alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MILDRED PROPER v. THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY.

(Filed 3 November, 1937.)

Negligence § 4b — Evidence of negligence held for jury in this' action by store customer to recover for personal injuries.

Evidence that plaintiff, a customer in a store, was struct and injured while standing with her back to a row of shelves, by a sack of flour which fell from a shelf about eight or ten feet high when an employee attempted, with the aid of a hooked stick, to pull a sack of flour off the shelf for another customer, without warning plaintiff, *is held,*sufficient to take the case to the jury on the issue of negligence, and defendant store company’s motion to nonsuit and request for peremptory instructions were properly refused.

Appeal by defendant from *Spears, J.,*at March Term, 1937, of BaNDOlph. No error.

This is an action to recover damages resulting from personal injuries alleged to have been caused by tbe negligent conduct of tbe defendant’s employee. Appropriate issues were submitted to tbe jury and answered in favor of the plaintiff. From judgment thereon tbe defendant appealed.

*Moser & Miller and Lovelace & Kirlcman for plaintiff, appellee.*

*Sapp> & Sapp for defendant, appellant.*

*394Per Curiam.

Tbe plaintiff’s evidence tends to show tbat sbe and ber bnsband were in tbe defendant’s store in High Point as customers on tbe nigbt of 12 October, 1935; tbat there were rows of shelves on each side of tbe store, with no counter on tbe right side; tbat tbe shelves extended to a height of about eight or ten feet; tbat on these shelves were placed various articles of merchandise, and on tbe top shelf on tbe right-band side, near tbe rear of tbe store, were placed 24-pound sacks of flour, three deep; tbat while the plaintiff and ber husband were standing near tbe meat counter at tbe rear of tbe store and near tbe row of shelves on tbe right side just below where tbe flour was packed tbe manager of tbe store came around in a burry to tbe shelves where tbe flour was stacked for tbe purpose of taking down a sack of flour for another customer; tbat tbe plaintiff was standing with ber side toward tbe shelves; tbat tbe defendant’s employee bad a stick three or four feet long with a book on tbe end, and tbat be caught tbe book in tbe end of tbe flour tbat was tied up in some way and undertook to pull tbe flour down off tbe shelf without airy warning to tbe plaintiff, and tbat in so doing tbe flour fell against tbe plaintiff and inflicted certain personal injuries. There was evidence *contra.'*

Tbe evidence offered by tbe plaintiff was sufficient to be submitted to tbe jury and tbe court below properly overruled tbe defendant’s motions to dismiss as of nonsuit. Tbe cause is essentially one of fact for tbe determination of a jury and tbe jury, under instructions of tbe court, which are unchallenged, has answered tbe issues in favor of *the*plaintiff.

As tbe plaintiff offered sufficient evidence to be submitted to tbe jury, there was no error in tbe refusal of tbe court below to give tbe special instructions which amounted to a peremptory charge requested by tbe defendant.

There is no error appearing in tbe record.

No error.
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 Transportation

###### Office of the Secretary

The following Agreements were filed with the Department of Transportation under the sections 412 and 414 of the Federal Aviation Act, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1382 and 1384) and procedures governing proceedings to enforce these provisions. Answers may be filed within 21 days after the filing of the application. 

*Docket Number:*                     DOT-OST-2010-0141.                

*Date Filed:*                     May 25, 2010.                

*Parties:*                     Members of the International Air Transport Association.                

*Subject:*                     Mail Vote 634—Resolution 010x,  TC3 Special Passenger Amending Resolution  From Brunei Darussalam to South East Asia  (Memo 1386),  Intended effective date: 1 June 2010.                

Renee V. Wright, 

 Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.

[FR Doc. 2010-13849 Filed 6-8-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
firstamendtropicalannualcomp.htm


    Nicor Inc.

    Exhibit 10.11

    Form 8-K

    
 

    TROPICAL
SHIPPING COMPANY

     

    FIRST
AMENDMENT TO

     

    TROPICAL
ANNUAL INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN

     

    This
Amendment (the “Amendment”) to the Tropical Annual Incentive Compensation Plan
is effective as of July 23, 2009.  All capitalized terms used in this
Amendment but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms
in the Plan (as defined below).

     

    WHEREAS,
Tropical Shipping Company (the “Company”) previously adopted the Tropical Annual
Incentive Compensation Plan, as revised effective January 1, 2008 (the
“Plan”).

     

    WHEREAS,
pursuant to the terms of the Plan, the compensation committee (the “Committee”)
of the board of directors of the Company may from time to time amend the
provisions of the Plan;

     

    WHEREAS,
the Committee has determined that it is appropriate to amend the provisions of
the Plan as a result of the application of Section 457A of the Code to the
Plan;

     

    NOW,
THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended by deleting the provisions of the Plan
under the heading “Incentive Payment
Deferral,” including the paragraphs headed “Deferral under the Nicor Stock
Deferral Plan” and “Deferral under this Plan” in
their entirety.  In addition, all references to such provisions in the
Plan are hereby deleted.

     

    FURTHER, this First Amendment to the
Plan shall be effective on the date approved by the Committee, unless otherwise
specified herein.

     

    In all
other respects the Plan, as amended by this First Amendment shall remain in full
force and effect.
----

----

**Exhibit      31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

|   | a) | designed                such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material                information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated                subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,                particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is                being                prepared; |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | b) | evaluated                the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures                as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report (the                "Evaluation Date"); and |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | c) | presented                in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness                of the                disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of                the                Evaluation Date; |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | a) | all                significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls                which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,                process,                summarize and report financial data and have identified for the                registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls;                and |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | b) | any                fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other                employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal                controls; and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/                J. E. Corrigan,Jr.  |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   | Chief                Financial Officer |

----

----
#### Eliza Beck and Others v. The Brooklyn Elevated Railroad Company and Others.

Order of General »Term modifying judgment by striking out words “ with costs and disbursements,” granted.
**Exhibit        32.1 **

**Certification        **

**of        **

**Chief        Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer **

|  | (a) | the                  Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of VioQuest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.                  for the                  quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the                  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange                  Act of                  1934; and |
|--|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | (b) | information                  contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,                  the                  financial condition and results of operations of VioQuest Pharmaceuticals,                  Inc. |
|--|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                  August 15, 2005 | By:  | /s/                  Daniel Greenleaf                                                     |   |
|----------------------------------------|-----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                   |      | Daniel                  GreenleafPresident                  & Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                                   |      |                                                                                      |   |
|                                   |      |                                                                                      |   |
| Date:                  August 15, 2005 | By:       | /s/                  Brian Lenz                                                           |   |
|                                   |      | Brian                  Lenz Chief                  Financial Officer                      |   |
#### Rust & Johnston, plaintiffs in error, *vs.*Shackleford & Company, defendants in error.

(Montgomery, Judge, was providentially prevented from presiding in this ease.)

1. A juror, who is a cousin of one of the defendants, is incompetent to sit on the trial of the cause. (R.)

2. One of the plaintiffs .having been examined, may, nevertheless, be reintroduced in rebuttal of defendant’s testimony. (R.)

Juror. Evidence. Before Judge Clark. Dougherty Superior Court. June Term, 1872,

*539For the facts of this case, see the decision.

Lyon & Irvin ; E. N. Ely, for plaintiffs in error.

Yason *&*Davis, for defendants.

Warner, Chief Justice.

The plaintiffs brought an action against the defendants to recover the price of eleven bales of cotton, which the plaintiffs alleged the defendants had purchased of them. On the trial of the case, the jury found a verdict’for the defendants. A motion was made for a new trial, on the ground that one of the jurors was a cousin of one of the defendants, which fact was not known to the plaintiffs until after the' trial, and because the Court erred in rejecting the evidence of Johnson, one of the plaintiffs, in rebuttal of the defendants’ evidence, the witness having been examined in his own behalf when the plaintiffs’ side of the case was submitted to the jury. The Court overruled the motion for a new trial and the defendants excepted. When the plaintiff was first examined, he proved the sale of the cotton to the defendants, and said the money for the cotton was to be paid when Turner returned from Savannah, who was expected in a day or two after the sale was made to Shackleford, the other partner. The return of Turner from Savannah related to the time when the payment for the cotton was to be made, and not to any conditional contract for the sale of the cotton. Shackleford, one of the defendants, testified that the contract for the purchase of the cotton was a conditional contract, depending on the fact of Turner, his co-partner, bringing the money from Savannah to pay for it. The plaintiffs’ counsel then proposed to recall Johnson and to prove by him, in rebuttal of the defendants’ evidence, that the sale of the cotton was not a conditional sale, but an absolute and unqualified sale. This evidence the Court rejected, on the ground that the witness had already been examined in relation to that question. In our judgment, the Court erred in rejecting the evidence of Johnson, in rebuttal of the defend*540ants? evidence, as to the conditional sale of the cotton. The juror being a cousin of one of the defendants, was an incompetent juror to sit on the trial of the case. As the charge of the Court, in relation to the statute of frauds, was not excepted to nor set forth in the record, we express no opinion on that question.

Let the judgment of the Court below be reversed.
Exibit 10.2






	 	 	 	 	 



Exhibit 10.2




RRI ENERGY, INC.

2002 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN

DIRECTOR COMMON STOCK AWARD





Pursuant to this Award Agreement, as of June 8, 2009, RRI Energy, Inc. (the
“Company”) hereby grants to Evan J. Silverstein (the “Participant”), a Director of the Company,
2,715 shares of Common Stock, in lieu of fees otherwise payable to the Participant for services as
Chairman of the Special Committee. Such number of shares are subject to adjustment as provided in
Section 15 of the RRI Energy, Inc. 2002 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), subject to the
terms, conditions and restrictions described in the Plan and in this Agreement.




	1.	 	Relationship to the Plan. This grant of Common Stock is subject to all of the terms,
conditions and provisions of the Plan and administrative interpretations thereunder, if any,
which have been adopted by the Committee and are in effect on this date. Except as defined
herein, capitalized terms have the same meanings as under the Plan. If any provision of this
Award Agreement conflicts with the express terms of the Plan, the terms of the Plan control
and, if necessary, the applicable provisions of this Award Agreement are deemed amended so as
to carry out the purpose and intent of the Plan. References to the Participant also include
the heirs or other legal representatives of the Participant or the Participant’s estate.







	2.	 	Vesting and Forfeiture. The Common Stock granted herein is fully vested and transferable as
of the date granted.







	3.	 	Notices. For purposes of this Award Agreement, notices and all other communications must be
in writing and will be deemed to have been given when personally delivered or when mailed by
United States registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid,
addressed as follows:






	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	If to Company:
	 	RRI Energy, Inc.

1000 Main Street

Houston, Texas 77002

ATTENTION: Corporate Secretary
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	If to Director:
	 	Evan J. Silverstein

c/o Corporate Secretary

RRI Energy, Inc.

1000 Main Street

Houston, Texas 77002







or to such other address as either party may furnish to the other in writing in accordance
with this Section 3.




	4.	 	Successors and Assigns. This Award Agreement is binding upon and inures to the benefit of
the Participant, the Company and their respective permitted successors and assigns.






	 	 	 	 	 
	 	                                                  /s/ Mark M. Jacobs
 	 
	 	Mark M. Jacobs 	 
	 	President and Chief Executive Officer
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4355    Filed: 10/21/19    Entered: 10/21/19 14:10:11    Page 1 of17

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4355    Filed: 10/21/19    Entered: 10/21/19 14:10:11    Page 2 of17

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4355    Filed: 10/21/19    Entered: 10/21/19 14:10:11    Page 3 of17

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4355    Filed: 10/21/19    Entered: 10/21/19 14:10:11    Page 4 of17

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4355    Filed: 10/21/19    Entered: 10/21/19 14:10:11    Page 5 of17

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4355    Filed: 10/21/19    Entered: 10/21/19 14:10:11    Page 6 of17

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4355    Filed: 10/21/19    Entered: 10/21/19 14:10:11    Page 7 of17

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4355    Filed: 10/21/19    Entered: 10/21/19 14:10:11    Page 8 of17

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4355    Filed: 10/21/19    Entered: 10/21/19 14:10:11    Page 9 of17

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4355    Filed: 10/21/19    Entered: 10/21/19 14:10:11    Page 10of 17

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4355    Filed: 10/21/19    Entered: 10/21/19 14:10:11    Page 11of 17

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4355    Filed: 10/21/19    Entered: 10/21/19 14:10:11    Page 12of 17

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4355    Filed: 10/21/19    Entered: 10/21/19 14:10:11    Page 13of 17

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4355    Filed: 10/21/19    Entered: 10/21/19 14:10:11    Page 14of 17

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4355    Filed: 10/21/19    Entered: 10/21/19 14:10:11    Page 15of 17

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4355    Filed: 10/21/19    Entered: 10/21/19 14:10:11    Page 16of 17

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4355    Filed: 10/21/19    Entered: 10/21/19 14:10:11    Page 17of 17
Morrow Promissory Note



 Exhibit 10.10 
 5/10/08 
 Good morning, Thomas. 
 Below is a note memorializing your short-term credit line extended to the Company. Please sign and date as indicated below. Thanks so much for your help! 
 PROMISSORY NOTE 
 This note evidences a provision of a line of credit of a maximum of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) for the benefit of Home
School, Inc, a Delaware ‘C’ Corporation from Thomas Morrow of Arlington Heights, IL. It is a short-term credit line of 90 days duration or less. 
 If the loan is repaid in a timely manner, no interest shall adhere. It the loan is still outstanding as of 12/31/08, it shall bear interest in cash at the rate of 1% per month from that date forward. 
 The debt shall be repaid with all due speed and no prepayment penalty shall adhere if Home School, Inc. repays it sooner than anticipated. 
 This debt is unsecured and confers no standing superior to other creditors. 
 Signed this day, May 10, 2008 
  

					
	 /s/ Thomas Morrow
	 		 	 /s/ Thomas Morrow

	Thomas Morrow, CEO Home School, Inc	 		 	Thomas Morrow
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5508 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5508

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate the marriage 
     penalty in the dollar limitation on the student loan interest 
                               deduction.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 17, 2014

   Mr. Pocan (for himself, Mrs. Davis of California, and Mr. Moran) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate the marriage 
     penalty in the dollar limitation on the student loan interest 
                               deduction.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Student Loan Interest Deduction 
Fairness Act''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN DOLLAR LIMITATION ON THE 
              STUDENT LOAN INTEREST DEDUCTION.

    (a) In General.--Section 221(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by striking ``shall not exceed'' and all that follows 
and inserting ``shall not exceed $2,500 (twice such amount in the case 
of a joint return)''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153-0119

EXHIBIT 1-B

North Bay Services

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4602-3 Filed: 11/07/19 Entered: 11/07/19 19:32:50 Page 1

of 8
06/27/2019

REDACTED VERSION OF THE PROPOSED REDACTED DOCUMENT

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4602-3 Filed: 11/07/19 Entered: 11/07/19 19:32:50 Page 2

of 8
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4602-3 Filed: 11/07/19 Entered: 11/07/19 19:32:50 Page 3

of 8
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4602-3 Filed: 11/07/19 Entered: 11/07/19 19:32:50 Page 4

of 8
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4602-3 Filed: 11/07/19 Entered: 11/07/19 19:32:50 Page 5

of 8
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4602-3 Filed: 11/07/19 Entered: 11/07/19 19:32:50 Page 6

of 8
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4602-3 Filed: 11/07/19 Entered: 11/07/19 19:32:50 Page 7

of 8
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4602-3 Filed: 11/07/19 Entered: 11/07/19 19:32:50 Page 8

of 8
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Beatrice C. Bauer, Conservatee. Herbert C. Silverman, Appellant; Eileen A. Curley et al., Respondents.

Submitted December 18, 1995;

decided February 15, 1996

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that portion of the Appellate Division order that affirmed the order awarding attorneys’ fees to the estate of Goidel, denied; motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the remainder of the Appellate Division order, dismissed upon the ground that the remaining portion of the order does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. Cross motion for the imposition of sanctions denied.