alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Charles Brown *v.*Samuel Harper.

Fraudulent Conveyance.

Evidence of good faith in purchase and payment by third party.

APPEAL FROM NELSON CIRCUIT COURT.

January 2, 1871.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Lindsay:

The deposition of Forsythe, which seems to have been improperly rejected, establishes very conclusively that Brown did make a cash payment of three hundred dollars on the mill property, and there is no evidence, whatever, tending to show that the two notes for the deferred payments which were transferred to Craves were received by him in pursuance to any fraudulent agreement between any or all of the parties.

Craves proves further that the timber he delivered at the mill after the date of Brown’s purchase was delivered in pursuance to a contract made with Brown.

The evidence fails to show that any relationship or intimacy existed between Brown and Forsythe, or that Brown had at the time of his purchase any knowledge of the existence of appellee’s debt.

Considering the character of the property sold, we are of opinion that the change of possession was sufficiently proven.

It was doubtless the purpose of Forsythe in making the sale of the mill property to evade the judgment of the debt of Harper, but as the evidence fails to connect Brown with any participation in or knowledge of such fraudulent intent, it seems to us that the court erred in disregarding his purchase, and subjecting his property to the payment of said debt.

Unlike the case of White, &c., vs. Cates, 7 Dana 357, the evidence before us does not incline the mind to the conclusion that the conveyance was fraudulent as to Brown. We are of opinion that the judgment of the court below was erroneous, and the same *566is hereby reverséd, and with instructions to dismiss the petition of appellee as to Brown.

McKay, *for appellant.*

Hardin, *Grigsby, for appellee.*
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NOTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

Gislese Hall-Adejola, as Special )

Representative of the Estate of )

Jacob Adejola, ) Case No. 20 CV 2699

)

Plaintiff, )

) Honorable Judge Dow

v. )

) Magistrate Judge Finnegan

Will County, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

Rule 41 Notice of Dismissal

Plaintiff Gislese Hall-Adejola, through her attorneys Hale & Monico LLC, 

respectfully files this notice of dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 

and states:

1. Plaintiff’s original complaint brought a wrongful death claim against Defendant 

Wellpath (Count IV).

2. Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses Defendant Wellpath from Count IV of the 

complaint.

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Shawn W. Barnett

Shawn W. Barnett, Atty. No. 6312312

One of the Attorneys for Plaintiff

HALE & MONICO LLC

Andrew Hale

Shawn Barnett

53 West Jackson, Suite 337

Chicago, IL 60604

(312) 870-6905
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned attorney, certify that I causes this document to be filed using the 

Court’s electronic filing system. As a result, copies of the filed document were 

electronically served upon all counsel of record.

/s/ Shawn W. Barnett
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Roxana Bardan","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/dbardan\/","title":"NASA Astronauts to Speak with North Carolina, Virginia Students","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Lt3F0xilBX\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-astronauts-to-speak-with-north-carolina-virginia-students\/\">NASA Astronauts to Speak with North Carolina, Virginia Students<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-astronauts-to-speak-with-north-carolina-virginia-students\/embed\/#?secret=Lt3F0xilBX\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Astronauts to Speak with North Carolina, Virginia Students” — NASA\" data-secret=\"Lt3F0xilBX\" 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\/moghbeli-and-ohara.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

Eastern Division

Jon Cohen, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−02809

Honorable Mary M. Rowland

Wink Labs, Inc., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, December 7, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: The court has reviewed

the initial status report. Plaintiffs' motion for default under Rule 55(a) is due 1/8/21.

Telephonic status hearing set for 12/11/20 is stricken. Mailed notice. (dm, )

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-02809 Document #: 27 Filed: 12/07/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:139
{"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":"Steven Sullivan","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"wAozFR2AL6\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/steven-sullivan\/\">Steven Sullivan<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/people\/steven-sullivan\/embed\/#?secret=wAozFR2AL6\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Steven Sullivan” — NASA\" data-secret=\"wAozFR2AL6\" 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"}
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO

. 09

- 1 5

- 00 124

- C V



### ____________________

IN THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL JOSEPH JARMON

________________________________________ _______________ ______________

On A ppeal from the 1st District Court

Jasper County, Texas

Trial Cause No

. 13688

________________________________________ ________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On October 21, 2015, the Court notified the appellant, Lisa Baca, that she

must file a brief and a motion for extension of time by November 2, 2015, or the

appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution. No response has been filed.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P.

42.3(b).

APPEAL DISMISS ED.

________________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON

Justice2

Submitted on November 24, 2015

Opinion Delivered November 25, 2015

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ELIZABETH GONZALEZ, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

JANET DHILLON, CHAIR; UNITED 

STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 

Defendants. 

 No. 1:20-cv-02111 

 Judge Matthew F. Kennelly 

STIPULATION OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL 

The parties stipulate, by their respective counsel and with each party to bear its own fees 

and costs, that (1) Defendant United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is 

voluntarily dismissed; (2) Plaintiff’s claim related to standard form 50 (SF-50) is voluntarily 

dismissed; and (3) Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss [28] may be denied as moot. 

Dated: February 1, 2021 

/s/ Brian O. Watson 

Brian O. Watson 

Matthew E. Lee (pro hac vice to be filed) 

RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA LLP 

70 W. Madison Street, Suite 2900 

Chicago, Illinois 60602 

(312) 471-8700 

bwatson@rshc-law.com 

mlee@rshc-law.com 

docketdept@rshc-law.com

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Valerie R. Raedy 

Valerie R. Raedy 

Assistant United States Attorney 

219 South Dearborn Street 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

(312) 353-8694 

valerie.raedy@usdoj.gov 

Attorneys for Janet Dhillon, United States 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Attorneys for Elizabeth Gonzalez 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-02111 Document #: 34 Filed: 02/01/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:403
2 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I certify that on February 1, 2021, these papers were filed using the Court’s CM/ECF 

system, which will send notice of this filing to all counsel of record. 

 /s/ Brian O. Watson 

Case: 1:20-cv-02111 Document #: 34 Filed: 02/01/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:404
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Gordon F. Dugan, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A of Gramercy Property Trust Inc. (the “registrant”);
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                        

| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: May 10, 2013



| | /s/ GORDON F. DUGAN           
| | ------------------------------
| | Name: Gordon F. DuGan         
| | Title: Chief Executive Officer
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Brian Dunbar","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/brian-dunbarnasa-gov\/","title":"NASA\u2019s Economic Benefit Reaches All 50 States","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"LhJAlJFsfW\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasas-economic-benefit-reaches-all-50-states\/\">NASA\u2019s Economic Benefit Reaches All 50 States<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasas-economic-benefit-reaches-all-50-states\/embed\/#?secret=LhJAlJFsfW\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA\u2019s Economic Benefit Reaches All 50 States” — NASA\" data-secret=\"LhJAlJFsfW\" 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\/2022\/10\/fy21_eir_cover.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":463}
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 154 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                          July 8, 1997.
Whereas the Nation's most valuable and vulnerable asset is its children;
Whereas their protection should be one of our highest priorities;
Whereas over 1,000,000 children are reported missing, and over 100,000 attempted 
        nonfamily abductions take place every year;
Whereas over 750,000 children under the age of 18 disappear for some length of 
        time every year;
Whereas law enforcement officials constantly encounter crimes against children;
Whereas sex offenders are nine times more likely to repeat their crimes than any 
        other class of criminal;
Whereas nearly two-thirds of State prisoners serving time for rape and sexual 
        assault victimized children; and
Whereas while many missing children are returned to their homes, many others are 
        exposed to danger and exploitation: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That--
            (1) all Members of Congress should take appropriate action to ensure 
        the safety and protection of children in their jurisdictions;
            (2) State governments should have in effect laws which register 
        offenders convicted of sexual crimes against children and laws which 
        require law enforcement to notify communities of the presence of these 
        offenders;
            (3) States should have in effect laws which severely punish 
        individuals convicted of offenses against children, especially crimes 
        involving abduction, sexual assault, exploitation, and stalking;
            (4) law enforcement agencies should take the necessary steps to 
        safeguard children against the dangers of abduction and exploitation; 
        and
            (5) State and local law enforcement agencies should work in close 
        cooperation with Federal law enforcement to ensure a rapid and efficient 
        response to reports of child abductions, especially in cases where a 
        child's life may be in danger.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-12-00764-CV

John Rady, Appellant

v.

BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP; and Mortgage Electronic Registrations System, Inc.,

Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 419TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-11-001425, HONORABLE GUS J. STRAUSS, JR., JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

On April 19, 2013, this Court dismissed this appeal for want of prosecution. On the

same date, we received a letter from appellant that he had made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s

record. The district clerk’s office has confirmed that appellant has paid for the clerk’s record. 

Accordingly, we withdraw our opinion dismissing his appeal for want of prosecution and reinstate

the appeal. Appellant’s brief will be due 30 days after this Court’s receipt of the clerk’s record. See

Tex. R. App. P. 38.6.

__________________________________________

Melissa Goodwin, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Goodwin and Field

Filed: April 23, 2013
#### EDGAR McGHEE, PETITIONER-PROSECUTOR, v. RARITAN COPPER WORKS, ALSO KNOWN AS INTERNATIONAL SMELTING AND REFINING CO., RESPONDENT-DEFENDANT.

Submitted October 2, 1945

Decided November 1, 1945.

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

Eor the petitioner-prosecutor, *Thomas F. Shebell.*

For the respondent-defendant, *John E. Tbolán*and *James P. Haney.*

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Oliphant, J.

This is a workman’s compensation case. In the Bureau the petition was dismissed which action was affirmed in the Middlesex County Court of Common Pleas.

Prosecutor claimed permanent disability by reason of an injury to his left eye and a traumatic neurosis resulting therefrom.

A pure fact question is presented. As to the eye injury itself we find as a fact, as did the Bureau and the Pleas, that prosecutor has not lost the sight of his eye and that if there is an impairment of his vision now it is not due to the injury he suffered in the course of his employment. In appraising the evidence the probabilities preponderate in favor of the respondent. Two lower tribunals were in accord on these findings of fact. Their conclusions will not be lightly disturbed. *Anderson*v. *Federal Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co.,*118 *N. J. L.*55.

*377But apart from the main question of loss of vision a medical witness produced on behalf of the prosecutor, though not a neurologist, testified that he had a five per cent, of total partial permanent disability due to a traumatic neurosis and that the condition was causally related to the accident. Respondent did not meet this evidence at all. It stands uncontradicted. While this witness was not a specialist he was versed in the field of neurology as a general practitioner. The fact that he was not a specialist did not render his testimony incompetent but rather it went to the weight to be accorded that testimony. *Young*v. *Stevens,*132 *N. J. L.*124.

The record convinces us and we again find as a fact that the neurosis complained of resulted from injury arising out of and in the course of the employment, that it produced a disability which is compensable, *Sigley*v. *Marathon Razor Blade Co., Inc.,*111 *N. J. L.*25, and that prosecutor has a permanent disability of five per cent, of total.

The judgment is accordingly modified, and, as so modified, is affirmed. Both parties having been in part successful no costs are allowed to either.
#### Goldsby *v.*Robertson.

The refusal of the Circuit Court to grant' a new trial may be assigned for er* ror.

APPEAL from the *Washington*Circuit Court. — This was an action of assumpsit. Plea, non assumpsit. The evidence in the cause was made a part of the record by a bill of exceptions. Verdict for the plaintiff below. A motion for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was not warranted by the evidence, was overruled, and judgment rendered upon the verdict.

Holman, J.

There can exist no doubt, but that the defendant in the Circuit Court, was entitled to a new trial. But it is contended, that the refusal of a new trial cannot be assigned for error, because the granting a new trial rests solely in the *22discretion of the Court below. If this argument would extend further, and show that a new trial is only a matter of favour, it would be conclusive. But although new trials, on *their*first introduction, were considered indulgences to the parties, jet the principles of law by which they are regulated, have been so long and so well settled, as to render new trials in many cases demandable as a matter of right. Where, for instance, as in the present case, the jury have found a verdict without evidence, or, which amounts to the same thing, without evidence to show, a legal demand, the Court is as much bound to grant a new trial, as it would have been to have given judgment for the defendant on a demurrer to evidence. And whenever a new trial is a matter of right, there is no question with us, but that a refusal of that right may be assigned for error in this Court *(1)**.*

Thompson, and Moore, for the appellant.

Dewey, and Raymond, for the appellee.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed and verdict set aside, with costs. Cause remanded to the Circuit Court, with directions to award a *venire facias de novo.*

(1)

 Acc. *Maxwell*v. M’Ilvoy, 2 Bibb, 211. — Contra, *Wright*v. *Small’s*Lessee, 2 Binn. *93.*— Henderson v. *Moore, 5*Cranch, 11. — The *M. I. Co. of A.*v. *Young,*ibid. *187.*— Barr v. *Grate’s Heirs, 4*Wheat. 213. *In Blunt's Lessee v. Smith,*7 Wheat. 272, *Marshall,*C.J. says: It is well settled that this Court will not revise the opinion of a Circuit Court, either granting or rejecting a motion for a new trial.