alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Kentucky Ins. Co. v. F. H. Green.

Insurance — Loss—Action to Enforce Collection — Petition—Necessary Allegations — Preliminary Proof.

Appellee’s petition, after setting out tie policy of insurance and the loss of the property insured, states “that the agent of the said company is now here and refuses to pay the plaintiff the said amount as the said company was bound to do by said policy.”

The company was therefore not estopped from insisting that the appellee should comply with the stipulations of the policy. According to the face of the instrument, the loss was not due for ninety days after the preliminary proof was made. The petition presents no cause of action.

APPEAL PROM GRAVES CIRCUIT COURT.

December 7, 1870.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

Appellee’s petition after setting out the policy of insurance and the loss of the property insured, states “that the agent of said company is now here and refuses to pay plaintiff the said amount, as the said company was bound to do by said policy.”

It is insisted that this refusal brings this case within the doctrine laid down by this court in the case of the Manhattan Insur*371anee Company v. Stein & Zing., 5 Bush 652, and that appellee therefore had the right to sue without making or offering to make the perliminary proof necessary for an adjustment- of the loss, as required by the policy. It does not appear from the petition, except by inference that the agent alluded to had authority either to adjust or pay the loss, nor does it appear that appellee offered to prove the preliminary facts, nor that the agent refused to acquaint him with the' mode or character of proof required, nor that he lulled him by assuming that he would not be paid even though he complied with all the conditions of this policy.

*Harlan & Barrett, for appellant.*

*Bush, for appellee.*

The company was therefore not estopped from insisting that appellee should comply with the stipulations of the policy. According to the face of that instrument the loss was not due and payable for ninety days after the preliminary proof was made and deposited with the secretary *oí the*company.

Appellee not only failed to make such proof, but brought his suit on the 23d day after the loss occurred. He certainly had no claim against the insurance company that was due and payable at that time, hence his petition presented no cause of action.

Wherefore the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceeding consistent herewith, appellee should be allowed to amend his petition in case he denies to do so and the insurance company to answer.
H. Res. 436

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

May 21, 1998.

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it

shall be in order to consider in the House the resolution (H.

Res. 432) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives concerning the President’s assertions of executive privilege. The resolution shall be considered as read for amendment. The resolution shall be debatable for one hour equally

divided and controlled by the Majority Leader or his designee

and a Member opposed to the resolution. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to final

adoption without intervening motion.

SEC. 2. After disposition of or postponement of further

proceedings on House Resolution 432, it shall be in order to

consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 433) calling

upon the President of the United States to urge full cooperation by his former political appointees and friends and their

associates with congressional investigations. The resolution

shall be considered as read for amendment. The resolution

shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled
2

•HRES 436 EH

by the Majority Leader or his designee and a Member opposed to the resolution. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion.

Attest:

Clerk.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-10-00249-CV

IN RE RICHARD DALE BUSWELL RELATOR

------------

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

------------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

------------

The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of 

the opinion that relator’s petition should be denied.

2

 Accordingly, relator’s 

petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MCCOY, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and MEIER, J.

DELIVERED: July 23, 2010

 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4, 52.8(d).

 

2

The trial court and the district clerk’s office have advised this court that they 

do not have any record that relator has filed a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc. 

Because relator’s motion has never been received by the trial court, Respondent 

has not been provided an opportunity to rule upon the motion. Presentment of 

the motion to the trial court is a prerequisite to mandamus relief. See O’Connor 

v. First Court of Appeals, 837 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tex. 1992).
#### Shelbyville & Belleview T. P. Co. *v.*Ben Washburn, etc.

Attachments — Garnishee—Personal Judgment — Rule to Show Cause— Final Judgment — Receiver,

The appellees took a rule against appellant to show cause why it had not made payment into court of the sum admitted to he due as garnishee. Appellant responded that it did not have the money, thereupon the court made an order placing the company in the hands of a receiver, which was a final order.

Held, that as the appellant was only a garnishee, it was error to render a personal judgment against it or place its property in the hands of a receiver.

APPEAL PROM SHELBY CRCUIT COURT.

November 8, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

This appeal is prosecuted by a garnishee. The appellants, a turnpike corporation, answered, admitting an indebtedness to the defendant, McCarty, of five hundred dollars. Whereupon the circuit court ordered that it should pay into court said sum of money within thirty days and upon failure to do so, that the several appellees might have executions against it for the amount of their judgments against McCarty. The company failed to pay as required, and appellees instead of issuing executions applied for and had a rule issued against appellant requiring it to show cause why it had not made the payment into court of the sum admitted to be due to McCarty.

*732
      *Harwood, for appellants.*

*Lindsay, for appellee.*

In response the company, through its treasurer, states that the order had not been obeyed because it has not had the money necessary to make the payment; that it then had no money and that there was no prospect that the receipts of the company would enable it to make the required payment.

Upon the filing of this response and without further pleading the court made an order appointing a receiver, and directing him to take charge of the company, to collect the tolls accruing on its road, and report his acts to-the court.

This order is certainly final. It settles the right of appellees to apply to the payment of their judgments against McCarty all the tolls arising from the travel on appellant’s road, and takes from the company until these judgments are satisfied the right to control and manage its own property. That it is erroneous, it seems to us, is perfectly clear. The garnishee was not made a defendant to any of the actions against McCarty except to that of Ramsey and brother-in-law merely a defendant in form as to that case. No judgment was asked against it, as might have been, had the proceedings conformed to section 248 of the Civil Code.

Appellant was proceeded against under section 246 of the Code, and when the remedies therein provided were exhausted the power of the court ended. It might have been attached for contempt in failing to pay the amount owing to McCarty into court, or to secure its payment by the execution of the proper bond, but no personal judgment could be rendered against it, nor could its franchises and road be seized. *Griswold v. Popharn,*1st Duvall 170; *Smith v. Grower,*3d Metcalf 171.

As the judgment appealed from was unauthorized it must be reversed. The cause is remanded for further proper proceedings.
Handbook 44 – 2010 2009 Amendments 

 vii 

2009 Amendments

The following table lists the codes, paragraphs, and pages in which the 94th National Conference on Weights and Measures 

made amendments. In the column headed “Action,” changes are noted as “added,” “amended,” “deleted,” or “renumbered.” 

Each code, section, or paragraph that has been changed will be noted as “Added 2009” or “Amended 2009.” 

SECTION CODE S&T 

ITEM NO. PARAGRAPH ACTION PAGE 

2.20 Scales 320-2 T.N.4.7. Amended 2-42 

321-1 UR.3.2.(c) Amended 2-66 

321-3 S.1.3.1. Amended 2-57 

321-5 N.2., N.2.1., and N.3. Amended 2-60, 2-61

321-6 T.1.1. Amended 2-63 

N.3.1.2. Amended 2-62 

N.3.1.3. Deleted, renumbered 

successive paragraph 2-62 

2.21 Belt-Conveyor 

Scale Systems 

321-7 

S.3.1.1. Added 2-59 

310-3 

(2007) S.2.2.1., Note 2 

Removed S.2.2.1. Multiple 

Measuring Elements with a 

Single Provision for Sealing - 

this was removed according 

to Note 2 of same because 

General Code G-S.8.1. 

Multiple Weighing or 

Measuring Elements with a 

Single Provision for Sealing 

became effective with HB 

44, 2010 edition. 

3-11 – 

 3-12 

3.30 Liquid-Measuring 

Devices 

330-2 N.4.4., N.4.4.1., and 

N.4.4.2. Added 3-18 

UR.2.5.1. Amended 3-41 

 331-2 

UR.2.5.2. 

Added, renumbered existing 

paragraph UR.2.5.2. to 

UR.2.5.3. 

3-41 

3.36 Water Meters 336-1 S.1.1.3. and S.1.1.6. Amended 3-93, 3-94 
2009 Amendments Handbook 44 – 2010 

2009 Editorial Changes 

SECTION CODE PARAGRAPH ACTION PAGE 

Introduction Form 15 - Form updated to accommodate format changes for 

proposal submissions. 9 

1.10 General G-A.1.(a) - Deleted the word “grain” in “. . . grain constituent 

values. . .” 1-3 

S.1.2.1. 

- Changed the title to read “Digital Indicating 

Scales.” to clarify the subject of the subsequent 

paragraph. 

- Deleted the word “Note:” since the language 

adopted in 2008 is written as an exception to the 

requirements in the preceding sentences. 

- Changed “(Note Added 2008)” to “(Amended 

2008)” to indicate that S.1.2.1. was amended instead 

of adding a new note. 

2-8 

2.20 Scales 

UR.2.6.1. - Added “January 1,” that was missing in the 

nonretroactive date. 2-46 

2.21 Belt-Conveyor 

Scale Systems S.1.4. 

- Reformatted paragraph to clarify the different 

subjects in the paragraph with the different 

nonretroactive dates. 

2-58 

S.2.6.(b) - Rearranged text to clarify acceptable locations for 

the thermometer well. 3-13 

3.30 

LiquidMeasuring 

Devices T.2 and 

Table T.2. 

- Modified title of table and accompanying paragraphs 

to be consistent across measuring codes 3-18, 3-19

3.31 Vehicle-Tank 

Meters 

T.2. and 

Table T.1. 

- Modified title of table and accompanying paragraphs 

to be consistent across measuring codes 3-37, 3-38

3.35 Milk Meters S.1.1.3. - (a) Corrected “5 kg” to read “0.5 kg” 3-83 

3.37 Mass Flow 

Meters 

T.2. and 

Table T.2. 

- Modified title of table and accompanying paragraphs 

to be consistent across measuring codes 3-109 

viii
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.2

Eastern Division

Robert Gerber

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−02298

Honorable Edmond E. Chang

Carepoint Healthcare, LLC, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, June 4, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: Pursuant to the stipulated

dismissal [13], under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the individual

claims against the named Defendant is dismissed with prejudice, each side to bear its own

fees and costs. Proposed class claims and claims against the Doe Defendants are

dismissed without prejudice. Status hearing of 06/11/2020 is vacated. Civil case

terminated. Mailed notice (mw, )

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-02298 Document #: 14 Filed: 06/04/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:64
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [S-119-2014]

On September 10, 2014, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Louisville & Jefferson County Riverport Authority, grantee of FTZ 29, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 29, on behalf of Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. “C”, in Hawesville, Kentucky.

                    The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (79 FR 56058, 9-18-2014). The FTZ staff examiner reviewed the application and determined that it meets the criteria for approval. Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board Executive Secretary (15 CFR Sec. 400.36(f)), the application to establish Subzone 29M is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and further subject to FTZ 29's 2,000-acre activation limit.                

      ( print page 67414)    
Dated: November 7, 2014.

Elizabeth Whiteman,

Acting Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2014-26890 Filed 11-12-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 219 (Thursday, November 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 67529]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26959]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

 Order of Suspension of Trading; In the Matter of Kolasco Corp.

November 10, 2014.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Kolasco Corp. because of questions regarding control over the company 
and the accuracy of company information, including in filings with the 
Commission, concerning, among other things, the company's acting 
officers. Kolasco Corp. is a Nevada corporation with its principal 
place of business located in Toronta, Canada. Its stock is quoted on 
OTC Link, operated by OTC Markets Group Inc., under the ticker: KLSC.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the 
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the 
securities of the above-listed company.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the 
above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST, on 
November 10, 2014 through 11:59 p.m. EST, on November 21, 2014.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-26959 Filed 11-10-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
```
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.5


                               FIRST AMENDMENT TO
                     CHANGE OF CONTROL EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         This First Amendment to the Change of Control Employment Agreement
dated as of [          ] (the "Change of Control Employment Agreement") between
Belden Inc. (the "Company") and [NAME] is entered into as of [DATE], 2004.

1. This Amendment shall become effective on the Effective Time (as defined in an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), dated February 4, 2004 by
and among the Company, BC Merger Corp. and Cable Design Technologies Corporation
("CDT")); provided, however, that if the Effective Time does not occur, this
Amendment shall be null and void ab initio. This Amendment shall also be null
and void ab initio in the event the Company fails to satisfy its obligations
under that certain Retention and Integration Award letter agreement entered into
between the Executive and the Company on __________, 2004

2. Section 1.5 of the Change of Control Employment Agreement is hereby amended
by adding the following at the end of such section to read as follows:

         Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the consummation of
         the transactions contemplated by Merger Agreement shall constitute a
         Change of Control under this Agreement (the "Belden-CDT Merger").

3. Clause (v) of Section 1.10 of the Change of Control Employment Agreement is
hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

         (v) any voluntary termination of employment by the Executive where the
         Notice of Termination is delivered within 30 days of the first
         anniversary of a Change of Control; provided, however, that this clause
         (v) may not be invoked for any Change of Control of the Company that
         results solely from the Belden-CDT Merger.

4. The Change of Control Employment Agreement is hereby amended by adding the
following new Section 26 to read as follows:

         26. ASSUMPTION. At the Effective Time, (i) CDT shall automatically and
         without any further action on behalf of any party unconditionally
         assume all of the obligations of Belden Inc. under this Agreement as
         the primary obligor and (ii) references herein to the "Company" shall
         be deemed references to CDT.

5. Capitalized terms used herein, unless otherwise defined herein, have the
meaning ascribed to such terms in the Change of Control Employment Agreement
and, except as

<PAGE>

expressly provided herein all provision of the Change of Control Employment
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the
date and year first above written.


                                         BELDEN INC.


                                         By:
                                             ----------------------------


Acknowledged and agreed with respect to Section 26


CABLE DESIGN TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION


-------------------------------------




                                        2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

 

United States of America, 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and

State of Wisconsin,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., and

Dean Foods Company,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-2658

MOTION OF NONPARTY WISCONSIN LEGISLATURE FOR 

PERMISSION TO FILE LETTER 

Nonparty the Wisconsin Legislature (“Legislature”) moves for the Court’s 

permission to file a letter in this matter, see N.D. Ill. L.R. 5.6, responding to the 

Correspondence filed by Assistant Attorney General Gwendolyn J. Cooley on behalf 

of Plaintiff the State of Wisconsin, Dkt. 28. A copy of the Legislature’s letter and its 

accompanying exhibit are attached to this Motion. As the Legislature’s letter more 

fully explains, the Legislature strongly disagrees with the Wisconsin Attorney 

General’s interpretation of Section 26 of Act 369, codified at Wis. Stat. § 165.08(1), 

and has filed a Petition for Original Action with the Wisconsin Supreme Court to 

resolve this legal dispute. Given the relevance of the Legislature’s letter to the 

pending proceedings in this case, described by Assistant Attorney General Cooley’s 

Correspondence, the Legislature respectfully requests that this Court allow it to file 

its letter on the docket. See N.D. Ill. L.R. 5.6; see generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.

Case: 1:20-cv-02658 Document #: 30 Filed: 06/29/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:248
- 2 -

Dated, June 29, 2020

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Misha Tseytlin

MISHA TSEYTLIN

TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP

227 W. Monroe Street

Suite 3900

Chicago, IL 60606

(608) 999-1240

(312) 759-1939 (fax)

misha.tseytlin@troutman.com

Attorney for the Wisconsin Legislature

Case: 1:20-cv-02658 Document #: 30 Filed: 06/29/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:249
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on the 29th day of June, 2020, a true and accurate copy of 

the foregoing was served via the Court’s CM/ECF system upon all counsel of record.

/s/ Misha Tseytlin

MISHA TSEYTLIN

TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP

227 W. Monroe Street 

Suite 3900

Chicago, IL 60606

(608) 999-1240

(312) 759-1939 (fax)

misha.tseytlin@troutman.com

Case: 1:20-cv-02658 Document #: 30 Filed: 06/29/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:250
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

Eastern Division

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−03758

Honorable Thomas M. Durkin

Long Leaf Trading Group, Inc., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, July 13, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin:A joint status report is to

be filed by 9/8/2020. Instructions may be found on Judge Durkin's webpage under new

and reassigned cases.Mailed notice(srn, )

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-03758 Document #: 11 Filed: 07/13/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:51
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.31


                               ADDENDUM TO LEASE

BETWEEN:    Lessor - Mehland Developers
            Lessee - Geerlings & Wade

LEASE DATED:  October 31, 1994

SECTION:      5. OPTION TO RENEW.

The Lease shall be extended for one (1) additional term of three (3)
years beginning March 1, 1998 through February 28, 2001.

All other conditions of the Lease shall remain in effect.

LESSEE:                               LESSOR:

GEERLINGS & WADE, INC.                MEHLAND DEVELOPERS
960 Turnpike Street                   521 Byers Road Suite 201
Canton, MA 02021                      Miamisburg, OH 45342

By:  /s/ David R. Pearce              BY: /s/ Metzger
Vice President

DATE:  2/23/98                        DATE: 1/13/98