alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### J. Y. Hartford's Admr. *v.*J. N. Lewis.

Action — Pleading to — Too Late to Question Capacity to Sue.

It is too late to question the capacity of the plaintiff to sue after pleading to action.

APPEAL EROM SI-IELBY CIRCUIT COURT.

September 27, 1867.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Peters:

After an issue of fact had been formed by the pleadings, and submitted to a jury, the court came to the conclusion that the petition did not contain a statement of facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and therefore ordered a jury to be withdrawn and the petition dismissed, and the propriety of that ruling is called in question by this appeal.

Unaided by any brief or suggestion from counsel for appellee, we are to search for whatever defect we can discover in the petition, and after a patient consideration of the subject, we confess our inability to make the discovery. We conclude that there is a mere matter of conjecture, that the objection to the petition must be that appellant failed to allege where the intestate died, and to designate the particular court from which the grant of ‘ administration was obtained.

But if that be the objection, we think it is not well taken. The allegation that the payee of the note was dead, and that plaintiff was duly appointed and qualified as his administrator, implies that the court, granting him letters of administration, had the jurisdiction to make the grant, and also that it was prperly done. And if it were not so, he should have denied, it in his answer; but *71having pleaded to the action, it was too late to question appellant’s capacity to sue. Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Robert, *for appellant.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>                                                     1,000

<S>                                                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                     YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                                           1,643
<SECURITIES>                                                    78,871
<RECEIVABLES>                                                    1,187
<ALLOWANCES>                                                        52
<INVENTORY>                                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                82,498
<PP&E>                                                           2,321
<DEPRECIATION>                                                     519
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                  84,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                            2,348
<BONDS>                                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                0
<PREFERRED>                                                          0
<COMMON>                                                           213
<OTHER-SE>                                                      81,348
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                    84,300
<SALES>                                                          8,592
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                 8,841
<CGS>                                                            6,332
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                    6,536
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                13,062
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                  468
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                (10,400)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                            (10,400)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                      0
<CHANGES>                                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                                   (10,400)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                      (0.66)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    (0.66)



</TABLE>
#### *W.*E. Crowe *& Co. v.*H. C. Bruce & Co.

Bills and Notes — Action on Demand Draft — Abatement—Premature Suit-Demurrer.

In an action on a demand draft, where the answer avers that the time of payment by agreement between the drawer and drawee, had been extended some four months, it is error to sustain a demurrer to the answer.

Same.

Such a mistake, admitted or indisputably proved, would have entitled the defendants to an abatement of the answer, and as between drawer and drawee, an admissible defense.

APPEAL EBOM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT. C. P .

October 13, 1868.

Bruce *& Go.*filed their petition in the Daviess circuit court, seeking recovery on a bill of acceptance, drawn September 23, 1867, and accepted same day by Crowe & Co. Defendants demurrer being over-ruled, they answered alleging in bar of their action that Bruce *& Go.*agreed with them at the time of the acceptance of the bill, that they should have four months’ time in which to make payment, and left the acceptance with the Deposit Bank of Ownsboro for convenience of defendants, but that disregarding said agreement, the acceptance was placed in an attorney’s hands for suit, by said bank. Plaintiffs demurrer to said answer being sustained, and judgment rendered as prayed for, defendants appeal.

Opinion oe the Court B\r

Judge Robertson :

If, as averred in the answer, the order was drawn for payment of goods bought on a credit of four months and that, through inadvertance or mistake, the credit was omitted in the order and in the unqualified complaint on sight, the action was brought prematurely and the appellee was not entitled to interest. Such a mistake, if admitted or indisputably proved, would have entitled the appellant to an abatement of the action, and was, as between drawer and drawee, an admissible defense.

*601*Lindsey, for appellants.*

*Weir, for appellees.*

The circuit court therefore erred in sustaining the demurrer to the answer and thereupon rendering judgment for principal and interest.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Lillian Gipson","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/lillian-gipson-1nasa-gov\/","title":"NASA Research to Help Mitigate Risks Around Airports","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"zjxpK2Oo81\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/armd\/aosp\/sws\/nasa-research-to-help-mitigate-risks-around-airports\/\">NASA Research to Help Mitigate Risks Around Airports<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/armd\/aosp\/sws\/nasa-research-to-help-mitigate-risks-around-airports\/embed\/#?secret=zjxpK2Oo81\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Research to Help Mitigate Risks Around Airports” — NASA\" data-secret=\"zjxpK2Oo81\" 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\/sws-nasa-research-to-help-mitigate-risks-around-airports.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":364}
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 32.02

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                              UNDER 18 U.S.C. 1350
                             PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of PLATO Learning, Inc.
(the "Company") for the period ended January 31, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Laurence L. Betterley, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
my knowledge:

      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.

Date: March 13, 2006          /s/ LAURENCE L. BETTERLEY
                              -------------------------------------------------
                              Laurence L. Betterley
                              Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF NORTHWEST BANCORPORATION, INC. AS OF AND FOR THE SIX
MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           7,904
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              78
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 3,961
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     34,654
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             425
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               424
<LOANS>                                        114,358
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,597
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 167,426
<DEPOSITS>                                     132,010
<SHORT-TERM>                                    16,829
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,074
<LONG-TERM>                                      4,521
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,842
<OTHER-SE>                                         150
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  12,992
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  5,458
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,144
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   172
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 6,774
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,277
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,945
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,829
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      270
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,911
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    565
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         565
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       377
<EPS-BASIC>                                      $0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.24
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.34
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,628
<LOANS-PAST>                                       210
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   258
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  1,634
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,480
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      179
<RECOVERIES>                                        26
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,597
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,597
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Dacia Massengill","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/daciamassengill-2\/","title":"NASA\u2019s Boeing Starliner-1","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"u3HmoVvojM\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/event\/nasas-boeing-starliner-1-2\/\">NASA\u2019s Boeing Starliner-1<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/event\/nasas-boeing-starliner-1-2\/embed\/#?secret=u3HmoVvojM\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA\u2019s Boeing Starliner-1” — NASA\" data-secret=\"u3HmoVvojM\" 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\/12\/boeings-starliner-crew-ship-approaches-the-space-station-52096388014-o.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":337}
#### M. G. Carter *v.*S. Eiforh.

New Trial — Newly Discovered Testimony — Affidavits.

On an application for a new trial, based on the grounds of newly discovered evidence, where not sustained by the affidavits of others than the appellant, the court is not authorized to grant a new trial on that ground alone.

APPEAL PROM GARTER CIRCUIT COURT.

July 4, 1867.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Hardin :

The fact that Ghent, one of the jury, was one of the command of which the appellee was acting as Colonel at the time the mnle is alleged to have been taken from the appellant was not, in our opinion, a sufficient reason for granting a new trial, and as the application for a new trial, so far as it was based on the ground of newly discovered testimony, material for the appellant was not sustained by the affidavits of others than the appellant, the court was mot authorized to grant a new trial on that ground.

. The instructions are not copied in the record, and there is nothing before us to show that the court restricted the jury. As it was the province of the jury to decide upon the facts of the case, and the evidence does not seem to so preponderate against the verdict as to show the jury to have, been controlled by passion or prejudice, we do not feel authorized to disturb their verdict, on the ground that it was not sustained by the evidence.

Wherefore, perceiving no reasonable error in the judgment, the same is affirmed.
#### THOMAS DEL SORDI v. CITY OF NEWARK v. COUNTY OF ESSEX.

May 16, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2324 

To extend the deadline on the use of technology standards for the passports 

of visa waiver participants. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 20, 2004 

Mr. CHAMBLISS (for himself, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. HATCH, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. 

INOUYE, Mr. GREGG, Mr. GRAHAM of Florida, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. AKAKA, 

Mr. HAGEL, Mr. SUNUNU, Mr. TALENT, Mr. ALLEN, and Mr. 

BROWNBACK) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To extend the deadline on the use of technology standards 

for the passports of visa waiver participants. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Visa Waiver Program 

5 Compliance Amendments of 2004’’. 
2 

•S 2324 IS 

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR USE OF TECH2 NOLOGY STANDARD. 

3 Section 303(c)(2) of the Enhanced Border Security 

4 and Visa Entry Reform Act (8 U.S.C. 1732(c)(2)) is 

5 amended to read as follows: 

6 ‘‘(2) USE OF TECHNOLOGY STANDARD.—On 

7 and after November 30, 2006, any alien applying for 

8 admission under the visa waiver program established 

9 in accordance with section 217 of the Immigration 

10 and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1187) shall present a 

11 passport that meets the requirements of paragraph 

12 (1), unless the alien’s passport was issued prior to 

13 that date.’’. 

14 SEC. 3. CHANGE TO REQUIREMENT FOR READERS AND 

15 SCANNERS AT PORTS OF ENTRY. 

16 Section 303(b)(2)(A) of the Enhanced Border Secu17 rity and Visa Entry Reform Act (8 U.S.C. 1732(b)(2)(A)) 

18 is amended to read as follows: 

19 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than Octo20 ber 26, 2004, the Secretary of Homeland Secu21 rity, in consultation with the Secretary of State, 

22 shall install at all ports of entry of the United 

23 States, equipment and software to allow biomet24 ric comparison and authentication of all United 

25 States visas and other travel and entry docu26 ments issued to aliens. Not later than Novem-
3 

•S 2324 IS 

1 ber 30, 2006, the Secretary of Homeland Secu2 rity, in consultation with the Secretary of State, 

3 shall install at all ports of entry of the United 

4 States, equipment and software to allow biomet5 ric comparison and authentication of passports 

6 issued pursuant to subsection (c)(1).’’. 

7 SEC. 4. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS. 

8 Section 303 of the Enhanced Border Security and 

9 Visa Entry Reform Act (8 U.S.C. 1732) is amended by 

10 striking ‘‘Attorney General’’ each place that term appears 

11 and inserting ‘‘Secretary of Homeland Security’’. 

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James M. Carpenter,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03760-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: December 8, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

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

Printed name and bar number

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) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9308 Filed 12/13/17 Page 1 of 1
#### SHELL OIL COMPANY v. DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TAXATION.

June 12, 1984.

Cross-petition for certification denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2384 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2384

 To amend the Small Business Act to permit business concerns that are 
   owned by venture capital operating companies or pension plans to 
     participate in the Small Business Innovation Research Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 5, 2004

   Mr. Bond (for himself, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. Kennedy) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                  Small Business and Entrepreneurship

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Small Business Act to permit business concerns that are 
   owned by venture capital operating companies or pension plans to 
     participate in the Small Business Innovation Research Program.

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

SECTION 1. SBIR AWARDS TO BUSINESS CONCERNS OWNED BY VENTURE CAPITAL 
              OPERATING COMPANIES OR EMPLOYEE BENEFIT OR PENSION PLANS.

    (a) In General.--Section 9(f) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
638(f)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(4) Eligibility.--A business concern shall not be 
        prevented from participating in the Small Business Innovation 
        Research Program solely because such business concern is owned 
        in part by--
                    ``(A) a venture capital operating company that is 
                managed and controlled by 1 or more United States 
                citizens or permanent resident aliens; or
                    ``(B) an employee benefit or pension plan.''.
    (b) Rulemaking Authority.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Small Business 
Administration shall issue regulations to--
            (1) carry out the amendment made by subsection (a);
            (2) ensure that a Small Business Innovation Research award 
        is not given to a business concern that is majority owned by--
                    (A) another business concern that is ineligible to 
                participate in the Small Business Innovation Research 
                Program; or
                    (B) a venture capital operating company or an 
                employee benefit or pension plan that is the alter ego, 
                instrumentality, or identity of another business 
                concern that is ineligible to participate in the Small 
                Business Innovation Research Program.
                                 <all>
```