alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 14,430.

#### Sullivan *v.*Jones.

Assault and *Battery.*— Complaint *for*Damages.— *Venue.*— A complaint for damages for assault and battery need not state tbe county in which the assault was committed.-

From the Johnson Circuit Court.

*H. N. Spaan, T. W. Woollen*and *D. D. Banta,*for appellant.

*T. Hanna, G. M. Overstreet*and *A. B. Hunter,*for appellee.

Olds, J. —

This is an action for damages for assault and battery. The only error assigned is, that neither paragraph of the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

The complaint is in two paragraphs, and, omitting the caption, the first paragraph is as follows:

> *“*"William C. Jones complains of John E. Sullivan, Thomas O’Neal, John Ferriter and Jerry Sullivan, and says that the defendants, on the 27th day .of August, 1886, in a rude, in*328solent and angry manner, unlawfully touched, struck, beat and wounded the plaintiff to his damage one thousand dollars. Wherefore said plaintiff demands judgment in the sum o.f one thousand dollars.”

Filed Feb. 14, 1889.

The second paragraph cqntains the same material allegations of fact.

The only objection urged to either paragraph of complaint is, that they do not state the venue, and no authorities are cited in support of this position of counsel.

It is not necessary that they should do so. It is sufficient to allege the facts constituting the cause of action, and it is not necessary to state the county in which the unlawful acts were committed. *Morris*v. *Casel,*90 Ind. 143; 2 Chitty Plead., 612; 3 Works Pr., pp. 28-29; *Benson*v. *Bacon,*99 Ind. 156.

There is no error in the record.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, and five per cent, damages.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7709

AMOS JACOB ARROYO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SUPERINTENDENT JOHN DOE; NS SUPERINTENDENT JOHN DOE; MAJOR 

JOHN BARNES; CAPTAIN JOHN DOE; HAMPTON ROADS REGIONAL JAIL; 

THE CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:21-cv-00313-AWA-RJK)

Submitted: March 29, 2022 Decided: April 1, 2022

Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Amos Jacob Arroyo, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7709 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/01/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Amos Jacob Arroyo seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without 

prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to comply with a court order. In civil 

cases, parties have 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment to note an 

appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he 

timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles 

v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). 

The district court’s order was entered on August 11, 2021. Arroyo filed his notice 

of appeal, at the earliest, on December 2, 2021, well after the appeal and excusable neglect 

periods expired.

* In his notice of appeal, however, Arroyo indicated that he had not been 

receiving legal mail, implied that he never received the court’s dismissal order, and asked 

that his appeal be granted. We therefore construe the notice of appeal as a motion to reopen 

the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). Accordingly, we remand this case to the 

district court for the limited purpose of determining whether Arroyo is entitled to a 

reopening of the appeal period. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this 

court for further proceedings.

REMANDED

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of

appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for

mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7709 Doc: 10 Filed: 04/01/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

May 17, 2023

No. 04

- 23

- 00162

- CR

Terrance BRYANT

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CR10931

Honorable Ron Rangel , Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED for want of

jurisdiction.

It is so ORDERED on May 17, 2023

.

_____________________________ Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 17th day of May, 2023

.

_____________________________ Michael A. Cruz , Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           5,185
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           7,887
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      4,943
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          73,383
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            69,777
<LOANS>                                        170,096
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,349
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 266,311
<DEPOSITS>                                     175,391
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             53,613
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,352
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 266,311
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 12,019
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,672
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   108
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                15,799
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               5,859
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,776
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            8,023
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      100
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  6,046
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,258
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,258
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,608
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.33
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.29
<LOANS-NON>                                      3,194
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,349
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                        18
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,349
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,349
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0



</TABLE>
#### James K. Burgess *v.*Charles Owens' Executrix.

Demurrer — Allegations of Petition by Distributee for Misappropriation.

A petition by a distributee, against an executor and another, alleging a combination to defraud the estate by a misappropriation of the assets, in the absence of the disclosure of the plaintiffs interest, not set forth, a demurrer thereto was property sustained.

APPEAL FROM SCOTT CIRCUIT COURT.

December 14, 1869.

*320
      *Shepard, for appellant.*

*Robinson, for appellee.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Hardin:

Although, it is stated in the original and amended petitions that W. O. Burgess was the father of the plaintiff, the fact is also disclosed that he left a will, and that Samuel N. Green was his executor; and if the suggested relationship of the plaintiff to the testator authorized the inference that the plaintiff was his only heir at law, yet it appearing that he left a will, it must also be inferred that he thereby disposed of his estate, and it is not disclosed by any sufficient averment, either that the plaintiff was a devisee under the will, or that the whole estate was not needed to pay debts.

Therefore conceding the right of a distributee to sue the executor and another with whom he may have combined, as alleged in this case, to defraud the estate by a misappropriation of the assets of the estate, upon a sufficient disclosure of the plaintiff’s interest in the estate,^as such an interest was not set forth by either the original or amended petition, the demurrer to the petition was properly sustained.

Wherefore, the judgment is *affirmed.*
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Anthony Greicius","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/anthony-greicius-116962jpl-nasa-gov\/","title":"Space Samples Link NASA’s Apollo 11 and Mars 2020","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"iCNIHZcKYu\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/mars-2020-perseverance\/perseverance-rover\/space-samples-link-nasas-apollo-11-and-mars-2020\/\">Space Samples Link NASA’s Apollo 11 and Mars 2020<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/mars-2020-perseverance\/perseverance-rover\/space-samples-link-nasas-apollo-11-and-mars-2020\/embed\/#?secret=iCNIHZcKYu\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Space Samples Link NASA’s Apollo 11 and Mars 2020” — NASA\" data-secret=\"iCNIHZcKYu\" 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\/2019\/08\/apollo-mars2020-20190809-16.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":338}
Case 2:15-cr-01382-GMS Document 4 Filed 10/07/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-cr-01382-GMS Document 4 Filed 10/07/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-cr-01382-GMS Document 4 Filed 10/07/15 Page 3 of 3
SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

                       State of Incorporation     Other Names
Name                       or Organization      Used in Business
-------------------    ----------------------   ----------------  
NewCare, Inc.                      Florida             None

Equity General Partner, Inc.            Florida             None

Oak Manor Nuring Home, Ltd.             Florida             None

Healthcare Facilities Limited
Partnership I                      Louisiana           None

Suncoast Nursing Home, Ltd.             Florida             None

Victoria Martin Nursing Home, Ltd.      Florida             None

Central Tampa Nursing Home, Ltd.        Florida             None

Bay to Bay Nursing Home, Ltd.            Florida            None

Healthcare Facilities, Inc.             Florida             None

Memorial Nursing Center, Inc.           Georgia             None

Cimerron Health Care, Inc.              Georgia             None

Fitzgerald Healthcare, Inc.             Georgia             None

Fitzgerald Nursing Center, Inc.         Georgia             None

Ft. Valley Nursing Center, Inc.         Georgia             None

Windward Nursing Center, Inc.           Georgia             None

KMH Enterprises, Inc.                   Georgia        Pleasant View
                                                  Nursing Center

Whigham Health & Rehabilitation, Inc.    Georgia            None

NewCare Hospital Corporation             Georgia            None

NewCare Nursing Corporation              Georgia            None

NewCare Retirement Corporation           Georgia            None

NewCare Hospital Management Corporation  Georgia            None

NewCare Dallas Hospital Management      Georgia             None
Corporation

NewCare Texas Nursing, Inc.             Georgia             None

NewCare Mass Nursing, Inc.              Georgia             None

Park Place, Ltd.                        Texas               None

Tyler Park Place, Inc.                  Texas               None

Wakulla Manor, Inc.                     Florida              None

Wakulla Acquisition, Inc.               Delaware             None
exv10w43



 


Exhibit 10.43

Amendment to Employment Agreement between Registrant and Paul Mahon


AMENDMENT



     THIS AMENDMENT is made as of the 11th day of December, 2002 to the
Employment Agreement between Paul A. Mahon (“Executive”) and United
Therapeutics Corporation dated June 16, 2001 (the “Agreement”).


     WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement as provided below.


     NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby amend the
Agreement as follows:


     1.     Anti-Moonlighting Provision. Notwithstanding any other provision of
the Agreement to the contrary, the Executive agrees not to “moonlight” in any
manner other than to perform such nominal work with the law firm of Mahon
Patusky Rothblatt & Fisher, Chartered as is consistent with maintaining
professional obligations with respect to the practice of law in the
jurisdictions in which the Executive is licensed or may become licensed.


     2.     Effect. No other provisions of the Agreement shall be affected by
this Amendment, and all other provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect.


     In witness whereof, the parties have executed this Amendment effective as
of the date first written above.



	 	UNITED THERAPEUTICS CORPORATION




	
	

	Paul A. Mahon	Martine Rothblatt, CEO
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

DEVILNEAR TILGHMAN

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee.

No. 4D2022

- 2795

[ December 14, 2023 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County; Michael A. Usan , Judge; L.T. Case No. 19

- 013584CF10A.

Jacob Michael Noble, Specially Appointed Public Defender, Palm Beach

Gardens , for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Paul Patti, III, Senior

Assistant Attorney General , West Palm Beach , for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

K LINGENSMITH

, C.J., G ROSS and L EVINE

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Heather Deiss","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/heather-s-deissnasa-gov\/","title":"STS-94","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"1JR4cLYtxV\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/sts-94\/\">STS-94<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/sts-94\/embed\/#?secret=1JR4cLYtxV\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“STS-94” — NASA\" data-secret=\"1JR4cLYtxV\" 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\/sts-94.jpeg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":609}
No. 75.

#### Psalmonds, plaintiff in error, *vs.*Barksdale, defendant in error.

Motion to dismiss writ of error.

Mr. Cone, for the defendant in error,

moved to dismiss the writ of error in this case, on the ground that the security on the appeal of Barksdale, was not made a party ; and cited 2 *Kelly R.*349, 287, 409, 440.

Mr. Reese, for the plaintiff in error.

PER CURIAM.

“ It is ordered by the Court, that the above cause be dismissed, upon the ground of *non joinder*in the writ of error of the security on appeal.”
#### G. C. Ware's Admr. *v.*Matilda Wilson.

Appeal — Final Orders — Jurisdiction.

An order of court, reviving an action for breach of promise, upon suggestion of the death of the defendant, is not such a final order as, by consent of the parties, will give the Appellate Court jurisdiction.

Same.

Orders dissolving injunctions are not such final orders, as can confer jurisdiction on the Appellate Court.

APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT.

February 11, 1870.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Williams:

This was an action for breach of promise of marriage and seduction by appellee against decedent, George Clifton Ware, and issues were made' in his life-time, but before trial he died.

*479
      *Johnson Goodloe, Carr & Huston, for appellant.*

*Buckner, for appellee.*

Within proper time appellee moved for a revivor against the executor, which he opposed and the court took time to consider for one or more terms, and before determination the executor died and this appellant was appointed administrator *de bonis non*with the will annexed, after which the plaintiff, upon notice and service, moved the court for a revivor, which was granted over appellant’s objections, after' which on affidavit filed he moved to set aside the revivor, because no demand accompanied by affidavits, as required by the statutes, had been made of him, wherefore the court set aside the revivor, when the demand with proper affidavits was made, and then the court made another order of revivor, all this being at the same term of the court.

The administrator appealed and presented for consideration,

1. That said action does not survive the death of either party, even by the provision of chapter 10, Revised Statutes, 223.

2. That the order of revivor was not made within the time prescribed by law, therefore, the suit should have been abated even if it could otherwise have been revived.

And there is a third question as to our jurisdiction.

As said by this court in *Owsley vs. Gay, 17 B. Mon., 145,*when the rights of the parties are settled, but the decree is interlocutory to ascertain the extent of such rights by consent that it be final for the purpose of appeal, this court has jurisdiction, but that there are exceptional cases.

An order of court, however, overruling a motion to discharge an attachment is not such final order as will give jurisdiction, even by consent, notes to section 15, Civil Code.

Orders dissolving injunctions are not such final orders as that consent can confer jurisdiction, *Radman vs. Fortune, 2 Met., 325.*

This order settles no rights in litigation in the original suit, nor nor is it conclusive, for it may be considered and revived on final hearng if found to be erroneous.

This court having no jurisdiction, the consent of parties can give none, and whatever we might determine the one way or the other would be extra judicial and not binding on this or other .court on the final determination of the litigation, nor on the parties.

Wherefore, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7173

JACOB LEON MITCHELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

VIRGINIA PENINSULA REGIONAL JAIL, Officer in

Charge; SERGEANT BOYD,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge.

(CA-98-256-AM)

Submitted: October 20, 1998 Decided: November 4, 1998

Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jacob Leon Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Jacob Leon Mitchell, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district

court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find that

this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. Mitchell v. Virginia Peninsula

Regional Jail, No. CA-98-256-AM (E.D. Va. Feb. 23, 1998). 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.

DISMISSED