alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
8949, 8950.

#### Arnold *v.*Water Power Mining Company; and *vice versa.*

Decided July 12, 1918.

Eviction; from Lumpkin superior court—Judge J. B. Jones. October 18, 1916.

1. The motion to which'the decision refers in paragraph 1 is a motion to strike the ease from the docket of the Court of Appeal?, on the ground that, "the case not having been disposed of at the first or second term after the writ of error was received by the Supreme Court,” from which it was transferred to the Court of Appeals, "it stands affirmed under the constitution;” citing art. 6, sec. 2, par. 6 (Civil Code of 1910, § 6503); amendment creating Court of Appeals (§ 6506); amendment changing jurisdiction of these courts (Park’s Ann. Code, Supp. 1917, §§ 6502, 6506); *Arnold*v. *Water Power and Mining Co.,*147 *Ga.*91; *AtIcins Nat. BanJc*v. *Harmon,*19 *Ga. App.*657; *Barnhart*v. *Atlanta*
      *505
      *& West Point R. Co.,*133 *Ga.*59. The bill of exceptions was filed* in the Supreme Court on October 31, 1916, and the case was argued there during the October term (on January 15, 1917); and, by a decision rendered at the March term, 1917, that court decided that it had no jurisdiction of the ease, and that the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction; and the case was accordingly transferred to the Court of Appeals (147 *Ga.*91). In-this motion it was contended that the Supreme Court lost jurisdiction and the Court of Appeals acquired jurisdiction of the case immediately on the ratification of the amendment to the constitution, changing the jurisdiction of these courts.

*504Pee Curiam.

1. The motion to strike is without merit.

2. The court did not err in overruling the demurrers to the defendant’s pleas.

3. The evidence being in material conflict, and the verdict not being demanded, the court erred in directing a verdict.

*Judgment reversed on the main hill of exceptions; affirmed on the cross-hill.*

*Wade, O. J., and Jenkirts and Luke, JJ., concur.*

*5052. The nature of the defense referred to in paragraph 2 of the decision is indicated in the report of this case in 147 *Ga.*91. The plaintiff demurred orally to an amendment to the defendaiit’s counter-affidavit, in which this defense was set up; and by cross-bill of exceptions the plaintiff assigned error on the overruling of the demurrer.

3. The court directed a verdict finding the issue in favor of the plaintiff, and finding $909.98 as rent; to which defendant excepted.'

(Certiorari to review this decision was granted by the Supreme Court.)

*II. H. Perry, R. II. Baker,*for Arnold.

*O. J. Lilly, W. A. Charters,*contra.
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case Nos. 5D23-0037

 5D23-0038

LT Case Nos. 2017-CF-003194

 2017-CF-006226

_____________________________

JOHNATHAN LLOYD SUMMERS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Gilbert L. Feltel, Jr., Judge.

Jessica Yeary, Public Defender, and Justin Karpf, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Michael Schaub, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

September 5, 2023

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WALLIS, JAY, and BOATWRIGHT , JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.25

                                    EXHIBIT A

                                SECOND AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                          AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES, INC.
              DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS

      This Amendment is made to the AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. Deferred
Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors, effective September 1, 2001 (the
"Plan"). All terms defined in the Plan shall have the same meanings when used
herein. This Amendment shall be effective November 19, 2002. All provisions of
the Plan not amended by this Amendment shall remain in full force and effect.

      THE DEFINITION IN SECTION 2.20 ("DIRECTORS FEES") IS AMENDED TO READ IN
ITS ENTIRETY, AS FOLLOWS:

            "Directors' Fees" means the annual retainer or additional retainer
            paid to a Participant for a Deferral Year, and also means additional
            amounts paid to a Participant for participation in meetings of the
            Board of Directors (including committees thereof) during a Deferral
            Year, regardless of whether paid in cash or in the form of AWS
            Stock.

      The Company has caused this Amendment to be executed on the date indicated
below.

                                            AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES, INC.


Dated:                                      By
      ---------------------------             ----------------------------------
                                              Its
                                                 -------------------------------
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Danielle Sempsrott","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/danielle-c-sempsrottnasa-gov\/","title":"Albert Sierra","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"PI9Re9RNNV\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/albert-sierra\/\">Albert Sierra<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/albert-sierra\/embed\/#?secret=PI9Re9RNNV\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Albert Sierra” — NASA\" data-secret=\"PI9Re9RNNV\" 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\/albert-sierra.jpeg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":902}
#### Parker *v.*Smith.

In error.

*Saturday, June*6.

ACTION of disseisin for certain land which the plaintiff had purchased for taxes in 1827. *Held,*that the statute required the assessment-roll, and the advertisement of sale for taxes, to be filed in the office of the clerk of the Circuit Court; and that therefore the assessment of the tax, and the advertisement of sale, should be proved by copies certified, not by the clerk of the board of-.justices, but by the clerk of the Circuit Court.

*Held,*also, that under the statute of 1824,. the defendant in *71such case may prove, notwithstanding the collectors deed, that from the time the precept came into the collector’s hands up to the time of the sale, there was sufficient personal property on the premises, out of which the taxes could have been made; and that there was also a tenant on the premises.

*Held-,*also, that the collector’s deed, under the above-named statute, furnishes no evidence that the tax had been legally assessed, or that it had not been duly paid, or that the' land was not exempt from taxes.

*Held,*also, that under that statute, such a deed-is *prima facie*evidence, and nothing more, of the regularity of the proceedings relative .to the purchaser’s title, so far as the acts of the collector are concerned (1).

(1)

 In a case of a sale for taxes in 1826, it was held that though the collector’s deed *-wasprima fade*evidence, under the statute, that the collector, *after' the receipt of the precept requiring him to*sell, had done his duty relative to the sale, yet that the deed was no evidence that the collector had authority to sell; and that the. existence of the precept, authorising him to act in the premises, must be proved *aliunde. Doe, d. Morris*v. *Himelick, May*term, 1838.

The language of the statute of 1824, so far as relates to the effect of the.collector’s deed as evidence of the regularity of the sale, is changed by the statute of 1831. The words of the latter statute are, that “such conveyance shall be *prima fade*evidence that the sale was regular according to the provisions of this act.” Rev. Code, 1831, p. 436.

That part of the revenue law which authorises the collectors to sell lands for the non-payment of taxes is repealed. Stat. 1832, p. 265. The collector now, on or before the first of *December*annually, returns a list of the lands on which the taxes have not been'paid, to the school commissioner of the proper county; and a period of three years from such return is given to the owner of any of the land on the delinquent list, to redeem the same by payment of the tax, &c. If payment be not made within the prescribed time, the school commissioner proceeds, according to the provisions of the statute, to cause the title of the land to be vested in the state for tho use of the common schools of the county in which it is situated. Stat. 1832, p. 264, 265. Stat. 1835, p. 37. Vide *Dentler*v. *The State, Nov.*term, 1836; *Richardson’s Heirs*v. *The State, Nov.*term, 1838.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Garrett Shea","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/garrett-shea-1nasa-gov\/","title":"System Engineering Handbook: Appendix","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"iu7thrhKXV\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/reference\/system-engineering-handbook-appendix\/\">System Engineering Handbook: Appendix<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/reference\/system-engineering-handbook-appendix\/embed\/#?secret=iu7thrhKXV\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“System Engineering Handbook: Appendix” — NASA\" data-secret=\"iu7thrhKXV\" 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"}
Addendum to Emp. Agmt. for Jan R. Van Gorder



 



EXHIBIT 10.28 — ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT



     This Addendum (the “Addendum”) is made effective as of the 12th day of
December, 2002 and is intended to amend a certain Employment Agreement (the
“Agreement”) by and between Erie Indemnity Company and Jan R. Van Gorder
effective as of December 16, 1997.


     WHEREAS, the Company has determined that it is in the best interest of the
Company and its Shareholders to secure the continued employment of the
Executive in accordance with the terms of the Agreement; and


     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company has previously considered
and agreed to extend the term of the Agreement from its original term; and


     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company at its meeting of December
10, 2002 has again agreed to extend the term of the Agreement for a period of
one (1) additional year as contained herein; and


     WHEREAS, the Executive is agreeable to the extension of the Agreement.


     NOW, THEREFORE, intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties agree as
follows:


     1.     Paragraph 1 of the Agreement with respect to the Term is hereby amended
by extending the Term to expire on December 15, 2004.


     2.     All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force
and effect.



	 	 	 	 	 	 
	ATTEST:

 	 	
ERIE INDEMNITY COMPANY

 
	/s/	Jeffrey A. Ludrof

Jeffrey A. Ludrof

President & CEO	 	By:	/s/	
F. William Hirt

F. William Hirt

Chairman of the Board
	 
	WITNESS:
 	 	 
	/s/	Martina R. Gonzales

Martina R. Gonzales

Executive Secretary	 	 	/s/	
Jan R. Van Gorder

Jan R. Van Gorder

6796 Manchester Beach Rd.

Fairview, PA   16415




52
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

Warren Pendleton, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−02236

Honorable Manish S. Shah

Thomas Dart, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, June 17, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss

[20] is granted. This case is voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice. Defendant's motion

to dismiss [19] is terminated as moot. Enter judgment and terminate case. If plaintiffs'

counsel files a new case with proper plaintiffs bringing effectively the same claim,

counsel must designate the new case as a related case to this one. Notices mailed. (psm, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-02236 Document #: 22 Filed: 06/17/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:283
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN** 

.~. BxiorableLee Preqnell County **Attorney** Upshur county a. Gilttier,

Texas Dear **Sir:**
r the Amqd e United States 8_.-rpr sexvice .I 1eatiue.

servccntlnue hfs OfiiCO? inion of this department on the questlo e ~+rirr 18 inafet3a **et0 the**  , and that his deputieswill l nloa thit, uader such circumstanwte, ounty **boi~w** coqellsatedon a salary to the Army of the **United** Statee will ntlnuingto draw his **salary** as sherlir. the prh-iolples

set out in our Cpitiotr If the absslff beaomesan officerin the United States **Army** (tbswRawlar Arsy"), as d.lstingulsb!d frcffi the NationalGuard ax@ the various maeme o&r&%, then, und6r, **Artihls 16,**  Seotion 12 of the .$oosti$ution of Texas, te ~~11 lose hlu right to bold the oitlce of ohariff. 6ea our Oplnion Ros. O-4343and O-4591._ I :

, ’ (”

.

‘h.

. . 

# / 1 i Slnoo your letter hdloatee thet you hatis copies or the oplnlcnsreferred to above, we do not 8nOlOae them; awever, if copies of then ati af38md. w3 will be glad to furnish thea.

.i.‘.

?mA:db - ~au:fo. (8)-im :

:
IB

House Calendar No. 84

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 892

[Report No. 105–230]

To redesignate the Federal building located at 223 Sharkey Street in

Clarksdale, Mississippi, as the ‘‘Aaron Henry United States Post Office’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 27, 1997

Mr. THOMPSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

APRIL 24, 1997

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight discharged. Re-referred to

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

JULY 31, 1997

Reported with amendments, referred to the House Calendar, and ordered to

be printed

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic]

A BILL

To redesignate the Federal building located at 223 Sharkey

Street in Clarksdale, Mississippi, as the ‘‘Aaron Henry

United States Post Office’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 892 RH

1 SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

2 The Federal building located at 223 Sharkey Street

3 in Clarksdale, Mississippi, shall be known and designated

4 as the ‘‘Aaron Henry United States Post Office Building’’.

5 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

6 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

7 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

8 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be

9 a reference to the ‘‘Aaron Henry United States Post

10 Office’’.

11 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

12 The Federal building located at 236 Sharkey Street in

13 Clarksdale, Mississippi, shall be known and designated as

14 the ‘‘Aaron Henry Federal Building and United States

15 Courthouse’’.

16 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

17 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

18 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal

19 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a

20 reference to the ‘‘Aaron Henry Federal Building and Unit21 ed States Courthouse’’.

Amend the title so as to read as follows: ‘‘A bill to

designate the Federal building located at 236 Sharkey

Street in Clarksdale, Mississippi, as the ‘Aaron Henry

Federal Building and United States Courthouse’.’’.

House Calendar No. 84

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 892

[Report No. 105–230]

To redesignate the Federal building located at 223

‘‘Aaron Henry United States Post Office’’.Sharkey Street in Clarksdale, Mississippi, as the

JULY 31, 1997

Reported with amendments, referred to the House

Calendar, and ordered to be printed
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

EDDY PEREZ,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________

2022-2126

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 20-7436, Judge William S. Greenberg.

______________________

ORDER

______________________

Before PROST, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Mr. Eddy Perez did not raise his arguments on appeal 

in his clear and unmistakable error (“CUE”) claim at the 

Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office. We therefore lack jurisdiction to review those issues.

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Case: 22-2126 Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 03/08/2024
2 PEREZ v. MCDONOUGH

This case is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

March 8, 2024

 Date

FOR THE COURT

 

Case: 22-2126 Document: 38 Page: 2 Filed: 03/08/2024
#### Nathan Keller, Appellant, *v.*Albert Dratler, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

December 11,1925.

Jury — Municipal Court of City of New York — plaintiS entitled to jury of six men.

In an action in the Municipal Court of the City of New York it is reversible error, a jury of six men having been duly impaneled, for the court to excuse one juror for cause and direct that the ease proceed with five jurors over plaintiff’s objection. Although the jury was impaneled at defendant’s request, the plaintiff had an equal right to a jury of six men.

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Fourth District, in favor of defendant, after a trial by a judge and jury.

*Samuel Kahan,*for the appellant.

*Solon J. Liebeskind,*for the respondent.

*184Per Curiam.

A jury of six men having been duly impaneled, the court excused one juror for cause and directed that the case proceed with five jurors. To the latter direction the plaintiff took an exception. Although the jury was impaneled at defendant’s request, the plaintiff had an equal right to a jury of six men, and the court was in error in not replacing the juror who had been excused.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Bijur, Levy and Churchill, JJ.