alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### KOHN v. SCHULDENFREI.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

November 18, 1903.)

1. Interest—Failure to Demand—Effect.

The failure to demand interest in the oral complaint and the failure to state the item of interest in the bill of particulars do not prevent the court from allowing interest as a matter of substantial justice.

¶ 1. See Interest, vol. 29, Cent. Dig. § 147.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Tenth District.

. Action for commissions on sales by Isaac C. Kohn against Henry Schuldenfrei. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Modified.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and BISCHOFF and BLANCHARD, JJ.

Thomas P. Hall, for appellant.

Blumenthal, Moss & Feiner, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Upon the issue of fact involving the custom of trade as to commissions of salesmen on goods sold but returned, the probabilities are not necessarily with the defendant in his contention that the return of the goods, irrespective of reasons for the return, where no 'fault of the salesman is involved, must result in the loss of commissions. The evidence justified a finding to the contrary, supported, also, by the actual custom of these parties in their dealings; The pleadings being oral, the failure to demand interest in the complaint does not affect the plaintiff’s rights, and, while an item of interest is not stated in the bill of particulars, there was no error in the allowance of interest as a matter of substantial justice. It appears, however, that a very material mistake was made in the computation upon which the judgment was founded. Th.e item of commissions at per cent, on sales of $13,110.53 is actually $983.29,. but the justice has accepted the plaintiff’s statement that the computation results in $1,083.31. Obviously, the recovery so far cannot be supported, but, the other items being correct, the judgment will be affirmed, if properly reduced. The reduction, with the proportionate interest allowed, should be $105.84. If the .respondent consents- to a modifica*871tion to this extent, the judgment will be affirmed, with *costs;*otherwise judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.
# C_2023009EN.01000201.xml

| 11.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/2

---

Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)

(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1))

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 9/02)

Decision granting an authorisation

| Reference of the decision (2) | Date of decision | Substance name | Holder of the authorisation | Authorisation number | Authorised use | Date of expiry of review period | Reasons for the decision |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| C(2023)3 | 4 January 2023 | 4-(1,1,3,3-Tetra methylbutyl)phenol, ethoxylated
  (4-tert-OPnEO)
  EC No: -, CAS No:- | Lilly France, 24 Boulevard Vital Bouhot, 92521, Neuilly Sur Seine, France;
  Eli Lilly Italia S.p.A., Via Gramsci 731/733, 50019, Sesto Fiorentino, Florence, Italy. | REACH/22/44/0
  REACH/22/44/1 | Industrial formulation (dilution) of a silicone solution containing 4-tert-OPnEO and its subsequent use as a lubricant in the manufacture of medicinal product delivery devices | 4 January 2028 | In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socio-economic benefits outweigh the risk to human health and the environment from the uses of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies. |

Reference of the decision (2)

Date of decision

Substance name

Holder of the authorisation

Authorisation number

Authorised use

Date of expiry of review period

Reasons for the decision

C(2023)3

4 January 2023

4-(1,1,3,3-Tetra methylbutyl)phenol, ethoxylated

(4-tert-OPnEO)

EC No: -, CAS No:-

Lilly France, 24 Boulevard Vital Bouhot, 92521, Neuilly Sur Seine, France;

Eli Lilly Italia S.p.A., Via Gramsci 731/733, 50019, Sesto Fiorentino, Florence, Italy.

REACH/22/44/0

REACH/22/44/1

Industrial formulation (dilution) of a silicone solution containing 4-tert-OPnEO and its subsequent use as a lubricant in the manufacture of medicinal product delivery devices

4 January 2028

In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socio-economic benefits outweigh the risk to human health and the environment from the uses of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies.

---

(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006 , p. 1.

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: Authorisation (europa.eu).

---
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S NO. WR-82,567-01

EX P ARTE DAVID WAY NE GR ASMAN, Applicant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 03-168-K

277 IN THE 277 DISTRICT COURT T H F ROM WILLIAMSON COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisions of Ar t i cl e 1 1
. 07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant pleade d g uilty to possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance in exchang e for ten y ear s’ defe rre d adjudication community supervision. His g uilt was later adjudicate d, and he was sentenc ed to six year s’ imprisonment. He did not appeal his convic tion. In this application, Applicant alleg es in three of his five g rounds fo r review that he is not
rec eiving the proper amount of pre- sentenc ing jail time cre dit. The rema ining two g rounds appea rto be challeng es to the merits of his conviction and sentenc e afte r adjudication. Applicant' s claims

conce rning the denial of credit fo r t i m e spent in confine ment prior to the adjudication of guilt are dismiss ed. Ex parte Y

barra , 149 S.W .3d 147 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (Where an inmate seeks presentenc e jail time cre dit, "[t]he appropr iate reme dy in this situation is to require Applicant to prese nt the issue to the trial court by way of a nunc pro tunc m o t i o n , . . . [and] [i ]f the trial court fails to respond, Applicant is first require d to seek relief in the C ourt of Appeals, by way of a petition for
a writ of mandamus, unless there is a compelling reason not to do so.")
. Applicant’s rema ining claims are without merit, and are denied. Filed: January

14, 2015 Do not publish
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 21

- 00394

- CV

___________________________

Original Procee ding 360th District Court of Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 360

- 700860

- 21

Before Birdwell, Kerr, and Womack, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### I N RE 

### H.M. , Relator2 MEMORANDUM OPINION
The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and motion
for emergency relief and is of the opinion that relief should be denied. Specifically,

w e deny relat or ’ s request to issue a writ directing the trial court to withdraw or
reconsider i ts October 11 , 2021 order granting re al party in interest ’ s request to
dec line juris di ction , and w e deny relator ’ s reques t to order the trial c ourt to withdraw
its November 18, 2021 order on re al party in interest ’ s petition for writ of habeas
corpus. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and motion for emergency relief ar e denied. We lift our Novem ber 30, 2021 stay order.
Per Curiam
Delivered : December 13, 2021
Exhibit 23.1











CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We consent to the incorporation by reference in Post-Effective Amendment No. 13 to the Registration Statement on Form S-14 (File No. 2-96149) and in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File No. 333-221133) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-28631, 33-10218, 33-13210, 33-14561, 33-48781, 33-59109, 333-43478, 333-43484, 333-128494, 333-139523, 333-148070, 333-156188, 333-167516, 333-170185, 333-204477 and 333-209701) of Altria Group, Inc. of our reports dated 13 March 2019, relating to the 2018, 2017 and 2016 consolidated financial statements of Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV, and the effectiveness of Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV’s internal control over financial reporting as of 31 December 2018, appearing in Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended 31 December 2018, which are incorporated by reference into this Amendment No. 1 to Altria Group, Inc.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended 31 December 2018.





Zaventem, Belgium


29 May 2019





/s/Joël Brehmen


Deloitte Bedrijfsrevisoren / Reviseurs d’Entreprises CVBA / SCRL


Represented by Joël Brehmen
#### § 56.4501 Fuel lines.

Fuel lines shall be equipped with valves capable of stopping the flow of fuel at the source and shall be located and maintained to minimize fire hazards. This standard does not apply to fuel lines on self-propelled equipment.
### §403v. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 403v, comprising section 22 of the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949, act June 20, 1949, ch. 227, was editorially reclassified as section 3522 of this title.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In re Ruby Britt

No. 06-16-00074-CV

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Opinion delivered by Justice Moseley, Chief 

Justice Morriss and Justice Burgess 

participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that Relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus should be conditionally granted. For the reasons described hereinabove, we 

conditionally grant the writ of mandamus and direct the 62nd Judicial District Court to vacate its 

order granting a new trial and to reinstate the default judgment. The writ will issue only if the trial 

court fails to comply.

RENDERED NOVEMBER 29, 2016

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
#### § 736.16 Federal program termination procedures.

Termination of a Federal program shall be accomplished at the same time and through the procedures for approval of a State program under 30 CFR part 732. No Federal program shall be considered terminated until a State program has been approved by the Secretary in accordance with 30 CFR part 732.
#### Jeffrey Dong, an Infant, by His Father and Natural Guardian, Danny T. Dong, Respondent, v Herman A. Wandmacher, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Roslyn Public School, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the third-party defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated October 14, 1976, which, upon the court’s own motion, vacated a prior order dated October 12, 1976 and granted leave to the infant plaintiff to serve a late notice of claim against appellant and (2) a further order of the same court, dated February 23, 1977, which denied appellant’s motion for reargument. Appeal from the order dated February 23, 1977 dismissed, without costs or disbursements. No appeal lies from an order denying reargument. Order dated October 14, 1976 reversed, without costs or disbursements, and order dated October 12, 1976 reinstated. We recently held in *Matter of Pauletti v Freeport Union Free School Dist. No. 9*(59 AD2d 556) that the amendment to subdivision 5 of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law, effective September 1, 1976, would not be applied retroactively. Therefore, since the application for leave to serve a late notice of claim was not made within one year of the date of the accident, the court’s order dated October 12, 1976, which, in applying the prior law, denied the motion, was proper and should be reinstated. Hopkins, J. P., Martuscello and Rabin, JJ., concur; Hawkins, J., concurs in the result upon the constraint of the majority holding in *Matter of Pauletti v Union Free School Dist. No. 9*(59 AD2d 556).
### 6 Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2013

- 0461 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2012

- NM

- 169

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell

.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance)

Work

- hours

(include

access, testing,

and close

- up) Labor

cost

(@$85/h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts) Number of

U.S.

Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Inspection 30.0 $ 2,550.0

0 $0 $ 2,550.00 

### 234 $ 596,700.00



### or 49.0 $ 4,165.0

0 $0 $ 4,165.00 

### 234 $ 974,610.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 1,571,310



### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

On

- Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work

- hours

(include access,

testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product



### No Data $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00



### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### : 

### N/A

### 7 Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
#### In the Matter of 358 W. 52nd St. Corp., Appellant, v. Bernard J. O’Connell, as Commissioner of Licenses of the City of New York, Respondent.

Order, entered on January 25, 1962, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and McNally, JJ.
Exhibit 99.1


         CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
          18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
           AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
             SECTION 906 OF THE
         SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Dionics, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2002,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of the
undersigned's knowledge, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements
          of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
          Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



August 13, 2002          /s/ Bernard Kravitz
Date                     Bernard Kravitz,
                         President and Chief Executive
                         Officer


August 13, 2002          /s/ Bernard Kravitz
Date                     Bernard Kravitz,
                         Principal Financial Officer
§ 35.9 Certificates of approval. ( a ) Upon completion of an investigation of a hydraulic fluid MSHA will issue to the applicant either a certificate of approval or a written notice of disapproval as the case may require. No informal notification of approval will be issued. If a certificate of approval is issued, no test data or detailed results of tests will accompany it. If a notice of disapproval is issued, it will be accompanied by details of the defect(s), with a view to possible correction. MSHA will not disclose, except to the applicant, any information on a fluid upon which a notice of disapproval has been issued.
( b ) A certificate of approval will be accompanied by a list of specifications covering the characteristics of a hydraulic fluid upon which the certificate of approval is based. In addition to the applicant's record of control in maintaining the fire-resistant characteristics, applicants shall keep exact duplicates of the specifications that have been submitted to MSHA and that relate to any fluid which has received a certificate of approval; and these are to be adhered to exactly in production of the certified fluid for commercial purposes.
### §3999. Regulations

The Secretary of the Interior may issue regulations necessary to carry out this subchapter (other than sections 3991, 4000, and 4001 of this title).

(Oct. 17, 1940, ch. 888, title V, §509, as added Pub. L. 108–189, §1, Dec. 19, 2003, 117 Stat. 2858.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 569 of the former Appendix to this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 509 of act Oct. 17, 1940, ch. 888, art. V, 54 Stat. 1189; Oct. 6, 1942, ch. 581, §15, 56 Stat. 776, related to distribution of information concerning benefits of tax and public lands provisions and forms, prior to the general amendment of this Act by Pub. L. 108–189. See section 3997 of this title.

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

#### Effective Date

Section applicable to any case not final before Dec. 19, 2003, see section 3 of Pub. L. 108–189, set out as a note under section 3901 of this title.
EXHIBIT 10.20


                            PROMISSORY NOTE


$1,683,348.33                                     October 28, 2002




     The undersigned, Competitive Technologies, Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("Maker"), promises to pay to the order of Foley & Lardner
the principal sum of $1,683,348.33, plus simple interest thereon
accruing from the date hereof at the rate of 11% per annum, in
furtherance of the terms of an Agreement between the Maker and Foley &
Lardner dated as of the date hereof attached hereto as Exhibit A.  As
provided in the aforesaid Agreement, payment hereunder shall be made
within 30 days after, and is fully contingent upon, Maker's recovery
of legal fee reimbursements or receipt of cash proceeds upon
successful resolution of the lawsuit currently pending in the Federal
District Court, Northern District of California, against Fujitsu et
al.

     Maker hereby waives all notice, demand for payment, presentment
for payment, protest and notice of protest.


                                   COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.



                                   By /s/ Frank R. McPike, Jr.


                                                       EXHIBIT A


                               AGREEMENT


     Foley & Lardner agrees that Competitive Technologies, Inc.'s
obligation to make any further payments beyond those already made for
legal fees and disbursements expended in the legal actions brought
against or by Fujitsu et al. shall be limited to the payment of
$1,683,348.53, plus simple interest thereon accruing from the date of
this Agreement at the rate of 11% per annum, solely from the recovery
of legal fee reimbursements or proceeds received by Competitive
Technologies upon the successful resolution of the action, as awarded
by the court or through negotiated settlement.  The payment described
herein shall be paid within thirty (30) days of the date Competitive
Technologies receives good funds representing the proceeds received
upon the successful resolution of the action.

     Other than as stated herein, Foley & Lardner further agrees that
Competitive Technologies, Inc. has no obligation to make any payments
further to those already made to Foley & Lardner for legal fees and
disbursements for any and all services rendered by Foley & Lardner
through the date hereof.



COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.          FOLEY & LARDNER


By: /s/ Frank R. McPike, Jr.            By:  Richard Phelan

Its: Executive Vice President & CFO     Its: Managing Partner-Chicago

Dated:    10/28/02                      Dated:    10/28/02
### §167i. Exclusion from Natural Gas Act provisions

The provisions of the Natural Gas Act of June 21, 1938, as amended [15 U.S.C. 717 et seq.], shall not be applicable to the sale, extraction, processing, transportation, or storage of helium either prior to or subsequent to the separation of such helium from the natural gas with which it is commingled, whether or not the provisions of such Act apply to such natural gas, and in determining the rates of a natural gas company under sections 4 and 5 of the Natural Gas Act, as amended [15 U.S.C. 717c, 717d], whenever helium is extracted from helium-bearing natural gas, there shall be excluded (1) all income received from the sale of helium; (2) all direct costs incurred in the extraction, processing, compression, transportation or storage of helium; and (3) that portion of joint costs of exploration, production, gathering, extraction, processing, compression, transportation or storage divided and allocated to helium on a volumetric basis.

(Mar. 3, 1925, ch. 426, §11, as added Pub. L. 86–777, §2, Sept. 13, 1960, 74 Stat. 922.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Natural Gas Act of June 21, 1938, as amended, referred to in text, means act June 21, 1938, ch. 556, 52 Stat. 821, known as the Natural Gas Act, which is classified generally to chapter 15B (§717 et seq.) of Title 15, Commerce and Trade. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 717w of Title 15 and Tables.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas December 6, 2022 No. 04-22-00417-CV Rigoberto SANCHEZ , Jr., Appellant
v. COTT BEVERAGES, INC. ,

Appellee From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CI02505 Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R Appellant’s third motion for an extension of time to file his brief is GRANTED IN PART. Appellant’s brief is due on or before January 17, 2023
. No further requests for an extension of time will be considered absent extenuating circumstances.

_________________________________ Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 6th day of December, 2022.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court