alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Samuel Hull *v. Amos*Bassett et al.

Pleading — Answer—Variance between Allegations and Written Contract.

An answer, alleging that by an oral stipulation, (inconsistent with the written memorial of the contract sued on) the sale was to be void if the owners of a remainder should refuse to relinquish their interest, without proof of fraud or mistake in the written contract, is inadmissibble.

Contract of Sale — Personal Property — Binding Consideration.

A purchaser of personal property in which there is a remainder life interest to others, known to him at the time, though the sale be attemped absolute with general warranty, is held to be estopped from denying liability on a. note given for the purchase price, his purchase of the life estate being held to be a binding consideration.

Same — Action—Warranty.

His only remedy would be an independant action against the vendor on his general warranty.

APPEAL PROM MASON CIRCUIT COURT..

June 5, 1866.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Robertson :

Tbe bill of sale, though peculiarly ambiguous, purports a sale of the absolute title to *Minerva*as Basset’s slave and a general warranty of such title.

It appears that, at the time of the sale, the vendee (now appellant) knew the *status*of the title to be a life estate in the vendor Basset, with remainder in his deceased wife’s descendants, two of whom were infants, and some others married women. None of these were parties tq the sale, which implies that, on the payment (a year after its date) of the consideration, they were to relinquish their title. The appellant must therefore be presumed to have known that all he got by his purchase was the appellee’s life estate and his guaranty of the remainder, and this was a binding consideration commensurable with the amount of the note, and left no ground for a plea in bar of the action on the note, or for any other relief than an independent action on Basset’s warranty, as the only remedy for a refusal by the owners of the remainder to con*597firm the sale whenever a confirmation should be demanded by the appellant. And there is no proof of any such demand and refusal. There is therefore no proof of even a partial failure of consideration or of fraud. Nor although appellant enjoyed the use and retained the possession of Minerva for more than three years succeeding his purchase, is there any proof of an offer to return her, or to pay any portion of the price, or even hire.

The appellant alleges in an answer that by an oral stipulation, inconsistent with the written memorial of the contract, the sale was to be void if the owners of the remainder should refuse to relinquish to him their interest. But such a defense, either partial or total, without proof of fraud or mistake in the written contract is inadmissible. And even if it were admissible, it would be unavailing, as there is no pretense of proof of demand and refusal.

Wherefore, the judgment for the whole amount of the note for the price of Minerva is approved and affirmed.
#### Weaver *v.*Bryan, in Error.

*Thursday May*15.

IN order to have a judgment re-entered, ünder the statute' of 1827 relative to the burned records of *Dearborn*county, the notice to the defendant, which answers the purposes both of a writ and declaration, must state the term at which the judgment was originally rendered.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JAY KLOSS, III.

May 30, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                       6,136,433
<SECURITIES>                                 1,250,357
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,400,773
<ALLOWANCES>                                   105,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,780,330
<PP&E>                                       1,536,898
<DEPRECIATION>                                 659,394
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,540,007
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,392,052
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    10,302,111
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,233,800)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,540,007
<SALES>                                      4,193,906
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,193,906
<CGS>                                        1,433,170
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,267,353
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (139,082)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              82,665
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (17,030)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (100,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             82,970
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    82,970
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CRAIG HART.

June 27, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
O rder filed June 20 , 2016



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________

No. 11

- 1 5

- 00 283

- CR

__________

JOEL RUBIO , Appellant

V.

THE S TATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 161 st District Court

Ector County, Texas
Tri al Court Cause No. B

- 44,736

O R D E R

T h is appeal has be come stalled due to the failure of Joel Rodriguez , the court
reporter for the 161 st District Court, to prepare and file in this court the reporter’s

record

. T he reporter’s record was originally due on February 8 , 2016

. Rodriguez

has filed four requests for extensions, three of which w ere granted and one of which

w as granted in part

. We granted Rodriguez’s fourth request on May 13 , 2016 , and2

we directed that the reporter’s record be filed on or before June 8 , 2016

. As of today,
Rodriguez has not filed t he reporter’s record in this cause

. By this order, Joel Rodriguez i s ORDERED to file the reporter’s record

in this cause on or before 5:00 p.m. on June 2 7 , 201 6 . If the reporter’s record has

not been filed by that time, Rodriguez may be required to appear in person before
the Eleventh Court of Appeals to show cause why he should not be held in contempt

of court for his failure to file t he record as ordered herein

.

PER CURIAM

June 20 , 2016
Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson , J., and Bailey, J.
##### 



Exhibit 31.02 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
UNDER RULE 13a-14(a) ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Laurence L. Betterley, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of PLATO Learning,
Inc., certify that:  1.
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of PLATO Learning, Inc.2.
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report.3.
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report.4.
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: (a) designed such disclosure controls and
procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared; (b) evaluated the effectiveness of
the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (c) disclosed in this
report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.5.
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors: (a) all significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that
involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting. Date: March 14, 2005
    
    /s/ LAURENCE L. BETTERLEYLaurence L. BetterleySenior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JEROME PRITCHARD.

June 13, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2425 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2425

To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to allow for improved administration of 
                  new shipper administrative reviews.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 14, 2004

 Mr. Cochran (for himself and Mr. Byrd) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to allow for improved administration of 
                  new shipper administrative reviews.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``New Shipper Review Amendment Act of 
2004''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF NEW SHIPPER BONDING PRIVILEGES.

    Section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 
1675(a)(2)(B)) is amended--
            (1) by striking clause (iii); and
            (2) by redesignating clause (iv) as clause (iii).
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 99

                      IMNET SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                        VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS

                      ALLOWANCE FOR INVENTORY OBSOLESCENCE



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   ADDITIONS
                                                            -----------------------
                                             BALANCE AT     CHARGED TO                                  BALANCE
                                              BEGINNING      COSTS AND      OTHER       DEDUCTIONS     AT END OF
           DESCRIPTION                        OF PERIOD       EXPENSES     DESCRIBE      DESCRIBE       PERIOD
------------------------------------         ----------     ----------     --------     ----------     ---------
<S>                                          <C>            <C>           <C>           <C>            <C>      
Year ended June 30, 1997 -
Allowance for inventory obsolescence .....   $   92,026       1,273,537                  31,890(1)     1,333,673

Quarter ended September 30, 1997 -
Allowance for inventory obsolescence .....   $1,333,673         156,000          --       8,388(1)     1,481,285

Quarter ended December 31, 1997 -
Allowance for inventory obsolescence .....   $1,481,285         156,000          --       4,865(1)     1,632,420

Quarter ended March 31, 1998 -
Allowance for inventory obsolescence .....   $1,632,420         287,722          --      17,063(1)     1,903,079
</TABLE>

(1)  Amount deemed to be obsolete and written off during the period.










                                     Page 23
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Paula Jordan,

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-17-03683-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: October 18, 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 8327 Filed 10/20/17 Page 1 of 1
Order filed March 3, 2015.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 15

- 00076

- CV

____________ IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF DIANE MA RIE APFFEL AND RALPH ALBERT APFFEL, JR

.

On Appeal from the County Court No. 3 Galveston County, Te xas Trial Court Cause No. 13

- FD

- 2081



### O R D E R

The notice of appeal in this case was filed January 19, 2015. No clerk’s
record was filed , and the clerk notified this court that payment had not been made

. In addition , the filing fee of $19 5.00 has not bee n paid. Therefore, the court issues the following order.
Appellant is ordered to pay the filing fee in the amount of $1 9 5.00 to the
Clerk of this court on or before March 17, 2015

. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. If appellant fails to timely pay the filing fee in accordance with this order, the appeal
will be dismissed. In addition, the appeal is subject to dismissal for failure to payfor the clerk’s record. The appeal will be dismissed unless appellant provides proof

of payment for the clerk’s record by March 17 , 2015. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.3(b).

PER CURIAM
#### Elizabeth F. Keenan v. James L. Cummins.

*Appeal-—Credibility of ivitnesses.*

This case turned entirely upon the credibility of the witnesses, and mainly upon that of the parties, and, no error appearing in the charge or in the admission of testimony, the judgment is affirmed.

Error to Wayne. (Hosmer, J.)

Argued October *24,*1890.

Decided October 31, 1890.

*Assumpsit.*Defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*Stewart é Galloway,*for appellant.

*D. Newton (Gónely, Maylury & Lucking,*of counsel), for plaintiff.

Champlin, C. J.

This action was brought in justice’s court to recover from defendant' $50 and interest, which the plaintiff claimed to be owing her by defendant.

The judgments of two courts have passed for plaintiff, and the defendant brings the case here, assigning errors of law committed upon the trial in the circuit court.

The case turned entirely upon the credibility of the witnesses, and mainly upon the credibility of the parties to the suit, who testified in their own behalf. Both parties testified that- defendant had the money. The plaintiff claims it was a loan, and an independent transaction from other business matters which she had with defendant. The defendant claims that it was received and was to be applied upon his account for services rendered, and to be, rendered, to and for plaintiff in certain divorce proceedings; that it was so applied, a bill rendered therefor in1 *44which the plaintiff was credited with the $50, and a settlement had which was satisfactory to the parties. On these two theories, testimony was introduced before the jury covering all the transactions between the parties; and the court submitted such testimony to the jury upon these respective theories, and the jury found a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

We discover no error in the charge or in the admission of testimony, and the judgment is affirmed.

Morse, Cahill, and Grant, JJ., concurred. Long, J., did not sit.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         138,158
<SECURITIES>                                   720,258
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,967,065
<ALLOWANCES>                                    56,100
<INVENTORY>                                  4,044,914
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,133,403
<PP&E>                                       4,687,819
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,995,209
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,400,719
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,253,125
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        77,769
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,763,346
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,400,719
<SALES>                                      3,240,751
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,253,751
<CGS>                                        1,880,163
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,112,976
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,845
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,402
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                118,930
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            118,930
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   118,930
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Lee Mohon","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/lee-a-mohonnasa-gov\/","title":"NASA Awards $750,000 in Competition to Convert Carbon Dioxide into Sugar","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"JQpGKvVtqx\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/marshall\/nasa-awards-750000-in-competition-to-convert-carbon-dioxide-into-sugar\/\">NASA Awards $750,000 in Competition to Convert Carbon Dioxide into Sugar<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/marshall\/nasa-awards-750000-in-competition-to-convert-carbon-dioxide-into-sugar\/embed\/#?secret=JQpGKvVtqx\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Awards $750,000 in Competition to Convert Carbon Dioxide into Sugar” — NASA\" data-secret=\"JQpGKvVtqx\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"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\/2021\/08\/img_0940.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":800}
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,368
<SECURITIES>                                     4,793
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,902
<ALLOWANCES>                                       138
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,381
<PP&E>                                          10,079
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,404
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 136,217
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,037
<BONDS>                                        161,157
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           145
<OTHER-SE>                                    (31,992)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   136,217
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,977
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,647
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    98
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   128
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,916
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (16,017)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (31)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (15,986)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,986)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.10)


</TABLE>