alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Arnold Tripp et al. v. Mary E. O’Brien et al.

1. *Injunctions—Building*Lines.—An injunction will lie to restrain an owner of a lot, bought by him subject to a building line agreement made by former owners, from building thereon in violation of the agreement.

2. Building *Lines—Violation*of—Estoppel.—The fact that a person’s neighbors have erected front steps and other ornamental projections of houses over the building line, does not justify such person or estop them to question his act in erecting the front wall of his house several feet over the line.

3. Wagers—Ora *Decisions of*Courts.—A wager upon the decision of a court of last resort is staked upon an uncertain event.

Memorandum.—Appeal from an order granting an injunction entered by the Circuit Comb of Cook County; the Hon. Edward F. Dunne, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1894, and affirmed.

Opinion filed January 28, 1895.

B. M. Shaffner, attorney for appellants.

Appellees’ Brief, Chytraus & Deneen, Attorneys.

Where a reservation has been made by agreement between original owners, a purchaser with notice takes subject to the reservation. An equitable servitude arises. Pomeroy’s *408Equity Jurisprudence (2d Ed.), Sec. 1295; Washburn on Easements (4th Ed.), 112 *et seq.;*Eckhart v. Irons, 128 Ill. 568; Cole v. Sims, 23 Law Jour., Chy., 258.

Pomeroy, in his work on Equity Jurisprudence, Sec. 1342, speaking of these restrictive covenants and agreements in deeds, and of their being specifically enforced by injunction not only between the immediate parties to the deeds, but also between remote grantees, says:

“ The injunction in this class of cases is granted almost as a matter of course, upon a breach of the covenant.” * * * “The fact that plaintiff has sustained any pecuniary damages, is wholly immaterial.” And further quoting, as he says, one of the ablest of modern equity judges, “ It is not for the court, but the plaintiffs, to estimate the damages that arise from the injury inflicted upon them.”

To the same effect: Lord Manners v. Johnson, 1 Law Reports, Chan. Div., 673.

Mb. Justice G-aby

delivbbed the opinion of the Couet.

The appellant bought a lot on a short street, subject to a building line agreement made by the previous owners of all the. property on both sides of the street, and proceeded to build in violation of the agreement. His neighbors procured an injunction, from the order granting which, this appeal was taken. His defense is, who begun it ?

The majority of this court are of opinion that front steps over the building line, and ornamental projections pertaining to. the houses of his neighbors, do not justify or'estop them to question his act in erecting the front wall of his house several feet over the line.

The order is therefore affirmed. But if it were reversed he could not prudently proceed with his building, for if on a final decree by the court of last resort it should be held that he was wrong, he might be compelled to take down that part of his house. Bispham’s Eq., Sec. 404.

And a wager upon the decision of a court of last resort is staked upon an uncertain event. Jones v. Randall, 1 Cowper, 37.

Order affirmed.
VANGUARD HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.



EXHIBIT 10.65





AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


            This Amendment No. 1 (this “Amendment’) dated as of May 5, 2009, is made by and between Vanguard Health Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Phillip W.
Roe (the “Executive”).


            WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive executed a certain Employment Agreement  dated as of November 15, 2007 ( the “EA”),  to secure the services of the Executive as
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer; and


            WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive wish the Executive’s base salary set forth in Section 6(a) of the EA to be increased to $525,000, effective as of April 1, 2009.


            NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants herein contained, the Company and the Executive hereby agree that the EA is amended as follows:


            1.         Defined Terms.  Except for those terms defined above, the definitions of capitalized terms used in this Amendment are as provided in
the EA.


            2.         Amendment to Section 6(a).  Section 6(a) of the EA entitled “Base Salary” is hereby  deleted and replaced with
the following new Section 6(a):





                        “(a)  Base Salary.  Effective April 1, 2009, the Executive’s base salary hereunder

                        shall be $525,000 per year, payable semi-monthly. Commencing July 1, 2010, the

                        Board shall review such base salary at least annually and make such adjustments from

                        time to time as it may deem advisable, but the base salary shall not at any time be

                        reduced from the base salary in effect from time to time.”


            3.         Ratification.  All other provisions of the EA remain unchanged and are hereby  ratified by the Company and the Executive.


1











            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized officer and the Executive has executed this Amendment, each as of the day and year first set
forth above.



                                                                       
Vanguard Health Systems, Inc.



                                                                       
By:/s/ Ronald P. Soltman                                 


                                                                                   
Ronald P. Soltman

                                                                                   
Executive Vice President



                                                                       
Executive:






                                                                       
/s/ Phillip W.
Roe                                             


                                    
                                    Phillip W. Roe


2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

PHILLIP NELSON BURNS, MIRJANA 

PAVKOVICH, Administrator of the Estate of

Rade Pavkovich, Deceased, and Warren 

Elmer Halpap, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 -againstGRUPO MÉXICO, S.A. de C.V., a Mexican 

Corporation, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 1:07-CV-3496(WHP) 

DECLARATION OF ALBERTO DE LA 

PARRA ZAVALA IN SUPPORT OF GRUPO 

MÉXICO, S.A. DE C.V.'S MOTION TO 

REMAND OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO 

DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR IMPROPER 

SERVICE AND LACK OF PERSONAL 

JURISDICTION

I, Alberto de la Parra Zavala, declare as follows: 

1. I am the General Counsel of Grupo México S.A. B. de C.V. (“Grupo 

México”), a named defendant in Burns v. Grupo México S.A. de C.V., Index No.:04114728 filed 

in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (the “Action”). ASARCO 

LLC recently attempted to remove the Action to the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of New York and captioned 1:07-CV-3496. 

2. As General Counsel, I am responsible for knowing the contents of Grupo 

México’s business records pertaining to the items described herein. 

3. Based on my employment as General Counsel for Grupo México, I have 

personal knowledge and information regarding the matters contained herein. 

4. Grupo México is a corporation organized under the laws of Mexico, and 

its principal place of business is Mexico City, Mexico. 

5. Grupo México, being a Mexican corporation, conducts its business in 

Spanish, the language of Mexico. 

Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 28-2 Filed 06/27/2007 Page 1 of 3
 

-2-

6. Grupo México is not a resident of New York or Texas, is not registered to 

conduct business in New York or Texas, and does not conduct business operations in New York 

or Texas. 

7. Grupo México does not maintain a registered agent for service of process 

in New York or Texas. 

8. Grupo México does not maintain an office or warehouse, or any other 

facilities in New York or Texas, nor does it have a mailing address or any telephone numbers in 

New York or Texas. 

9. Grupo México owns no real estate in New York or Texas, and is not 

required to pay any real estate taxes, personal property taxes, or other taxes in New York or 

Texas. 

10. Grupo México has no agents, sales representatives, or any employees 

whatsoever in New York or Texas. 

11. Grupo México does no direct advertising in New York or Texas with any 

New York or Texas media. 

12. Grupo México has never purchased, sold, provided, or received any goods 

at any time or in any place in New York or Texas. 

13. Grupo México acquired ASARCO in 1999 under an Agreement and Plan 

of Merger dated October 25, 1999, whereby Grupo México acquired all of ASARCO’s common 

stock. 

 The foregoing is affirmed under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of 

America pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746. 

Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 28-2 Filed 06/27/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 28-2 Filed 06/27/2007 Page 3 of 3
incident would result in his being punished twice for the same action in 

two different jurisdictions. The district court denied appellant's writ 

petition and, on appeal from that determination, he reiterates the 

arguments that he advanced before the district court. 

The Double Jeopardy Clause under the United States 

Constitution protects a defendant from both successive prosecutions and 

multiple punishments for the same offense. U.S. Const. amend. V; United 

States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688,695-96 (1993); see also Nev. Const. art. 1, § 

8; Jackson v. State, 128 Nev. „ 291 P.3d 1274, 1278 (2012) 

(recognizing that the federal and Nevada Constitutions provide the same 

protections against double jeopardy). Double Jeopardy protections, 

however, are not implicated here because the purpose of the parole 

revocation hearing at issue in this case is to determine whether the Parole 

Board will reinstate appellant's original sentence for the underlying crime 

due to his apparent parole violations, not to punish appellant for the 

conduct that led to the parole revocation hearing. See United States v. 

Brown, 59 F.3d 102, 104-05 (9th Cir. 1995) (recognizing that the 

revocation of parole is viewed as the reinstatement of a previous sentence, 

not as punishment for the actions resulting in the revocation). This is true 

even if the parolee is subjected to more than one parole revocation based 

on the same underlying act, as appellant alleges is the case here. See 

United States v. Clark, 984 F.2d 319, 320 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that the 

revocation of both probation and supervised release related to two prior 

convictions based on a single action by the offending party was permissible 

and did not implicate double jeopardy). Accordingly, we conclude that the 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A me, 
, J. 

district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's petition 

for a writ of prohibition, Reno Newspapers, 126 Nev at , 234 P.3d at 

924, and we therefore 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

\CA.-k Lat-aai ,J. 

Hardesty 

J. 

Douglas 

cc: Hon. James E. Wilson, District Judge 

William Cato Sells, Jr. 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Carson City Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(G) 1947A e
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 5, 2020

No. 04-20-00346-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.V.O. AND J.R.O.,

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-CI-02697

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

We order appellant to file, no later than October 16, 2020, proof that he has paid the sums 

due to the court reporters pursuant to the Rule 11 agreement signed by counsel and filed in this 

court on October 1, 2020. If appellant fails to show such proof within the time provided, 

appellant’s brief will be due November 16, 2020, and the court will only consider those issues or 

points raised in appellant’s brief that do not require a reporter’s record for a decision. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 37.3(c).

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 5th day of October, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

Clerk of Court
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-31 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 1 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-31 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 2 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-31 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 3 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-31 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 4 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-31 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 5 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-31 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 6 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-31 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 7 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-31 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 8 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-31 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 9 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-31 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 10 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-31 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 11 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-31 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 12 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-31 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 13 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-31 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 14 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-31 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 15 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-31 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 16 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-31 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 17 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-31 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 18 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-31 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 19 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-31 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 20 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-31 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 21 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-31 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 22 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-31 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 23 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-31 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 24 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-31 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 25 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-31 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 26 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-31 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 27 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-31 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 28 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-31 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 29 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-31 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 30 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-31 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 31 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-31 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 32 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-31 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 33 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-31 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 34 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-31 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 35 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-31 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 36 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-31 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 37 of 38
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 33-31 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 38 of 38
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**IN RE: ESTATE OF KATHLEEN**

**TALERICO**

**PETITION OF: DONALD P. TALERICO :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 268 MAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 27th day of September, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of** 

**Appeal is** DENIED

**.**
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-36 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 1 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-36 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 2 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-36 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 3 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-36 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 4 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-36 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 5 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-36 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 6 of 6
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


               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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The Enstar Group, Inc. (the
"Corporation") for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, the
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, certifies that:


         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and


         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Corporation.


/s/ Nimrod T. Frazer
-----------------------------------------------
Nimrod T. Frazer
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
May 10, 2004


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to The Enstar Group, Inc. and will be retained by The Enstar Group,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.


                                       25
Case 1:07-cv-03429-DCF Document 4 Filed 05/20/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03429-DCF Document 4 Filed 05/20/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03429-DCF Document 4 Filed 05/20/2007 Page 3 of 3
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 227 (Monday, November 28, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 71333]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23318]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--VSI Alliance

    Notice is hereby given that, on October 28, 2005, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), VSI Alliance has filed 
written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the 
Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The 
notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Hefei University 
of Technology Institute, Hefei, People's Republic of China; Mixel, 
Inc., San Jose, CA; and Verisity Design, Inc., Mountain View, CA have 
withdrawn as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and VSI Alliance intends to file 
additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
    On November 29, 1996, VSI Alliance filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of 
the Act on March 4, 1997 (62 FR 9812).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on July 14, 
2005. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on August 1, 2005 (70 FR 44118).

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 05-23318 Filed 11-25-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
### Ofvo/ft c>iuk> "iP(n%-oi^2. sl&l&oib l fapn tA)Yvmnq \ki taucxsuo (j& gay umjpt r^ nk\(6U\S 6>wipijU>> Cmj^l mo's (0/1-7^/7-7?-07 akjO h;fl-?9,???-<3Z,» rtoz (j*rzr 

### VotA T)rttj P/OTifAJ&L /Quo tori<zio ZAjorioiO-tfrvL Pv/U7di7tM ApnnffjrfCTn 

## FoFGRIMIMAlATOMS t^/fatf&r/%^g^^^^ ^

FEB Ofi 2015 (T(A4f^J MtoM/QU.< P</£ Aidn& i fcixo Ufijvr . H>°]l fin, "53£%

•i^fiiaini i run
Exhibit
      32.1




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report
      on Form 10-Q of Katy Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ending
      September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
      the
      date hereof (the “Report”), I, Anthony T. Castor III, Chief Executive Officer of
      the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)           the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2)           the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.











/s/
      Anthony T. Castor III


Anthony
      T. Castor III


Chief
      Executive Officer


November
      13, 2007











The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany this report
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of
      Section 18 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not
      to
      be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company whether made before
      or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language
      in
      such filing.  A signed original of this written statement required by
      Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise
      adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
      of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the
      Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 99.11**

 

**CONSENT OF EXPERT**

 

Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F (the “40-F”) of Platinum Group Metals Ltd. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2014 to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the Annual Information Form (the “AIF”) and Management’s Discussion and Analysis (“MD&A”) of the Company for the year then ended, which are incorporated by reference therein.

 

Each of the undersigned hereby consents to the references to, and the information derived from, the reports titled “Technical Report on Project 3 Resource Cut Estimation of the Western Bushveld Joint Venture (WBJV) Located on the Western Limb of the Bushveld Igneous Complex, South Africa”, dated August 31, 2010, “Updated Technical Report (Updated Feasibility Study) Western Bushveld Joint Venture Project 1 (Elandsfontein and Frischgewaagd)”, dated November 20, 2009 with an effective date of October 8, 2009, “An Independent Technical Report on Project Areas 1 and 1A of the Western Bushveld Joint Venture (WBJV) Located on the Western Limb of the Bushveld Igneous Complex, South Africa”, dated November 20, 2009 with an effective date of October 8, 2009, and “Revised Inferred Mineral Resource Declaration War Springs (Oorlogsfontein 45K2), Northern Limb Platinum Property, Limpopo Province, Republic of South Africa”, dated June 18, 2009, and to the references, as applicable, to the undersigned’s name, in each case, included in or incorporated by reference in the 40-F, the AIF and the MD&A.

 

 
| /s/   Charles J. Muller        |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|
| Charles   J. Muller            |   |
| Date:   November 25, 2014 |   |

 

----