alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(104 So. 916)

#### BARCLAY v. B. F. SHOOK.

(8 Div. 765.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 11, 1925.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; W. W. Haralson, Judge. Petition of D. E. Barclay, as trustee in bankruptcy of the es-

*700tate of W. E, Lester, for mandamus to B. E. Shook, as Register of the Circuit Court. From a judgment or decree denying the writ, petitioner appeals.

Affirmed.

Proctor *&*Snodgrass and D. P. Wimberly, all of Scottsboro, and S. A. Lynne, of Decatur, for appellant.

In a case of this kind it is necessary that security for costs be given. Ex parte Barkley, 210 Ala. 466, 98 So. 463; Guy v. Lee, 80 Ala. 346; Cahalan v. Monroe, Smaltz & Co., 65 Ala. 254; Coleman v. Smith, 52 Ala. 259.

R. E. Smith, of Huntsville, for appellee.

Brief of counsel did not reach the Reporter.

SAYRE, J.

In a proceeding brought to the equity side of the circuit court of Jackson by D. E. Barclay, trustee in bankruptcy, for the use and benefit of the creditors of W. E. Lester, it was decreed that a conveyance of land made by Lester to Beatrice H. Lester, Ms wife, be canceled as in fraud upon creditors, that the conveyance be delivered up to the register for cancellation, and that the register proceed to sell at public sale the property concerned as provided by the decree. Beatrice H. Lester made affidavit as prescribed by section 6138 of the Code of 1923, and thereafter the register considered the decree as superseded, and treated the cause as pending on appeal in this court. But complainant, Barclay, considering that no supersedeas had been effected, applied to the circuit court for a writ of mandamus to compel the register to proceed with the execution of the decree; i. e., expose the property for sale as directed by the decree. The writ was denied, and petitioner appeals. The judgment of the circuit court in the premises is due to be affirmed. The case presented is on all fours with Ex parte Barkley, 210 Ala. 466, 98 So, 463, from which we discover no reason for departing. Appellant relies upon the decision in Guy v. Lee, 80 Ala. 346, and two or three cases of even earlier date. Those cases are not in point, for the reason that since their time, viz. Acts 1915, p. 715, the act authorizing appeals by married women without security for costs has been amended, as now appears in section 0138, supra, so as to include judgments, orders, or decrees of any court of record for “the doing or performing any act by any married woman,” and in Ex parte Barkley, supra, it was considered that this amended statute governed cases of this character. Decrees of this sort were likened to judgments in ejectment, having the same effect in substance and falling under the reason of the statute. In this particular case it appears that the complainant in equity had a decree for the recovery of land and for the performance of the specific act of delivery up of title deeds, thus bringing the case within the reason and letter of the statute. The circuit court correctly denied the application for the writ of mandamus. Affirmed. ,

ANDERSON, C. J., and GARDNER and MILLER, JJ., concur.
# C_2004150EN.01002101.xml

| 5.6.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 150/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.6.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 150/21

---

New composition of the European Consumer Consultative Group

(2004/C 150/03)

The European Consumer Consultative Group was set up by Commission Decision 2003/709/EC of 9 October 2003 (1)

1

By Decision of 28.5.2004, the Commission appointed the following as members and alternates of the Group for the remainder of its three-year term of office:

| Members | Alternates |
| --- | --- |
| Mr Petros MARKOU (CY) | Mr Athos TSINONTIDES (CY) |
| Ms Linda LÄÄNESAAR (EE) | Mr Enn-Toivo ANNUK (EE) |
| Mr György BARANOVSZKY (HU) | Mr István GARAI (HU) |
| Ms Silvija VĪKSNIŅA (LV) | Ms Agnese ZVIEDRE (LV) |
| Ms Zita ČEPONYTĖ (LT) | Ms. Audronė RICKUVIENĖ (LT) |
| Mr Benny BORG BONELLO (MT) | Mr Adrian MUSCAT INGLOTT (MT) |
| Ms Małgorzata NIEPOKULCZYCKA (PL) | Ms Grażyna ROKICKA (PL) |
| Mr Karel PAVLÍK (CZ) | Mr Vladimír HANUŠ (CZ) |
| Ms Božena STAŠENKOVÁ (SK) | Mr Peter PETRÍK (SK) |
| Ms Breda KUTIN (SI) | Ms Ziva DROL NOVAK (SI) |
| Mr Nick STACE (UK) | |

Members

Alternates

Mr Petros MARKOU (CY)

Mr Athos TSINONTIDES (CY)

Ms Linda LÄÄNESAAR (EE)

Mr Enn-Toivo ANNUK (EE)

Mr György BARANOVSZKY (HU)

Mr István GARAI (HU)

Ms Silvija VĪKSNIŅA (LV)

Ms Agnese ZVIEDRE (LV)

Ms Zita ČEPONYTĖ (LT)

Ms. Audronė RICKUVIENĖ (LT)

Mr Benny BORG BONELLO (MT)

Mr Adrian MUSCAT INGLOTT (MT)

Ms Małgorzata NIEPOKULCZYCKA (PL)

Ms Grażyna ROKICKA (PL)

Mr Karel PAVLÍK (CZ)

Mr Vladimír HANUŠ (CZ)

Ms Božena STAŠENKOVÁ (SK)

Mr Peter PETRÍK (SK)

Ms Breda KUTIN (SI)

Ms Ziva DROL NOVAK (SI)

Mr Nick STACE (UK)

---

(1)  OJ L 258 of 10.10.2003, p.35

1

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 91 (Thursday, May 10, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 23904]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11770]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-398-000]

Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company; Notice of Interruptible 
Revenue Sharing Report

May 4, 2001.
    Take notice that on May 1, 2001, Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company 
(Eastern Shore) tendered for filing its Interruptible Revenue Sharing 
Report pursuant to Section 37 of the General Terms and Conditions of 
its FERC Tariff.
    Eastern Shore states that it intends to credit a total of $623,814, 
including interest of $44,270 to its firm transportation customers on 
July 1, 2001. The credit amount represents 90 percent of the net 
revenues received by Eastern Shore under Rate Schedule IT (in excess of 
the cost of service allocated to such rate schedule) for the period 
April 2000 through March 2001.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or 
before May 14, 2001. Protests will be considered by the Commission in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to 
make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance). Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed 
electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site 
at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-11770 Filed 5-9-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-34 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 1 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-34 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 2 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-34 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 3 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-34 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 4 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-34 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 5 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-34 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 6 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-34 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 7 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-34 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 8 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-05807-TPG Document 9-34 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 9 of 9
144 So. 572

#### GRANT et al. v. McDONALD.

8 Div. 434.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Nov. 25, 1932.

Griffin & Ford, of Huntsville, for appellants.

*600Brickell & Johnston, of Huntsville, for appellee.

BROWN, J.

This is an action on a promissory note; the plaintiffs suing as “The Governing Board of Trustees of the Georgia School of Technology.”

The complaint consists of two counts, substantially following form 1 prescribed by section 9531 of the Code for suits on promissory notes. This form first appeared in the Code of 1852 on page 551, and in Jemison & Sloan v. Dealing’s Executors, 41 Ala. 283, 291, it was observed: “There is nothing in the Code, which inhibits a partnership note from being given in evidence under a complaint in form of the last on page 551 of the Code, *if the plcdntiff is the payee in the note, and the defendants are the makers.”*(Italics supplied.)

And it has been repeatedly held that the forms for complaints in the Code have reduced to a minimum averments necessary to state a cause of action. Smythe v. Dothan F. & M. Co., 166 Ala. 253, 52 So. 398; Schwartz Motor Co. et al. v. Bradley Real Estate & Insurance Co., 220 Ala. 295, 125 So. 26.

 This form has been brought, forward from the Code of 1852 through the several Codes, without change, and, as generally understood by the bench and bar, this form is only applicable to a suit by the payee against the maker of a promissory note.

“The Georgia School of Technology,” and not the plaintiffs, is named in the note as the payee, and the objection that there was a variance between the averments and proof was well taken, and the court sustained the objection without error. Phillips v. Americus Guano Co., 110 Ala. 521, 18 So. 104; Muse v. Dantzler, 85 Ala. 359, 5 So. 178; McCrummen v. Campbell, 82 Ala. 566, 2 So. 482.

Nor are the plaintiffs aided by the provisions of section 5707 of the Code, which authorize an administrator, a trustee of an express trust, or a person authorized by statute to sue, as this statute applies only to trustees “with whom, or in whose name, a contract is made for the benefit of another,” or a trustee whose succession is by operation of law.

Actions on promissory notes, bonds, or other contracts, express or implied, for the payment of money, must be prosecuted in the name of the party really interested. Code 1923, § 5699.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment must be affiffirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, O. J., and THOMAS and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.
Exhibit








EXHIBIT 10.1
SUMMARY OF STEELCASE BENEFIT PLAN FOR OUTSIDE DIRECTORS
The Steelcase Benefit Plan for Outside Directors (“Director Plan”) became effective on March 1, 1999. The Director Plan was created to provide health and welfare benefits to members of the Board of Directors of Steelcase Inc. (the “Company”) who are not Company employees or retirees (“Outside Directors”).  
Eligibility: Outside Directors and their eligible dependents are eligible for coverage under the Director Plan on the first day of the Outside Director’s term as a board member. During an annual enrollment period, Outside Directors who are already enrolled in coverage may opt out of coverage or change plans. An Outside Director who does not enroll at the time of becoming a board member is eligible during a subsequent annual enrollment period and also has special enrollment rights when other existing coverage is lost or when there is a qualified change in status. 
Retiree coverage:  Outside Directors who became members of the board before July 22, 2002, are covered under the Director Plan at the time of leaving the Board, and meet the Rule of 80, are eligible for retiree coverage under the applicable Company retiree plan.  Rule of 80 means that attained age and fully years of continuous service upon retirement equals 80 or more.  Years of service for Outside Directors includes years of service as an employee of the Company and years of service as an Outside Director, to the extent the two periods are not overlapping. 
Benefits: The Director Plan provides medical, dental and vision benefits. 
Cost: The Company pays the full cost of coverage under the Director Plan for Outside Directors and their eligible dependents. The Company also subsidizes a portion of the premium costs for retired Outside Directors who are eligible for retiree coverage. The premium costs paid by the Company on behalf of an Outside Director are treated as taxable income to the Outside Director and reported annually on Form 1099. 
Last updated: December 2019
Case 1:07-cv-05399-AKH Document 17 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 1 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05399-AKH Document 17 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 2 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05399-AKH Document 17 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 3 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05399-AKH Document 17 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 4 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05399-AKH Document 17 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 5 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05399-AKH Document 17 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 6 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05399-AKH Document 17 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 7 of 7
EX-10.1






Exhibit 10.1




Acceleration of Certain Unvested Stock Options



On December 16, 2005, the Board of Directors of the Company approved the acceleration of the
vesting of certain unvested and “out-of-the-money” stock options that had an exercise price per
share equal to or greater than $22.00, all of which were previously granted under the Company’s
stock option plans and that were outstanding on December 16, 2005. Options to purchase
approximately 21 million shares of common stock, or approximately 49% of the Company’s total
outstanding unvested options on December 16, 2005, were subject to the acceleration. The options
accelerated excluded options previously granted to certain persons, including all of the executive
officers and the Board of Directors of the Company.



In addition, in order to prevent unintended personal benefits, the acceleration was accompanied by
restrictions imposed on any shares purchased through the exercise of accelerated options. Those
restrictions will prevent the sale of any such shares prior to the date such shares would have
originally vested had the optionee been employed on such date (whether or not the optionee is
actually an employee at that time).



The purpose of the acceleration was to enable the Company to avoid recognizing compensation expense
associated with these options in future periods in its Consolidated Statements of Operations
pursuant to Financial Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 123R. Under FAS No. 123R, the
Company will apply the expense recognition provisions relating to stock options beginning in the
first quarter of fiscal 2006. In approving the acceleration, the Board considered its impact on
future financial results, stockholder value and employee retention. The Company believes that the
acceleration is in the best interest of stockholders as it will reduce the Company’s reported
compensation expense in future periods in light of these accounting regulations. The acceleration
of the vesting of these options will not result in a charge to the Company’s expenses in the
Consolidated Statements of Operations in 2005.



It is possible that changes in the interpretations of existing accounting standards or the adoption
of new accounting standards could cause the ultimate accounting of the Company’s options to vary
from the Company’s current expectations.



Amendment of Employee Stock Purchase Plan



In addition, on December 16, 2005, the Board of Directors amended the Company’s 1999 Employee Stock
Purchase Plan (the “ESPP”) to eliminate the ability of a participant under the ESPP to increase the
rate of his/her payroll deductions during any offering period. This change will be effective
beginning with the offering period commencing on February 1, 2006.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

      ( print page 24373)    
This gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463) of October 6, 1972, that the Mine Safety and Health Research Advisory Committee, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, of the Department of Health and Human Services, has been rechartered for a 2-year period, through November 30, 2002. 

                    For further information, contact Larry Grayson, Ph.D., Executive Secretary, MSHRAC, CDC, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 715-H, Humphrey Building, Washington, DC 20201. Telephone 202/401-2192, fax 202/260-4464, e-mail                     *lhg9@cdc.gov.*

                    The Director, Management Analysis and Services office has been delegated the authority to sign                     **Federal Register**                     notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                 

Dated: May 8, 2001.

Carolyn J. Russell, 

Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

[FR Doc. 01-12000 Filed 5-11-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
# EUR-Lex - 52005AP0248 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52005AP0248

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 382/2001 as regards its expiry date and certain provisions related to the execution of the Budget (COM(2004)0840 - C6-0044/2005 - 2004/0288(CNS)) **

*
Official Journal 133 E , 08/06/2006 P. 0092 - 0092 *

P6_TA(2005)0248

Execution of the budget *

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 382/2001 as regards its expiry date and certain provisions related to the execution of the Budget (COM(2004)0840 — C6-0044/2005 — 2004/0288(CNS))

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2004)0840) [1],

- having regard to Articles 133 and 181a of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0044/2005),

- having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on International (A6-0154/2005),

1. Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2. Calls on the Commission to alter its proposal accordingly, pursuant to Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty;

3. Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

4. Calls for initiation of the conciliation procedure under the Joint Declaration of 4 March 1975 if the Council intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

5. Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially;

6. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

TEXT PROPOSED BY THE COMMISSION | AMENDMENTS BY PARLIAMENT |

Amendment 1

ARTICLE 1, POINT -1 (new)Recital 9a (new) (Regulation (EC) No 382/2001)

| (-1)After recital 9, the following recital is inserted:(9a)The Gateway to Japan Programme and the Executive Training Programme have been so successful that similar programmes should be envisaged in the future with other countries, e.g. China. |

Amendment 2

ARTICLE 1, POINT -1A (new)Article 4, point (ha) (new) (Regulation (EC) No 382/2001)

| (-1a) In Article 4, the following point is added after point (h): (ha)coordination between the activities within each partner country and between different partner countries. |

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

--------------------------------------------------
Argued and submitted August 5, 1998,

vacated and remanded February 24, 1999

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Appellant, v.*WENDY LOUISE RILEY, *Respondent.*

(97-CR-0081AB; CA A98342)

976 P2d 79

Kaye E. Sunderland, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General.

Jesse Wm. Barton, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Diane L. Alessi, Interim Public Defender.

Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Deits, Chief Judge,* and Wollheim, Judge.

WOLLHEIM, J.

*

 Deits, C. J., *vice*Riggs, P. J., resigned.

*651WOLLHEIM, J.

The state appeals the trial court’s pretrial order suppressing evidence of a controlled substance. Defendant had been stopped for driving with expired license tags and was unable to produce a valid driver’s license. She did, however, give the officer at the scene three pieces of photo identification and her vehicle registration, which allowed him to corroborate her name, physical characteristics, and birthdate through his radio dispatcher. The officer nevertheless requested and received consent to search defendant’s purse for additional identification and, in that process, discovered two containers of methamphetamine.

The trial court concluded that the officer’s request to search the purse after defendant had already produced three pieces of photo identification unreasonably exceeded the officer’s authority to investigate defendant’s identity under ORS 807.570(4). In light of ORS 136.432, we reverse and remand. Defendant’s arguments that ORS 136.432 does not apply have been disposed of by our decisions in *State v. Jaehnig,*158 Or App 348, 978 P2d 1011 (1999); *State v. Cruz-Aguirre,*158 Or App 15, 972 P2d 1206 (1999); and *State v. Fugate,*154 Or App 643, 963 P2d 686 (1998), *adhered to as mod on recons*156 Or App 609, 969 P2d 395 (1998). We decline to revisit them here.

Defendant made a number of constitutional arguments to the trial court in support of her motion to suppress that the trial court did not reach because of its disposition on the statutory question. On remand the trial court is instructed to consider defendant’s constitutional arguments. In the event that the trial court concludes that no constitutional violation occurred, ORS 136.432 requires admission of the excluded evidence. If the court determines that the evidence was discovered as a result of a constitutional violation that led to the discovery of the excluded evidence, then it shall suppress the evidence.

Vacated and remanded.
Case 1:07-cv-05734-SHS Document 5 Filed 08/10/2007 Page 1 of 1
Order entered October 25 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 12
- 01549
- CR LADALE CUBIT, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court C ause No. F11
- 34970
- K



### O RDER In his brief, appellant raises an issue related to the costs assessed against him. The record, however, does not contain a cost bill or other document with an itemized list of costs assessed in this case. Accordingly, we ORDE R the Dallas County District Clerk to file, within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this order, a supplemental clerk’s record containing a detailed itemization of the costs assessed in this case, including but not limited to, specific court costs, fees, and cou rt appointed attorney fees. In accordance with Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 103.001, the cost bill shall be signed by the officer who charged the cost or the officer who is entitled to receive payment for the cost. We further ORDER that the s upplemental clerk’s record include adocument explaining any and all abbreviations used to designate a particular fee, cost, or court

appointed attorney fee.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Gary Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk; Dallas County District Clerk’s Office, Criminal Records Division; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE