alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The Hartz Consumer Group, Inc. et al., Respondents, v JWC Hartz Holdings, Inc. et al., Appellants.

[824 NYS2d 227]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered November 9, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment dismissing defendants’ first counterclaim for indemnification, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The indemnification clause at issue, which is subject to a heightened scrutiny, does not establish an unmistakable intent by the parties to provide for indemnification of defendants under these circumstances *(see Hooper Assoc, v AGS Computers,*74 NY2d 487 [1989]). Specifically, defendant buyers of The Hartz Mountain Corporation were aware of a significant potential issue involving a flea capsule product sold by the company that faced significant competition from a newer product, a topical flea killer, marketed by the company. Although they knew of the potential decrease in the demand for and sales of the flea *556capsule, they did not seek any written assurances in the stock purchase agreement from plaintiff sellers regarding demand for the product. The fact that demand and sales decreased does not demonstrate any breach of obligation, warranty or representation made by plaintiffs in the stock purchase agreement that would trigger the indemnification clause. Accordingly, that portion of defendants’ counterclaim for damages allegedly arising out of lost sales of flea capsules and returns of flea capsule inventory it voluntarily accepted were properly dismissed.

That portion of the counterclaim seeking damages for allegedly defective flea capsules in the company’s inventory at the time of the sale was likewise properly dismissed. Pursuant to the stock purchase agreement, plaintiffs represented that “[substantially all inventories of raw materials . . . are usable.” The amount of allegedly defective capsules—less than 3%—is minimal in comparison to the amount of inventory the company had at the time of the sale, and thus does not conflict with the “substantially all” warranty.

With regard to that part of the counterclaim involving return of inventory from the Food Lion supermarket chain, one of the company’s largest retailers, there is no assertion that the authorization of returns prior to the closing without disclosure to defendants violated any provision of the stock purchase agreement. Accordingly, this portion of the counterclaim was also properly dismissed. Concur—Andrias, J.P, Marlow, Nardelli, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.
III 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 798 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 15, 2020 

Received 

RESOLUTION 

Appointing and authorizing managers for the impeachment 

trial of Donald John Trump, President of the United States. 

1 Resolved, That Mr. Schiff, Mr. Nadler, Ms. Lofgren, 

2 Mr. Jeffries, Mrs. Demings, Mr. Crow, and Ms. Garcia 

3 of Texas are appointed managers to conduct the impeach4 ment trial against Donald John Trump, President of the 

5 United States, that a message be sent to the Senate to 

6 inform the Senate of these appointments, and that the 

7 managers so appointed may, in connection with the prepa8 ration and the conduct of the trial, exhibit the articles of 

9 impeachment to the Senate and take all other actions nec10 essary, which may include the following: 

11 (1) Employing legal, clerical, and other nec12 essary assistants and incurring such other expenses 

13 as may be necessary, to be paid from amounts availVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:14 Feb 06, 2020 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR798.RDS HR798

pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

HRES 798 RDS 

1 able to the Committee on the Judiciary under appli2 cable expense resolutions or from the applicable ac3 counts of the House of Representatives. 

4 (2) Sending for persons and papers, and filing 

5 with the Secretary of the Senate, on the part of the 

6 House of Representatives, any pleadings, in conjunc7 tion with or subsequent to, the exhibition of the arti8 cles of impeachment that the managers consider nec9 essary. 

NANCY PELOSI, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Case 3:11-cr-00045-MLC Document 19 Filed 01/31/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 61
Case 3:11-cr-00045-MLC Document 19 Filed 01/31/11 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 62
Case 3:11-cr-00045-MLC Document 19 Filed 01/31/11 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 63
Case 3:11-cr-00045-MLC Document 19 Filed 01/31/11 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 64
|   | • | the      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter      ended Setpember 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and      Exchange Commission (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements      of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;      and |
|--------|---------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | • | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|---------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                                         |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Date:      November 14, 2008                                                                 |   |   |
|                                                                                         |   |   |
| /s/    KEVIN HOGGE               |   |   |
| Kevin      Hogge                                                                             |   |   |
| Chief      Financial Officer                                                                 |   |   |
| (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) |   |   |

----
UNITEI) STATES 1)ISTRJCT COURT

DTSTRJCT OF NEW .JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : lion. William I-I. Walls

V. : Criminal No. 2:10cr876

ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE

TERIEK EDWARDS

This matter having been opened to the Court by Paul 3. Fishman, United States

Attorney for the District of New Jersey (Sharon Ashe, Assistant U.S. Attorney, appearing), and

defendant Teriek Edwards (Chester Keller, appearing), for an order granting a continuance of the

proceedings in the above-captioned matter for a period ofsixty days, from September 24, 2012 to

November 23, 2012, to allow the parties to conduct pica negotiations and attempt to finalize a

plea agreement, and the defendants being aware that they have the right to have this matter

brought to trial within seventy (70) days olclate the defndants appeared before a judicial officer

of this court and that a continuance shall serve to delay a trial in this matter, and the defendants

through their attorneys having waived such rights and consented to the continuance; and for good

and sufficient cause shown,

IT IS TI-IF FINDING OF THIS COURT that this action should be continued for

the following reasons:

1. The defendants are involved in plea negotiations with the government,

2. Defendants Ii ave consented to the aforementioned continuance.
3. The grant of a continuance Will likely conserve judicial resources.

4. Pursuant to Title 1 8 oF the United States Code. Section 31 61 (h)(7), the

c. ntis of tiSt icc. 5(1 Vt (I hs gi dOlt ng I ht. (Mali iltldflet oul ci gh the best i nRa ests oft he public and

the. defendant in a speedy trial.

S I his is ihc cwht (Mritl1W1iKt 01 dci son±bt 1’\ iiM.. paiyt,s

/

\\ 111 RI I UP! His “n Wi’ da ol “I J2 t€ ‘012

OR 1)1 RI 1) that he proceedings in the tihove-bapnoneci mutter are continued fbr

the: sixty (60) day period from September 24, 2112 to November 23. 2012

IllS 1111<1111 R ORI)[ RI I) that trw pcaod hctcn Stptcnibc_i 24 2012 to

November 23, 2012, shall be exeludahlc in computing i hue under the SPe1 Trial Act of 1974,

/ / I

T

lION \Vi1 I fAMtrW\I I s

Uniied States l)istriet Judge

M.c ,&‘—

Ut its. It

/\ttt 1rn,y 9r I ci iek I tIw arc

AKa

Sharon Ashe

Assistant United States Attorney

Andrew Carey

//

C:hief OC.]1)iI anti Jirccitic’s I)ivision
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-15-0000391

04-JUN-2015

12:01 PM
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 15, 2020

No. 04-20-00234-CV

Kyle BRATTON,

Appellant

v.

HOLT TEXAS, LTD D/B/A Holt CAT and D/B/A Sitech-Tejas,

Appellee

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CI05583

Honorable Norma Gonzales, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was originally due on September 16, 2020. Before the deadline, this 

Court requested a response to Appellee’s motion to reconsider and to dismiss the appeal for want 

of jurisdiction. Appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file his brief until October 16, 

2020. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a). Appellant also requested an extension of time to September 

21, 2020 to file the response to Appellee’s motion to reconsider and to dismiss the appeal. 

Appellant’s motion is GRANTED. The response to Appellee’s motion to reconsider and 

to dismiss the appeal is due on September 21, 2020. Pending the outcome of Appellee’s motion, 

Appellant’s opening brief is due on October 16, 2020. See id.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 15th day of September, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

Clerk of Court
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-15-00036-CV

DEBERRY 3 OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, Appellant

V.

QUITMAN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 402nd Judicial District Court

Wood County, Texas

Trial Court No. T-3625

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant DeBerry 3 Operating Company, LLC (DeBerry), timely filed a notice of appeal

January 21, 2015. The clerk’s record was filed May 13, 2015. The reporter’s record was filed 

May 19, 2015. DeBerry’s brief was due to be filed with this Court on or before June 18, 2015. 

When neither a brief nor a motion to extend time for filing same were received by July 2, our 

clerk’s office, pursuant to our instructions, contacted DeBerry by letter and advised that its brief 

was late, extended the deadline for filing the brief to July 17, 2015, and warned that failure to file 

the brief by July 17 would subject DeBerry’s appeal to dismissal for want of prosecution. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c).

On July 21, our clerk’s office contacted counsel for DeBerry regarding the late brief and 

was informed that no brief would be filed on behalf of DeBerry. Pursuant to Rules 38.8 and 42.3 

of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c).

Ralph K. Burgess

Justice

Date Submitted: July 23, 2015

Date Decided: July 24, 2015
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                                BDO Seidman, LLP
                      1900 Avenue of the Starts, 11th Floor
                              Los Angeles, CA 90067




               Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants


Osicom Technologies, Inc.
Santa Monica, California


We hereby consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(No. 333-28863 and No. 333-22291) on Form S-3 of Osicom Technologies, Inc. of
our report, dated March 5, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Osicom Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries as of January 31, 1998 and 1997, and
the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and
cash flows for the years then ended, which report appears in the January 31,
1998 annual report on Form 10-KSB of Osicom Technologies, Inc.

Our report indicates that we did not audit the financial statements of a foreign
subsidiary which statements reflect total assets of $35,533,000 as of January
31, 1998 and total revenues of $46,440,000 for the year then ended and total
assets of $26,689,000 as of January 31, 1997 and total revenues of $50,692,000
for the ten months then ended. Those statements were audited by other auditors
whose report has been furnished to us, and our opinion, insofar as it relates to
the amounts included for such subsidiary, is based solely on the report of the
other auditors.


                                        BDO SEIDMAN, LLP


Los Angeles, California
April 23, 1998










                                       42
Case 2:10-cv-06741-DRD-MAS Document 1 Filed 12/23/10 Page 1 of 7 PageID: 1
Case 2:10-cv-06741-DRD-MAS Document 1 Filed 12/23/10 Page 2 of 7 PageID: 2
Case 2:10-cv-06741-DRD-MAS Document 1 Filed 12/23/10 Page 3 of 7 PageID: 3
Case 2:10-cv-06741-DRD-MAS Document 1 Filed 12/23/10 Page 4 of 7 PageID: 4
Case 2:10-cv-06741-DRD-MAS Document 1 Filed 12/23/10 Page 5 of 7 PageID: 5
Case 2:10-cv-06741-DRD-MAS Document 1 Filed 12/23/10 Page 6 of 7 PageID: 6
Case 2:10-cv-06741-DRD-MAS Document 1 Filed 12/23/10 Page 7 of 7 PageID: 7
<PAGE>   1


                                   EXHIBIT 11
                                   ----------

<TABLE>

                       STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
<CAPTION>

                                                                            Year Ended
                                                       -----------------------------------------------------
                                                        Sept. 29              Oct. 1               Oct. 2
                                                          1996                 1995                 1994
                                                         ------               ------               ------

<S>                                                    <C>                  <C>                   <C>       
Weighted average shares outstanding                    12,694,297           12,079,411            11,260,965
Common Stock equivalents:
  Stock options                                            61,469              284,660                99,022
                                                       ----------           ----------            ----------

                TOTAL *                                12,755,766           12,364,071            11,359,987
                                                       ==========           ==========            ==========


Net Income (in thousands)                              $    1,686           $    7,203            $    5,756
                                                       ==========           ==========            ==========

Earnings Per Common Share                              $      .13           $      .58            $      .51
                                                       ==========           ==========            ==========

<FN>

*    Adjusted to reflect the stock split paid on February 28, 1995.

</TABLE>


                                       -1-
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 04-405V

(Not to be published)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

*

MARCIE BROOK and, *

ALAN BROOK, parents *

of NB, a minor, *

*

Petitioners, * 

* Filed: July 2, 2015

v. *

* Decision on Attorneys’

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Fees and Costs

HUMAN SERVICES *

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

DECISION (ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS)

In this case under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program,1I issued a 

decision on May 14, 2015. On July 1, 2015, the parties filed a joint stipulation of facts regarding 

attorneys’ fees and costs in this matter. The parties’ stipulation requests a total payment of 

$91,366.23, representing attorneys’ fees and costs of $90,000.00, and $1,366.23 of costs 

expended by Petitioners. 

An award for fees and costs is appropriate at this time, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa15(b) and (e)(1). Further, the proposed amounts seem reasonable and appropriate. Accordingly, 

I hereby award the following attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(b) and 

(e)(1):

• a lump sum of $90,000.00, in the form of a check payable jointly to Petitioners 

and Petitioners’ counsel, Clifford Shoemaker, on account of services 

performed by counsel’s law firm. 

 

1 The applicable statutory provisions defining the program are found at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq. (2012). 
• a lump sum of $1,366.23, in the form of a check payable to Petitioners, 

which represents Petitioners’ own litigation expenses in this case.

In the absence of a timely-filed motion for review filed pursuant to Appendix B of the 

Rules of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the clerk of the court shall enter judgment in 

accordance herewith.2

IT IS SO ORDERED

 /s/ George L. Hastings, Jr.

 George L. Hastings, Jr.

 Special Master

 

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing the 

right to seek review.
EXHIBIT 24.1

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

         KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that each individual whose signature
appears below constitutes and appoints Jack Clark and Michael Hanrahan, and each
of them, his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents with full power of
substitution, for him and in his name, place and stead in any and all
capacities, to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Stage II Apparel Corp. for
the year ended December 31, 1997 (the "Report") and any amendments thereto, and
to file same, with all exhibits thereto, and all documents in connection
therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, granting unto said
attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power and authority to do
and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done to
comply with the provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and all
requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission, hereby ratifying and
confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents or any of them, or their
or his substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue thereof.

Dated:  March 27, 1998


                                        /s/ Jack Clark
                                        ----------------------------
                                        Jack Clark


                                        /s/ Robert Plotkin
                                        ----------------------------
                                        Robert Plotkin


                                        /s/ Steven R. Clark
                                        ----------------------------
                                        Steven R. Clark
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7944
GERALD PAYNE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusGARY KEYSER; HEARING OFFICER SORRELLS; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER WILLIAMS, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-95-1206) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 10, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald Payne, Appellant Pro Se. 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. Payne v. Keyser , No. CA-95-1206 (W.D. Va. Nov. 16, 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
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

Certification ofPrincipal Executive Officer

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Owens-IllinoisGroup, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies that to such officer’sknowledge:

 

(i)            the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company forthe year ended December 31, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable,of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(ii)           the information contained in the Report fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofthe Company.

 

 
| Dated: February 17, 2009 |   | /s/ Albert P.L. Stroucken            |
|-------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------|
|                          |   | Albert P.L. Stroucken                |
|                          |   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
|                          |   | Owens-Illinois Group, Inc.      |

 

----

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

----
SCWC
- 16

- 0000890 and SCWC

- 17

- 0000216
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I

________________________________________________________________ PRUDENTIAL LOCATIONS, LLC , Respondent/Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

vs. LORNA GAGNON and PRESTIGE REALTY GROUP LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Petitioners/Defendants/Cross

- Claim Defendants

- Appellees, and RE/MAX LLC and LORRAINE CLAWSON, Respondents/Defendants/Cross

- Claimants/ Third

- Party Plaintiffs

- Appellees,

and KEVIN TENGAN, Respondent/Third

- Party Defendant

- Appellee .

________________________________________________________________

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP

- 16

- 0000890 & CAAP

- 17

- 0000216; CIV. NO. 13

- 1

- 2328 )
ORDER GRANTING APPELLEES LORNA GAGNON AND PRESTIGE REALTY GROUP LIMITED LIAB[I]LITY COMPANY’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE OPINION OF THE COURT BY MCKENNA, J., FILED ON FEBRUARY 17, 2022 (By: McKenna, Wilson, JJ., and Circuit Judge Morikawa ) Upon consideration of Appellees Lorna Gagnon and Prestige Realty G roup Limited Liab[i]lity Company’s Motion for Clarification of the Opinion of the Court by McKenna, J., filed Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-16-0000890 31-MAR-2022 02:49 PM Dkt. 92 OGMR2

on February 17, 2022, filed February 28, 2022 (the “motion”) , and the attachments thereto; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is granted and an amended opinion changing only the final paragraph of the opinion shall issue
. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ʻ i, M arch 31 , 2022. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Michael D. Wilson /s/ Trish K. Morikawa