONG, CLERK

xc: Honorable David Scott Wisch (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Thomas A. Wilder (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

FILE COPY
#### C. S. SOUTHERLAND v. W. T. CRUMP, Executor of J. A. Southerland, Deceased.

(Filed 14 March, 1928.)

Contracts — Actions—Plaintiff Must Show Performance in Order to Recover.

To recover on an express contract with decedent for personal services rendered him prior to his death, plaintiff must show performance on his part.

Appeal by plaintiff from Cranmer, *J.,*at August Term, 1927, of DupliN.

Affirmed.

*857Action to recover upon an express contract alleged to bave been entered into by and between plaintiff and tbe testator of defendant for services rendered by plaintiff to said testator.

From judgment dismissing tbe action, upon motion for nonsuit, at close of all the evidence, plaintiff appealed to tbe Supreme Court.

*Oscar B. Turner for plaintiff.*

*H. D. Williams, Geo. B. Ward and W. H. Weatherspoon for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

Conceding that there was some evidence tending to sustain plaintiff’s allegation of an express contract by which defendant’s testator agreed to pay plaintiff for services to be rendered to him by plaintiff, there was no error in the judgment dismissing the action, at the close of all the evidence, under 0. S., 567. There was no evidence tending to show performance by plaintiff of the alleged contract.

In the absence of such evidence, plaintiff cannot recover in this action. The judgment is

Affirmed.
STATE of North Carolina v. James A. COX

No. 94PA19

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2019

Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., Attorney at Law, Southern Pines, for Cox, James A.

James D. Concepcion, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Ernie Lee, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th of April 2019 by State of NC in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2019."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
ex10_12.htm


    Exhibit 10.12

    


    Summary
Description of the Compensation of

    Non-Employee
Directors of TETRA Technologies, Inc.

    


    On
December 17, 2009, the Board of Directors approved an increase of the monthly
cash retainers and meeting fees paid to directors who are not officers or
employees of TETRA Technologies, Inc. (Non-Employee Directors) as of January 1,
2010. Directors who are also officers or employees of TETRA Technologies, Inc.
(the Company) do not receive any compensation for duties performed as
Directors.

    


    Effective January
1, 2010, each Non-Employee Director other than our Chairman of the Board, Ralph
S. Cunningham, receives the following cash compensation:

     

    
      	
              ·  

            	
              Monthly cash
      retainer of $3,333.33.

            


    

     

    
      	
              ·  

            	
              Meeting fees
      of $1,500 for each Board meeting attended. In addition, members of the
      Audit Committee, Management and Compensation Committee, Nominating and
      Corporate Governance Committee, and Reserves Committee receive meeting
      fees of $1,500 for each committee meeting attended. All meeting fees are
      payable on the date of the meeting.

            


    

     

    Effective January
1, 2010, Dr. Cunningham receives a monthly cash retainer of $9,583.33. Dr.
Cunningham receives no additional compensation for attending meetings of the
committees or the Board, or for serving as our Chairman of the Board. Additional
annual cash retainers of $10,000 are paid to the chairmen of the Management and
Compensation Committee, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, and
the Reserves Committee. An additional annual cash retainer of $15,000 is paid to
the chairman of the Audit Committee. All additional cash retainer amounts are
payable in quarterly installments.

    


    Equity Compensation.
On May 20, 2009, each Non-Employee Director, including Dr. Cunningham, received
an award of 12,579 shares of restricted stock with an aggregate grant date fair
market value of $100,003. Twenty-five percent of the shares of restricted stock
so awarded vested on the date of grant, and additional 25% portions of the award
vested on August 20 and November 20, 2009, and February 20, 2010. It is
anticipated that future compensation arrangements approved by the Board will
include awards of grants of approximately $100,000 in value of restricted stock
to each Non-Employee Director on an annual basis, to be awarded on or about May
20 of each year.

     

    Reimbursement of
Expenses. All Non-Employee Directors are reimbursed for out-of-pocket
travel expenses incurred in attending meetings of the Board and committees
(including travel expenses of spouses if they are invited by the Company).
Additionally, Non-Employee Directors traveling from out of state to Board or
committee meetings receive a $750 travel stipend.
#### CONRAD JACKSON and Wife, BLANNIE JACKSON, HATTIE LOUISE TURNAGE, MOLLIE PHILLIPS and Husband, COY PHILLIPS, v. JACK TURNAGE and Wife, LILLIE TURNAGE, WALTER BUTLER and Wife, MARY JANE BUTLER, and NANCY JACKSON.

(Filed 4 November, 1942.)

Appeal by defendant Nancy Jackson from *Grady, Emergency Judge, at*May Term, 1942, of LeNOie.

This action was originally instituted for the sale of land for partition. The decree authorizing the sale of the land was entered 31 March, 1941, and from which there was no appeal.

On 25 August, 1941, the defendant Nancy Jackson, through her attorney, made a special appearance and' moved before the clerk of the Superior Court of Lenoir County to vacate the decree entered on 31 March, 1941, alleging among other things that there had been no legal service of summons on her. On 5 January, 1942, the clerk, after hearing evidence and argument of counsel, denied the motion. Defendant appealed to the Superior Court. On 21 May, 1942, Grady, Emergency Judge, heard the motion on the record and affidavit of movant and found as a fact that the movant was served with summons and a copy of the petition for sale and partition, and that she was represented by counsel at the hearing before the clerk at the time the original judgment was entered, from which there was no appeal, and denied the motion.

The movant, Nancy Jackson, excepted to the ruling of his Honor and appealed, assigning error.

*Alvin Outlaw and F. E. Wallace for plaintiffs.*

*Charles L. Abernethy for defendant, appellant, Nancy Jackson.*

Per Curiam.

An examination of the record and the assignment of error discloses no error in the judgment below.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Peter M Kuhn, 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 Bullion River Gold Corp. on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2005 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-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Bullion River Gold Corp.



|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                   |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ----------------- |  | -----------------------
|                      |  |  | 
|Date: August 11, 2005 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Peter M. Kuhn
|                      |  |  |  |     |  | Name:             |  | Peter M. Kuhn          
|                      |  |  |  |     |  | Title:            |  | Chief Executive Officer



I, Daniel Graves, 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 Bullion River Gold Corp. on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2005 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-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Bullion River Gold Corp.



|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                   |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ----------------- |  | -----------------------
|                      |  |  | 
|Date: August 11, 2005 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Daniel Graves
|                      |  |  |  |     |  | Name:             |  | Daniel Graves          
|                      |  |  |  |     |  | Title:            |  | Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Bullion River Gold Corp. and will be retained by Bullion River Gold Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IIB 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5540 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 20, 2006 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 217 Southeast 2nd Street in Dimmitt, Texas, 

as the ‘‘Sergeant Jacob Dan Dones Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

HR 5540 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. SERGEANT JACOB DAN DONES POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 217 Southeast 2nd Street in 

4 Dimmitt, Texas, shall be known and designated as the 

5 ‘‘Sergeant Jacob Dan Dones Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Sergeant Jacob Dan 

10 Dones Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 19, 2006. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
Thomas ENGEL, Appellant, v. The CURATORS OF the UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI, et al., Respondents.

WD 81016

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Order filed: June 26, 2018 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 31, 2018 Application for Transfer Denied October 30, 2018

George S. Smith, for Appellant.

Shelly A. Kintzell, for Respondents.

Before Division Three: Victor C. Howard, Presiding Judge, Cynthia L. Martin, Judge and Gary D. Witt, Judge

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM:

*408Dr. Thomas Engel appeals from the trial court's judgment in favor of the Curators of the University of Missouri, Dr. Noah Manring, Dr. James Thompson, and Dr. Scott Kovaleski (collectively Defendants) on Engel's claims against them for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, declaratory judgment, tortious interference with contract, and violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and 42 USC 1983. He raises five points on appeal challenging the trial court's grant of Defendants' various motions for summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
**Exhibit31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, William F. Holt, Chief Financial Officerof Eon Labs, Inc. (the “registrant”), certify that:

 

1.             Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the registrant;

 

2.             Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.             Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)             designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)            evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)             disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)             allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b)                                     any fraud, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date: August  12, 2003   |
|--------------------------|
|                     |
| /s/ William  F. Holt     |   |
| William F.  Holt         |
| Chief  Financial Officer |

 

1

----
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### MAR 4 1999 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT GARY MILES, doing business as Sandoval County Watch Dog,

Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. BERNIE LUJAN, Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission of Sandoval County, acting under color of state law, in his individual capacity and official capacities,

Defendant-Appellee. No. 98-2117 (D.C. No. CIV-97-969-JP/WWD)

(D. N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before PORFILIO , BALDOCK , and HENRY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of-2-

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34(G). The ca se is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant on his civil rights claims, filed pursuan t to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff contends that the district court 1) erred in concluding that there w ere no genuine issues of material fact, and 2) applied the wrong l egal standards in examining whether the defendant acted under color of state law. We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo , applying the same legal standard used by that courtpursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). See Kaul v. Stephan , 83 F.3d 1208, 1212 (10th Cir. 1996). After caref ul review of the entire record on appeal in light of t hese standards, and after due consideration of the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the district court correctly decided this case. The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the District of New Mexico is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

John C. Porfilio Circuit Judge
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00350

- CV

BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY APPELLANT

V.

TRYER PROPERTIES, LL C APPELLEE

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

FROM THE 78TH DISTRI CT COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 177, 588B

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



### MEM ORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

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

We have considered appellant 's “ Notice of Settlement and Agreed Motion

to Dismiss Appeal .” It is the court ’ s opinion that the motion should be granted;

therefore, we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1 (a)(1), 43.2(f).

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by the party incurring the same , for which

let execution issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2 PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ.

DELIVERED: September 17, 2015