alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Grove *v.*Brandenburg.

*Monday, July*29.

*A.*cannot sustain a suit against *B.*for procuring another to sue him, *A.,*unless the suit against *A.*was without cause.

A witness is not liable to a suit for evidence given by him in a cause.

ERROR to the *Union*Circuit Court.

Blackford, J.

— Trespass on the case. The declaration contains two counts. The first count is to the following effect: That the defendant wickedly intending to injure the plaintiff, &c., on, &c., falsely and maliciously informed one *Archibald*Estep, that the plaintiff had said that he, Estep, was a horsethief; that, by means thereof, the defendant did then and there, wickedly and maliciously, procure *Estep*to prosecute the plaintiff in slander for the supposed speaking of said words ; that, afterwards, when said action came on to be tried, the defendant, with the intent aforesaid, procured himself to be examined as a witness, and did then and there falsely, corruptly, and maliciously, swear on the trial that the plaintiff had spoken the said slanderous words as aforesaid ; that by means of said action and perjury, *Estep*obtained a verdict and judgment against the plaintiff; and that the plaintiff had therefore to expend a large sum of money, &c. The second count is similar to the first, except that it does not charge the defendant with having been a witness in the suit by *Estep*against the plaintiff, nor state what was the result of the trial in that suit.

General demurrer to the declaration, and judgment for the defendant.

Both counts in this case charge the defendant with falsely *235and maliciously procuring *Estep*to sue the plaintiff in an action of slander ; and the first count also charges the defend- _ ant with perjury, in swearing as a witness on the trial of that suit that the plaintiff had spoken the slanderous words.

*J. B.*Sleeth, for the plaintiff.

*C. H. Test*and *J. S.*Reid, for the defendant.

The law is said to be, that if one procures another to sue me *without*cause, an action lies not against him who sued without cause ; but that for this falsity in procuring my vexation an action well lies. *Perren*v. Bud, Cro. Eliz. 793. *Savil v.*Roberts, i Salk. 13. It must be observed that the suit for vexation, &c., cannot be sustained, unless there was no cause for the action which was procured to be instituted. In the present case, the first count is bad, because it shows, by the verdict and judgment set out, that there was a good ground for *Estep’s*action; and the second is bad for not alleging the failure of that action.

The charge of perjury against the defendant in giving tes-' timony, &c., alleged in the first count, does not aid the plaintiff. See *Nelson*v. *Robe,*6 Blackf. 204, and *note.*—Harding v. Bodman, Hutton, 11.

*Per Curiam.*

— ‘The judgment is affirmed with costs.
{"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":"Planes para vertipuertos","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"3eftVzim9y\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/es\/planes-para-vertipuertos\/\">Planes para vertipuertos<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/es\/planes-para-vertipuertos\/embed\/#?secret=3eftVzim9y\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Planes para vertipuertos” — NASA\" data-secret=\"3eftVzim9y\" 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\/2022\/04\/vertiport_new_image.jpeg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":336}
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN RE BARD IVC FILTERS CASE NO. MD-15-02641-PHX-DGC 

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL 2641

_______________________________________ 

This Document Relates to Plaintiff,

Luis Campana

Case No. 2:17-cv-01736-DGC

_______________________________________ 

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

COMES NOW attorney, Brian S. Katz, of the Flint Law Firm, LLC, and enters his 

appearance on behalf of the Plaintiff(s) in the above referenced action. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

FLINT LAW FIRM LLC 

/s/ Brian S. Katz

Brian S. Katz, KY Bar No. 86633 

FLINT LAW FIRM, LLC 

2226 Broadway, Suite 1 

Post Office Box 2903 

Paducah, Kentucky 42002-2903 

Phone: (270) 575-3939 

Fax: (270) 575-3936 

bkatz@flintfirm.com 

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8360 Filed 10/23/17 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Amanda D. Holloway,

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-17-03697-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: November 27, 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 8924 Filed 11/29/17 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>




                                CREDIT AGREEMENT

         This Agreement is made this 29th day of December, 1998, by and
between Rackspace, Ltd., a Texas limited partnership ("Borrower") and Exeter
Financial, LC, a Texas limited liability company ("Lender"), Graham Weston and
Morris Miller.

         Contemporaneously with the execution of this Agreement, Borrower has
borrowed from Lender and Lender has loaned to Borrower, $150,000.00 (the
"First Loan"), which First Loan is secured by all of the assets of the
Borrower. Incident to the First Loan, Borrower has delivered to Lender a fully
executed Promissory Note (the "First Note") and Security Agreement (the
"Security Agreement"), and UCC-1 financing statement. In consideration for the
Loan and the security interest received by the Lender in the Borrower's
assets, Lender agrees to advance and Morris Miller and Graham Weston agree to
cause Lender to advance, or advance personally, in lieu thereof, an additional
$400,000.00 upon written request of the Borrower (the "Second Loan"). At the
request of Richard Yoo, President of the Borrower, the Second Loan may be
advanced in one lump sum of $400,000.00, or it may be made in more than one
advances; provided, however, that the parties agree that the full $400,000.00
shall be advanced on or before July 1, 1999. The Lender shall advance the
amounts requested by Borrower within ten (10) business days of receipt of
written request. Each advance made under this Agreement shall be evidenced by
a promissory note in substantially the same form as the First Note, to be
prepared by Lender and in a form satisfactory to Lender and Borrower. Such
promissory notes shall have the same payment provisions and interest rates, so
that payments under such notes shall commence on January 1, 2002, and equal
payments of principal and interest shall be made over the five year period
following January 1, 2002 with a final Maturity Date of January 1, 2007.

BORROWER:

          RACKSPACE, LTD.

              By:      Macroweb, LC, general partner

                         By: /s/ Morris Miller
                             ------------------------

                         Its: member
                             ------------------------
LENDER:

EXETER FINANCIAL, LC
                                      /s/ Morris Miller
                                      ----------------------
By: /s/ Morris Miller                 Morris A. Miller
    -------------------

Its: member                           /s/ Graham Weston
    -------------------               ----------------------
                                      Graham Weston
#### James Garvin’s Exor. *v.*Wm. Garvin.

Wills — Construction—Second Bequest — Codicil—Revocation.

A second request in a will or codicil thereto may operate constructively to revoke a former one without an express statement in the will or codicil that such was the testator’s intention, yet to authorize such a construction the intention of the testator to give the last legacy in lien of the first must be fairly deducible from the testamentary writing itself.

*93APPEAL EROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT.

September 26, 1867.

*W. F. Barrettj W. B.*Thompson, *for appellant.*

Qazlay, *for appellee.*

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Hardin :

Although it is true, as insisted for the appellant, that a second bequest in á will or codicil thereto may operate constructively to revoke a former one, without an express statement in the will or codicil that such was the testator’s intention, yet to authorize such a construction, the intention of the testator to give her last legacy in lieu of the first must be fairly deducible from the testamentary writing itself. There does not seem to be any such inconsistency between the intention as expressed in the 22d clause of the will of James Garvin, to appropriate $5,000, to be bestowed by William Garvin “upon such religious or charitable objects as he may see fit,” and the subsequent provision for his, as one of the residuary devisees; nor is the latter provision accompanied by any such qualifying or explanatory words as would be sufficient, in our opinion, to work a revocation of the bequest of $5,000, made as it was for peculiar reasons for objects and purposes not individually beneficial to William Garvin. And as the judgment of the court below conforms to our construction of the will, the same is affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Christopher R. Smith,

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-17-04185-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: November 27, 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 9022 Filed 11/30/17 Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-43114, 333-89082, 333-121437 and 333-137351) and in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-65716, 333-70562, 333-86892, 333-102273, 333-102995, 333-103980, 333-121438,333-121475, 333-135096, 333-137350 and 333-141193) of Monogram Biosciences, Inc. of our report dated March 11, 2008 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

San Jose, California 

March 11, 2008
AO 458 (Rev. 06/09) Appearance of Counsel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Case No.

Defendant

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:

.

Date:

Attorney’s signature

Printed name and bar number

Address

E-mail address

Telephone number

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9045 Filed 12/01/17 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2600 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2600

  To direct the Architect of the Capitol to enter into a contract to 
revise the statue commemorating women's suffrage located in the rotunda 
 of the United States Capitol to include a likeness of Sojourner Truth.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 24, 2004

   Mrs. Clinton (for herself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Dodd, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. 
Sarbanes, Mr. Schumer, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Lieberman, Mrs. 
 Boxer, Mr. Specter, Mr. Alexander, Ms. Stabenow, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. 
   Hutchison, Ms. Mikulski, Ms. Collins, Mr. Corzine, and Mr. Pryor) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                 Committee on Rules and Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To direct the Architect of the Capitol to enter into a contract to 
revise the statue commemorating women's suffrage located in the rotunda 
 of the United States Capitol to include a likeness of Sojourner Truth.

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

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds the following:
            (1) Sojourner Truth was a towering figure among the 
        founders of the movement for women's suffrage in the United 
        States, and any monument that accurately represents this 
        important development in our Nation's history should include 
        her.
            (2) The statue known as the Portrait Monument, originally 
        presented to Congress in 1920 in honor of the passage of the 
        Nineteenth Amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote and 
        presently exhibited in the rotunda of the Capitol, portrays 
        several early suffragists who were Sojourner Truth's 
        contemporaries, but not Sojourner Truth herself, the only 
        African American among the group.

SEC. 2. REVISION OF WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE STATUE.

    Not later than the final day on which the One Hundred Ninth 
Congress is in session, the Architect of the Capitol shall enter into a 
contract to revise the statue commemorating women's suffrage located in 
the rotunda of the United States Capitol (commonly known as the 
``Portrait Monument'') to include a likeness of Sojourner Truth.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 23.02 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT APPRAISAL FIRM Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. New York, New York We hereby consent to the inclusion in Note 8 to the Financial
                     Statements included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Kenneth Cole
                     Productions, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010 of references
                     to our report relating to the fair value of the assets of Le Tigre,
                     LLC and our report relating to the fair value of the
                         Le Tigretrademark as of December 31, 2010 and 2009.  /s/ Corporate Valuation Advisors, Inc. Hartland, Wisconsin                     
March 1, 2011
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of ZooLink Corp. (the
  "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003
  as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2003 (the
  "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated
  below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
  to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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.

|Dated: October 23, 2003 | /s/ West McDonald                       
|----------------------- | ----------------------------------------
|                        | West McDonald                           
|                        | President & Principal Accounting Officer

---
Slip Op. 01-1

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

BEFORE: SENIOR JUDGE NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS

____________________________________

:

FAG ITALIA S.p.A., BARDEN :

CORPORATION (U.K.) LIMITED, :

THE BARDEN CORPORATION and :

FAG BEARINGS CORPORATION, :

:

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. : Court No. 98-07-02528

:

UNITED STATES, :

:

Defendant, :

:

THE TORRINGTON COMPANY, :

:

 Defendant-Intervenor. :

____________________________________:

J U D G M E N T

This Court having received and reviewed the United States Department of Commerce,

International Trade Administration’s (“Commerce”) Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant

to Court Remand, FAG Italia S.p.A., The Barden Corporation (U.K.) Ltd., The Barden

Corporation and FAG Bearings Corporation v. United States, 24 CIT ___, 110 F. Supp. 2d 1055

(2000) (“Remand Results”), Torrington’s comments to the Remand Results, and Commerce

having complied with the Court’s remand, and no other responses to the Remand Results having

been submitted by the parties, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Remand Results filed by Commerce on November 2, 2000 are

affirmed in their entirety; and it is further

ORDERED that since all other issues have been decided, this case is dismissed.

_________________________________________

NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS, Senior Judge

Dated: January 9, 2001

New York, New York
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dana Daniels,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-16-00333-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: February 25, 2016 /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 901 Filed 02/29/16 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

David Turner,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-16-00554-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Shaw Cowart, LLP

(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 3/1/2016, 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: March 2, 2016 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc.

Printed name of party 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 958 Filed 03/04/16 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 958 Filed 03/04/16 Page 2 of 2