alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ephrian Cushman *v.*J. R. Gaither, etc.

Vendor and Purchaser — Title Bond — Purchase Money — Deed—Lien.

By the terms of the title bond, appellant was only bound to convey the land by deed of general warranty when the purchase money was all paid, which was not done when the suit was instituted. Appellee was in default and the court should have rendered judgment not only for the purchase money, but should have adjudged a lien on the land with means of enforcing it.

APPEAL FROM HARDIN CIRCUIT COURT.

September 27, 1871.

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

That appellant executed the bond for a conveyance of the 160 acres of land therein described, and the receipt endorsed thereon for five hundred dollars part of the purchase price, the evidence leaves no room to doubt, and thus far we fully concur with .the circuit judge.

But by the terms of the bond appellant was only bound to convey the land by deed of general warranty when t'he purchase money was all paid, which was not done when this suit was instituted, and as there is a prayer in ;the petition in case the court should be of opinion that appellant had sold the land to Gaither for judgment for the purchase money, and it is admitted that five hundred dollars were unpaid, the court should not only have adjudged that sum to appellant with the interest, but should have adjudged a lien on the land therefor, with the meanb of enforcing it. Appellee was in default in no.t paying all the *184price, or tendering the unpaid balance in count, whereby he would have entitled himself to a conveyance. No question is raised as to the sufficiency of appellant’s title, and the contract should have been enforced according to the rules of equity in such cases.

*Wilson, for appellant.*

*Murray, for appellee.*

Wherefore the judgment is *reversed,*and the cause is remanded for judgment in conformity to this opinion — and as appellee was in default in failing to pay all of the purchase money, each party should pay his own costs in the court below. The date fixed in the judgment for the commencement of interest seems to be correct.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"The Astro-Not-Yets Explore Energy Storybook","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"NwBMePK8SQ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/the-astro-not-yets-explore-energy-storybook\/\">The Astro-Not-Yets Explore Energy Storybook<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/the-astro-not-yets-explore-energy-storybook\/embed\/#?secret=NwBMePK8SQ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“The Astro-Not-Yets Explore Energy Storybook” — NASA\" data-secret=\"NwBMePK8SQ\" 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\/2021\/01\/edu_astro_not_yets_energy_0.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":727}
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 

Richard Di Donato, Individually and On 

Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Insys Therapeutics, Inc.; et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-16-00302-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

 This matter having recently come before this Court, 

 IT IS ORDERED that motions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 12(c) are 

discouraged if the defect can be cured by filing an amended pleading. Therefore, the 

parties must meet and confer prior to the filing of such motions to determine whether it 

can be avoided. Consequently, motions to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) or 

for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) must contain a 

certification of conferral indicating that the parties have conferred to determine whether 

an amendment could cure a deficient pleading, and have been unable to agree that the 

pleading is curable by a permissible amendment. In addition, parties shall endeavor not to 

oppose motions to amend that are filed prior to the Scheduling Conference or within the 

time set forth in the Rule 16 Case Management Order. Motions to dismiss that do not 

contain the required certification are subject to be stricken on the Court’s motion. 

Case 2:16-cv-00302-NVW Document 5 Filed 02/03/16 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

27 

28 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff serve a copy of this Order upon 

Defendants and file notice of service. 

 Dated this 3rd day of February, 2016. 

 

Case 2:16-cv-00302-NVW Document 5 Filed 02/03/16 Page 2 of 2
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Want to Be an Astronaut? You\u2019ll Need These 4 Expeditionary Skills","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"89WP1EgXmC\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/want-to-be-an-astronaut-youll-need-these-4-skills\/\">Want to Be an Astronaut? You\u2019ll Need These 4 Expeditionary Skills<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/want-to-be-an-astronaut-youll-need-these-4-skills\/embed\/#?secret=89WP1EgXmC\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Want to Be an Astronaut? You\u2019ll Need These 4 Expeditionary Skills” — NASA\" data-secret=\"89WP1EgXmC\" 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\/02\/edu-expeditionary-skills-for-life.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":364}
Exhibit 31.2   CERTIFICATION  I, Michael P. Wilson, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Timberline Resources Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statements of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:  (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.  Date: February 1, 2007.  /s/ Michael P. Wilson _______________________ Michael P. Wilson (CFO)
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 263 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                       Ovtober 9, 1997.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2169) making 
appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related agencies for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes. All points of 
order against the conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
The conference report shall be considered as read.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### ARTHUR COLABELLA, PLAINTIFF, v. THE TRAVELERS FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT.

Submitted May 1, 1945

Decided September 11, 1945.

Before Brogan, Chief Justice, and Justices Parker and Oliphant.

For the plaintiff, *Harold 1). Feuerstedn.*

For the defendant, *Kristeller & Zucher (Lionel P. Kristellcr,*of counsel).

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Oliphant, J.

On January 2oth, 1945, the late Mr. Justice Porter issued a rule to show cause returnable before this court, *en*banc, why an order should not be made changing the venue of the above entitled cause from Ocean County to some other county.

This is a suit brought by the plaintiff on a policy of insurance issued by the defendant covering a building located in Ocean County, New Jersey.

The plaintiff is a resident of Bergen County and the defendant is a foreign corporation and service of process was effected upon it in Essex County.

The defendant’s agent is in Lavalette, Ocean County, New Jersey, and that is where the policy was countersigned and *217that is where the policy was obtained by the plaintiff. The policy does not state where it is to be payable.

This is a transitory action. .It seeks only the recovery of money. *Hesselbrock*v. *Burlington County,*111 *N. J. L.*177.

The application is not based merely upon the convenience of the parties, but upon what the defendant asserts is its definite and substantial rights under the statute. *R. 8.*2 :27 — 19. This court in *Broderick*v. *Abrams,*116 *N. J. L.*40, said “the current of judicial decision is that this provision confers a substantive right of which neither party may be deprived, except in the severance of the limited statutory discretion."

While the record is silent as to where demand for the payment of the loss was made and refused, it was apparently at the office of the defendant in .Newark whore the complaint was served. Claims were adjusted under the jurisdiction of that office and paid from there. This was where the breach occurred and the cause of action arose.

Plaintiff says it arose in Ocean County because the policy was delivered to him there and argues that the law of the place where the contract was made should govern. Several cases are cited, all enunciating the rule that the law of the state where the contract was applied for, countersigned and delivered, governs the relations of the parties, it is not applicable here. Of course no such rule applies to counties within a state.

The cause of action arising in Essex County, the defendant having been served there, and the plaintiff residing in Bergen County, adjacent thereto, the order of the court is that the venue be changed from Ocean County to Essex County. Yo costs will be allowed. Let such an order be entered.
Opinion issued June 1 8 , 2024

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 2 4
- 00 295
- CV

——————————— IN RE ADERONKE ADEREMI , Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator Aderonke Aderemi , proceeding pro se, has filed a n “Application for Writ of Prohibition, and[/]or Writ of Mandamus,” seeking to “prohibit the trial court Judge Audrie Lawton

- Evans without jurisdiction from unlawful interference,

r eviewing, interpreting, relitigating the immediate refiling of [real party in interest , ] Massandra KV Vineyards Owner LLC [,] forcible detainer suit before the mandate2

was issued and the trial court unlawfully on April 9[], 2024 setting under advisement
the Honorable First Court of Appeals mandate issued on January 19[], 2024.” 1 Our review of relator’s mandamus petition reflects that relator has failed to establish that she is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ o f mandamus. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.8(a). A ll pending motions
are dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Hightower, Rivas

- Molloy , and Farris.

1 The underlying case is Massandra KV Vineyards Owner LLC v. Aderonke Aderemi , Cause No. 1224685 , in the County Civil Court at Law No. 2 of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Jim F. Kovach presiding.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Recursos en Espa\u00f1ol de Investigaci\u00f3n y Tecnolog\u00eda (Research and Technology Resources in Spanish)","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"XpiGu0Cpqc\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/recursos-en-espanol-de-investigacion-y-tecnologia-research-and-technology-resources-in-spanish\/\">Recursos en Espa\u00f1ol de Investigaci\u00f3n y Tecnolog\u00eda (Research and Technology Resources in Spanish)<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/recursos-en-espanol-de-investigacion-y-tecnologia-research-and-technology-resources-in-spanish\/embed\/#?secret=XpiGu0Cpqc\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Recursos en Espa\u00f1ol de Investigaci\u00f3n y Tecnolog\u00eda (Research and Technology Resources in Spanish)” — NASA\" data-secret=\"XpiGu0Cpqc\" 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\/02\/edu_srch_research_and_technology_resources_in_spanish.jpg?w=320","thumbnail_width":320,"thumbnail_height":286}
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6013
FREDRICK LYNWOOD FOLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CORRECTIONAL OFFICER GETTIER, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-95-93) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 21, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fredrick Lynwood Foley, Appellant Pro Se. Lance Bradford Leggitt, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Foley v. Gettier , No. CA-95-93 (W.D. Va. Dec. 21, 1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

GLENN F. STRAUB,

Appellant,

v.

CAROL CHAPUIS and JESSICA NICODEMO f/k/a JESSICA 

SWERDLIN,

Appellees.

No. 4D2023-0347

[November 30, 2023]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Richard Oftedal, Senior Judge; L.T. Case No. 

502019CA001140.

Larry A. Zink of Zink, Zink & Zink Co., L.P.A., Hillsboro Beach, for 

appellant.

Elizabeth L. Parker of George Feldman McDonald, PLLC, Lake Worth, 

for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KLINGENSMITH, C.J., FORST and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
9459.

#### Putney *v.*Pass.

Decided June 12, 1918.

Rehearing denied August 2, 1918.

Action for breach of contract; from Dougherty superior court— Judge Harrell. November 30, 1917.

*Pope & Bennet,*for plaintiff in error.

. *B. J.*Bacon, *B. H.*Ferrell, contra^

Bloodwoeth, J.

Jhe grounds of the amendment to the motion for new trial are without merit. There is evidence sufficient to support the verdict, and the judgment is

*Affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Harwell, J., concur.*
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse

 Room 2722 - 219 S. Dearborn Street

 Chicago, Illinois 60604

Office of the Clerk

Phone: (312) 435-5850

www.ca7.uscourts.gov

ORDER

April 15, 2021

Before

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 21-1525

JOANNE TROESCH and IFEOMA NKEMDI, on behalf of

themselves and the putative class, 

Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

CHICAGO TEACHERS UNION, LOCAL UNION NO. 1,

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS and THE

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO, 

Defendants - Appellees

 Originating Case Information:

District Court No: 1:20-cv-02682

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

District Judge John Z. Lee

The following are before the court: 

1. MOTION TO DISMISS OR STAY, filed on March 29, 2021, by counsel for Appellee

Board of Education of the City of Chicago.

2. APPELLEE CHICAGO TEACHERS UNION’S JOINDER IN MOTION TO

DISMISS OR STAY, filed on March 31, 2021, by counsel for Appellee Chicago Teachers

Union.

Case: 21-1525 Document: 00713809151 Filed: 05/07/2021 Pages: 2 Case: 21-1525 Document: 14 Filed: 04/15/2021 Pages: 2

Case: 1:20-cv-02682 Document #: 56 Filed: 05/07/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:342
No. 21-1525 Page 2

3. APPELLANTS’ RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS OR STAY, filed on April

5, 2021, by counsel for appellants.

JoAnne Troesch and Ifeoma Nkemdi appeal the dismissal of their complaint alleging

that the Board of Education of the City of Chicago and the Chicago Teachers Union

violated the First Amendment by permitting union members to stop their dues

payments only during an annual escape period. The parties agree that the outcome of

Troesch and Nkemdi’s appeal is controlled by our recent decision in Bennett v. Council

31 of the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, 991 F.3d 724 (7th

Cir. 2021), in which we held that it does not violate the First Amendment for a union to

continue deducting dues that an employee voluntarily agreed to pay. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED and the judgment of the district court is

summarily AFFIRMED.

form name: c7_Order_3J(form ID: 177)

Case: 21-1525 Document: 00713809151 Filed: 05/07/2021 Pages: 2 Case: 21-1525 Document: 14 Filed: 04/15/2021 Pages: 2

Case: 1:20-cv-02682 Document #: 56 Filed: 05/07/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:343