alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A21A1393. ELIZABETH LANGLEY v. TRAVELERS HOME AND MARINE

INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

Plaintiff Elizabeth Langley filed a breach of contract action, claiming that her

insurer mishandled and failed to pay a claimunder her homeownersinsurance policy.

The only named defendants in the complaint were Apex Disaster Management, Inc.

and an entity that Langley identified as “Travel Insurance thru Geico.” But service

was made or attempted upon three non-parties – Geico Insurance Company, Phoenix

Insurance Company, and Travelers Insurance Company. The non-parties moved to

dismiss, arguing that theywere not proper defendants. In response, plaintiff conceded

that she had misidentified her insurer, and she moved to substitute another entity as

a defendant. The trial court granted the dismissal motions and denied plaintiff’s

substitution motion. Plaintiff filed this direct appeal from the trial court’s order. We,

however, lack jurisdiction.

OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1) generally allows direct appeals from final judgments,

that is where the case is no longer pending in the trial court below. “In a case

involving multiple parties or multiple claims, a decision adjudicating fewer than all

the claims or the rights and liabilities of less than all the parties is not a final

judgment.” (Punctuation omitted.) Johnson v. Hosp. Corp. of America, 192 Ga. App.

628, 629 (385 SE2d 731) (1989). Here, the trial court’s order granted the dismissal

motions of the non-parties, but there is no indication in the record that the claims

against defendant Apex have been resolved. “In such circumstances, there must be

an express determination under OCGA § 9-11-54 (b) or there must be compliance

with the interlocutory appeal requirements of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). Where neither of

June 09, 2021
these code sections [is] followed, the appeal is premature and must be dismissed.”

(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Id. The trial court’s order in this case did not

direct the entry of judgment pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-54 (b), and therefore, it is not

a final order. And plaintiff failed to follow the interlocutory appeal procedures of

OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). Plaintiff’s failure to follow the required appellate procedures

deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED. See Pace

Constr. Corp. v. Northpark Assocs., 215 Ga. App. 438, 439-440 (450 SE2d 828)

(1994). 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

06/09/2021
§ 50.51 Clinical investigations not involving greater than minimal risk. Any clinical investigation within the scope described in §§ 50.1 and 56.101 of this chapter in which no greater than minimal risk to children is presented may involve children as subjects only if the IRB finds that: ( a ) No greater than minimal risk to children is presented; and
( b ) Adequate provisions are made for soliciting the assent of the children and the permission of their parents or guardians as set forth in § 50.55.
[78 FR 12951, Feb. 26, 2013]
NUMBERS 13-22-00562-CV & 13-22-00598-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

 

IN RE CIRRUS DESIGN CORPORATION 

D/B/A CIRRUS AIRCRAFT

 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

 

ORDER

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Silva

Order Per Curiam

Relator Cirrus Design Corporation d/b/a Cirrus Aircraft has filed: (1) a Motion to 

Consolidate Petitions for Writ of Mandamus regarding our cause numbers 13-22-00562-

CV and 13-22-00598-CV; and (2) an Emergency Motion for Temporary Relief in cause 

number 13-22-00598-CV. In the Motion to Consolidate Petitions for Writ of Mandamus, 

relator asserts that the petitions for writ of mandamus that it has filed in cause numbers 

13-22-00562-CV and 13-22-00598-CV arise “from the same underlying litigation, involve 

the same operative facts, and raise nearly identical legal issues.” Relator thus requests 
2

that we consolidate these causes in the interest of judicial efficiency. In the Emergency 

Motion for Temporary Relief filed in cause number 13-22-00598-CV, relator requests that 

this Court stay the trial court’s December 9, 2022 Order granting [Real Party in Interest] 

Jorgenson’s Second Motion to Compel Responses to Second Set of Requests for 

Production during the pendency of the mandamus proceedings challenging that order.

The Court, having examined and fully considered these motions, concludes that 

they should be granted. Accordingly, we grant the Motion to Consolidate Petitions for Writ 

of Mandamus regarding our cause numbers 13-22-00562-CV and 13-22-00598-CV and

we will consider these original proceedings as a consolidated case. We grant relator’s 

Emergency Motion for Temporary Relief, and we order the trial court’s order of December 

9, 2022, compelling relator to respond to discovery, to be stayed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

52.10(b) (“Unless vacated or modified, an order granting temporary relief is effective until 

the case is finally decided.”). 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed on the

11th day of January, 2023.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE RESTATED
AUDITED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1996, AND THE RELATED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS THEN ENDED, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           4,779
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,798
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,528
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,577
<PP&E>                                          12,774
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,359
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 218,141
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,335
<BONDS>                                        133,759
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           126
<OTHER-SE>                                      55,887
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   218,141
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               194,979
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  174,302
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,982
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,442
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,977
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,465
<DISCONTINUED>                                   1,155
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,620
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.91
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.91
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         625,489
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   86,199
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               711,688
<PP&E>                                         151,861
<DEPRECIATION>                                  26,544
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 957,550
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         (389,866)
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       (14,529)
<OTHER-SE>                                    (553,155)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  (957,550)
<SALES>                                        (68,328)
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               (68,328)
<CGS>                                           61,264
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   61,264
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               410,638
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (5,536)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                430,118
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            430,118
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   430,118
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.03)


</TABLE>
To: Alexis McKittrick/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

From: David Isaacs <DIsaacs@sia-online.org> 

Date: 11/15/2012 04:28PM 

Cc: "Hsi-An Kwong (Hsi-An.Kwong@sematech.org)" <Hsi-An.Kwong@sematech.org>, 

"Laurie.Beu@ismi.sematech.org" <Laurie.Beu@ismi.sematech.org>, "Rajguru, Sanjay (ISMI)" 

<sanjay.rajguru@ismi.sematech.org> 

Subject: FW: EPA docket - ISMI copyright materials 

Alexis - as a follow-up to our phone call today, please see the message below from ISMI 

regarding the copyrighted materials in the EPA docket. I hope this meets you needs, and 

please let me know if you need any additional assistance. 

David 

From: Kwong, Hsi-An (ISMI) [mailto:hsi-an.kwong@ismi.sematech.org] 

Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 4:13 PM 

To: David Isaacs 

Cc: Beu, Laurie (ISMI); Rajguru, Sanjay (ISMI) 

Subject: RE: EPA docket - ISMI copyright materials 

Dear David: 

Per EPA's request, ISMI grants permission to the EPA to waive the ISMI copyright disclaimer 

of the following documents: 

- EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0052 - "ISMI. Comparison of Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) and 

Quadrupole Mass Spectroscopy (QMS) Methods for Determining POU Abatement System Effluent 

Flow. October 30, 2010" 

- EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0054 - "Beu, L. Reduction of Perfluorocarbon (PFC) Emissions: 2005 

State-of-the-Technology Report, TT#05104693A-ENG, International SEMATECH Manufacturing 

Initiative (ISMI), December 2005" 

- EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0074 - "Report to EPA on Etch Factor Proposal for Fab GHG Emissions 

Reporting. February 28, 2012" 

- Attachment to EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0086 - "SIA ISMI Presentation of Etch Alternative to 

EPA 11-17-11", titled "Additions & Corrections ISMI-SIA Alternative to Recipe-Specific 

Testing of 17Nov11". (The "SIA ISMI Presentation of Etch Alternative to EPA 11-17-11" 

document was previously released from copyright, but the attachment was not.) 

It appears to me that the correct Technology Report number for the second document listed 

above should have been TT#05104693A-ENG (missing a number "3" in the original email). I 

have corrected it as indicated. 

Please contact me if you have questions or need additional clarification. 

Best regards, 

Hsi-An 

Hsi-An Kwong, P.E. 

ESH Program Manager 

International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative 

257 Fuller Road, Suite 2200 Albany, New York 12203 

Phone: (518) 649-1265 

hsi-an.kwong@ismi.sematech.org<mailto:hsi-an.kwong@ismi.sematech.org>
§ 556.600 Spectinomycin. ( a ) *Acceptable daily intake (ADI).* The ADI for total residue of spectinomycin is 25 μg/kg of body weight per day.
( b ) *Tolerances.* The tolerances for spectinomycin are: ( 1 ) *Cattle.* ( i ) Kidney (target tissue): 4 ppm spectinomycin (marker residue).
( ii ) Muscle: 0.25 ppm.
( 2 ) *Chickens and turkeys.* Edible tissues (excluding eggs): 0.1 ppm.
( 3 ) *Swine.* Edible tissues: Not required.
( c ) *Related conditions of use.* See §§ 520.1265, 520.2123b, 520.2123c, 522.2120, and 522.2121 of this chapter.
Editorial Note on Part 355
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 355 appear at 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004.

§ 355.1 Scope. ( a ) An over-the-counter anticaries drug product in a form suitable for topical administration to the teeth is generally recognized as safe and effective and is not misbranded if it meets each condition in this part and each general condition established in § 330.1 of this chapter.
( b ) References in this part to regulatory sections of the Code of Federal Regulations are to chapter I of title 21 unless otherwise noted.
§ 331.10 Antacid active ingredients. ( a ) The active antacid ingredients of the product consist of one or more of the ingredients permitted in § 331.11 within any maximum daily dosage limit established, each ingredient is included at a level that contributes at least 25 percent of the total acid neutralizing capacity of the product, and the finished product contains at least 5 meq of acid neutralizing capacity as measured by the procedure provided in the United States Pharmacopeia 23/National Formulary 18. The method established in § 331.20 shall be used to determine the percent contribution of each antacid active ingredient.
( b ) This section does not apply to an antacid ingredient specifically added as a corrective to prevent a laxative or constipating effect.
[39 FR 19874, June 4, 1974, as amended at 61 FR 4822, Feb. 8, 1996]
§ 1316.06 Notice of inspection. The notice of inspection (DEA (or DNB) Form 82) shall contain: ( a ) The name and title of the owner, operator, or agent in charge of the controlled premises;
( b ) The controlled premises name;
( c ) The address of the controlled premises to be inspected;
( d ) The date and time of the inspection;
( e ) A statement that a notice of inspection is given pursuant to section 510 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 880);
( f ) A reproduction of the pertinent parts of section 510 of the Act; and
( g ) The signature of the inspector.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

October 4, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00417

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.E.P. A CHILD
,
From the 438th Judicial Distri ct Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013 EM5

- 04455 Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr., Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On June 20, 2018, t he trial court signed a final order in this suit to modify the parent

child relationship. Appellant Mom timely filed a motion for new trial

— which the trial court granted. Later, t he trial court set a hearing on temporary orders for August 30, 2018 . On that date, the trial court held the hearing and signed the parties’ agreement for temporary orders. Generally, “an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment. A judgment is fina l for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and claims in the record, except as necessary to carry out the decree .” Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).
T emporary orders in a suit affecting the parent

- child relati onship are not subject to interlocutory appeal
, Dancy v. Daggett , 815 S.W.2d 548, 549 (Tex. 1991) (per curiam), and are
not final orders subject to regular appeal
, In re Chester , 357 S.W.3d 103, 106 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2011, no pet.)

. We ORDER Appella nt to show cause to this court in writing within TEN DAYS of the date of this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(a). If Appellant does not timely file written proof as ordered, this appeal will be dismissed. See id. All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending further order of this court.

____________________________ _____ Patricia O. Alvarez, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 4th day of October, 201 8

.

______________________ _____________ KEITH E. HOTTLE
, Clerk of Court
# C_2014135EN.01002102.xml

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Regionale di Giustizia Amministrativa di Trento (Italy) lodged on 7 February 2014 — Orizzonte Salute — Studio Infermieristico Associato v Azienda Pubblica di Servizi alla persona ‘San Valentino’ and Others

(Case C-61/14)

2014/C 135/25

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale Regionale di Giustizia Amministrativa di Trento

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Orizzonte Salute — Studio Infermieristico Associato

Applicant:

Defendants: Azienda Pubblica di Servizi alla persona ‘San Valentino’ — Città di Levico Terme, Ministero della Giustizia, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Segretario Generale del Tribunale Regionale di Giustizia Amministrativa di Trento

Defendants:

Other party to the proceedings: Associazione Infermieristica D & F. Care

Other party to the proceedings:

Question referred

Question referred

Do the principles laid down in Council Directive 89/665/EEC (1) of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC (2) of 18 June 1992, as subsequently amended and added to, preclude a provision of national law, such as that set out in Article 13(1a), (1c) and (6a) and in Article 14(3b) of Decree of the President of the Republic No 115 of 30 May 2002 (as progressively amended by subsequent legislative interventions) which laid down high amounts of the standard fee for access to administrative proceedings relating to public contracts?

1

2

---

(1)  Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33).

1

(2)  Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1).

2

---
Exhibit 99.6

Report of Management on Compliance

January 23,
2004

Ernst &
Young LLP
220 South Sixth Street
Suite 1400
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

We,
as members of management of Retailers National Bank, as servicer ("RNB"), are responsible for complying with the administration and servicing requirements of Article III, Article IV
and Section 8.8 of the Amended and Restated Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of April 28, 2000 (as amended, the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement") and the applicable provisions
of the Series 1998-1 Supplement, dated as of August 12, 1998, the Series 2001-1 Supplement, dated as of August 22, 2001, and the
Series 2002-1 Supplement, dated as of July 2, 2002 (together, the "Supplements") to the Target Credit Card Master Trust, insofar as such articles, section and provisions
relate to accounting matters. We also are responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over compliance with the administration and servicing requirements of
Article III, Article IV and Section 8.8 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement and the applicable provisions of the Supplements, insofar as such articles, section and provisions
relate to accounting matters. We have performed an evaluation of RNB's compliance with the requirements of the administration and servicing requirements of Article III, Article IV and
Section 8.8 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement and the applicable provisions of the Supplements, insofar as such articles, section and provisions relate to accounting matters, as of
January 3, 2004 and for the fiscal year then ended. Based on this evaluation, we assert that for the fiscal year ended January 3, 2004, RNB complied, in all material respects, with the
administration and servicing requirements of Article III, Article IV and Section 8.8 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement and the applicable provisions of the Supplements,
insofar as such articles, section and provisions relate to accounting matters.

| |  | Very truly yours,                                                           
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ Terrence J. Scully
Terrence J. Scully
President, Retailers National Bank



QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,069
<SECURITIES>                                    26,051
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,636
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,384
<INVENTORY>                                     12,100
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                64,768
<PP&E>                                          28,538
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,260
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  81,906
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,128
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            16
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,073
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    81,906
<SALES>                                        133,347
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               133,347
<CGS>                                          123,963
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  123,963
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,144
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    11
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 486
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,289)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,160)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,129)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,129)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.65)
        

</TABLE>