alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022274EN.01000201.xml

| 18.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 274/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 274/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

15 July 2022

(2022/C 274/02)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0059 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 139,49 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4430 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84988 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,5943 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 0,9849 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 138,90 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,2763 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,561 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 403,73 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,7953 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9407 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 17,5451 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4886 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3147 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 7,8963 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6377 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4113 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 333,79 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,2875 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 6,7943 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5160 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 081,58 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,4752 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,678 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | |
| THB | Thai baht | 36,866 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,4434 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,9209 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 80,3160 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0059

JPY

Japanese yen

139,49

DKK

Danish krone

7,4430

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84988

SEK

Swedish krona

10,5943

CHF

Swiss franc

0,9849

ISK

Iceland króna

138,90

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,2763

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,561

HUF

Hungarian forint

403,73

PLN

Polish zloty

4,7953

RON

Romanian leu

4,9407

TRY

Turkish lira

17,5451

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4886

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3147

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

7,8963

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6377

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4113

KRW

South Korean won

1 333,79

ZAR

South African rand

17,2875

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

6,7943

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5160

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 081,58

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,4752

PHP

Philippine peso

56,678

RUB

Russian rouble

THB

Thai baht

36,866

BRL

Brazilian real

5,4434

MXN

Mexican peso

20,9209

INR

Indian rupee

80,3160

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
INJUNCTIONS.

[Lorain Circuit Court,

April Term, 1891.]

Upson, Baldwin and Caldwell, JJ.

#### TASSO D. PHELON v. P. A. & W. R. R. CO.

Power oe Probate to Grant Injunctions when other Judges are Absent is Constitutionae.

That part of section 5573 of the Rev. Stat. which provides that “the probate judge of the county may grant injunctions in actions pending in either the court of common pleas, or the circuit court of the county, in the absence from the county of the respective judges of such courts,” is a valid and constitutional enactment.

Motion to dissolve injunction.

UPSON, C. J.

This is an appeal from an order of the court of common pleas dissolving an injunction allowed by the probate judge in a case then pending in the court of common pleas.

The only ground upon which we are asked to dissolve this injunction is, that the constitution of Ohio does not authorize the legislature to confer upon probate judges the power to allow injunctions in causes pending in courts of common pleas.

> In sec. 5573 Rev. Stat. it is provided that, “The probate judge of the county may grant injunctions in actions pending in either the court of common pleas or circuit court of the county, in the absence from the county of the respective judges of such courts, upon its appearing satisfactorily to the court or judge, by affidavit of the plaintiff or his agent, that such plaintiff is entitled thereto.”

The language of this provision clearly gave to the probate judge the power' to allow the injunction which was allowed in this action, and the only question now7 to be decided is, whether that provision of the statute is or is not constitutional.

It has been supposed that the legislature could not confer upon probate judges authority to grant injunctions in such cases, for the same reasons which led the supreme court to decide that similar authority could not constitutionally be given to that court or its judges. Kent v. Mahaffy, 2 O. S. 498; P., F. W. & C. R. Co. v. Hurd, 17 O. S. 144.

An examination of these decisions, however, shows that they were made upon the ground that “to allow an injunction in a case pending in another court, is an exercise of original and not of appellate jurisdiction,” and that the original jurisdiction conferred upon that court by the constitution is limited to *quo warranto, mandamus, habeas corpus*and *procedendo.*The circuit court has like original jurisdiction with the supreme court. The original jurisdiction of the probate court is not thus limited. The constitution, after specifying various matters in vdiich the probate court shall have jurisdiction, provides that it shall have “such other jurisdiction in any county or counties as may be provided by law.”

It has been held by the supreme court that under this provision the legislature could confer upon the probate court original jurisdiction which it could not confer upon either the supreme court or the circuit court.

*268Giesy v. R. R. Co., 4 O. S. 308; Dailey v. State, 4 O. S. 57.

And we are of opinion that the provision of the statute now under consideration is a valid and constitutional enactment.

Motion overruled.
§ 61.12 Capital grant application packages—threshold requirements. The following threshold requirements for a capital grant application must be met, or the application will be rejected before being rated under § 61.13: ( a ) The application package must meet all of the following criteria: ( 1 ) Be on the correct application form.
( 2 ) Be completed in all parts, including all information requested in the Notice of Fund Availability and application package.
( 3 ) Include a signed Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424) that contains the Employer Identification Number or Taxpayer Identification Number (EIN/TIN) that corresponds to the applicant's Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 501(c)(3) or (19) determination letter. All applicants must provide such an IRS determination letter, which includes their EIN/TIN. Applicants that apply under a group EIN/TIN must be identified by the parent EIN/TIN as a member or sub-unit of the parent EIN/TIN and provide supporting documentation.
( 4 ) Be submitted before the deadline established in the Notice of Fund Availability.
( b ) The applicant must be a public or nonprofit private entity at the time of application.
( c ) The activities for which assistance is requested must be eligible for funding under this part.
( d ) The applicant must demonstrate that adequate financial support will be available to carry out the project for which the capital grant is sought, consistent with the plans, specifications, and schedule submitted by the applicant.
( e ) The application must demonstrate compliance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (URA) (42 U.S.C. 4601-4655).
( f ) The applicant must agree to comply with the requirements of this part and demonstrate the capacity to do so.
( g ) The applicant must not have an outstanding obligation to VA that is in arrears, or have an overdue or unsatisfactory response to an audit.
( h ) The applicant must not have been notified by VA as being in default.
( i ) The applicant, during the 5 years preceding the date of the application, must not have done any of the following: ( 1 ) Had more than two grants awarded under this part that remain in development;
( 2 ) Failed to establish two previous awarded grant projects under this part; or
( 3 ) Had a previous grant or per diem project awarded under this part terminated or transferred to another eligible entity for failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the award.
(The Office of Management and Budget has approved the information collection requirements in this section under control number 2900-0554) (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 2011)
650

600

Burke

Lakefront

Airport

90

90

90

90

90

322 322

20

6

20

20

6

322

6

2

2

2

283

E 4 5 T H

S T

N M A R G IN A L R D

N M A R G IN A L R D

E 4 3 R D

S T

S M A R G IN A L R D

E 8 9 T H S T

90

90

90

90

90

322 322

20

6

20

20

6

322

6

2

2

2

283

E 4 5 T H

S T

N M A R G IN A L R D

N M A R G IN A L R D

E 4 3 R D

S T

S M A R G IN A L R D

E 8 9 T H S T

D

o

a

n

Brook

Lake Erie

Lake

Erie

CLEVELAND

CLEVELAND

Bratenahl Bratenahl

New

Old Chinatown

Chinatown

Josephatowa

Poznan

Hough

Cleveland West Pierhead Light

East Breakwater

Light

Dock Number 24

West

Breakwater

Light

Dock Number 30

Dock Number 26

East Pier Light

Dock Number 20

East 55th

Street

Marina

South

Harbor

Terminal

East

Pierhead

Light

West

Pierhead

Light

Dock Number 28

Dock Number 32

Dock

Number 34

West

Pier Light

Erie

Cemetery

East Basin

West Basin

Main Avenue

Viaduct

East

Cleveland

Shaker

Heights Lakewood Cleveland

South

Cleveland

North

4

97

46

81°

41°

30"

46

41

99

MF

4 4

46

44 E 4

45

40 41°

FEET

37'

46

4

30"

45'

42'

46

08

000m

02

81° 30"

81° 37'

30'

MG

MG

MF

37' 37'

41°

81° 42'

30"

FEET

45

46

4

4

46

000

46

000m

000m

FEET

45

35'

32'

45

46

4

46

46

35'

4 4

4

46

4 38

05

44

05

43

45

01

N

00

42 47

08

96

97

39

03

06

03

95

04

47

41° 30'

45'

30"

30"

40'

40'

30" 30"

46

46

45

45

45

4 2 180

46

4

000m

4

4

45

46

32'

46

4

4

45

4

38 E

43

07

98

00

39 42

N

98

96

41

02

01

99

06

04

40

45

46

710 000

2 200 000

670

FEET

000

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

OHIO

ADJOINING 7.5' QUADRANGLES

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

CLEVELAND NORTH, OH

2010

Interstate Route State Route

ROAD CLASSIFICATION

Interstate Route US Route State Route

Ramp 4WD

US Route Local Road

CLEVELAND NORTH QUADRANGLE

OHIO

7.5-MINUTE SERIES

Zone 17T

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and

1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator,

Produced by the United States Geological Survey

10 000-foot ticks: Ohio Coordinate System of 1983

(north zone)

Imagery..........................NAIP, June 2004 - September 2004

Roads..............................................©2006-2010 Tele Atlas

Names...............................................................GNIS, 2008

Hydrography.................National Hydrography Dataset, 2004

Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 1998

1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

FEET

This map was produced to conform with version 0.5.10 of the

draft USGS Standards for 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Maps.

A metadata file associated with this product is draft version 0.5.11

SCALE 1:24 000

1 0.5 0 1

MILES

MN

1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2

GN

UTM GRID AND 2010 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET

0° 27 ́

8 MILS

8° 8 ́

145 MILS

U.S. National Grid

100,000-m Square ID

Grid Zone Designation

17T

MF

MG 46 00

CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET

NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988
§ 21.5831 Commencing date of subsistence allowance. The commencing date of an award or increased award of subsistence allowance will be determined by this section ( a ) *Entrance or reentrance.* Latest of the following dates: ( 1 ) Date certified by school or establishment under paragraph (b) or (c) of this section.
( 2 ) Date 1 year before the date of receipt of the application or enrollment certification.
( 3 ) Date of reopened application under paragraph (d) of this section.
( 4 ) In the case of a spouse, surviving spouse, or dependent child, the date that transfer of eligibility and entitlement to the individual was effective. (Authority: 10 U.S.C. 2144)
( b ) *Certification by the school-course leads to a standard college degree.* The date of registration or the date of reporting where the student is required by the school's published standard to report in advance of registration, but not later than the date the individual first reports for classes. (Authority: 10 U.S.C. 2144)
( c ) *Certification by school or establishment-course does not lead to a standard college degree.* First date of class attendance. (Authority: 10 U.S.C. 2144(a))
( d ) *Reopened application after abandonment.* Date of receipt in VA of application or enrollment certification, whichever is later.
( e ) *Increase due to increased training time.* The date the school certifies the individual became a full-time student.
( f ) *Liberalizing laws and administrative issues.* In accordance with facts found, but not earlier than the effective date of the act or administrative issue. (Authority: 10 U.S.C. 2144)
( g ) *Correction of military records.* When a veteran becomes eligible following correction or modification of military records under 10 U.S.C. 1552 or change, correction or modification of a discharge or dismissal under 10 U.S.C. 1553; or other competent military authority, the commencing date of subsistence allowance will be in accordance with the facts found, but not earlier than the date the change, correction or modification was made by the service department.
(Authority: 10 U.S.C. 2142)
#### § 21.5703 Overview.

This program provides subsistence allowance and educational assistance to selected veterans and servicemembers and, in some cases, to dependents of these veterans and servicemembers.

(Authority: 10 U.S.C. 2141(b))
COMMON CARRIERS.

[Hamilton Circuit Court,

January Term, 1892.]

Swing, Cox and Smith, JJ.

#### †ADAMS EXPRESS CO. v. JAMES McDONOUGH.

Action eor Dost Goods Sent C. O. D. Belongs to Shipper.

One who ships goods C. O. D. is the proper person to recover against the carrier for their loss, for the title has not passed to the buyer.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton county.

†

Cited in State v. Express Co.. 2 Ohio Dec.. 257, 261.

SMITH, J.

McDonough, the plaintiff below, at the request of Kearns, delivered to the Adams Express Co. in this city, two pieces of marble, to be duly transmitted by such company, C. O. D., to Kearns, at Mt. Sterling, Ky. Both were destroyed *575while being so transported, and Kearns refused to receive or pay for them, and McDonough brought his action to recover the damages sustained by him, by the failure of the defendant to carry them safely.

Robert Ramsey, for plaintiff in error.

Matthews & Cleveland, for defendant in error.

The only question presented is, whether he is entitled to maintain the action, The trial judge refused to charge the jury as requested by defendant’s counsel, that he was not. We think the action of the court was right. The title to the property did not pass to Kearns on the delivery to the carrier, but such title, and the *jus disponendi,*remained in McDonough until the goods should be received by Kearns from the carrier, and paid for by him. (See 23 Fed. Rep. 134; 59 Ind. 268; 3 Col. 184; 55 Ill. 140. Benjamin on Sales, sec. 382.)

The judgment will be affirmed, with costs.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 23, 2009

s0616 

# Order

June 23, 2009

138091

MICHAEL C. LEE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 138091 COA: 274530 Wayne CC: 05-502988-CD CITY OF DETROIT, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e December 4, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consider ed. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the applicati on or take other peremptory action. MCR 7.302(H)(1). The parties shall s ubmit supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order addressing whether, with respec t to the plaintiff’s claim that the police department violated the Whistlebl ower Protection Act, MCL 37.2101 et seq ., the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the plaintiff faile d to provide sufficient evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding a causal connection between his November 2, 2004 internal complaint and his transfer from the Gang Enforcement Section to the Records and Identification Section of the po lice department. The parties should not

submit mere restatements of their application papers.
42015.

#### FERRENCE v. LACY.

Jordan, Judge.

1. The judgment of this court reversing the trial court’s refusal to dismiss the petition as barred by the statute of limitation *(Ference v. Lacy,*113 Ga. App. 848 (149 SE2d 734)), has been vacated pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court in *Lacy v. Ferrence,*222 Ga. 635 (151 SE2d 763). The judgment of that court is made the judgment of this court. Accordingly, the petition shows a cause of action which, because of the alleged mental incapacity of plaintiff until December 1, 1963, was sufficient to withstand the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

2. While there is ample evidence in the record to sustain the fact of lost earnings, in that plaintiff worked regularly before his injury and was extensively hospitalized thereafter, and when not hospitalized was subject to his doctor’s instructions limiting his activities, and unable to work, the record is devoid of any evidence of guidelines to enable the jury to compute the reasonable value of lost earnings or diminished earning capacity. In this light the instructions of the trial judge that the jury could determine, upon a finding of liability, the reasonable value of lost earnings and diminished earning capacity, were unauthorized by the evidence and may have improperly influenced the jury to include in the verdict an amount representing lost earnings and diminished earning capacity. Accordingly, the trial judge erred in refusing to grant a new trial for the reasons shown in ground 6 of the *693amended motion. *Atlantic C. L. R. Co. v. Anderson,*35 Ga. App. 292 (4) (133 SE 63); *City of Atlanta v. Jolly,*39 Ga. App. 282 (1) (146 SE 770). Enumerated errors 5 and 6 raise substantially the same issue and require no further ruling.

Decided November 29, 1966.

*Forester & Calhoun, Marcus Calhoun,*for appellant.

*Alexander, Vann & Lilly, Heyward Vann, Boy M. Lilly,*for appellee.

3. The evidence, though slight, authorized the finding of mental incapacity for a period sufficient to prevent the running of the statute of limitation before the action was commenced, and further showing that plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the negligence of an employee of defendant, that plaintiff underwent extensive and costly medical treatments, including the removal of portions of his skull and the placing of a protective metal plate on his head, and that he has endured much pain and suffering, the trial judge did not err in refusing to grant defendant’s motion for a directed verdict, judgment n.o.v., and a new trial on the general grounds.

4. Enumerations of error and special grounds of the motion for new trial not supported in the brief by citation or argument are treated as abandoned.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Bell, P. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.*
No. 06-15-00069-CR:

IN The Sixth Court of Ap,pclals

Texarkana, Texas

Temika Charnet,te Owen,s,,

Ap.pe7lar:-t,

v.

THE STATE OF 'TEXAS,

Ag:l.peJ'7ee.

MOTION TO WTTHDR;AW PURSrd,AhIIT 1:O

AIIDERS v. CALIFORNIA, 386 U.S. ?38 (L9671

TO THE HONORABLE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS:

NOW COMES JEFF T. JACKSONT courtsol for Appellant

Temika Charnette Owens, and hereby moves to withdraw from

representation of Appellant pursuant to Anders v.

CaJ-ifornia, 386 U.S. 738 (1961). In support of this

mof ILIV UMrt i nn - r-orrnsel VVUr shows as f ollows:

 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 8/17/2015 10:03:39 AM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
I.

Counsel- has thoroughly reviewed the: r:ecord on appeal,

and, for these reasons, is thoroughly f,amiliar with the

II.

Counsel has, in the exercise of his professional

j udgment, determined that the j-nstant case presents no

non-frivolous issues for appeal, and, .in accordance with

the Supreme Court's decision tn Anders v. Cal,ifornia, 386

U.S. 738 (L967), now so advises the court and requests

permissj-on to wj-thdraw. Anders, id. at 1411 .

III.

In accordance with Anders I c()unsel has,

contemporaneously with this motion, f il-ed a brief

outlining all issues which might arquably support an

appeal and explaining why those issues are meriLless.

Anlj^r a I /1 z'llvvL v 

,
rv.

Counsel- has furnished f he Anncl l arls w-Lth a copy of

said brief, and a copy of this motion, thus apprising

appeall-ant of counsel, s actions.

V.

Having determined that the instant. trppeal is wholl_y

f rivol-ous / and having complied with the brie f inq and

notice requirements of Anders v. Cal-if<>r.nia, counsef now

requests that he be al-lowed to withcir,aw, pursuant to

Anders.

WHEREFORE, PREMTSES coNSTDERED, it j-s prayed that

the court grant counsel-'s request and al-l-ow counsel t.o

withdraw from this case, FUrsuant to Anders v.

CaLifornia,3B6 U.S. 738 (1961).

UEII

qp.n T

T

No

Jackson

2406991 6

Resnar-f frrl'l rr qrrhmi tf arl vu!sf rj ul/vlll-! uugu,

fukt-.
736-A Hwy 259 N.

Kilgore, TX '7 5662

Phone : 903- 6:t 4-|3362

Fax: BIl- BU7-4333

ttLevLrlvJ Af f orn1\l LvL fnr flP-ye-L_Lo.ttL lnnaT 7 =nf /

Temika Cha:" rne>tte Owens

CERTIFICATE OE SERVIC]q

Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 9.5, I certify that on

August IJ , 2015, a copy of this motion wers mailed via

first cl-ass U.S. mail-, postage prepaid, to the fol_l_owing:

Micheal ,Jimerson:

Rusk County D.A.

SBOT:00189406

115 N. Main St.

Rd.Henderson, TX 75652

Temiker Owens:

San Serba Unit

TDCJ lrro. 019991 628

206 S. W;rl-l-ace Creek

San SeLba, TX 168"71

Jeff T. Jackson