alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Malvina Elder Et Al. *v.*Alex. C. Lucas.

Personal Representation — Suit on Bond — Form of Judgment.

By failure to answer the appellant admits that she has assets in her hand sufficient to pay the debt, but the judgment is rendered against her de propriis bonis. Held that the judgment cannot be sustained in the form in which it is rendered, it should have been rendered to be levied of assets in her hands.

APPEAL FROM SCOTT CIRCUIT COURT.

September 16, 1867

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters:

This action was brought by appellee against Mrs. Elder, as the personal representative of Napoleon McDowell, deceased, who was his guardian, James 0. Lemon, as the surety of said McDowell in his guardian bond, and' William Lucas, as the surety of Mrs. Elder in he radministration bond, to recover of them the sum of about two hundred dollars, alleged to be due an dowing him by ' the personal representative of said McDowell.-

Process was executed on Lemon and Mrs. Elder, and returned as to Lucas, that he was no inhabitant of the county.

*87
      *Polk & Campbell, for appellants.*

*Shepherd, for appellees.*

At the May term, 1866, of the Scott Circuit Court a joint judgment was rendered against the defendants, upon whom the process had been executed, they having failed to answer, and the cause continued as to Lucas, and Mrs. Elder and Lemon have appealed.

The facts stated in the petition constitute a good cause of action against appellants, in the respective characters in which they are sued; and as Mrs. Elder was sued in her fiduciary character, and the judgment is rendered against her *de propriis bonis,*the only question is, can the judgment be sustained in the form in which it is rendered ? That question, we think, must be answered in the negative.

By failing to answer, Mrs. Elder admits that she has assets in her hands of her intestate sufficient to pay the debt, but whether she admits it, or had denied it in an answer, and assets had been found in her hands sufficient to pay the demand by the verdict of a jury, still in neither event would the court below have been autUonzecl to render a personal judgment against her; but it should have been rendered to be levied of assets in her hands to be administered. (Botts’ Admr. *v.*Eitzpatrick, 5 B. M., 397).

Wherefore, the judgment being erroneous, is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to render judgment as her ■-'in directed, and for further proceedings consistent herewith.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           3,552,916
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,478,013
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (105,800)
<INVENTORY>                                      3,343,480
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,845,101
<PP&E>                                           1,173,569
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (698,190)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,849,448
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,018,846
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                        353,057
<COMMON>                                           346,380
<OTHER-SE>                                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,849,448
<SALES>                                         69,211,424
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                69,211,424
<CGS>                                           63,654,305
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,888,216
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (147,222)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  13,665
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,802,460
<INCOME-TAX>                                       751,960
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,050,500
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,050,500
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.18
        


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-10117 Summary Calendar

WILLIAM D. SALAZAR, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants, OWENS-ILLINOIS SALARY EMPLOYEE WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:94-CV-1785-D

- - - - - - - - - - September 22, 1997 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * William D. Salazar appeals from the grant of summary judgment for the defendant, Owens-Illinois Salary Employee Benefit Plan (“the Plan”), in his action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Salazar contends that this court should overrule Pierre v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins.2

Co. , 932 F.2d 1552 (5th Cir. 1991), and hold that federal courts should apply a de novo standard of review to factual determinations under ERISA plans. Salazar also contends that the Plan erred by basing its determination that he was not disabled on the 1995 report of Dr. Charles Crane, who allegedly refused to accept the records of surgeries performed on Salazar between 1993 and 1995. One panel of this court cannot overrule another panel. United States v. Taylor , 933 F.2d 307, 313 (5th Cir. 1991). Salazar’s contention that this court should overrule Pierre therefore is unavailing. The district court did not err by granting summary judgment for the Plan. The Plan conducted its own investigation of Salazar’s disability claim, as it was entitled to do. Salley v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. , 966 F.2d 1011, 1015 (5th Cir. 1992). Dr. Crane’s report indicated that he knew about the surgeries performed on Salazar and the pain Salazar experienced; Salazar does not indicate how Dr. Crane’s conclusions might have been different had he accepted the records of those surgeries. Salazar has failed to show a disputed issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
AFFIRMED.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Catherine G. Manning","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/cgmannin\/","title":"Disruption Tolerant Networking Experiments with Optical Communications","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"BZskJQHcwD\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/somd\/space-communications-navigation-program\/disruption-tolerant-networking-experiments-with-optical-communications-2\/\">Disruption Tolerant Networking Experiments with Optical Communications<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/somd\/space-communications-navigation-program\/disruption-tolerant-networking-experiments-with-optical-communications-2\/embed\/#?secret=BZskJQHcwD\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Disruption Tolerant Networking Experiments with Optical Communications” — NASA\" data-secret=\"BZskJQHcwD\" 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\/09\/dtn-article.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":459}
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                              FEB-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          61,725
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,163,456
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,042,833
<INVENTORY>                                    335,595
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,425,999
<PP&E>                                       9,862,251
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,547,016
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              41,808,013
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        16,107323
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,833
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,556,550
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                41,808,013
<SALES>                                     20,130,375
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            20,130,275
<CGS>                                       12,778,257
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               19,459,982
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               475,810
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               952,833
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             602,407
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                194,583
<INCOME-TAX>                                    77,666
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            116,917
<DISCONTINUED>                             (7,167,998)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,051,081)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.20)
        

</TABLE>
{"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 Overview","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"kUHH0TJ3xU\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/armd\/aavp\/ac\/advanced-composites-ac-project-overview\/\">Advanced Composites (AC) Project Overview<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/armd\/aavp\/ac\/advanced-composites-ac-project-overview\/embed\/#?secret=kUHH0TJ3xU\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Advanced Composites (AC) Project Overview” — NASA\" data-secret=\"kUHH0TJ3xU\" 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\/07\/composite-fan-casing.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":311}
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CYNTHIA CUPE.

September 6, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
IUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

IN RE: BARD IVC FILTERS PRODUCTS 

LIABILITY LITIGATION Case No. MDL 15-2641-PHX DGC 

 ORDER 

This Document Relates to Plaintiff: 

Sharon McWhorter v. C.R. Bard Incorporated, 

et al., 

Civil Case No.: CV17-1101-PHX DGC 

 The Court has considered Plaintiff Sharon McWhorter’s consent motion to dismiss. 

Doc. 9648. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECLARED that the consent motion 

to dismiss (Doc. 9648) is granted. This action (CV17-1101 PHX DGC) is dismissed in its 

entirety with prejudice. 

 Dated this 11th day of January, 2018. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9703-1 Filed 01/18/18 Page 1 of 1 Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9695 Filed 01/17/18 Page 1 of 1
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Ivry Artis","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/iartis\/","title":"10 Technologies That Are Changing the Game","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"UfRySg3NtU\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/stmd\/game-changing-development-program\/10-technologies-that-are-changing-the-game\/\">10 Technologies That Are Changing the Game<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/stmd\/game-changing-development-program\/10-technologies-that-are-changing-the-game\/embed\/#?secret=UfRySg3NtU\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“10 Technologies That Are Changing the Game” — NASA\" data-secret=\"UfRySg3NtU\" 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\/11\/tumblr_inline_ofpqo5rGn21tzhl5u_500.png?w=477","thumbnail_width":477,"thumbnail_height":318}
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Housing and Urban Development

          - [Docket No. FR-5415-C-25]

# AGENCY:

Office of the Chief of the Human Capital Officer, HUD.

# ACTION:

Notice extension of deadline.

# SUMMARY:

                        On August 26, 2010, HUD posted on                         *http://www.Grants.gov*                         its Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for HUD's FY2010 Choice Neighborhoods Initiative—Round 1. Today's                         **Federal Register**                         notice announces that HUD has posted on                         *http://www.Grants.gov*                         a technical correction that extends the October 26, 2010 deadline date for HUD's FY2010 Choice Neighborhoods Initiative—Round 1 NOFA for at least 30 days. HUD is extending the deadline for application to makes changes to the Mapping Tool used to determine neighborhood eligibility. HUD will post on                         *http://www.Grants.gov*                         a subsequent notice with a new deadline date once the Mapping Tool has been revamped.                    

      ( print page 67393)    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        For questions concerning Choice Neighborhoods, please contact Ms. Caroline Clayton, Office of Public Housing Investments, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington DC, 20410-5000; telephone (202) 402-5461 (this is not a toll-free number); e-mail                         *Caroline.C.Clayton@hud.gov.*                         Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access these numbers via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.                    

Dated: October 27, 2010.

Barbara S. Dorf,

Director, Office of Departmental Grants Management and Oversight, Office of the Chief of the Human Capital Officer.

[FR Doc. 2010-27545 Filed 11-1-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2606 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the 

National Estuary Program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 25, 2004 

Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. SARBANES, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. BREAUX, Mrs. 

BOXER, and Mr. LAUTENBERG) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 

reauthorize the National Estuary Program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM. 

4 Section 320(i) of the Federal Water Pollution Control 

5 Act (33 U.S.C. 1330(i)) is amended by striking ‘‘2005’’ 

6 and inserting ‘‘2010’’. 

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jeffrey L. Donahue,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03704-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 9099 Filed 12/04/17 Page 1 of 1