alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012058EN.01000903.xml

| 25.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 58/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58/9

---

Order of the General Court of 11 January 2012 — Phoenix-Reisen and DRV v Commission

(Case T-58/10) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - State aid - German system of allowances paid to employees of insolvent undertakings and the financing thereof - Decision finding no State aid - Inadmissibility)

2012/C 58/17

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Phoenix-Reisen GmbH (Bonn, Germany); and Deutscher Reiseverband eV (DRV) (Berlin, Germany) (represented by R. Gerharz, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by L. Flynn and B. Martenczuk, agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by T. Henze, J. Möller and B. Klein, agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 8707 final of 19 November 2009 declaring that the system of allowances paid to employees of insolvent undertakings and the financing thereof under German legislation does not constitute State aid (State aid NN 55/2009) (OJ 2009 C 323, p. 5).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as being inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

| 2. | Phoenix-Reisen GmbH and Deutscher Reiseverband eV (DRV) shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Phoenix-Reisen GmbH and Deutscher Reiseverband eV (DRV) shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

| 3. | The Federal Republic of Germany shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Federal Republic of Germany shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.

1

---
§ 201.33 Persons damaged may maintain suit; filing and notification of claims; time limitations; legal expenses. Each bond and each bond equivalent filed pursuant to the regulations in this part shall contain provisions that: ( a ) Any person damaged by failure of the principal to comply with any condition clause of the bond or bond equivalent may maintain suit to recover on the bond or bond equivalent even though such person is not a party named in the bond or bond equivalent;
( b ) Any claim for recovery on the bond or bond equivalent must be filed in writing with either the surety, if any, or the trustee, if any, or the Administrator, and whichever of these parties receives such a claim shall notify the other such party or parties at the earliest practical date;
( c ) The Administrator is authorized to designate a trustee pursuant to § 201.32;
( d ) The surety on the bond, or the trustee on the bond equivalent, as the case may be, shall not be liable to pay any claim if it is not filed in writing within 60 days from the date of the transaction on which the claim is based or if suit thereon is commenced less than 120 days or more than 547 days from the date of the transaction on which the claim is based;
( e ) The proceeds of the bond or bond equivalent, as the case may be, shall not be used to pay fees, salaries, or expenses for legal representation of the surety or the principal.
[56 FR 2128, Jan. 22, 1991]
#### Elizabeth Burns *vs.*Dawson Ditt *et ux.*

DECEMBER 29, 1952.

Present: Flynn, C. J., Capotosto, Baker, Condon and O’Connell, JJ.

Condon, J.

This action of the case for negligence was brought by a domestic servant against her employers. It is here on her exception to the trial justice’s denial of her motion for a new trial after a verdict for the defendants.

The plaintiff contends under such exception that the verdict does not respond to the true merits of the controversy, because the jury overlooked or disregarded material evidence and were influenced by passion or prejudice and by speculative considerations. For such reasons, she argues, the trial justice was clearly wrong in approving the verdict and denying her motion for a new trial.

*141*Letts & Quinn, Daniel J. Murray,*for plaintiff.

*Sherwood & Clifford, Raymond E. Jordan, Sidney Clifford,*for defendants.

We do not agree with that contention. We have found nothing in the transcript which justifies plaintiff’s claim that the jury were influenced by passion or prejudice, indulged in speculation, or ignored any material evidence in her favor. Indeed the evidence appears to us to fall far short of establishing by a fair preponderance that defendants were guilty of any negligence such as was alleged against them in any of the three counts of the declaration.

In the circumstances we are of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by an extended discussion here of the theory of plaintiff’s case or of the facts out of which it arose. It is sufficient to say that, after carefully reading the allegations of negligence in the three counts of plaintiff’s declaration and also her evidence in support of them, we are of the opinion that the trial justice’s decision approving the verdict and denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial was not clearly wrong.

The plaintiff’s exception is overruled, and the case is remitted to the superior court for further proceedings.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 2, 2020

No. 04-20-00392-CV

Sherry CAGLE n/k/a Sherry Schwartz,

Appellant

v.

Mario CUELLAR, Norma Cuellar, James Donald Cagle, and Hannah Funding LLC.,

Appellees

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-CI-01910

Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief is due on November 2, 2020. On October 30, 2020, appellant filed an 

unopposed motion requesting a forty-five day extension of time to file her brief. After 

consideration, we GRANT appellant’s motion and ORDER appellant’s brief due by December 

17, 2020. 

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

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

court on this 2nd day of November, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-20-0000294

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

LIISA BERGMANN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.

HAWAI#I RESIDENCY PROGRAMS, INC., Defendant-Appellant; and

THE QUEEN'S MEDICAL CENTER, DANNY TAKANISHI, M.D.,

SUSAN STEINEMANN, M.D., and DOE ENTITIES 1-10,

Defendants-Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

(CIVIL NO. 1CC151001268)

ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION TO DISMISS APPEAL WITH PREJUDICE

(By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Leonard and Wadsworth, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the Stipulation for Dismissal of

Appeal With Prejudice (Stipulation), filed May 14, 2020, by

Defendant-Appellant Hawai#i Residency Programs, Inc., the papers

in support, and the record, it appears that (1) the appeal has

been docketed; (2) the parties stipulate to dismiss the appeal

with prejudice and bear their own attorneys' fees and costs;

(3) the Stipulation is dated and signed by counsel for all

parties appearing in the appeal; and (4) dismissal is authorized

by Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 42(b).

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Stipulation is

approved and the appeal is dismissed with prejudice. The parties

shall bear their own attorneys' fees and costs.

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-20-0000294

26-MAY-2020

09:32 AM
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are

dismissed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 26, 2020.

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza

Chief Judge

/s/ Katherine G. Leonard

Associate Judge

/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth

Associate Judge

2
### §5001. Findings; purposes

#### (a) Findings

The Congress finds as follows:

(1) In the Expedited Funds Availability Act [12 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.], enacted on August 10, 1987, the Congress directed the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to consider establishing regulations requiring Federal reserve banks and depository institutions to provide for check truncation, in order to improve the check processing system.

(2) In that same Act, the Congress—

(A) provided the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System with full authority to regulate all aspects of the payment system, including the receipt, payment, collection, and clearing of checks, and related functions of the payment system pertaining to checks; and

(B) directed that the exercise of such authority by the Board superseded any State law, including the Uniform Commercial Code, as in effect in any State.

(3) Check truncation is no less desirable in 2003 for both financial service customers and the financial services industry, to reduce costs, improve efficiency in check collections, and expedite funds availability for customers than it was over 15 years ago when Congress first directed the Board to consider establishing such a process.

#### (b) Purposes

The purposes of this chapter are as follows:

(1) To facilitate check truncation by authorizing substitute checks.

(2) To foster innovation in the check collection system without mandating receipt of checks in electronic form.

(3) To improve the overall efficiency of the Nation's payments system.

(Pub. L. 108–100, §2, Oct. 28, 2003, 117 Stat. 1177.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Expedited Funds Availability Act, referred to in subsec. (a)(1), (2), is title VI of Pub. L. 100–86, Aug. 10, 1987, 101 Stat. 635, which is classified principally to chapter 41 (§4001 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 4001 of this title and Tables.

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (b), was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 108–100, Oct. 28, 2003, 117 Stat. 1177, which is classified generally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out below and Tables.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 108–100, §20, Oct. 28, 2003, 117 Stat. 1194, provided that: "This Act [enacting this chapter, amending section 412 of this title, and enacting provisions set out as notes under this section] shall take effect at the end of the 12-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 28, 2003], except as otherwise specifically provided in this Act."

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 108–100, §1(a), Oct. 28, 2003, 117 Stat. 1177, provided that: "This Act [enacting this chapter, amending section 412 of this title, and enacting provisions set out as notes under this section] may be cited as the 'Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act' or the 'Check 21 Act'."
## Browse All Stories

### Enhancing Rural Medicine

[Read More]

04.12.2024

Community FacilitiesGrants

### Rural Energy for America Program Helping with Input Costs for Agricultural Producers

[Read More]

04.10.2024

Inflation Reduction Act

### State Director Awarded Friend of the Haliwa-Saponi People

[Read More]

04.09.2024

Rural Development

###  “This is Home” – A Family Finds Their Forever Home in Calais, Maine

[Read More]

04.05.2024

HomeownershipHousing

### Health Care Closer to Home – It’s Good for the Heart

[Read More]

04.05.2024

Distance LearningGrantsHealth CareTechnology

### The Opportunity to Do More: USDA Pass-Through Loan Enables Manufacturing Company Expansion

[Read More]

04.03.2024

BusinessEconomic DevelopmentManufacturing

### USDA’s Housing Preservation Grant and Rebuilding Together Houston’s Network of Partners Improve Safety and Resiliency of Crosby Homeowner

[Read More]

04.02.2024

Housing

### USDA Grants Help Farmer Care for Apple Orchards, Maintain Blue Corn Lineages

[Read More]

04.02.2024

REAPSmall BusinessValue Added

### Rural health care grant helps God’s Pantry Food Bank expand food delivery program

[Read More]

04.02.2024

Food SupplyHealth Care

### Sprucing Up the House, Poultry Houses That Is

[Read More]

04.02.2024

REAP

-                Current page            1 
-                Page            2 
-                Page            3 
- …
-              70           
-   Next
#### § 592.10 Authority.

The Administrator shall perform, for and under the supervision of the Secretary, such duties as the Secretary may require in the enforcement or administration of the provisions of the Act and this part. The Administrator is authorized to waive for a limited period any particular provisions of the regulations in this part to permit experimentation so that new procedures, equipment, and processing techniques may be tested to facilitate definite improvements and at the same time to determine full compliance with the spirit and intent of the regulations in this part. The Food Safety Inspection Service and its officers and employees shall not be liable in damages through acts of commission or omission in the administration of this part.
### §3207. Judicial review and enforcement

#### (a) Limitation of Federal jurisdiction

(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no court of the United States shall have jurisdiction over any action arising under any provision of this chapter except for—

(A) an action over which a court of the United States has jurisdiction under paragraph (2), or

(B) review in the Supreme Court of the United States in accordance with sections 1257 and 1258 of title 28.

(2) The Secretary may bring an action in any appropriate court of the United States to enforce his right to intervene under section 3205 of this title, and such court shall have jurisdiction to grant appropriate relief.

#### (b) Enforcement

(1) Any person may bring an action to enforce the requirements of this chapter in the appropriate State court. Such action in a State court shall be pursuant to applicable State procedures.

(2) Nothing in this chapter shall authorize the Secretary to appeal or otherwise seek judicial review of the decisions of a State regulatory authority or nonregulated gas utility or to become a party to any action to obtain such review or appeal. The Secretary may participate as an amicus curiae in any judicial review of an action arising under the provisions of this chapter.

(Pub. L. 95–617, title III, §307, Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3153.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Definitions

The definitions of Secretary and State in section 2602 of Title 16, Conservation, apply to this section.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-80,716-01

EX PARTE RAYMOND V. RENTERIA, JR., Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 1395723-A

IN THE 351 DISTRICT COURT FROM HARRIS COUNTY ST

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant pleaded guilty and was convicted

of possession of cocaine more than one gram but less than four grams and sentenced to four years’

imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction.

After Applicant pleaded guilty and was sentenced, the lab report revealed that the actual

amount of cocaine was less than 1 gram. 

The trial court has determined that the lab report does show an amount less than 1 gram and
that Applicant has established he is entitled to relief. The State and the trial court both recommend

granting relief. Applicant is entitled to relief. 

Relief is granted. The judgment in Cause No. 1395723 in the 351 Judicial District Court st

of Harris County is set aside, and Applicant is remanded to the Harris County Sheriff to answer the

charge against him. The trial court shall issue any necessary bench warrant within 10 days after the

mandate of this Court issues.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to theTexas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Delivered: January 15, 2014

Do Not Publish
# C_2010346EN.01005004.xml

| 18.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 346/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 346/50

---

Action brought on 4 October 2010 — Département du Gers v Commission

(Case T-482/10)

()

2010/C 346/99

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Département du Gers (Auch, France) (represented by: S. Mabile and J.-P. Mignard, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul Decision 2010/432/EU of the European Commission of 28 July 2010 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize 1507x59122 (DAS-Ø15Ø7-1xDAS-59122-7) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Decision 2010/432/EU of the European Commission of 28 July 2010 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize 1507x59122 (DAS-Ø15Ø7-1xDAS-59122-7) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and the main arguments raised by the applicant are identical or essentially the same as those raised in Case T-478/10 Département du Gers v Commission.

Département du Gers

Commission

---
# C_2010301EN.01005601.xml

| 6.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/56

---

Action brought on 13 September 2010 — Bottega Veneta International v OHIM (Shape of a handbag)

(Case T-409/10)

()

2010/C 301/89

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bottega Veneta International Sarl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, M. Boletto and E. Gavuzzi, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 16 June 2010 in Case R 1247/2009-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 16 June 2010 in Case R 1247/2009-1;

| — | Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs of the present proceedings and the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs of the present proceedings and the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Trade mark consisting of a distinctive three-dimensional sign known as the ‘veneta’ bag (application for registration No 6632608) for goods in Class 18 (‘bags and handbags’).

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application for registration.

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Rule 9(3)(a) of Regulation No 2868/95 and Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

PATRICK D. JAMES

NO. 2022 KW 0475

JULY 5, 2022

In Re: Patrick D. James, applying for supervisory writs, 22nd

Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany, No. 

518, 531. 

BEFORE: McCLENDON, WELCH, AND HESTER, JJ. 

WRIT DENIED. The sentence reductions which relator seeks

to avail himself of apply retroactively only to inmates

sentenced prior to June 15, 2001. See La. R. S. 15: 308( A)( 1) & 

2) ( prior to amendment by 2014 La. Acts No. 340, § 1). 

Relator' s habitual offender sentence was imposed in 2012. 

Accordingly, the district court did not err by denying the

motion to correct an illegal sentence. 

PMC

JEW

CHH

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

t. 

DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NOS. WR-91,947-01 AND WR-91,947-02

EX P ARTE LAMONT MARCELOUS GILBERT, App licant

ON AP P LICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NOS. 1579971-A AND 1630403- A IN THE 183RD DISTRICT COURT F ROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Applicant pleade d g uilty to one char g e of driving while intox icated, and on e char g e of evading arr est or detention , an d was sentenc ed to six y ear s’ imprisonment in eac h case , to run

concur rently

. He did not appea l his convictions. Appl i ca n t fi l ed these applications for writs of habea s corpus in the county of conviction, and the district cler k forwa rded them to this Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. On J anua ry 1 4 , 2 020, the t rial court enter ed an order desig nating issues in eac h case . The district cler

k proper ly forwa

rded these applications to t h i s C o u rt under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedur e 73.4(b)( 5). Howeve r, the app li c a ti o n s w e r e forwa

rded befor e the trial court made finding s of fac t and conclusio n s o f l aw . We rema nd these application to the trial court to complete itsevidentiar

y investiga tion and make f indings of f

act a nd conclusions of law

. T h e t rial court shall make findings of fac t and conclusions of l aw within ninety day s from the date of this order

. The district cler k shall then immediately forwa rd to this Court the trial court’s finding s and conclusions and the rec ord develope d on rema nd, including, among other things, aff idavits, motions, objections , proposed finding s and conclusions, order s, and transcr ipts from hear ings and depositions. See T E X . R. A P P . P. 73.4(b)( 4). Any extensions of time must be reque sted by the trial cour

t and obtained f

rom this Court.

Filed: Nove mber 18, 2020 Do not publish