alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert Kirkland,

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-17-03936-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 26, 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 8547 Filed 11/02/17 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 513 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                               H. R. 513

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To exempt certain contracts entered into by the government of the 
  District of Columbia from review by the Council of the District of 
                               Columbia.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 513

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To exempt certain contracts entered into by the government of the 
  District of Columbia from review by the Council of the District of 
                               Columbia.

    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 ``District of Columbia Council 
Contract Review Reform Act of 1997''.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN CONTRACTS FROM COUNCIL REVIEW.

    (a) In General.--Section 451 of the District of Columbia Self-
Government and Governmental Reorganization Act (sec. 1-1130, D.C. Code) 
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(d) Exemption for Certain Contracts.--The requirements of this 
section shall not apply with respect to any of the following contracts:
            ``(1) Any contract entered into by the Washington 
        Convention Center Authority for preconstruction activities, 
        project management, design, or construction.
            ``(2) Any contract entered into by the District of Columbia 
        Water and Sewer Authority established pursuant to the Water and 
        Sewer Authority Establishment and Department of Public Works 
        Reorganization Act of 1996, other than contracts for the sale 
        or lease of the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant.
            ``(3) At the option of the Council, any contract for a 
        highway improvement project carried out under title 23, United 
        States Code.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to contracts entered into on or after the date of 
the enactment of this Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 6, 1997.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### Green Utly et al *v.*John Roark et al.

Wills — Devise of Land in Fee Simple — Defeasible Contingency. Uncertainty.

A legatory clause in a will giving land to another In fee simple will not he defeated by a subsequent provision made defeasible at the death of the legatee on a contingency that never occured and which was void for uncertainty.

APPEAL FROM HOPKINS CIRCUIT COURT.

February 26, 1869.

*Stevenson &*Rodman, *for appellant.*

Vance, Eaves, *for appellee.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Robertson:

The legatory clause of Hobson Brown’s will giving to his wife his land evidently passed to her a fee which a subsequent provision made defeasible at her death only, on -a contingency that never occurred and was 'moreover void for inexplicable uncertainty. And consequently she died seized of the absolute fee simple title which descended to the appellees as her heirs.

The judgment in their favor was, therefore, right on the face of the will, and, therefore, as there is nothing in the record which we can recognize as a bill of exceptions showing either instructions or other evidence than the will itself, the judgment is *affirmed.*The Chief' Justice dissenting.
EX-10.21 Description of Employment Arrangement



 



Exhibit 10.21



Shereen P. Jones joined the Company to serve as its Executive Vice President,
Chief Financial and Investment Officer on February 25, 2002. Ms. Jones’ annual
base salary for 2002 is $265,000. Ms. Jones is entitled to an
annual bonus of up
to 82.5% of her annual base salary based upon performance criteria established
by the Board of Directors. Ms. Jones would be entitled to severance in the
amount of two times her then base salary and 50% of her maximum bonus potential
for each of the two years as well as continuation of benefits for up to a two
year period and immediate vesting of all unvested share options and share
grants in the event of a change in control of the Company or if she is
terminated without cause. Ms. Jones is entitled to the use of an automobile,
medical and dental benefits, vacation and sick leave and certain other benefits
available to the Company’s other executive officers. Ms. Jones was granted
options to purchase an aggregate of 250,000 Common Shares under the Company’s
Long-Term Incentive Plan at an exercise price of $8.40. A total of
100,000 of Ms. Jones’ options
vest ratably over a three year period commencing with her hire date.
The remaining 150,000 options vest only if the Company’s common share price
meets targeted thresholds within four years of her hire date. Upon hiring, Ms. Jones was also granted 15,000
restricted common shares which vest ratably over three years. An additional
5,000 restricted common shares were awarded as a matching grant vesting over
three years as Ms. Jones purchased 5,000 shares upon employment with the
Company. Up to an additional 45,000 restricted common shares may be earned by
Ms. Jones upon the Company’s common share price achieving established
thresholds as mentioned above. In addition, as each threshold is met (three in total), Ms.
Jones has the right to receive a 5,000 restricted common share matching grant
upon her purchase of 5,000 common shares at its current price. The Company also agreed to reimburse Ms. Jones for certain of her relocation
expenses.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Betty DeJournette,

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-17-03460-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 26, 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 8408 Filed 10/27/17 Page 1 of 1
#### Gist and Others *v.*Cicot.

If a declaration for goods sold and delivered allege the goods to have been .sold for a stipulated price, and then state a promise to pay the worth of the goods, alleging them to be worth the sum previously stated, it .is bad on special demurrer.

Friday, *December*4.

ERROR to the *Cass*Circuit Court.

Blackford, J.

This is an action of assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. The declaration is to the following effect: For that whereas the defendant, &c.—in consideration that he was indebted to the plaintiffs in the sum of 116 dollars, for divers goods, &c., before that time sold and delivered to him and at his request,—undertook and then and there promised the plaintiffs to pay them so much money as the goods, &c. were worth. And the plaintiffs aver that the goods, &c. were worth 116 dollars. Yet the defendant hath not paid, &c. Special demurrer to the declaration and judgment for the defendant.

This declaration commences in the form of a count in *indebitatus*assumpsit. It states that the goods had been sold to the defendant for a certain sum of money, to wit, for 116 dol*127lars. But when the declaration comes to set out the promise, it abandons the previous description of the contract, and leges that the defendant’s promise was to pay for the goods,— not a specific price, but what they were worth; and it then avers that the goods were worth 116 dollars. So that this latter part of the declaration is in the form of a *quantum valebant*count.

*A. S. White*and *H. Chase,*for the plaintiffs.

*C. W. Ewing*and *S. C. Sample,*for the defendant.

The incongruity, in these two parts of the declaration, renders the count objectionable, at least in form. It is not in proper form as a declaration in *indebitatus*assumpsit, because the promise is alleged to be for the payment of *what the goods were worth.*And it is not good, in form, as a *quantum valebant*count, because in setting out the consideration of the promise, it alleges that the goods were sold for *a stipulated price.*

The demurrer to the declaration sets out the objections to it, and was correctly sustained by the Circuit Court.

*Per*Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed with costs. To be certified, &c.
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta name="pdf:PDFVersion" content="1.2">
<meta name="xmp:CreatorTool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="pdf:hasXFA" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:modify_annotations" content="true">
<meta name="dc:creator" content="capture">
<meta name="dcterms:created" content="1998-09-03T21:18:51Z">
<meta name="dcterms:modified" content="1998-09-03T21:18:52Z">
<meta name="dc:format" content="application/pdf; version=1.2">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator_tool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="access_permission:fill_in_form" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:modified" content="1998-09-03T21:18:52Z">
<meta name="pdf:hasCollection" content="false">
<meta name="pdf:encrypted" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Length" content="65807">
<meta name="pdf:hasMarkedContent" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Type" content="application/pdf">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print_faithful" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator" content="capture">
<meta name="pdf:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_for_accessibility" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:assemble_document" content="true">
<meta name="xmpTPg:NPages" content="1">
<meta name="pdf:hasXMP" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_content" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print" content="true">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.DefaultParser">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.pdf.PDFParser">
<meta name="access_permission:can_modify" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:created" content="1998-09-03T21:18:51Z">
<title></title>
</head>
<body><div class="page"><p></p>
<div class="ocr">THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
or TEXAS

AUSTIN 11, TEXAS

3 PERD
ROCCE RII
Hon. weaver H. Baker Opinion Koq Onb989
Chairman asthority to pay tuition fee

to esknowled |
an opinion tron” this departuent, as ream ee FUT Letter requesting

facts relati: “to the above named givl for vhon the
mt of mw the is

So wrote tha Gld Aleslde in Dunes ¥. Aagette, 250x253.
AVP UES Fie ist very trul
/af Gree = sities pret Bere Tsuna OF TEKAS

FIRST S ausianane STR GRRL Gina Speer.
47FROVEIn OPTRIGR CGMATPPRE AY: PE af oeke .
</div>

</div>
</body></html>
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WILLIE D. ETHRIDGE.

May 16, 1989.

Petition for certification granted, and the matter is summarily remanded to the Appellate Division to supplement its opinion in respect of the effect, if any, of *State v. Washington*223 *N.J.Super.*367 (1988), on defendant’s appeal.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Monika Luabeya","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/mluabeya\/","title":"Hubble Captures a Monster Merger","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"vzurDmp06s\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/when-one-plus-one-eventually-equals-one\/\">Hubble Captures a Monster Merger<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/when-one-plus-one-eventually-equals-one\/embed\/#?secret=vzurDmp06s\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Hubble Captures a Monster Merger” — NASA\" data-secret=\"vzurDmp06s\" 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\/2024\/01\/potw2402a-1.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":549}
Case 2:15-cr-01287-GMS Document 4 Filed 09/24/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-cr-01287-GMS Document 4 Filed 09/24/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-cr-01287-GMS Document 4 Filed 09/24/15 Page 3 of 3
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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Damon Russell Gonzalez, 

Defendant.

No. CR-15-50178-PHX-NVW

DETENTION ORDER 

 On July 19, 2016, defendant, Damon Russell Gonzalez, appeared before this Court 

on a petition for revocation of supervised release. The Court considered the information 

provided to the Court, and the arguments of counsel in determining whether the 

defendant should be released on conditions set by the Court. 

 The Court finds that the defendant, having previously been convicted and placed 

on supervised release, and having appeared before the Court in connection with a petition 

to revoke his supervised release, has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence 

that he is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of the community if released 

pursuant to Rule 46(d), and Rule 32.1(a)(6), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and 18 

U.S.C. § 3143. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant be detained pending further 

proceedings. 

 Dated this 20th day of July, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cr-50178-NVW Document 7 Filed 07/20/16 Page 1 of 1
STIPULATION 1 2:15-CV-02631-DLR

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

David J. McGlothlin, Esq. (SBN: 026059)

david@westcoastlitigation.com

HYDE & SWIGART

2633 E. Indian School Road, Suite 460

Phoenix, AZ 85016

Telephone: (602) 265-3332

Facsimile: (602) 230-4482

Ryan L. McBride, Esq. (SBN: 032001)

ryan@kazlg.com

KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC

2633 E. Indian School Road, Suite 460

Phoenix, AZ 85016

Telephone: (800) 400-6808

Facsimile: (800) 520-5523

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff and Defendant Experian Information 

Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”) hereby stipulate to dismiss Defendant Experian from 

Audree Renee Osborn,

PLAINTIFF,

V.

Experian Information Solutions, 

Inc., Wells Fargo Bank, National 

Association, and Arizona Public 

Service Company,

DEFENDANTS.

CASE NO: 2:15-CV-02631-DLR

STIPULATION FOR 

DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT 

EXPERIAN INFORMATION

SOLUTIONS, INC. WITH

PREJUDICE

Case 2:15-cv-02631-DLR Document 46 Filed 09/02/16 Page 1 of 2
STIPULATION 2 2:15-CV-02631-DLR

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

this action, with prejudice, with each party to bear their own attorney’s fees and 

costs. 

Date: September 2, 2016 KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP

 By: /s/ Ryan L. McBride 

 Ryan L. McBride

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Jones Day 

Date: September 2, 2016 By: /s/ Jennifer Sun

Jennifer Sun

Attorneys for Defendant Experian 

Information Solutions, Inc.

Case 2:15-cv-02631-DLR Document 46 Filed 09/02/16 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:15-mj-01916-JFM Document 4 Filed 12/14/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01916-JFM Document 4 Filed 12/14/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01916-JFM Document 4 Filed 12/14/15 Page 3 of 3
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

March 20, 2019

d0313 

# Order

Clerk March 20, 2019

158169

ARTHUR CHAPMAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 158169

COA: 335678

Wayne CC: 15

- 010270

- NO

OFFICER D. MACK,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 19, 2018

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral

argument on the application. MCR 7.305(H)(1).

The appellant shall file a supplemental brief within 42 days of the date of this

order addressing: (1) whether the appellant’s gross negligence claim should have been

dismissed for failure to s tate a claim upon which relief could be granted, MCR

2.116(C)(8); and (2) whether the appellant’s intentional tort claims were barred by

governmental immunity because there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding

whether the appellee acted in good faith and without malice. In addition to the brief, the

appellant shall electronically file an appendix conforming to MCR 7.312(D)(2). In the

brief, citations to the record must provide the appendix page numbers as required by

MCR 7.312(B)(1). The appel lee shall file a supplemental brief within 21 days of being

served with the appellant’s brief. The appellee shall also electronically file an appendix,

or in the alternative, stipulate to the use of the appendix filed by the appellant. A reply, if

any, m ust be filed by the appellant within 14 days of being served with the appellee’s

brief. The parties should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

District of Arizona

Electrical Prefab Systems, LLC; Bruce Phillips

Thomas & Betts Corporation

Thomas & Betts Corporation

c/o CT Corporation System

3800 North Central Avenue, Suite 460

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Brian J. Schulman

Greenberg Traurig, LLP

2375 East Camelback Road, Suite 700

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

schulmanb@gtlaw.com

602-445-8000

Case 2:15-cv-01966-DJH Document 2 Filed 10/01/15 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

u I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

u I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

u I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

u I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

u Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

0.00

Case 2:15-cv-01966-DJH Document 2 Filed 10/01/15 Page 2 of 2