alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### SNIDER v. SNIDER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

December 22, 1896.)

1. Wills—Enlarging Life Estate.

The fact that a legatee of a life estate in money is, by the will, intrusted with the fund, does not enlarge his interest.

2. Descent and Distribution—Rights of Widow.

A widow is not an “heir” of her husband.

Appeal from special term, Orange county.

Action by Abraham Snider individually and as executor of the will of Michael Snider, deceased, against C. Louise Snider as executrix of the will of Michael G-. Snider, deceased, and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendant C. Louise Snider appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before BROWN, P. J., and CULLEN, BARTLETT, HATCH, and BRADLEY, JJ.

A. H. F. Seeger, for appellant.

E. A. Brewster, for respondent.

CULLEN, J.

One Michael Snider died in February, 1873, leaving a will, by which he made the following bequest:

> “I give and bequeath the sum of two thousand five hundred dollars to my son Michael (1. Snider, to be paid to him by the executors of this, my will, and to be held, used, and enjoyed by him, my said son, during his life, and at his death to his heir or heirs, should he have any. Should he die without issue, I give and bequeath said sum of two thousand five hundred dollars to my son Abraham.”

Michael G. Snider received the sum of $2,500 bequeathed to him. He died in September, 1895, without ever having had issue. Thereupon this action was brought by the testator’s son Abraham against the defendant, as executor of Michael G. Snider, to recover the principal of said legacy.

In our opinion, the correctness of the judgment below is not subject to serious question. There is no repugnancy between the gift over on the death of Michael without issue and the previous gift to *614Michael. The gift to Michael was only of a life estate, and that a remainder may be limited on a bequest of personal property is unquestionable. The fact that the testator sees fit to intrust the life tenant with the custody of the fund does not affect the character of the interest bequeathed to him. Smith v. Van Ostrand, 64 N. Y. 278. The terms used in the will, “his hem or heirs,” should be construed as meaning “heirs of his body.” Bundy v., Bundy, 38 N. Y. 410. This is made clear from the fact that the gift to Abraham is in case Michael “should - die without issue.” The question, however, is of no practical importance, as the legatee over is the sole hem of the legatee for life. He is, therefore, entitled to receive the whole fund in one capacity or the other, unless the defendant, who is the widow of the legatee for life, can claim as an heir of that legatee. It is settled by authority that a widow is neither next of kin nor heir. Tillman v. Davis, 95 N. Y. 17; Murdock v. Ward, 67 N. Y. 387; Keteltas v. Keteltas, 72 N. Y. 312.

The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.
ORDER OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF 

DEFENDANT – 1 

McKENZIE ROTHWELL BARLOW 

& COUGHRAN, P.S. 

1325 FOURTH AVE, SUITE 910 

SEATTLE, WA 98101 

 (206) 224-9900 

3801.000 (wdl) re121203 

Noelle E. Dwarzski OSB 131886 

David S. Barlow OSB 840101 

McKenzie Rothwell Barlow & Coughran, P.S. 

1325 Fourth Ave., Ste. 910 

Seattle, WA 98101 

Tel. (206) 224-9900 

davidb@mrbclaw.com 

noelled@mrbclaw.com 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

AT PORTLAND 

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE OREGON 

RETAIL EMPLOYEES PENSION PLAN, 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

R&M FOODS, INC. D/B/A HANK’S 

THRIFTWAY, HERING INVESTMENTS, 

LLC, PERFECTION BAKERY, HANK’S 

PROPERTIES, LLC and DOES 1-25, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 3:16-cv-00455-SI 

ORDER OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF 

DEFENDANT HERING INVESTMENTS, 

LLC 

 

In accordance with Plaintiff and Defendant Hering Investment, LLC’s stipulated motion, 

it is hereby 

 ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendant Hering Investments, LLC is 

dismissed without prejudice and without costs or fees to either party. 

 DATED this 12th day of May, 2016. 

 /s/ Michael H. Simon 

 The Honorable Michael H. Simon 

 U.S. District Court Judge 

Case 3:16-cv-00455-SI Document 11 Filed 05/12/16 Page 1 of 1
#### CITIZENS’ NAT. BANK OF ADAMS, Respondent, v. FULLER et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 16, 1896.)

Action by the Citizens’ National Bank of Adams against Harrison Fuller, impleaded with De Alton Dwight, Austin W. Ingraham, A. Kent Hale, and John Sinclair.

Daniel G. Griffin, for appellants.

John Lansing, for respondent.

FOLLETT, J.

The facts in this case are the same as those in Sinclair v. Fuller (Sup.) 41 N. Y. Supp. 193, except the plaintiff did not know of the sale made December 27, 1893, by the appellant of his shares to Sinclair, and the debts due this plaintiff arose October 1 1894, and January 9, 1895, after the sale by the appellant of his shares^ to Sinclair had been registered; and the decision in that case controls this case. The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. All concur.
cool_ex429.htm

EXHIBIT 4.29
  
 AMENDMENT
 TO THE $385,000 PROMISSORY NOTE DATED May 19, 2019
  
 The parties agree that $165,000 Promissory Note by and between Cool Technologies, Inc. (“Company”) and Lucas Hoppel (“Holder”) is hereby amended as follows:
  
 Maturity Date: The Maturity Date shall be extended to May 1st, 2020.
  
 ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE $165,000 PROMISSORY NOTE REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.
  
 Please indicate acceptance and approval of this amendment dated December 13th, 2019 by signing below:
  
  
 	/s/ Timothy Hassett	 	 	/s/ Lucas Hoppel	 
	 Tim Hassett 
	 	 	Lucas Hoppel 	 
	 Cool Technologies, Inc. 
 Chief Executive Officer
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting

December 8, 1998

List of Attachments

No. Subject Author / Presenter

1 Minutes of TWG Meeting (Nov. 16-17, 1998)

2 Lake Powell Monitoring & Research Proposal (Nov. 17, 1998) Norm Henderson

3 Snow Conditions - Upper Colorado Region Randy Peterson

4 Draft GCRMC Response to the Glen Canyon TWG (AHG)

Request for Assessment of: A Proposal to Develop a Research

Plan to Analyze Resource Responses to Alternative BHBF and

Load-Following Releases from Glen Canyon Dam

Larry Stevens

5 Draft Report: BHBF Resource Criteria Analysis for January-July

1999: Analysis Methods & Materials for BHBF Recommendation

Bob Winfree

6 Resource Category Aquatic Resources Barbara Ralston

7 Draft Report: BHBF Resource Criteria: A Process Document Bob Winfree

8 The State of Natural & Cultural Resources in the Colorado River

Ecosystem: 1998 Report Preliminary Draft

Larry Stevens

9 Kanab Ambersnail Workshop Proposal Larry Stevens

10 GCMRC Symposium on FY 1998 Scientific Results - Colorado

River Ecosystem

Bob Winfree
Exhibit 99.2

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

Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Caremark Rx, Inc. (the "Corporation")
for the period ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation,
certifies that:



|/s/HOWARD A. MCLUREHoward A. McLure
Chief Financial Officer
May 15, 2003 |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 

---

QuickLinks
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Jack Weinberg, Deceased. Rosalie Levy, Respondent; Debra W. Zimmerman, Appellant.

— In a proceeding to recover assets of the estate of Jack Weinberg, the appeal is from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County (Radigan, S.), dated January 13, 1986, which, *inter alia,*directed the transfer of an action pending in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entitled "Debra Weinberg Zimmerman, Plaintiff v. Rosalie Levy, as Executrix of the Estate of Jack Weinberg, Deceased, Defendant”, index No. 14745/85, to the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County. The appeal brings up for review an order of the same court, dated May 15, 1986, which, in effect, resettled the order dated January 13, 1986, so as to provide that it had been made upon reargument.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated January 13, 1986, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the resettled order dated May 15, 1986; and it is further,

Ordered that the resettled order dated May 15, 1986, is reversed, without costs or disbursements, the order dated January 13, 1986 is vacated, and upon reargument, the transfer of the action entitled "Debra Weinberg Zimmerman, Plain*399tiff v. Rosalie Levy, as Executrix of the Estate of Jack Weinberg, Deceased, Defendant”, Executrix of the Estate of Jack Weinberg, Deceased, Defendant”, index No. 14745/85 from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, to the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County, is denied, without prejudice to an application for that relief in the pending action in the Supreme Court, Nassau County.

Although she was not required to do so, the petitioner, pursuant to CPLR 325 (e), sought to obtain the Surrogate’s Court’s consent to the transfer to that court of an action entitled "Debra Weinberg Zimmerman, Plaintiff v. Rosalie Levy, as Executrix of the Estate of Jack Weinberg, Deceased, Defendant”, index No. 14745/85, which was pending in the Supreme Court, Nassau County (see, *Garland v Raunheim,*29 AD2d 383, 389; *Collins v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co.,*124 Mise 2d 907). Rather than authorizing the transfer, the Surrogate, purportedly acting in his capacity as an Acting Supreme Court Justice, directed the transfer of the action to the Surrogate’s Court. However, in order to properly effectuate a transfer, it was necessary for the petitioner to make an appropriate motion in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, and not in the Surrogate’s Court *(see,*CPLR 325 [e]; *Matter of Weitzenhoffer,*75 Mise 2d 919). Accordingly, so much of the resettled order as directed the transfer of the pending Supreme Court action is reversed, without prejudice to an appropriate motion in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, if the petitioner be so advised.

In light of our determination, we do not reach the other issues raised by the appellant. Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF MARCH 31, 1998 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT
OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             139
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       56
<ALLOWANCES>                                        20
<INVENTORY>                                         81
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   354
<PP&E>                                           1,333
<DEPRECIATION>                                     625
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,384
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,634
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,253)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,384
<SALES>                                            497
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   497
<CGS>                                              418
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      418
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,414
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 567
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,902)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,902)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.98)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.98)
        

</TABLE>
# L_2009269EN.01002501.xml

| 14.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 269/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 269/25

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 24 September 2009

appointing one Spanish member and one Spanish alternate member of the Committee of the Regions

(2009/754/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 263 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the Spanish Government,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 24 January 2006, the Council adopted Decision 2006/116/EC appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2006 to 25 January 2010 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 24 January 2006, the Council adopted Decision 2006/116/EC appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2006 to 25 January 2010 (1).

| (2) | A member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Juan José IBARRETXE MARKUARTU. An alternate member’s seat has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Iñaki AGUIRRE ARIZMENDI, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

A member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Juan José IBARRETXE MARKUARTU. An alternate member’s seat has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Iñaki AGUIRRE ARIZMENDI,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2010:

| (a) | as member:






  — | Mr Francisco Javier LÓPEZ ÁLVAREZ, Presidente del Gobierno Vasco, |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

as member:

—

Mr Francisco Javier LÓPEZ ÁLVAREZ, Presidente del Gobierno Vasco,

and

| (b) | as alternate member:






  — | Mr Guillermo ECHENIQUE GONZÁLEZ, Secretario General de Acción Exterior, País Vasco. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

as alternate member:

—

Mr Guillermo ECHENIQUE GONZÁLEZ, Secretario General de Acción Exterior, País Vasco.

Article 2

This Decision shall take effect on the day of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 24 September 2009.

For the Council

The President

M. OLOFSSON

---

(1)  
  OJ L 56, 25.2.2006, p. 75.

1

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 24, 2019

No. 04-19-00348-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF V.R.J.,

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1997EM504318

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was originally due August 26, 2019; however, the court granted an 

extension of time until September 25. Appellant has filed a motion asking for an additional 

thirty day extension of time to file the brief. 

We grant the motion and order appellant’s brief due October 25, 2019. The court does 

not ordinarily grant extensions of more than sixty days beyond the original due date. Counsel is 

therefore advised that no further extensions of time will be granted absent a motion, filed before 

the brief is due, that (1) demonstrates extraordinary circumstances justifying further delay, (2) 

advises the court of the efforts counsel has expended in preparing the brief, and (3) provides the 

court reasonable assurance that the brief will be completed and filed by the requested extended 

deadline.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 24th day of September, 2019.

___________________________________

LUZ ESTRADA,

Chief Deputy Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                  The schedule contains summary financial  information extracted
                  from the Company's  consolidated  financial  statements and is
                  qualified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to such  financial
                  statements.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                                           <C>       
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           8,840,051
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,982,005
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (119,000)
<INVENTORY>                                        608,031
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,556,510
<PP&E>                                          81,584,051
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (16,836,798)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  97,509,533
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,796,710
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            62,865
<OTHER-SE>                                      59,833,410
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    97,509,533
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               143,210,822
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  142,020,278
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,164,056
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     26,488
<INCOME-TAX>                                        10,012
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 16,476
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        16,476
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .00
        



</TABLE>
**Exhibit
      23.1**








**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
      Nos. 333-102592, 333-110115, 333-137099, and 333-140105 on Forms S-3,
      Registration Statement Nos. 333-64495, 333-33481, 333-99099 and 333-108419
      on
      Forms S-8 of our reports dated March 7, 2007, relating to our audits of the
      consolidated financial statements and internal control over financial reporting,
      which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Altair Nanotechnologies,
      Inc.
      and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2006.








/s/
      Perry-Smith LLP








Sacramento,
      California


March
      13,
      2007
#### Barnaby Horton et al. *v.*Thomas Meskill et al. Peter D. Grace et al. *v.*Thomas Meskill et al.

*Frank Cochran,*in support of the motion.

Submitted April 2

decided April 8, 1975

The motion by the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union for leave to appear and file a brief as amicus curiae in the appeal from the Superior Court in Hartford County is granted.
SUSSMAN SHANK LLP, ATTORNEYS AT LAW

1000 SW BROADWAY, SUITE 1400, PORTLAND, OREGON 97205-3089

TELEPHONE (503) 227-1111 | FACSIMILE (503) 248-0130

PAGE 1 - STIPULATION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

John A. Schwimmer, OSB No. 044097

SUSSMAN SHANK LLP

1000 SW Broadway, Suite 1400

Portland, OR 97205-3089

Telephone: (503) 227-1111

Facsimile: (503) 248-0130

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

MEDFORD DIVISION

RUSSELL H. TODD, in his capacity as 

personal representative for the Estate of 

Douglas H. Todd, 

 

 Plaintiff,

v.

METLIFE INSURANCE COMPANY USA, 

a Delaware corporation,

 Defendant.

Case No. 1:15-cv-1323-CL

STIPULATION FOR 

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

Plaintiff Russell H. Todd, as personal representative for the Estate of Douglas H. 

Todd, and Defendant Metlife Insurance Company USA, by and through their respective

counsel of record, do hereby agree and stipulate that, pursuant to FRCP 41(a) and the 

///

///

///

///

Case 1:15-cv-01323-CL Document 42 Filed 10/04/16 Page 1 of 2
SUSSMAN SHANK LLP, ATTORNEYS AT LAW

1000 SW BROADWAY, SUITE 1400, PORTLAND, OREGON 97205-3089

TELEPHONE (503) 227-1111 | FACSIMILE (503) 248-0130

PAGE 2 - STIPULATION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

settlement agreement between the parties, this case shall be, and hereby is, dismissed 

with prejudice. All parties shall bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs.

Dated this 4th day of October, 2016.

SUSSMAN SHANK LLP

By: /s/ John A. Schwimmer___ ____ John A. Schwimmer, OSB #044097

Attorneys for Plaintiff

LANE POWELL PC

By__/s/ Cozette Tran-Caffee_ ______ Cozette Tran-Caffee, OSB No. 125662

Attorneys for Defendant

Case 1:15-cv-01323-CL Document 42 Filed 10/04/16 Page 2 of 2
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 26, 2020

No. 04-19-00208-CV

J.K. IVEY,

Appellant

v.

TODD MARQUARDT LAW FIRM,

Appellee

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CI24208

The Honorable Monique Diaz, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

By order dated May 23, 2019, we abated this appeal upon proof that appellee filed a 

voluntary petition for bankruptcy. Tex. R. App. P. 8.2. The appeal and all appellate timelines 

were suspended, and the appeal was closed for administrative purposes pending a request for 

reinstatement or severance. We subsequently received notice that appellee’s bankruptcy 

proceeding was dismissed on November 25, 2019. By order dated January 7, 2020, we 

reinstated this appeal and set an appellate deadline for appellee’s brief.

On January 20, 2020, we received a Notice of Settlement from appellee’s counsel 

notifying the court that the parties reached a settlement. However, neither party has filed a 

motion to voluntarily dismiss this appeal in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

42.1. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. Appellee’s brief remains due.

Accordingly, we ORDER the parties to file a motion to dismiss this appeal in accordance 

with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1 on or before March 17, 2020. Id. If a motion to 

dismiss pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure is not filed, appellee’s brief is due on or 

before March 17, 2020. If appellee’s brief is not filed, this appeal will be set for submission 

without an appellee’s brief.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 26th day of February, 2020.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz,

Clerk of Court
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Leonardo Lopez

, * From the 106 th District Court

of Dawson County,

Trial Court No. 13

- 7306

.

Vs. No. 11

- 14

- 00357

- CR * December 30 , 2016

The State of Texas

, * Memorandum Opinion by Wright

, C. J

. (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson , J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that

there is no error in the judgment s below. Therefore, in accordance with this

court ’ s opinion, the judgment s of the trial c ourt are in all things affirmed.