alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Julia A. Tevis *v.*Ellison & Co.

Parent and Child — Insolvent Father May Provide Reasonable Education and Maintenance for a Minor Child — Attachment.

Conceding that an insolvent parent may provide reasonable education and maintenance for his minor children, according to their station in life, and that money advanced for such purpose could not be attached by his creditor, *held,*that the amount set apart by Clark for the education and maintenance of his daughters was unreasonable and wholly incompatible with the rights of his creditors, under the circumstances connected with this ease.

APPEAL FROM CLARKE CIRCUIT COURT.

February 16, 1867.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Williams :

Conceding that an insolvent parent would have the right to provide reasonable education and maintenance for his minor children according to their situation in life, and that money advanced for such purpose could not be attached by his creditors, yet we think the judgment right in this case, because the placing in Mrs. Tevis’ hands $1,000 in cash to pay for the board, tuition, and clothing of his two minor daughters by Clark, when there were executions against him returned no property found, and at a time when he contemplated going into the southern army, and when his said daughters had already been at this select school for two years, is wholly incompatible with the rights of creditors, is an unreasonable provision for his said daughters regarding the means and position in society of the father, and was an advance far beyond the requirements of the school, as the terms only required six months’ payment in advance for board. and tuition. Mrs. Tevis and the witness both say the money was paid to her to keep the girls, board and teach, and furnish them with clothing until it should be exhausted, and not for any definite time, for as the amount of clothing could not be ascertained but was wholly uncertain, no definite time could be fixed, and this we think fixes the true character of the transaction and left it, so far as Clark’s creditors were concerned, precisely as if deposited *540in some one else’s hands for the purpose of paying the board, tuition, and clothing of these children.

*Smith,*for Appellant.

Simpson, for Appellees.

At the time the fund was attached only $265 had been expended, consequently the appropriation to pay appellee’s debt of less than $200 would still leave a large surplus in her hands, and when it was exhausted she was bound no longer to board, teach, or furnish clothing for the young ladies. Judgment affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Charlene Carl, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc., 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC 

Civil Action No. CV-17-03464-PHX-DGC 

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS 

To: Freese & Goss PLLC - Birmingham, AL 

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff) 

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you. 

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case. 

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service. 

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 10/26/2017, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent. 

Date: November 6, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr. 

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party 

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons 

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599) 

Printed Name 

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP 

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363 

Address 

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com 

E-mail Address 

(404) 322-6155 

Telephone number 

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8623 Filed 11/06/17 Page 1 of 2
2

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8623 Filed 11/06/17 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

WILLIAM MCGHEE, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

ANDREW SWEENEY; MIKE 

SANCHEZ; NATHAN HURWITZ; 

CAROL SAUR, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

No. 14-2205 

(D.C. No. 1:11-CV-00640-JCJ-WPL) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER

_________________________________ 

The captioned appeal is dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to 10th Cir. R. 

42.1. 

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of this court. 

Entered for the Court 

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

February 11, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 14-2205 Document: 01019383929 Date Filed: 02/11/2015 Page: 1
#### A. G. Kelley, admr. of Walls et al *v.*W. B. Craddock.

Judgment of Sale — Death of Defendant — Revivor.

After a judgment, ordering a sale of land and before the sale had taken place, the defendant died, nothwithstanding which and without a revivor, the commisioner proceeded with the sale and same was confirmed. Held, that the sale and confirmation were nullities, as there were .no parties before the court; it was as requisite to revive as though no judgment had been rendered.

APPEAL EBOM HART CIRCUIT COURT.

June 26, 1868.

*296
      *Barrett*& Edwards, *for appellant.*

Underwood, *for appellee.*

Opinion oe tiie Court by

Judge Williams:

After a judgment ordering a sale of W. E. Walls’ land to pay appellee’s debt, and before tbe sale said W. E. Walls died, notwithstanding which, and without any revivor against his heirs or personal representative, the commissioner proceeded with' the sale, which the court confirmed.

On a motion for a writ of possession, the widow and heirs and administrator object and present the above facts, but still the court ordered the writ. The sale and the confirmation were nullities, as there were no parties before the court; it was as requisite to revive as though no judgment had been rendered. The judgment allowing the writ of possession and orders confirming the sale are reversed, and the court directed to set aside the sale and cancel the commissioners deed, with leave to the parties for such further proceedings as may be necessary to revive the judgment.
#### 34-35 Corporation, Appellant, v Industry City Associates et al., Respondents.

[787 NYS2d 670]

In an action to recover for damage to property, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), entered April 1, 2003, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants and against it, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The plaintiffs contention that the Supreme Court’s instructions to the jury violated the terms of a stipulation previously placed on the record by the parties in open court is unpreserved for appellate review, since the plaintiff failed to object to the charge as given *(see generally Harris v Armstrong,*64 NY2d 700 [1984]; *Rock v City of New York,*294 AD2d 480 [2002]; *Musmacker v Garwood,*51 AD2d 1006 [1976]).

In any event, the plaintiff’s contention is without merit. Considering the record as a whole, and given the conduct of the plaintiffs counsel throughout the entire trial *(see Argento v Argento,*304 AD2d 684 [2003]; *Nishman v De Marco,*76 AD2d 360, 366 [1980]), it is clear that the trial court and counsel for all of the parties interpreted the stipulation to mean that the plaintiff’s potential recovery would be fixed at $125,000, but that the plaintiff would still be obligated to prove negligence on the part of the defendants as a prerequisite to that recovery *(see generally Mandia v King Lbr. & Plywood Co.,*179 AD2d 150, 158 [1992]; *Nishman v De Marco, supra).*Accordingly, the trial court’s submission of the negligence issue to the jury did not violate the terms of the stipulation. Smith, J.P., Crane, Mastro and Skelos, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS’ REPORT

 

Stockholders and the Board of Directors 

FC Banc Corp. 

 

We have reviewed theaccompanying consolidated balance sheet of FC Banc Corp. (the “Company”) and subsidiary as of September 30, 2003, and the related consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income for the three and nine-month periods endedSeptember 30, 2003 and 2002, the consolidated statement of changes in shareholders’ equity for the nine months ended September 30, 2003, and the consolidated statement of cash flows for the nine months ended September 30, 2003 and 2002. Thesefinancial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. 

 

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial dataand making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, the objective ofwhich is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. 

 

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the accompanying financial statements for them to be in conformity withaccounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. 

 

Wehave previously audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2002, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes instockholders’ equity, and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein), and in our report dated January 10, 2003, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements. 

 

 

28
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JAMES CRISPIN.

June 19, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1



                   PEDIATRIC SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC. BOARD
                APPROVES NIERENBERG REQUEST TO WAIVE POISON PILL


     Norcross, Georgia - December 21, 2000 - Pediatric Services of America, Inc.
(OTCBB:PSAI) announced that its Board of Directors has approved an Amendment to
its Rights Agreement which allows the D3 Family Fund, LP, David Nierenberg and
Affiliates (collectively referred to herein as "The Group"), to purchase up to
20% of the Company.  In consideration, The Group has signed a Standstill
Agreement wherein they agree not to seek additional ownership of the Company
either directly or indirectly for a two year period and to abide by certain
criteria for orderly disposition of acquired stock of PSAI.

     PSAI provides a broad range of pediatric health care services and equipment
through a network of 100 branch offices in 22 states.



NOTE: Forward looking statements made in this release involve a number of risks
and uncertainties, including, but not limited to changes in government
regulation and health care reforms, ability to execute on the Company's
strategic programs, changing economic and market conditions and other risk
factors detailed in the Company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings.


                 Contact:  Pediatric Services of America, Inc.
                           Joseph D. Sansone President/CEO
                                       or
                           James M. McNeill, Sr. Vice President/CFO
                                    (770) 441-1580

                                      25
**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**

|         |                                                                                   |                            |
|--------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|
|    |                                                                              |                       |
|         |                                                                                   | /s/              Craig L. Levra |
|         | Chairman              of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and              President |
|         |                                                                                   |
|         |                                                                |                                |
|--------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
|    |                                                           |                           |
|         |                                                                | /s/              Howard K. Kaminsky |
|         | Executive              Vice President-Finance,                      |
|         | Chief                Financial Officer and                Secretary |

----
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ANTHONY DE VINGO.

September 5, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 214 (Friday, November 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68353-68354]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27955]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-1886-000]


Pilgrim Stage Station Wind Park, LLC; Supplemental Notice That 
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 
204 Authorization

October 28, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Pilgrim Stage Station Wind Park, LLC's application for market-based 
rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is November 18, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a

[[Page 68354]]

document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any 
FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a4e2e1f6e7ebcac8cdcac1f7d1d4d4cbd6d0e4c2c1d6c78ac3cbd2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bcfaf9eefff3d2d0d5d2d9efc9ccccd3cec8fcdad9cedf92dbd3ca">[email protected]</span></a> or call 
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-27955 Filed 11-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### C. D. Jackson & Gillispie *v.*Thomas Shackelford.

■Lien — Vendetioni Exponas — Writs Of — Evidence of Legal Levy.

When the appellants, in the court below, fail to produce or require the appellee to file all the executions which had been issued, the presumption of an execution lien arising from the undenied allegation and proof that writs Vendetioni Exponas had been issued to sell the land, must be held to be sufficient evidence of a legal levy on it which operated as a lien.

Subrogation — Discharge of Lien of Creditors.

The payment to creditors of the amount of a lien on land, by advancements for the judgment debtor, entitles the person making such advances to subrogation to the li<?n of the creditors to the amount of the debts thus satisfied.

APPEAL EBOM MALEAN CIRCUIT COUBT.

January 20, 1868.

Owen^ *for appellant.*

Opinion of the Ooubt by

Judge Kobebtson :

As writs of Yen. Ex. could not bave been legally issued for selling Johnson’s land unless it had been previously levied upon under fifia, the legal presumption, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, must be that there had been such levy.

The appellants having -failed to produce or require the appellee to file all the executions which had been issued, the presumption of an execution lien arising from the undenied allegation and proof that writs of Ven. Ex. had been issued to sell the land, must be held to be-sufficient evidence of a legal levy on it which operated as a lien; and that lien is not shown to have been waived or lost. As the allegations and evidence sufficiently show that the appellee by advancing for Johnson about $700, discharged, as sheriff, all the execution debts except a small remnant still unpaid on the executions of the appellant he is entitled to subrogation to the lien of the creditors whose debts he thus satisfied.

The land was sold for the appellant’s legally subject to that lien; and, being sold for more than was due and for only a small portion of it’s value, the appellee, as substituted lien holder, had a right to have the sale set aside.

We perceive no essential error in the decree vacating the sale, nor in any other respect.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"On the Fly: NASA Researchers Map Air Taxi Maneuvers in Simulator","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"nGcHzl1mlM\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/armstrong\/on-the-fly-nasa-researchers-map-air-taxi-maneuvers-in-simulator-2\/\">On the Fly: NASA Researchers Map Air Taxi Maneuvers in Simulator<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/armstrong\/on-the-fly-nasa-researchers-map-air-taxi-maneuvers-in-simulator-2\/embed\/#?secret=nGcHzl1mlM\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“On the Fly: NASA Researchers Map Air Taxi Maneuvers in Simulator” — NASA\" data-secret=\"nGcHzl1mlM\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/04170_nasa_research_pilots_working_with_flight_path_deproaches_on_the_joby_s4_simulator.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":445}