alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### George W. Chism *v.*Elizabeth Chism.

Exemption — Widow without Children — Failure to Demand — Administrators Duty.

A widow, who has no children left by her deceased husband, is entitled to her exemption and the fact that she failed to demand said exemption when the appraisment was made, did not release,the administrator from his responsibility incurred by taking and selling the property, it being his duty to cause the exempt articles to be set apart to her.

APPEAL FROM MEADE CIRCUIT COURT.

October 13, 1868.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Hardin :

If the appellee was entitled to any recovery in this case a careful examination of the record has satisfied us that the sum adjudged to her was not too large.

But the main question to be determined is, whether, as the appellant’s late husband, Richard Chism, left no infant children residing with her, she was entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the 5th subdivision of section 11 of chapter 30 of the Revised Statutes, *462which declares, that “If an intestate leaves a widow the following property, (one work-beast, &c., &c.) shall be set apart by the appraisers of the estate and vest in such widow for the use and benefit of herself and the infant children of the intestate, if any residing in the family.”

Walker, *for appellant.*

*■ Winter smith, for appellee.*

In the case of Newman vs. Winlock’s Admr. involving the construction of the above provision of the statute, it was held by this court, at its last term, that the widow was entitled to have the exempted property set apart to her, including provisions for herself although her husband left no infant children residing with her. She being only chargeable with the exempted property under a succeeding part of the same section, if there were children of the intestate who did not reside with her.

The fact that the appellee failed to demand when the appraisement was made, that the exempted property should be set apart to her, did not release the administrator from his responsibility incurred by taking and selling the property. It was his duty to cause the exempted articles to be set apart for the appellee, as directed by the statute.

It appears that the appellee retained two beds and some other property which was exempt from sale for which she was not required to account, as property purchased or taken at its appraised value, but the report of the commissioner, as corrected by the court does not charge the appellant with these articles.

He seems only to have been charged with the exempted property for which the appellee accounted to him as purchased and taken under the appraisement, and which was improperly sold to others, amounting to $191.42 and from that sum was deducted $38, the excess of what she received and purchased, over what she actually paid for, leaving a balance which with interest, computed to the date of the judgment, amounted at least to $195.36, the sum adjudged to the appellee.

Wherefore, no error being perceived in the judgment to the appellants prejudice, the same is affirmed.
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Chris Biedermann, Chief Financial Officer of Central European Distribution Corporation, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Central European
Distribution Corporation;



2. Based on my knowledge, this
quarterly 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 quarterly report;



3. Based on my
knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly 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 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 quarterly report is being prepared;



b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period
covered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and



c) Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely
to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



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
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls 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: February 4, 2005



|    |  |                              
|--- |  | -----------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Chris Biedermann         
|    |  | Chris Biedermann             
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer      
|    |  | (principal financial officer)



7
### M A N D A T E

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE PROBATE COURT NO 1 OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on September 9, 2015, the cause upon appeal to

revise or reverse your judgment between

For the Best Interest and Protection of A.S., a Mentally Ill Person, Appellant

V.

No. 04

- 15

- 00217

- CV and Tr. Ct. No. 2015

- MH

- 0851

was determined, and therein our said Court of Appeals made its order in these words:



## In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the

trial court is AFFIRMED.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of

Texas, with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on November 18, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853BILL OF COSTS



### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DISTRICT, AT SAN ANTONIO

No. 04

- 15

- 00217

- CV

For the Best Interest and Protection of A.S., a Mentally Ill Person

v.

(NO. 2015

- MH

- 0851 IN PROBATE COURT NO 1 OF BEXAR COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTER'S

RECORD

FILING $28.00

$195.00 PAID

INDIGENT BEXAR COUNTY

N/A

Balance of costs owing to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas: 0.00

**Court costs in**  **this cause shall**  **be paid as**  **per the**  **Judgment issued by**  **this Court.** 

I, KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF

TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and

payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for

the Fourth District of Texas, this November 18, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Robert E. Lewis","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/robert-e-lewisnasa-gov\/","title":"Space Cell Biology","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"DqTNrerC6C\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/esdmd\/hhp\/space-cell-biology\/\">Space Cell Biology<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/esdmd\/hhp\/space-cell-biology\/embed\/#?secret=DqTNrerC6C\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Space Cell Biology” — NASA\" data-secret=\"DqTNrerC6C\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/hhp-cell-biology-pc12-nasamir6.jpeg?w=576","thumbnail_width":576,"thumbnail_height":432}
#### Kenneth Whitfield, Jr., et al., Appellants, v Board of Education of the City of Mount Vernon, Respondent.

[789 NYS2d 188]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered March 11, 2004, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The infant plaintiff, a five-year-old kindergarten student, allegedly was the victim of a sexual assault by one of his classmates. The plaintiffs commenced this action against the defendant Board of Education of the City of Mount Vernon (hereinafter the Board) alleging, inter alia, that the Board failed to provide adequate supervision. The Supreme Court granted the Board’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We affirm.

To establish a claim for failure to provide adequate supervision, a plaintiff must demonstrate that school authorities “had sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused injury; that is, that the third-party acts could reasonably have been anticipated” *(Mirand v City of New York,*84 NY2d 44, 49 [1994]). “Actual or constructive notice to *553the school of prior similar conduct is generally required” and “an injury caused by the impulsive, unanticipated act of a fellow student ordinarily will not give rise to a finding of negligence absent proof of prior conduct that would have put a reasonable person on notice to protect against the injury-causing act” *(id.*at 49). A plaintiff must also establish that the alleged breach of the duty to provide adequate supervision was a proximate cause of the injuries sustained *(see id.*at 50).

We agree with the Supreme Court that the Board was entitled to summary judgment. In opposition to the Board’s establishment of a prima facie case for judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the Board had actual or constructive notice of prior similar conduct on the part of the kindergarten student in question *(see Williams v Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of Mount Vernon,*277 AD2d 373 [2000]; *Kennedy v Seaford Union Free School Dist. No. 6,*250 AD2d 574 [1998]; *Moores v City of Newburgh School Dist.,*237 AD2d 265 [1997]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is without merit. Santucci, J.P., Luciano, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Linda Herridge","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/linda-m-herridgenasa-gov\/","title":"NASA’s Apollo 13 Mission Challenged Crew, Launch Team","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"iLaul4V6vA\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/history\/nasas-apollo-13-mission-challenged-crew-launch-team\/\">NASA’s Apollo 13 Mission Challenged Crew, Launch Team<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/history\/nasas-apollo-13-mission-challenged-crew-launch-team\/embed\/#?secret=iLaul4V6vA\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA’s Apollo 13 Mission Challenged Crew, Launch Team” — NASA\" data-secret=\"iLaul4V6vA\" 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\/2020\/04\/apollo_13_liftoff_square.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":561}
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Alejandro L. Martinez,

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-17-04413-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 1, 2018 /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 9968 Filed 02/06/18 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE TRUST'S
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                              33
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    33
<PP&E>                                          87,276
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,310
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  59,999
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               75
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      59,924
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    59,999
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,066
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   506
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,560
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
# IGJ

I KAR D G 0 L DEN J 0 N ES PC

August 17 , 2015 

### Via e-filing Jeffrey D. Kyle Clerk of the Third Court of Appeals THIRD COURT OF APPEALS 209 West 14th Street , Room 101 Austin , Texas 78701
Re: 

### Cause No. 03-13-00790-CV , Trial Court No. D-1

- GN

- 07-00 2 328; 

### T. 

### Ma rk Anderson, as Co-Executor of the Estate ofTed M Anderson, and Christine Anderson, as Co-Executor ofthe Estate ofTed M And e rson v. 

### Richard T Archer , David R. Archer , Carol Archer Bugg , John V Archer , Karen Archer Ball , and Sherri Archer , In the Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas at Austin , Texas Dear Mr. Kyle:
In response to the Court's August 4 , 2015 letter , please be advised that Laurie Ratliff will present oral argument for Appellees/Cross-Appellants on September 2 , 2015 at 9:00 a.m. By separate motion , Appellees/Cross-Appellants set out their requested allotment of time. Very truly yours ,

# ~~ LR/tm CC: Clients Gerald Mcfarlen , 

### via e-mail

T :\ARC HE R 3 2 00 7 TO R T I

OUS !N TE RFERENCE\AP PEAL\CORRESPON DENCE\20 15- 08- 17 Ltr to C lerk r e Oral Arg um e nt. doc

400 West 1 5t h S t

. I Su i te 975 I Aust in , TX 78701 I T 512 472 6695 I F 5 1 2 472 3669 I igjlaw

. com ACCEPTED 03-13-00790-CV 6528086 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/17/2015 3:36:02 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                        5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE KENNETH
COLE PRODUCTIONS, INC. CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1996, AND THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>                     1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                    JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                                1,036
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        19,990
<ALLOWANCES>                                            (30)
<INVENTORY>                                          22,276
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     44,421
<PP&E>                                                9,263
<DEPRECIATION>                                        2,853
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       52,726
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                12,101
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   131
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                                           39,195
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         52,726
<SALES>                                              70,129
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     71,284
<CGS>                                                41,032
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        41,032
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       15
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       9,588
<INCOME-TAX>                                          3,931
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   5,657
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                          5,657
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           .44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           .42



</TABLE>