alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 23

- 00205

- CV

Marissa Peterson v. HEB Grocery Co., L

. P.

On Appeal from the 131st District Court of Bexar County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017

- CI

- 19610

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appell ee

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. March 21, 2024
EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT  AUDITORS'  CONSENT

We  consent  to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
Track  Data Corporation on Form S-3 (File No. 333-4780, effective July 11, 1996)
and  on  Form  S-8  (File  No.  333-4532,  effective  May  2,  1996 and File No.
333-52131,  effective May 8, 1998) of our report dated March 14, 1997, appearing
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Track Data Corporation as to the Financial
Statements  of  Innodata  Corporation  for  the  year  ended  December 31, 1996.



Margolin,  Winer  &  Evens  LLP
Garden  City,  New  York
February  26,  1999
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Charles Corbett,

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-17-04499-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 9982 Filed 02/06/18 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATION**I, Jean M. Nelson, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Virbac Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.        Date: August 30, 2005 By:  /s/ Jean M. Nelson    Jean M. Nelson    Executive Vice Presidentand Chief Financial Officer
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Loura Hall","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/loura-hallnasa-gov\/","title":"Exploration Architecture with Quantum Inertial Gravimetry and In Situ ChipSat Sensors","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"pbywDLfIlU\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/general\/exploration-architecture-with-quantum-inertial-gravimetry-and-in-situ-chipsat-sensors\/\">Exploration Architecture with Quantum Inertial Gravimetry and In Situ ChipSat Sensors<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/general\/exploration-architecture-with-quantum-inertial-gravimetry-and-in-situ-chipsat-sensors\/embed\/#?secret=pbywDLfIlU\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Exploration Architecture with Quantum Inertial Gravimetry and In Situ ChipSat Sensors” — NASA\" data-secret=\"pbywDLfIlU\" 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\/2017\/03\/2014-streetman.jpg?w=543","thumbnail_width":543,"thumbnail_height":821}
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Beth Ridgeway","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/angela-b-ridgewaynasa-gov\/","title":"Super Guppy Arrives in Alabama to Drop Off Artemis I Heat Shield","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"kMCskyXweR\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-article\/super-guppy-arrives-in-alabama-to-drop-off-artemis-i-heat-shield\/\">Super Guppy Arrives in Alabama to Drop Off Artemis I Heat Shield<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-article\/super-guppy-arrives-in-alabama-to-drop-off-artemis-i-heat-shield\/embed\/#?secret=kMCskyXweR\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Super Guppy Arrives in Alabama to Drop Off Artemis I Heat Shield” — NASA\" data-secret=\"kMCskyXweR\" 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\/11\/mic-7565.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
**Court of Appeals**

**Sixth Appellate District of Texas**

JUDGMENT

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the judgment of the court below.  Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgment to delete $350.00 in attorney’s fees from the assessment of court costs.  As modified, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

We note that the appellant, Darian Blaine Morsman, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal.  Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED MAY 21, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk

# image1.png
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Shanice Williams,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-16-00556-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 966 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 966 Filed 03/04/16 Page 2 of 2
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 96-4217NE

_____________

Marvin A. Watkins, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Nebraska.

*

Woodmen of the World Life Insurance * [UNPUBLISHED]

Society; Curtis L. Owen, *

*

Appellees. *

_____________

 Submitted: May 20, 1997

Filed: May 30, 1997

_____________

Before McMILLIAN, ROSS, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Marvin A. Watkins appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary

judgment in Watkins's defamation action. We review a grant of summary judgment

under a well-established standard. Because this is a diversity action, we review de

novo questions of state law. Having considered the record and the parties' briefs, we

are satisfied the district court correctly applied the controlling state law and the record

supports the district court's ruling. We also conclude a comprehensive opinion in this

diversity case would lack precedential value. We thus affirm on the basis of the district

court's ruling without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Case 2:15-mj-01877-JFM Document 4 Filed 12/02/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01877-JFM Document 4 Filed 12/02/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01877-JFM Document 4 Filed 12/02/15 Page 3 of 3
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice



### 136414 Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. 

### GRAND RAPIDS HOUSING COMMISSION Stephen J. Markman, 

### and MT. MERCY HOUS ING CORPORATION, J ustices 

### Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 136414 COA: 273513 Kent CC: 05-007189-CK OHIO FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 7, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

s0828 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 9, 2008

Clerk
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

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.

_________________________________________ Clerk October 22, 2012

p1015 

# Order

October 22, 2012

145505

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145505

COA: 308039

Wexford CC: 2010

- 009660

- FH

TERRY DEAN ROSSELL, JR.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 5, 2012 order of

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that

the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Kaitlyn Adams","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/kaitlyn-e-adamsnasa-gov\/","title":"First Phase of X-48B Flight Tests Completed","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"uWRbm0ASz7\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/amf-ed10-0056-35\/\">First Phase of X-48B Flight Tests Completed<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/amf-ed10-0056-35\/embed\/#?secret=uWRbm0ASz7\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“First Phase of X-48B Flight Tests Completed” — NASA\" data-secret=\"uWRbm0ASz7\" 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:\/\/images-assets.nasa.gov\/image\/ED10-0056-35\/ED10-0056-35~large.jpg?w=600&h=1535&fit=clip&crop=faces%2Cfocalpoint","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1535}
#### J. M. Shepherd et ux *v.*A. T. Parker et ux.

Pleading — Answer as a Denial of Allegations in Petition.

An answer affirmatively alleging an offer to sell property as charged in the petition, which was accepted “provided Parker and wife would make a good deed,” is not equivalent to a denial of the allegations that the grantors made the deed variant from the contract by mistake.

APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT.

April 15, 1869.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Hardin:

As we construe the answer of the appellants in this case, it does not controvert the fact, as alleged in the petition, that the deed to *144Mrs. Shepherd was through mistake made so as to bind the grantors to warrant the title generally, without exception as to the dower right of Mrs. Jane Webster. It is true the warrants of fraud are denied, and the answer affirmatively alleges that the offer of Parker to sell the property for $2500 was accepted “provided Parker and wife would make a good deed.” But we do not regard this allegation as equivalent to a denial of the statement that the grantors made the deed variant from the contract by *mistake*so far as it imports a responsibility on them for the dower right of Mrs. Webster.

Breckinridge, *for appellant.*

Huston, Gibbons, *for appellees.*

It seems to us moreover, that the weight of the evidence authorized the conclusion of the circuit court and the relief adjudged, which though not in the form specifically prayed for in the petition, was not inconsistent with the right of the parties, and was within the scope of the general prayer of the petition.

Wherefore the judgment is *affirmed.*
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CHRIS G. ALEVRAS.

May 16, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Perkins & Marie Callender’s Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended July 12, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Fred T. Grant, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated: August 26, 2009


BY:/s/ Fred T. Grant, Jr.Fred T. Grant, Jr.Chief Financial Officer
#### Hunter *v.*Harris and Another.

In error.

Friday, *December*4.

TRESPASS for breaking the plaintiff’s close and taking away his goods. Pleas, 1. Not guilty. 2. That *Harris*was a justice of the peace and had rendered a judgment against the plaintiff at the suit of the other defendant; that the trespass was committed by a constable under an execution issued on that judgment, &c. Issues were joined, and the cause was submitted to the Court. The plaintiff proved the trespass; but the defendants, as to the justification, gave no evidence whatever that *Harris*was a justice of the peace. Judgment below for the defendants.

*The Court*reversed the judgment at the defendants’ costs, and remanded the cause for another trial.