alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### J. W. Goff *v.*H. W. Howard.

Instruction — Written Contract.

In a suit to enforce a written contract, where one of the articles purchased. was by mistake and oversight omitted from the contract, an instruction that “the law presumes the written contract read to them expreses the full terms of the agreement made between the parties, and the jury will so find, unless they are satisfied from the evidence that the contract about the shelling machine was left out of said writing by the mistake of the parties when signed by them,” is held to be the true expounding of the law.

Contracts — Condition Precedent.

Where one party to a contract fails to perform a condition precedent, within a reasonable time, the other party has a right to regard the contract at an end.

Same — Contracts—Writing Evidencing — Presumption—Mistake and Oversight — Burden of Proof.

The presumption of both law and facts are that the written memorial contains all' the covenants of the parties and he that asserts it does not, (but that some were left out by mistake or oversight), must bear the burden of proof. •

APPEAL PROM I-IENDERSON CIRCUIT COURT.

October 6, 1867.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Williams:

If, as averred by appellee, appellant was to furnish tbe sheller to shell the corn sold to him, but was left out of the waiting evidencing the contract through mistake and oversight, the furnishing it, like furnishing the sacks and twine, was a condition precedent to be performed before appellant could recover, and if not done within a reasonable time appellee had a right to regard the contract at an end.

The evidence certainly authorized the jury to find that the corn sheller was to be furnished by appellant, and that this wras left out by mistake when the contract was reduced to writing, and there should be no reversal unless the court misdirected the jury.

Appellant’s instruction No. 7 informed the jury, that

> “The law presumes the written contract read to hem *31expresses the full terms of the agreement made between the parties and the jury will so find, unless they are satisfied' from the evidence that the contract about the shelling machine was left out of said writing by the mistake of the parties when signed by them.”

Turner, *for appellant.*

*Gissel & Vance, for appellee.*

We regard this as a true expounding of the law applicable to the facts of this case.

The presumption of both law and facts are that the written memorial contains all the covenants of the párties and he that asserts it does not, (but that some were left out by mistake), bear the burden of proof, and must overcome these presumptions by evidence reasonably convincing, but he is not required to establish this beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the jury are satisfied by reasonably certain evidence, that by mistake some portion of the agreement was left out of the written memorial, they may so find, although a doubt might rationally be entertained as to this.

The instructions refused did not conform to this view of the law and were therefore properly rejected.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ANGEL LUIS MEDINA.

April 19, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Joseph Yarrington,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-16-00557-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Shaw Cowart, LLP

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 3/1/2016, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail to 

do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: March 2, 2016 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc.

Printed name of party waiving service

of summons

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed Name

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 968 Filed 03/04/16 Page 1 of 2
2

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 968 Filed 03/04/16 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 99.10(a)

   
EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
  

    
  

  
   THOMAS E. BISSET
  

  
   DIRECT LINE: 202.383.0118
  

  
   E-mail: ThomasBisset@eversheds-sutherland.com
  

  
    
  

  
   April 28, 2021

  
    
  

  
   VIA EDGAR
  

  
    
  

  
   Board of Directors
  

  
   Protective Insurance Company
  

  
   2801 Highway 280 South
  

  
   Birmingham, AL 35223
  

  
    
  

  
   Re:         Protective Dimensions IV

  
   Post-Effective Amendment No. 2

  
    
  

  
   Directors:
  

  
    
  

  
   We hereby consent to the reference to our name under the caption “Legal Matters” in the Statement of Additional Information filed as part of the Registration Statement on Form N-4 (File No. 333-233415) by Protective Life Insurance Company and Protective Variable Annuity Separate Account with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  In giving this consent, we do not admit that we are in the category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933.
  

  
    
  

  	
    	
    	
    
	
     
       
     

    	
     
      Very truly yours,
     

    
	
     
       
     

    	
     
       
     

    	
     
       
     

    
	
     
       
     

    	
     
      Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP
     

    
	
     
       
     

    	
     
       
     

    	
     
       
     

    
	
     
       
     

    	
     
       
     

    	
     
       
     

    
	
     
       
     

    	
     
      By:
     

    	
     
      /s/ Thomas E. Bisset
     

    
	
     
       
     

    	
     
       
     

    	
     
      Thomas E. Bisset
     

    


   
  


 



  1
**EXHIBIT 21.0**

 

**SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT**

 

Main Street Banks, Inc. owns 100% of the following entities: 

 

Main Street Bank (a Georgia banking institution) 

Main Street Insurance Services, Inc. (a Georgia corporation) 

Piedmont Settlement Services, Inc. (a Georgia corporation) 

MSB Payroll Solutions, LLC (a Georgia limitedliability company) 

 

Main Street Bank owns 100% of MSB Holdings, Inc., aDelaware corporation. MSB Holding owns 100% of the common stock and approximately 88% of the preferred stock of MSB Investments, Inc., a Georgia corporation.
**Exhibit
      23.0**





**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
      333-111127 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-136858 on Form
      S-3 of our report dated April 16, 2007, relating to the consolidated financial
      statements and financial statement schedule of Familymeds Group, Inc. (which report
      expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs concerning
      (i) uncertainty regarding the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern and
      (ii) the
      change in the method of accounting for stock based compensation to conform
      to
      Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R), *Share
      Based Payment* )
      appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Familymeds Group, Inc. for
      the
      year ended December 30, 2006.





/s/
      Deloitte & Touche LLP





Hartford,
      Connecticut


April
      16,
      2007
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RONALD BENEDETTO, JR.

May 30, 1989.

Petition for certification granted.
**Exhibit35.1**

** **

 

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

**OF CITIBANK, N.A.**

FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER31, 2019

** **

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officerof Citibank, N.A., as Servicer under the Third Amended and Restated Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of November 10, 2016(the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”), as supplemented by the Amended and Restated Series 2000 Supplement theretodated as of August 9, 2011, as further amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto dated as of November 10, 2016 (the “Series 2000Supplement” and, together with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, the “Agreement”), each between Citibank,as Seller and Servicer, and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee; and as Managing Beneficiary of Citibank Credit CardIssuance Trust (the “Issuing Entity”) under the Second Amended and Restated Indenture dated as of November 10, 2016(the “Indenture”), between the Issuing Entity and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee, does hereby certifythat:

 

1. Citibank is the Servicer under the Agreementand the Managing Beneficiary of the Issuing Entity.

 

2. A review of the servicing activities ofCitibank during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance under theAgreement and the Indenture was conducted under my supervision.

 

3. To the best of my knowledge, based on suchreview, Citibank has fulfilled all of its servicing obligations under the Agreement and the Indenture in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has duly executed this certificate this 27th day of March, 2020.

 

 

/s/ Donna L. VanBockern

Donna L. VanBockern

Vice President
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Danny Baird","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/dsbaird\/","title":"Spacecraft Bus for Satellite Servicing Mission Arrives at NASA Goddard","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"UfzFKBaRym\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-article\/spacecraft-bus-for-satellite-servicing-mission-arrives-at-nasa-goddard\/\">Spacecraft Bus for Satellite Servicing Mission Arrives at NASA Goddard<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-article\/spacecraft-bus-for-satellite-servicing-mission-arrives-at-nasa-goddard\/embed\/#?secret=UfzFKBaRym\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Spacecraft Bus for Satellite Servicing Mission Arrives at NASA Goddard” — NASA\" data-secret=\"UfzFKBaRym\" 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\/gsfc_20230920_osam1_022066_0.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

November 9, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128313 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. Plaintiff-Appellee, Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices v SC: 128313 

 COA: 259544 

Oakland CC: 03-190499-FC 

JOSEPH ANISE FARHAT,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 10, 2005 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered. We DIRECT the Oakland County 

Prosecuting Attorney to answer the defendant’s application for leave to appeal within 28 

days after the date of this order. 

The application for leave to appeal remains pending. 

s1102 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 9, 2005 

Clerk
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mike Sackal,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-04239-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Marc J Bern & Partners LLP

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 11/21/2017, 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 9130 Filed 12/05/17 Page 1 of 1
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Erin Mahoney","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/erin-c-mahoneynasa-gov\/","title":"Moon’s South Pole is Full of Mystery, Science, Intrigue","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"SM6FMarlji\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/humans-in-space\/moons-south-pole-is-full-of-mystery-science-intrigue\/\">Moon’s South Pole is Full of Mystery, Science, Intrigue<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/humans-in-space\/moons-south-pole-is-full-of-mystery-science-intrigue\/embed\/#?secret=SM6FMarlji\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Moon’s South Pole is Full of Mystery, Science, Intrigue” — NASA\" data-secret=\"SM6FMarlji\" 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\/04\/shackleton-de-gerlache-ridge-south-pole-lroc.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":600}
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2742

AN ACT

To extend certain authority of the Supreme Court Police,

modify the venue of prosecutions relating to the Supreme

Court building and grounds, and authorize the acceptance of gifts to the United States Supreme Court.

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

2

S 2742 ES

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED

2 STATES SUPREME COURT POLICE TO PRO3 TECT COURT OFFICIALS OFF THE SUPREME

4 COURT GROUNDS.

5 Section 6121(b)(2) of title 40, United States Code,

6 is amended by striking ‘‘2004’’ and inserting ‘‘2008’’.

7 SEC. 2. VENUE FOR PROSECUTIONS RELATING TO THE

8 UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT BUILDING

9 AND GROUNDS.

10 Section 6137 of title 40, United States Code, is

11 amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the fol12 lowing:

13 ‘‘(b) VENUE AND PROCEDURE.—Prosecution for a

14 violation described in subsection (a) shall be in the United

15 States District Court for the District of Columbia or in

16 the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, on infor17 mation by the United States Attorney or an Assistant

18 United States Attorney.’’.

19 SEC. 3. GIFTS TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

20 The Chief Justice or his designee is authorized to ac21 cept, hold, administer, and utilize gifts and bequests of

22 personal property pertaining to the history of the United
†

3

S 2742 ES

1 States Supreme Court or its justices, but gifts or bequests

2 of money shall be covered into the Treasury.

Passed the Senate September 28, 2004.

Attest:

Secretary.
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2742

AN ACT

To extend certain authority of the Supreme Court

States Supreme Court.authorize the acceptance of gifts to the Unitedto the Supreme Court building and grounds, andPolice, modify the venue of prosecutions relating