alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James A. Gregory *v.*George D. E. Traylor.

New Trial — Instructions—Exceptions.

No objection was made to the instruction asked by appellee, nor exception taken when it was given, nor was any exception taken to the opinion of the court over-ruling the one asked by appellant, so that whether there was any error committed in giving or refusing instruction can not be considered by the court on appeal.

APPEAL FROM CRITTENDEN CIRCUIT COURT.

December 3, 1869.

Blue, *for appellant.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters:

From the proof appellant was the credited agent of the Government of the United States to take the surrender of Confederate soldiers, and receive horses, etc., surrendered with them which had been used in carrying on hostilities against said Government, and in that capacity, took the horse in controversy, given up to him by Elliott when he surrendered to and was parolled by appellant.

And having turned the horse over to his principal, as the proof shows, before he was notified by a demand of the horse, or otherwise, by appellee that he had any claim to him, the ground upon which he can be made afterwards responsible for the horse, or his value, is not perceived.

No objection was made to the instruction asked by appellee, nor exception taken when it was given, nor was any exception taken to the opinion of the court overruling the one asked by appellant, so that whether there was any error committed in giving, or refusing, instructions cannot be considered by this court. But we think there is a failure in the evidenec to make out a cause of action against appellant. And the court erred to his prejudice in overruling his motion for a new trial.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial, and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATION**  I, Erik R. Martinez, 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; and5. 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 oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.        Date: March 31, 2006 By:  /s/ Erik R. Martinez    Erik R. Martinez    President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer
#### Orobola OLADOKUN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-1724.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 28, 2005.

Decided March 17, 2005.

Babatunde A. Irukera, Olusola Oyeyemi, Chicago, Illinois, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Anthony W. Norwood, Senior Litigation Counsel, Joshua E. Braunstein, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Orobola Oladokun, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying her motion to reopen. The Board denied the motion because it was untimely and she failed to show her counsel’s conduct was prejudicial. The Board further noted Oladokun did not challenge the central issue resulting in the denial of her application for suspension of deportation. Because Oladokun’s brief filed in this court does not challenge the dispositive issues with respect to the denial of her motion to reopen, she has abandoned these issues. *See United States v. Al-Hamdi,*356 F.3d 564, 571 n. 8 (4th Cir.2004); *Edwards v. City of Goldsboro,*178 F.3d 231, 241 n. 6 (4th Cir.1999). Accordingly, this court will not review the issues. The petition for review is denied. We also deny the motion for summary affirmance. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED*
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Jim Banke","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/jim-bankenasa-gov\/","title":"NASA ULI Students Share Experience with High Schoolers","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"4SlVEk0L1X\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/bgc-regal-1-2\/\">NASA ULI Students Share Experience with High Schoolers<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/bgc-regal-1-2\/embed\/#?secret=4SlVEk0L1X\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA ULI Students Share Experience with High Schoolers” — NASA\" data-secret=\"4SlVEk0L1X\" 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\/06\/bgc-regal-1.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":419}
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Michele Ostovar","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/michele-e-ostovarnasa-gov\/","title":"Skylab 4","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"wi8EQNui06\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/skylab-4\/\">Skylab 4<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/skylab-4\/embed\/#?secret=wi8EQNui06\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Skylab 4” — NASA\" data-secret=\"wi8EQNui06\" 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\/S73-37248\/S73-37248~large.jpg?w=600&h=1920&fit=clip&crop=faces%2Cfocalpoint","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1920}
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Laura Burnside, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

vs.

Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian

Relocation,

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-15-08233-PCT-PGR

Related Cases: 

CV-16-08188-PCT-SPL

CV-16-08196-PCT-DLR

CV-16-08221-PCT-DGC

CV-16-08229-PCT-JAT

CV-16-08245-PCT-JWS

CV-16-08268-PCT-DMF

 

 ORDER 

 

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Transfer (Doc. 26) filed by

defendant Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation (ONHIR), wherein it seeks

to transfer six other ONHIR-related cases to the undersigned Judge pursuant to

LRCiv 42.1. The plaintiffs in all seven cases have opposed the requested transfer.

The Court, in the exercise of its “broad discretion” in determining whether the

reassignment of the affected cases is appropriate under LRCiv 42.1, see Badea v.

Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 575 (9th Cir.1991); United States v. Gray, 876 F.2d 1411, 1414

(9th Cir.1989), finds that the motion should be denied.

First, the Court is not persuaded that the cases involve substantially the same

Case 3:15-cv-08233-PGR Document 52 Filed 02/01/17 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

- 2 -

parties or call for the determination of substantially the same questions of law. While

all of the cases arise from the plaintiffs’ desires to obtain relocation assistance

benefits under the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act and the ONHIR is the sole

defendant in all of them, the similarity of the cases, in a legally material sense, ends

there. The plaintiffs are different in all of the cases, the specific legal issues they

raise are not substantially the same, and the factual circumstances underlying their

cases are unique to them. While there is some commonality of counsel representing

the various parties, that mere commonality is an insufficient basis on which to justify

the transfer that ONHIR seeks given the legal and factual distinctions among the

cases.

Second, the Court is also not persuaded that there would be any substantial

duplication of judicial labor if the requested transfer is denied. Each case involves

an administrative record that must be judicially reviewed and each such record is

distinct from the others. Furthermore, no showing has been made that the resolution

of these significantly dissimilar cases by the different judges assigned to them will

likely result in inconsistent rulings materially prejudicial to any of the parties involved

in them. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the defendant’s Motion to Transfer (Doc. 26) is denied.

DATED this 1st day of February, 2017.

Case 3:15-cv-08233-PGR Document 52 Filed 02/01/17 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.4



October 25, 2002

Mark Benadiba
25 Parkwood Avenue
Toronto, Ontario
M4V 2W9

Dear Mark:

RE:  EMPLOYMENT AND RELATED ARRANGEMENTS

This letter confirms our agreement concerning certain amendments and
clarifications to your employment agreement dated October 7, 1997 (the "Original
Agreement"), as modified by a letter dated December 19, 1997, as further
modified by an agreement dated May 1, 1998, as further modified by an agreement
dated September 14, 1998, as further modified by a letter agreement of June 25,
1999, and as further modified by a letter agreement dated September 25, 2000
(collectively, the "Employment Agreement").

The following amendments and/or clarifications to the Employment Agreement are
hereby agreed to by the parties:

1.       Pursuant to the Employment Agreement, your current position is that of
         Executive Vice President Cott Corporation and President of Cott Canada,
         with responsibility for all aspects of Cott's Canadian beverage
         business. Effective July 22, 2002, your title is changed to Executive
         Vice President. In that role, you will have responsibility for all
         aspects of Cott's Canadian, international (including RC Cola
         International) and Mexican beverage businesses and will report directly
         to the President and Chief Executive Officer of Cott Corporation.

2.       Section 5(a) of the Original Agreement is amended by changing the
         reference to "two years" in the first line to "six years".

3.       Section 5(b) of the Original Agreement is amended by changing the
         reference to "two years" in each of the first line and fourth line to
         "six years".

4.       The aggregate amount of the bonuses referred to in the seventh line of
         Section 5(a) of the Original Agreement is set at $500,000.

5.       The aggregate amount of the bonuses referred to in the fourth line of
         Section 5(b) of the Original Agreement is set at $500,000.

6.       The CEO Replacement Date (as defined in the Original Agreement) is June
         11, 1998.

<PAGE>

7.       The Change of Control (as defined in the Original Agreement) occurred
         on July 7, 1998.

In all other respects, the terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement
shall remain in full force and effect, unamended.

If I have accurately stated the terms of our agreement, please sign and return
the enclosed duplicate original of this letter.

Yours truly,
COTT CORPORATION

/s/ Colin Walker
----------------------------------------
Colin Walker
Senior Vice-President, Human Resources




ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO THIS 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2002.

/s/ Mark Benadiba
----------------------------------------
MARK BENADIBA
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S. C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Wayne A. Case, certify that:

1.  I havereviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Schmitt Industries, Inc.;

2.  Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

3.  Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 4.  Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

                (a)  Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

                (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

                (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 5.  Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

                (a)  All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

                (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date:  | July 31, 2007 | /s/ Wayne A. Case                      |
|--------|---------------|----------------------------------------|
|   |          | Wayne A. Case,  President/CEO/Director |

 

----
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Robert E. Wainwright, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ACE American Insurance Company, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-15-01944-PHX-ROS

ORDER 

 The Court having considered the parties’ Stipulation to Stay Proceedings, and 

good cause appearing, 

IT IS ORDERED the stipulation (Doc. 13) is APPROVED IN PART and the 

proceedings in this case are stayed until March 4, 2016. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the January 13, 2016 Rule 16 scheduling 

conference is VACATED and RESET for March 31, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. The deadline 

for filing the joint proposed case management plan and proposed scheduling order is 

extended to March 25, 2016. The parties shall conduct the initial case management 

meeting at least twenty-one days before the scheduling conference. 

 Dated this 8th day of January, 2016. 

Honorable Roslyn O. Silver

Senior United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-01944-ROS Document 14 Filed 01/08/16 Page 1 of 1
#### Clarrie A. Apsey, Administratrix, etc., v. The Detroit, Lansing & Northern Railroad Company.

[See *ante,*432.]

*Contributory negligence.*

When the testimony shows affirmatively that the party who is injured through the negligence of another was himself negligent, and that such negligence contributed to bring about the result complained of, and such testimony is neither conflicting nor contradictory, it becomes a question of law for the court to decide whether there is any fact disclosed by the testimony to go to the jury upon the question of contributory negligence.

Plaintiff applies for a rehearing.

Submitted December *44123, 1890.

Denied December 24, 1890.

The facts are stated in the opinion in the main case, *ante,*432.

*Frank L. Dodge*and *G. P. Black',*for motion.

*Charles B. Lothrop*and *B. A. Montgomery, contra.*

Per Curiam.

We have carefully examined the points, brief, and argument upon which a rehearing is asked in this case.

Counsel for petitioner assume that, because the word “east” in two places inadvertently crept into the opinion, this Court misapprehended the facts in the case. The opinion is not open to misconception. The fact is stated that the train was an east-bound train, and that it was claimed that Apsey’s view of the approach was obstructed by an orchard, embankment, etc. It follows that such obstructions were west of the highway, and not east, as inadvertently stated. Corrections will be made in the opinion handed down.

The reversal of the judgment was based upon the contributory negligence of Mr. Apsey, as shown by all the evidence in the case. Counsel for petitioner insist that the question should have been submitted to the jury. When the testimony shows affirmatively that the party who is injured through the negligence of another was himself negligent, and such negligence contributed to bring about the result complained of, and such testimony is neither conflicting nor contradictory, it becomes a question of law for the court to decide whether the2’e is any fact disclosed by the testimony to go to the jury upon the question of contributory negligence.