alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Bush, etc. *v.*Walters et al.

[No. 19,812.

Filed October 16, 1963.]

*Robert B. Railing,*of Scottsburg, for appellant.

*Eugene L. Cooper*and *Cooper, Cooper, Cooper & Cox,*of Madison, for appellees.

Ryan, J.

— The appellee Stella Walters instituted this action against the estate of Harvey J. Zearing to re*246cover for work and services performed. Trial was had by the court and judgment was rendered in favor of the appellee, Stella Walters. The appellant Ruth Z. Bush, daughter of the decedent, Harvey J. Zearing, had defended the action and upon the rendering of the judgment filed her motion for a new trial which contained the specifications of error in the assessment of the recovery in that it was too large, and that the finding and decision of the court was not sustained by sufficient evidence and was contrary to law.

Appellant’s brief fails to argue the question as to the amount of recovery, and therefore that error is waived.

Appellant now contends that the court below did not have jurisdiction of the parties or of the subject matter. However, the brief fails to support this contention with any cogent argument, and we are at a loss as to what point appellant attempts to raise by such argument.

Appellant further contends that we had this same cause before us in the case of *Zearing*v. *Walters*(1954), which is reported in 125 Ind. App. 202, 122 N. E. 2d 625, and in which we reversed a judgment of the Scott Circuit Court. The appellant submits that the facts in this case are the same facts as were presented in the above cited case, and therefore we should reverse the judgment.

In *Zearing*v. *Walters, supra,*this court had held that the presumption of a contract which the law ordinarily implies in a situation such as this, was wholly overcome by the undisputed facts. However, the record before us indicates that the appellee Stella Walters testified that she expected to be paid, and one Francis Zearing testified that his father, Harvey J. Zearing, now *247deceased, had stated that she, meaning Stella Walters, is going to get paid for her services.

This court in the recent case of *In re Hutchinson’s Estate*(1963), 135 Ind. App. 137, 191 N. E. 2d 46, quoted with approval the rule as stated in *First Bank & Trust Company, etc., Executor, etc.*v. *Tellson*(1954), 124 Ind. App. 478, on page 487, 118 N. E. 2d 496, on page 500:

> “. . . Our courts have held on numerous occasions that, although the elements of intention to pay on the one hand and expectation of compensation on the other must be found to exist, *such elements, like other ultimate facts, may be inferred from the relation and situation of the parties, the nature and, character of the services rendered, and any other facts and circumstances which may reasonably be said*to throw light upon the question. . . .”

> (Emphasis supplied)

The trial court, being fully aware of the former opinion, *Zearing*v. *Walters, supra,*was also presented with a different factual situation and properly arrived at the conclusion reached.

Judgment affirmed.

Clements and Cooper, JJ., concur.

Carson, P. J., not participating.

Note. — Reported in 193 N. E. 2d 140.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 21, 2018

a1114

Order 

Clerk

November 21, 2018

157481

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 157481

COA: 336745

Wayne CC: 16-002137-FC

DAYQUAN MARTELL JACKSON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 15, 2018 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
585 A.2d 402

#### COUNTY OF MONMOUTH v. WILLIAM A. KOHL.

October 16, 1990.

Petition for certification denied. (See 242 *N.J.Super.*210, 576 A.2d 323)
Exhibit 31.3

CERTIFICATIONS

I, William B. Cyr, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Freshpet, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2018; and

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

Date: April 30, 2019

/s/ William B. Cyr              _

William B. Cyr

Chief Executive Officer
585 A.2d 409

#### ZENOBIO AGUIRRE v. DOMINICK A. SCIALABBA, M.D.

October 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 10.7


 





 


 


 


December
10, 2019


 


Ms.
Debra Bass


168
Monroe Avenue


Belle Mead, NJ 08502


USA


 


 


Dear
Debra,


 


Re:
Amendment to Employment Agreement


 


We
are writing to you in connection with that certain Employment Agreement executed by you and Nuvo- Group USA, Inc. on February 8, 2018,
as supplemented on March 29, 2018 (the “Employment Agreement”).


 


The
purpose of this letter is to amend certain provisions contained in the Employment Agreement as stated below.


 


Unless
otherwise stated herein, capitalized terms shall have the meaning attributed to them in the Employment Agreement.


 


		1.	In
section 4(d) of the Employment Agreement, the words, “with an exercise price of USD$6.427/per ordinary share” will be replaced
by the words “with an exercise price of USD$6.84/per ordinary share”.



 


		2.	This
amendment shall be effective as of the date of the Employment Agreement (the “Effective Date”),



 


		3.	The
grant of options to you of October 7, 2018 shall be amended in accordance with the aforesaid.



 


		4.	You
agree to sign an amendment to the Options Agreement and Notice of Grant reflecting the aforesaid.



 


		5.	All
other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement not amended herein shall remain unchanged and in full effect.



 


Your
signature below shall constitute your binding agreement to the amendments set forth above in respect of your Employment Agreement.


 





	 	Sincerely,
	 	 
	 	/s/ Oren Oz
	 	Oren Oz
	 	Chief
Executive Officer
	 	Nuvo-Group USA, Inc.



 





	Acknowledged
and agreed as of the date set forth above:	 
	 	 
	/s/ Debra Bass	 
	Signature	 
	Debra Bass
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7336
JAMES D. HABURN, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOEL BREWER, District Attorney; DETECTIVE RAGAN; DETECTIVE PERKINS, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge. (CA-93-317-1) Submitted: November 30, 1995 Decided: January 2, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James D. Haburn, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Jacob Leonard Safron, Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; James Anthony Penry, WYRICK, ROBBINS, YATES & PONTON, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. Haburn v. Brewer , No. CA-93-317-1 (M.D.N.C. July 31, 1995). We agree that, with respect to Appellant's damages claim, the district court properly dismissed that claim. See Heck v. Humphrey, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 62 U.S.L.W. 4594, 4597 (U.S. June 24, 1994) (No. 93-6188). Further, although the district court did not address Appellant's request for declaratory and injunctive relief, to the extent that this action is properly construed as a habeas corpus action,Appellant must demonstrate that he has exhausted state court remedies. See Preiser v. Rodriguez , 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973); Hamlin v. Warren , 664 F.2d 29 (4th Cir. 1981), cert. denied , 455 U.S. 911 (1982). Because Appellant may refile his action if his conviction ever is overturned or called into question by the appropriate court or upon the exhaustion of state remedies, we modify the judgment to be a dismissal without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (1988). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7468
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL JAMES RHOAD, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. El lis, III, District Judge. (CR-91-490-A, CA-95-1008-AM) Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: February 5, 1997 Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Michael James Rhoad, Appellant Pro Se. Nash Whitney Schott, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no revers ible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Rhoad , Nos. CR-91-490-A; CA-95-1008-AM (E.D. Va. June 20, 1996). Because this appeal presents no complex issues, we deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Opinion filed July 11 , 201 9



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

______ _ ___ No. 11

- 1 9

- 00 00 3

- C V

__________ IN THE INTEREST OF A.L.H., A CHILD

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Brown County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. CV1411455

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N In this appeal from an order affecting the parent

– child relationship, 1 two notices of appeal were filed: one by A.S. and one by the cross

- appellant, J.R.H., II. Attorney Shane Britton represent s Cross

- Appellant in this appeal. Cross

Appellant ’s brief was originally due to be filed in this court on or before May 3, 2019

. On May 9, 201 9 , this court notified Britton by letter that his brief was past due , and on this court’s own motion, we extended the deadline to May 20 , 201 9

. In the May 9 letter, the clerk of this court informed Britton that compliance with this

1 We note that the trial court’s order does not involve the termination of parental rights.2

court’s deadlines is a serious matter. When Britton failed to respon d to this court’s letter and failed to file a brief by May 20, this court again wrote Britton, extended the due date to June 7, and informed Britton that the failure to file a brief by the deadline may result in dismissal of Cross

- Appellant’s appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). On June 13, after again receiving no brief or any other response from Britton, this court directed Britton to either (1) file a brief by 5:00 p.m. on July 2, 2019, or (2) appear in person in the courtroom of the Eleven th Court of Appeals on July 3, 2019, at 10:30 a.m. to explain the delay in the preparation of Cross

- Appellant’s brief. Britton failed to comply with this court’s directive. A hearing was conducted in this court on July 3, 2019, at 10:30 a.m., in Britton’s absence. During the hearing, the court noted Britton’s absence, his failure to file a brief, and this court’s prerogative under Rule 38.8(a)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. That rule provides: “If an appellant fails to timely file a brief, the appellate court may . . . dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, unless the appellant reasonably explains the failure . . . .” T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1). In open court, the Eleventh Court of Appeals announced its ruling that the cross

- appeal filed by J.R.H., II shall be dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8 (a)(1) , 42.3 (b)

. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal in part. The cross

- appeal filed by J.R.H., II is dismissed for want of prosecution

. The appeal remains active with respect to the notice of appeal filed by Appellant A.S.

July 11, 2019 PER CURIAM Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Stretcher , J. , and Wright, S.C.J. 2 ( Willson, J., not participating. )

2 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11 th District of Texas at Eastland , sitting by assignment.
585 A.2d 371

#### IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS OF VIOLATIONS OF LAW AND ADMINISTRATIVE CODE BY FIORILLO BROS. OF N.J. INC., TRI-COMPACTION SALES, INC., ET AL.

September 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied. (See 242 *N.J.Super.*667, 577 A.2d 1316.)
584 A.2d 219

#### NEW JERSEY BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND CHARLES SERRAINO, ETC. ET AL.

May 15, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT JASON BEAM AND HIS WIFE, KRISTIE BEAM, Respondents

v. THIELE MANUFACTURING, LLC, FORMERLY KNOWN AS THIELE INC., FORMERLY KNOWN AS TYT HOLDING, INC., Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 206 WAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER
PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 18th day of September, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED

.
584 A.2d 214

#### ELLIOT A. BAINES, JR. v. WEICHERT REALTORS AND ROBERT CARPENTER, ET AL.

May 15, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 35.7



|     |  |  |  |                                                                                                                        
|---- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  |  |  | Corporate Trust Services 
MAC R1204-010 9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045 
Tel: 410 884 2000 Fax: 410 715 2380
|     | 
|     | 
|     | 
|     | 

Citibank, N.A.

388 Greenwich
Street

14th Floor

New York, New York 10013



|    |  |                                                                                                                                         
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|RE: |  | Annual Statement of Compliance for GS Mortgage Securities Corporation II Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2014-GC22

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of June 1, 2014 (the Agreement), the undersigned, a duly
authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator (Wells Fargo), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the Reporting Period):

(a) A review of Wells Fargos activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such
officers supervision; and

(b) To the best of such officers knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of
its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

March 1, 2016



|              
|--------------
|LOGO          
|BRIAN SMITH   
|Vice President



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO
### THEA~TORNEY GENERAL OFTEX~~

'I*ILLWILSON AlTORNEY GICNERAI. July 15, 1958

Colonel Homer Garrison, Jr. OpinionNo. WW 

### 476 Director Texas Departmentof Public Safety Re: Jurisdiction of 5805 N. Lamar Blvd. road Commission

- Railand Aust.lri,

'l'exas Department of Public Safety over Motor Carrier and Motor Bus OperationsBetween Contiguous Incorporated Dear Colonel Garrison: Cities.

Your request for a clarification of Attorney General's Opinion No. 

### ~~-328, which related to the Railroad Commission's jurisdictionover motor carrier and motor bus operations over the Dallas-FortWorth Turnpike, and inwhich you request our opinion on the following questions: 1.

2. IsArt. 1690b,Vernon's Penal Code, vlolatedby an uncertificated carrier hauling for hire who traversesa highway between incorporatedcities or towns when the operation remains totally within corporate limits so that at no time Is the vehicle upon a highway in an unincorporated area? Is your answer to No. 1 above the same for the Dallas-FortWorth TurnpIke as it is for other highways of Texas? has been received.

In Opinion

### w-328, we distinguishedbetween motor carrier operations and motor bus operations, and we held that any motor carrier transportingproperty for hlre over the highways of this State between or through two or more incorporatedcities was subject to regulation.

While OpinionNo.

### ww-328was in answer to questions concerning operations over the Fort Worth-DallasTurnpike, the conclusions of law set forth in such Opinion wouldColonelHomer Garrison, Jr., page 2 (WW-476)

to other highways in the State of Texas, and we are OS tne opinion that there is nothing in the Motor CarrierAct, Article glib, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, as amended, which gives effect to the doctrine of contiguous municipalities so as to exeinptfrom regulation a carrier operating over the highways from one city.to another, even though such carrierat no time operates over a highway outside of the incorporatedlimits of incorporatedcities and towns. be applicable

^ .

All inter-citymotor carrier operations over the public highways of this State are subject to regulationby the Railroad Commission of Texas.
SUMMARY 1. Article 1690b,Vernon's Penal Code, is violated by an uncertlficatedcarrierhauling for hire who traversesa highway between incorporated cities or towns, even though the operation remains totallywithin corporate limits, so that at no time lathe vehicleupon a highway in an unincorporatedarea. 2. Our answer to No.1 above is the same for the Dallas-FortWorth Turnpike as it is for other highways iii Texas. Yours very truly, WILL WILSON Attorney Gener

orney General

AssistantAttorney Generalr

_ .-

APPROVED:

OPINION COSIMITTEE: Geo. P. Blnckburn, Chairman Ralph Rash &lley Eugene Fletcher W.O. Schulz II REVILG'ED

FOR THX ATTORNEY (XENERAI, BY: W.V. Ceppert
585 A.2d 343

#### ANN DANIEL v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.

July 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied. (See 239 *N.J.Super.*563, 571 A.2d 1329)
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Kerry MYERS.

No. 2010-KP-0770.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 29, 2010.

In re Myers, Kerry; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 87-3280; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Nos. 08-WR-902, 09-KH-345.

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                      11,732,219
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               600,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  4,817,020
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      11,748,647
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        11,527,065
<LOANS>                                     52,023,261
<ALLOWANCE>                                    830,151
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              84,896,712
<DEPOSITS>                                  76,439,224
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,477,507
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,097,111
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,882,870
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              84,896,712
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              1,283,893
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              225,015
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                24,783
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             1,533,691
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             471,801
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             507,110
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,026,581
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   60,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             (8,594)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,392,596
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                410,417
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     253,850
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   253,850
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .35
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.64
<LOANS-NON>                                    802,348
<LOANS-PAST>                                    85,275
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               505,039
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  4,301
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               771,925
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    6,205
<RECOVERIES>                                     4,431
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              830,151
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        830,151
        

</TABLE>
585 A.2d 374

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. VINCENT RUSSO.

September 18, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.