alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Amanda D. Holloway,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03697-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 11/14/2017, 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 27, 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. 

“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 8923 Filed 11/29/17 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Dolores J. Latawiec, 

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-17-03465-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 6, 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 8655 Filed 11/07/17 Page 1 of 1
#### Cully *v.*Ross, Assignee.

*Thursday, December*12.

*A*bankrupt is not a competent witness, in trover by his assignee, to prove property in the latter, unless he release to the plaintiff all claim to an allowance out of his estate, as well as to the surplus.

ERROR to the *Union*Circuit Court. Verdict and judgmgnt jn Oirciuit Court for Ross, the plaintiff.

Dewey, J.

— This was an action of trover by the assignee of a bankrupt. Plea, not guilty; and also a plea, that the plaintiff was not assignee. The plaintiff, to prove property in himself as assignee, produced the bankrupt as a witness, who had received his final discharge and certificate ; and who had released to the assignee all claim to a surplus of his estate, but not to his allowance. The witness was objected to on the score of interest; but the objection was overruled, and he was sworn.

We think this decision was wrong. To render the bankrupt competent as a witness to prove property in his assignee, he should have released all claim to an allowance out of his estate, as ymll as to the surplus. *Schneider*v. *Parr,*Peake’s Add. Cas. 66.—2 Phill. Ev. *354.*—Ewens v. *Gold,*Bull. N. P. 43. A bankrupt, in *England,*is allowed a certain per centage on the net proceeds of his estate, provided the creditors are paid 10s. in the pound, or more ; but if they receive less than that rate, the .allowance depends upon the discretion of the assignees and commissioners. 1 Harr. Dig. 419. By the 3d section of the bankrupt act, passed by congress in 1841, the assignee was bound1 to allow the bankrupt his necessary household and kitchen furniture, and such other articles and necessaries as the assignee should designate, having reference in the amount to the family, condition, and circumstances of the bankrupt, not exceeding 300 dollars in value, besides wearing apparel. In considering the condition and circumstances of the bankrupt, it was proper for the assignee to take into view the amount of his property compared with his debts, and to estimate the allowance accordingly. It is evident, therefore, that the bankrupt had a direct interest to increase the assets in the hands of the assignee, *313unless he had previously received his allowance in full. If such was the fact, the record should have shown it.

*J. S. Reid,*for the plaintiff.

*J. B. Bleeih,*for the defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

— The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-2954

___________

Thomas R. Louden, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

* Appeal from the United States

City of Minneapolis; Sharon Sayles * District Court for the

Benton, Mayor; Council Members, * District of Minnesota.

prior and seated Alice Rainville; *

Barbara Johnson; Bureaucrats; Jim * [UNPUBLISHED]

Moncure; Oren Larson; Gerry Takumi; *

Rebecca Caulfield; Philip D. Bush, *

Judge; Jane Dows; John Dows, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: October 7, 1998

 Filed: November 4, 1998

___________

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for 1

the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable

Jonathan G. Lebedoff, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

-2-

Thomas R. Louden appeals the district court’s dismissal of his action. Having 1

carefully reviewed the record we conclude no error of law appears, and we affirm the

judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-18-0000046

07-JAN-2019

08:21 AM
CHRISTOPHER SALMONSON

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee.

__________________ _ ____________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF A PPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED.

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 1959

Opinion filed November 14, 2014.

An ap peal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Kevin J. Carroll, Judge.

Christopher Salmonson, pro se , Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Carrie McNama ra, Assistant Attorney

General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We treat appellees’ motion for remand as a confession of error, reverse the

order denying appellant’s motion to dissolve temporary injunction, and remand for

further proceedings. See State v. Beeler , 530 So. 2d 932, 934 (Fla. 1988); Burtoff

v. Tauber , 85 So. 3d 1182, 1184 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (citing Matin v. Hill , 801 So.

2d 1003, 1006 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)).

PADOVANO and SW ANSON, JJ.

, CONCUR. WETHERELL, J., DISSENTS.
DANIEL ALEXANDER CHRISTIAN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-3651

_____________________________/

Opinion filed December 21, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Clay County.

Don H. Lester, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WETHERELL, MAKAR, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
#### Benjamin McFall *v.*Daniel Boone's Trustees.

New Trial — Affidavit Must Show Good Defense — Unavoidable Absence.

To entitle an appellant to a new trial, it is not sufficient to show that he had a good excuse for being absent from court; but he must show a good defense to the action by setting forth that defense to enable the court to judge of its sufficiency, and that he had made the necessary preparations or efforts to be ready to try the case, and that he was prevented from making his defense by his absence, which was unavoidable.

APPEAL EROM WOODEORD CIRCUIT COURT.

June 5, 1868.

Opinion oe the Oourt by

Judge Peters:

It appears from the petition, that Boone had, before the institution of the action, conveyed *all his*estate, real and personal, to the plaintiffs which passed to them the legal title, and the right to maintain the action in their own names, and the petition therefore stated the requisite facts to constitute a cause of action in them.

As to the other grounds relied on for a reversal, it may be observed that it is not . sufficient to show that the appellant had a good excuse for being absent from the court; but he must show *308that he had a good defense to the action by setting forth that defense to enable the court to judge of it’s sufficiency, and that he had made the necessary preparations or efforts to be ready to try the case, and that he was prevented from making his defense by his absence, which was unavoidable.

*Turner*& *Twyman, for appellant.*

*Porter*& Greathouse, *for appellee.*

Two of the essential elements necessary, indeed, indispensible to authorize the court to set aside the judgment, and award a new trial, were omitted in the affidavit of appellant.

Wherefore, the judgment is *affirmed.*
#### STATE v. STAMPER

No. 440P01

Case below: 144 N.C. App. 723

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 November 2001.
{"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":"Advanced Composites (AC) Project Technical Challenges","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"MHjNJW54e5\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/armd\/aavp\/ac\/advanced-composites-ac-project-technical-challenges\/\">Advanced Composites (AC) Project Technical Challenges<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/armd\/aavp\/ac\/advanced-composites-ac-project-technical-challenges\/embed\/#?secret=MHjNJW54e5\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Advanced Composites (AC) Project Technical Challenges” — NASA\" data-secret=\"MHjNJW54e5\" 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\/2016\/05\/technical-challenges.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":600}
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 199 (Wednesday, October 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 61925]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24511]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Surrender of License of Small Business Investment Company

    Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small 
Business Administration under the Small Business Investment Act of 
1958, under Section 309 of the Act and Section 107.1900 of the Small 
Business Administration Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.1900) to 
function as a small business investment company under the Small 
business Investment Company License No. 01/71-0375 issued to Saugatuck 
Capital Company IV SBIC, L.P., said license is hereby declared null and 
void.

United States Small Business Administration.

    Dated: September 17, 2014.
Javier E. Saade,
Associate Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. 2014-24511 Filed 10-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### Morgan McMahan, et al, *v.*Robinson Cobb.

Bill of Exceptions — Time to File.

A bill of exception filed at a subsequent term of the court with an order extending the time, will not be considered by the Court of Appeals.

New Trial — Exception.

If no exceptions are taken at the time, to the ruling of ihe court below in granting a new trial, if any error is committed the same must , be regarded as waived.

APPEAL PROM LYON CIRCUIT COURT.

January 23, 1868.

*182Watlcins, *for appellant.*

Opinion op ti-ie Oourt by

Judge Peters:

No bill of exceptions signed by the Judge was taken at the term at which the new trial was granted, and the time for making the same not extended by the order of Oourt, consquently, so much of the bill of exceptions filed at the subsequent term of the court as narrates the history of the former trial cannot be considered, nor was any exception taken to the ruling of the court below in granting the new trial at the same time, so that many error was Committed the same must be regarded as waived.

IJpon the second trial no objection was made to the testimony offered by appellee, which strongly conduced to sustain the issue of facts presented by the pleadings, and as no instructions appear from the bill of exceptions to have been asked for by either party or given, we perceive no error available for reversal.

Wherefore the judgment is *affirmed.*
No. 50.

#### Simeon Smith, plaintiff in error, *vs.*George T. Rogers, defendant in error.

[1.] An insolvent debtor is not entitled to have as many as two watches exempt from sale. It is doubtful whether he is entitled to have even one.

[2.J Nor is he entitled to have exempt his *wife’s*“implements or tools” of 11 trade or calling”.

*Ga. Sa.*in Monroe Superior Court. Decision by Judge Warner, February Term, 1854.

The defendant was arrested under a *ca. sa.*He filed his schedule, preparatory to taking the benefit of the Insolvent Debtor’s Act. At the hearing he moved the Court to exempt from sale a silver watch, claiming the same as a part of his “ wearing apparel” ; also a piano and guitar, for the use of his wife, who was a “music teacher”.

The Court refused the motion, upon the grounds—

1st. Because the wife had claimed and been allowed a gold watch.

*4802d. Because the defendant was a gunsmith and dentist;; and as such, had been allowed the “implements of his trade”..

To which decision Counsel for defendant excepted.

Hammond, for plaintiff in error.. ‘

Stubbs & Hill, for defendant in error.

*By the Court.*

Benning, J.

delivering the opinion..

The general rule is, that all of a man’s estate, both real and’ personal, is subject to be sold under execution, for the payment of his debts. *(Jud. Act of*1799, §31.)

The estate of the wife.is the. estate of the husband. This, too, is the general rule.

[1.] Various articles of property, however, have, from time to time, been exempted by the Legislature, from this liability. But among these articles is not to be found watches, unless they come under the head of “wearing apparel”. It is doubtful whether they, can be made to come under that head. If, however;, they can, we think that not more than one can be made to dó so¡ And one, and the best one, the Court allowed •to be exempt-in this case.

Nor are pianos and guitars to be found, byname, among the-exempted articles. , If, therefore, they are exempt, it must be because they are included-in some of those which are named. It was insisted that they are included in the expressions— “common tools of his trade”, “the working tools or implements of my trade or calling”.

But that could not be so; for the debtor was not a music teacher, but was a gunsmith and dentist; and these are not the tools or implements of the trade or calling of ■ a gunsmith or dentist.

[2.] It is true that his wife was a music teacher; but the Acts, none of them, exempt the tools or implements of the wife’s trade or calling. They only exempt those of the debt- *481or’s, himself. Hers, therefore, must be held still to remain governed by the general law. And that subjects them to gale for the husband’s debts. *(Cobb’s Dig.*380, 385, *et seq.)*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>            5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONDENSED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  FOR THE  QUARTER  ENDED  MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                       MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                               3,487,892
<SECURITIES>                                         2,004,709
<RECEIVABLES>                                                0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     5,842,313
<PP&E>                                                 636,328
<DEPRECIATION>                                         337,530
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       6,361,042
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  918,860
<BONDS>                                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                300
<COMMON>                                               278,772
<OTHER-SE>                                           1,933,175
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         6,361,042
<SALES>                                                      0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       121,170
<CGS>                                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     1,596,747
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      50,033
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (1,457,090)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (1,457,090)
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (1,457,090)
<EPS-BASIC>                                            (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            (.05)


</TABLE>
#### THE STATE v. FRENCH et al., Defendants; McNATT, Appellant.

Division Two,

May 16, 1905.

JUDGMENT AGAINST PROSECUTOR FOR COSTS: Revivor: Appellate Jurisdiction. The revival of a judgment rendered against a prosecuting witness for costs where no indictment is found, is a civil proceeding, and if the amount of the judgment is below the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and the constitutionality of the statute conferring the right to render such judgment is not attacked, the appeal is to the proper Court of Appeals.

Appeal from McDonald Circuit Court. — Ho». H. *G. Pepper,*Judge.

Transferred to St. Louis Court of Appeals.

*McNatt & McNatt*for appellant.

*J. A. Sturgis*and *John T. Sturgis*for the State.

GANTT, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court of McDonald county reviving a judgment of the said court rendered in favor of the *449State of Missouri against Oscar McNatt on the 10th day of-August, 1900, for the sum of one hundred and twenty-three dollars and seventy-five cents, the costs accrued and taxed in the case of the State of Missouri against Charles French, John McDonald and James Peters. Said judgment of revivor was rendered on the 8th day of August, 1904, against said McNatt as prosecuting witness in a proceeding before a justice of the peace, wherein he charged said French, McDonald and Peters with burglary in breaking into and entering a flour mill of one J. J. McNatt on the 29th of May, 1900, in the county of McDonald.

It appears that, on the preliminary hearing before the justice, the said French, McDonald and Peters were committed to the jail of said county to await the action of the grand jury oh the said charge of burglary, and that afterwards the grand jury of said county ignored the bill and said defendants were discharged. •

On the inspection of the record we are of the opinion that this court has no jurisdiction of this case, but that the appeal herein must be certified and transferred to the St. Louis Court of Appeals.

The appellant expressly states that the constitutionality of section 2834, Revised Statutes 1899, is not challenged. No other ground appears to sustain the jurisdiction of this court under our Constitution. This proceeding is merely to revive the judgment for one hundred and twenty-three dollars and seventy-five cents. It is distinguishable from proceedings to enforce the forfeiture of the recognizance in a felony case. This is a civil proceeding under the statute to revive a judgment.

It is ordered that the record in this case be transferred to the St. Louis Court of Appeals.

*Fox, J.,*concurs; *Burgess, P. J.,*absent.