alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### W. S. Houchland *v.*H. M. Hodges.

Brokers — Commission.

A realestate broker is entitled to a commission, where it appears that the owner did not in good faith withdraw the .property from the market, but in a few days after the pretended withdrawal, sold the land to persons whom the agent had in effect procured.

APPEAL FROM HARRISON CIRCUIT COURT.

January 22, 1873.

*J. Q. Ward, for appellant.*

*Trimble, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Hardin :

It seems to us that the evidence authorizes the conclusion that the services rendered by the appellant under his contract led to the sale to Ashbrook, and that the appellee, although professing to exercise his right of withdrawing his property from market and thereby discharging the appellant as his agent, the fact that within.a few days afterwards he availed himself of the opportunity Of selling, which the appellant had in effect procured, satisfies us that he did not abandon the intention of selling for such prices as the appellant could have gotten, ñor in good faith withdraw the. property'from market, and that the sale as made by him should be regarded as having been effected by the appellant under his contract, and he is therefore entitled to compensation accordingly.

Wherefore the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial and proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Judge Pryor dissenting.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1

                              TERMINATION AGREEMENT

      THIS TERMINATION AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is entered into as of the
1st day of November, 2005 by and among George L. Chelius and Eric Epperson, not
in their individual capacities but solely in their capacities as Executors (the
"Representatives") of the will and estate of Alan James pursuant to Letters
Testamentary (Case Number 050290219), dated February 17, 2005, issued by the
Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah and, to the
extent provided in Section 3.12 of the Settlement Agreement referred to below,
as Trustees of the Trust referred to in Section 3.12 of the Settlement
Agreement, William A. Furman and The Greenbrier Companies, Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("Greenbrier").

      WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement have entered into a certain
Settlement Agreement dated as of April 20, 2005 (the "Settlement Agreement")
which provides for a certain right of first refusal, referred to in the
Settlement Agreement as the "New ROFR," with respect to the sale by the
Representatives of shares of Common Stock of Greenbrier; and

      WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement desire to terminate the New ROFR;

      NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree that: (a)
the provisions of the New ROFR, as provided in Section 1.4.3 of the Settlement
Agreement, are hereby terminated and shall cease to be of any force and effect;
and (b) except as expressly provided herein to the contrary, the Settlement
Agreement remains in full force and effect and is unmodified.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this Agreement as
of the day and year first above written.



THE GREENBRIER COMPANIES, INC.



/s/ William A. Furman                        /s/ George L. Chelius
-------------------------------------------  -----------------------------------
By:    William A. Furman                     George L. Chelius, in his capacity
Title: President and Chief Executive         as Executor of the Will and Estate
       Officer                               of Alan James and as Trustee of one
                                             or more Trusts referred to in
                                             Section 3.12 of the Settlement
                                             Agreement

/s/ William A. Furman                        /s/ Eric Epperson
-------------------------------------------  -----------------------------------
William A. Furman, in his capacity as an     Eric Epperson, in his capacity as
individual                                   Executor of the Will and Estate of
                                             Alan James and as Trustee of one or
                                             more Trusts referred to in Section
                                             3.12 of the Settlement Agreement
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 21, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50740

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-03-CR-52-1-H

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

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Jose Garcia on direct

appeal has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as

required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Garcia

has filed a pro se brief in response to counsel’s motion. Our

independent review of the briefs and the record discloses no

nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Counsel’s motion for leave to

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. 
No. 03-50740

-2-

R. 42.2. 

We decline to address the ineffective assistance of counsel

claims raised by Garcia in this proceeding because the record is

not sufficiently developed to permit direct review. See United

States v. Brewster, 137 F.3d 853, 859 (5th Cir. 1998).

ANDERS MOTION GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 26, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 70614]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28017]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board


Release of Waybill Data

    The Surface Transportation Board has received a request from RSI 
Logistics (WB609-2--11/12/14) for permission to use certain data from 
the Board's 2013 Carload Waybill Sample. A copy of this request may be 
obtained from the Office of Economics.
    The waybill sample contains confidential railroad and shipper data; 
therefore, if any parties object to these requests, they should file 
their objections with the Director of the Board's Office of Economics 
within 14 calendar days of the date of this notice. The rules for 
release of waybill data are codified at 49 CFR 1244.9.
    Contact: Alexander Dusenberry, (202) 245-0319.

Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2014-28017 Filed 11-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Fidel Serrano Menjivar, * From the County Court at

 Law No. 2 of Midland County,

 Trial Court No. CR142949.

Vs. No. 11-13-00378-CR * November 12, 2015

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Wright, C.J.

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that 

there is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this 

court’s opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Gifford A. PIRNIE and Lillie J. Pirnie, Appellants.

No. 72-1148.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 8, 1973.

Decided Feb. 2, 1973.

*713James W. Hewitt, Lincoln, Neb., for appellants.

Daniel E. Wherry, Asst. U. S. Atty., Omaha, Neb., for appellee.

Before MATTHES, Chief Judge, BRIGHT, Circuit Judge, and TALBOT SMITH, Senior District Judge.*

*

 Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, Gifford A. Pirnie and Lillie J. Pirnie, defaulted in payment of several notes, evidencing loans advanced through the Farmer’s Home Administration and the United States as the owner and holder of the notes instituted this suit and obtained a judgment against the Pirnies for the balance due on the loans.

Three of the five claims of error presented on this appeal relate to a foreclosure sale of personal property. In their fourth point the appellants submit that the government failed to comply with the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code, 9-504(3).

The district court has with clarity recorded all of the essential facts and in a soundly reasoned opinion reported at 339 F.Supp. 702 (D.Neb.1972), demonstrated that appellants’ defenses to the action were lacking in substance. We agree with the district court, are satisfied that the fact questions were properly ' resolved on the basis of substantial evidence, and that the court’s conclusions were not induced by an erroneous conception of the law.

Neither do we find any prejudice flowing from the failure of the district court to permit the son of appellants to testify. This is the crux of the fifth claim of error. The son’s name had not been included in the pretrial report, a requirement of the pretrial order. The only question here is whether the district judge abused his discretion. We find he did not.

Subsequent to the time this appeal was docketed in this court, we appointed James W. Hewitt, Esquire, of Lincoln, Nebraska, to represent appellants in the prosecution of their appeal. Mr. Hewitt has discharged his responsibility in the true traditions of the legal profession. He filed a comprehensive brief and presented oral argument, all without any expectation of being compensated for his services. We commend Mr. Hewitt and express our thanks for his unselfish attitude and untiring efforts.

The judgment is affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ABC CORPORATION I, 

ABC CORPORATION II, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE PARTNERSHIPS AND 

UNICORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS 

IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE A, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 1:20-cv-4806 

Judge Thomas M. Durkin 

Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cole 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE

Plaintiffs ABC Corporation I and ABC Corporation II, collectively, “Plaintiffs”, by and 

through their attorneys, Palmersheim & Mathew, LLP, respectfully submit this motion for leave 

to withdraw the appearance of Anand C. Mathew. In support of this motion, Plaintiffs further 

state as follows: 

1. On June 24, 2022, Anand C. Mathew and Tim Parilla entered appearances as local 

counsel for Plaintiffs. (See Dkt. 564, 566.) 

2. Anand C. Mathew respectfully requests leave to withdraw his appearance as local 

counsel for Plaintiffs. 

3. Tim Parilla joined Honigman LLP as of May 15, 2023 and will continue to serve 

as local counsel for Plaintiffs through his new firm. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 657 Filed: 05/26/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:16690
2

4. Lead counsel for Plaintiff, Rich Lomuscio, Mark Berkowitz, and Chandler Sturm, 

will remain as counsel for Plaintiffs in this matter and should continue to be included in the 

service of all future pleadings, notices and filings. 

5. No party will be prejudiced by the withdrawal of the appearance of Anand C. 

Mathew. 

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter an order withdrawing 

the appearance and legal representation of attorney Anand C. Mathew and removing him from 

the electronic service list. 

Dated: May 26, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Anand C. Mathew 

Anand C. Mathew 

PALMERSHEIM & MATHEW LLP 

401 N. Franklin St., Suite 4S 

Chicago, IL 60654 

(312) 319-1791 

acm@thepmlawfirm.com 

One of the Attorneys for ABC Corporation I 

and ABC Corporation II

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 657 Filed: 05/26/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:16691
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Anand C. Mathew, an attorney, certify that I caused a copy of the foregoing 

Motion for Leave to Withdraw Appearance to be electronically filed through the 

Court’s electronic filing system on May 26, 2023. Notice of this filing will be sent to all 

parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system to all parties listed on the 

electronic filing receipt. 

 /s/ Anand C. Mathew_ 

 Anand C. Mathew 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 657 Filed: 05/26/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:16692
Exhibit
23.1
   
   CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
   We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-54479 on Form S-8 of our reports dated April 28, 2008, relating to the
financial statements of MAXXAM Inc. (which report includes an explanatory
paragraph regarding the ability of MAXXAM Inc. and subsidiaries to continue as a
going concern), and the effectiveness of MAXXAM Inc.'s internal control over
financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of MAXXAM Inc.
for the year ended December 31, 2007.
   
   Houston,
Texas
   April 28,
2008
Exhibit 4.1(1)



(TRANSLATION)



LIABILITY LIMITATION AGREEMENT



Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. (the Company) and Ikuo Uno (the Director) hereby enter into an agreement as set forth below.



The Director shall be liable to the Company for damages incurred by the Company as a
result of any act by the Director set forth in Article 266, Paragraph 1, Item 5 of the Commercial Code of Japan in performing the duties as an outside director of the Company after the execution of this Agreement, to the extent of the aggregate of
the amounts specified in each Item of Article 266, Paragraph 19 of the Commercial Code, provided that the Director has performed such act in good faith and without gross negligence.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed in duplicate, and each of the Company and the Director puts its seal hereto and retains one
(1) copy hereof.



June 29, 2005



|          |  |                                                          
|--------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------
|Company:  |  | 1006, Oaza Kadoma, Kadoma-shi, Osaka                     
|          |  | Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. (corporate seal)
|          |  | Yoichi Morishita, Chairman of the Board (seal)           
|          | 
|Director: |  | 17-46, Minami-Aoyama 4-chome, Minato-ku, Tokyo           
|          |  | Ikuo Uno (seal)                                          



---

Exhibit 4.1(2)



(TRANSLATION)



LIABILITY LIMITATION AGREEMENT



Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. (the Company) and Yoshifumi Nishikawa (the Director) hereby enter into an agreement as set forth below.



The Director shall be liable to the Company for damages incurred by the
Company as a result of any act by the Director set forth in Article 266, Paragraph 1, Item 5 of the Commercial Code of Japan in performing the duties as an outside director of the Company after the execution of this Agreement, to the extent of the
aggregate of the amounts specified in each Item of Article 266, Paragraph 19 of the Commercial Code, provided that the Director has performed such act in good faith and without gross negligence.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed in duplicate, and each of the Company and the
Director puts its seal hereto and retains one (1) copy hereof.



June 29, 2005



|          |  |                                                          
|--------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------
|Company:  |  | 1006, Oaza Kadoma, Kadoma-shi, Osaka                     
|          |  | Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. (corporate seal)
|          |  | Yoichi Morishita, Chairman of the Board (seal)           
|          | 
|Director: |  | 2-1, 3-chome, Jindaijikita-machi, Chofu-city, Tokyo      
|          |  | Yoshifumi Nishikawa (seal)
EXHIBIT 10.130

CASH COMPENSATION FOR

NON-MANAGEMENT DIRECTORS OF THE REGISTRANT

 

As of March 15, 2007, non-management directors of Mechanical Technology Incorporated (the "Registrant") receive a cash retainer of $12,000 per year and are reimbursed for reasonable travel and related expenses.  The retainer is paid in four equal quarterly installments.  In addition, 1) non-management directors receive options to purchase 20,000 shares of the Company's common stock , 2) the Chairman of the Audit Committee receives  additional options to purchase 7,500 shares of the Company's common stock, 3) members of the Audit Committee each receive additional options to purchase 3,750 shares of the Company's common stock, 4) the Chairman of the Compensation, Nominating and Governance Committee receives additional options to purchase 5,000 shares of the Company's common stock, and 5) members of the Compensation, Nominating and Governance Committee each receive additional options to purchase 2,500 shares of the Company's common stock.  All options are issued to directors on the date of the Annual Meeting and are priced based on the closing price of the Company's stock on the Nasdaq Global Market System on the date of grant and are immediately vested.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3831 

To extend the sunset on the assault weapons ban for 10 years. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 25, 2004 

Mr. CASTLE (for himself, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Mr. TOM DAVIS of 

Virginia, Mr. SHAYS, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Mr. KIRK, Mr. 

QUINN, and Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To extend the sunset on the assault weapons ban for 10 

years. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF SUNSET ON ASSAULT WEAPONS 

4 BAN FOR 10 YEARS. 

5 Section 110105(2) of the Violent Crime Control and 

6 Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (18 U.S.C. 921 note) is 

7 amended by inserting ‘‘, or in the case of the amendments 

8 made by section 110102, 20 years,’’ after ‘‘10 years’’. 

Æ
#### W. E. Woodruff *v.*City of Louisville.

Licenses — Occupation Tax.

An occupation tax on attorneys at law, which is not shown to be disproportionate to that borne by tradesmen and professional men generally for the same purpose is a legal exercise of the taxation power.

APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT.

April 19, 1872.

*Brown, for appellant.*

*T. L. Burnett, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Hardin :

The exaction of the license fee complained of in this case must, in our opinion, be regarded as merely the imposition of a tax- on the particular occupation or business of an attorney at law, as like taxes are imposed on other lucrative pursuits, for various purposes; and, as the burden thus imposed on the appellant is not shown to have been disproportionate or unequal to those borne by tradesmen and professional men generally, for the same purpose, we can not regard it as an unauthorized taking of private property for public use; but we concur with the court below that it was a legal and proper exercise of the taxing power.

Wherefore the judgment is *affirmed.*
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

JONATHAN ROGER OCHOA, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 19-0291 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Yuma County

No. S1400CR201200498

The Honorable Brandon S. Kinsey, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Yuma County Attorney’s Office, Yuma

By Jon R. Smith

Counsel for Respondent

Law Offices of Harriette P. Levitt, Tucson

By Harriette P. Levitt

Counsel for Petitioner

FILED 3-26-2020
STATE v. OCHOA

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Kenton D. Jones and Judge D. Steven Williams joined.

B R O W N, Judge:

¶1 Petitioner Jonathan Roger Ochoa seeks review of the superior 

court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant 

to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is petitioner’s first

petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner’s burden to 

show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition 

for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) 

(petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of 

discretion. 

¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review and deny relief.
#### Joe Coffey, etc., *v.*Stokes & Son and Others.

Appeal — Unsigned Brief.

A brief not signed by a party or bis regular licensed attorney, can not avail anything.

■APPEAL FROM MARION CIRCUIT COURT!

February 25, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The judgment from which this appeal is prosecuted directs that the claims of John G. Stokes & Son, John G. Baxter, Murrell & Wells, and W. B. Belknap shall be paid in full out of the moneys received by Jos. Coffey and Mrs. E. R. Coffey, on account of certain policies of insurance taken out for their benefit by the intestate a short time prior to his death.

*517*Russell & Averitt, for appellants.*

*Rountree, for appellees.*

These claims amount in the aggregate to less than $2,500, or about one-third of the moneys received by Mrs. E. R. Coffey from the St. Louis Mutual Insurance Company. After their payment there will still remain in her hands a considerable amount, which, according to the opinion heretofore rendered in this cause, 8 Bush 533, can be applied to the payment of her late husband’s debts. Hence appellants, Dorinda T. McBeath, the Administratrix of Monah M'cBeath, deceased, the Guardian of Antoinette McBeath, the Administrator of E. K. McBeath and S. S, Dunbar, have no ground or right to complain, although they, or some of them, may hold preferred claims against the estate of the intestate. In no event, however, can they interfere with the rights acquired by appellees by the prosecution of their suit against Joseph and Mrs. Coffey.

The funds in their hands could not be reached by the administrator; These creditors undertook the litigation, incurred the necessary expense, and risked the result. These appellants can not now be allowed to deprive them of the fruits of their success.

We do not deem it necessary to express an opinion as to the effect of the amendment to the charter of the Kentucky Southern Mutual Life Company, approved January 15, 1867, which has again been called to our attention.'

This court has already decided that Mrs. Coffey is entitled to the money received by her on the policy taken out in that company, and it is certainly immaterial to her whether we make her right depend upon this amendment, or upon the fact that the creditors failed to show that the premiums were paid by her husband.

Joseph Coffey appeals from the judgment directing him to pay a small amount out of the money received by him' on the claims of Stokes & Son and others. There is an unsigned paper on file purporting to be a brief in his behalf. He has the right to be heard in this court by himself or by attorney. If he sees proper to appear by brief, he must sign it himself, or cause it to be signed by some regularly licensed attorney. Otherwise it will not be considered-Aside from this the paper fails to call the attention of the court to those parts of the record showing the date upon which the circuit court based so much of the'judgment as relates to him.

The judgment in all its details is *affirmed.*