alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NEW YORK SUPERIOR COURT.

#### Edwin Lord agt. Washington E. Connor.

*Special*Term, August, 1874.

*What a/re referable actions.*

In all cases arising on contract it must appear that the trial will require an examination of a long account in order to refer the action. The mere affidavit of the moving party that it will is not conclusive. The pleadings should also show this fact.

Monell, *Ch. J.*

From an examination of the complaint in these actions, it seems that the action is to recover damages for the breach of an agreement, by the defendant, to purchase certain shares of Erie railway and other stocks, to replace other similar stocks which bud been borrowed in the course of the dealings between the parties. As I understand the introductory allegations in the complaints, they are of facts intended to show that an agreement existed, by or under which the defendant was bound to purchase the stocks in question.

I do not understand that any of the purchases .or sales mentioned in such introductory parts form any part of the claims for damages, but are intended to show the course of dealing between the parties from or by which it is claimed the agreement is made out.

In this view the actions are not referable *(Evans*agt. *Kalbfleisch,*36 *Superior Ct. R.,*450).

In all cases arising on contract it must appear that the trial will require the examination of a long account. The mere *96affidavit of the moving party that it will is not conclusive. *(Kane*agt. *Delano,*11 *Abb. [N.*S.], 29).

I may he wrong in my construction of the complaints, and the actions may be to recover on the several purchases and sales stated therein. But that is by no means clear,, and as the defendant, under section 158 of the Code, can compel a bill of particulars of the plaintiff’s claims, in the several actions, I think he should so do, that it may b'e made clear what the cause of action is.

But, upon the papers before me, I must hold the actions not to be referable.

The orders of reference must be vacated, but without prejudice to a renewal of the motions upon additional papers.
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.048-6 Marking. ( a ) Each buoyant cushion must have the following information clearly marked in waterproof lettering: ( 1 ) In letters that can be read at a distance of 2 feet: Type IV Personal Flotation Device. Inspected and tested in accordance with U.S. Coast Guard regulations. Dry out thoroughly when wet. (Kapok or Fibrous glass) buoyant material provides a minimum buoyant force of 20 lb. Do not snag or puncture inner plastic cover. If pads become waterlogged, replace device. Approved for use on recreational boats only as a throwable device. U.S. Coast Guard Approval No. 160.048/(assigned manufacturer's No.)/(Revision No.); (Model No.). (Name and address of manufacturer or distributor.). (Lot No.). (Size; width, thickness, and length, including both top and bottom for trapezoidal cushions.).
( 2 ) In letters that are distinctively set off or larger than all other marking, and are at least one-fourth of an inch in height: WARNING: DO NOT WEAR ON BACK
( b ) *Waterproofness of marking.* Marking for buoyant cushions shall be sufficiently waterproof so that after 72 hours submergence in water, it will withstand vigorous rubbing by hand while wet without the printed matter becoming illegible.
[CGFR 65-37, 30 FR 11585, Sept. 10, 1965, as amended by CGFR 70-143, 35 FR 19963, Dec. 30, 1970; CGD 72-163R, 38 FR 8119, Mar. 28, 1973; CGD 75-008, 43 FR 9771, Mar. 9, 1978; CGD 92-045, 58 FR 41608, Aug. 4, 1993; CGD 95-028, 62 FR 51213, Sept. 30, 1997]
# C_2008302EN.01000701.xml

| 25.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 302/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/7

---

Commission communication pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 302/07)

| Member State | Germany |
| --- | --- |
| Concerned route | Erfurt-Munich |
| Date of entry into force of the public service obligations | 3 April 2009 |
| Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public service obligation can be obtained free of charge | Thüringer Ministerium für Bau, Landesentwicklung und Medien |
| Referat EU- und Rechtsangelegenheiten im Verkehr, Luftverkehr, Binnenschifffahrt |
| Postfach 900 362 |
| D-99106 Erfurt |
| Tel. (49-361) 379 14 11 |
| Fax (49-361) 379 194 11 |

Member State

Germany

Concerned route

Erfurt-Munich

Date of entry into force of the public service obligations

3 April 2009

Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public service obligation can be obtained free of charge

Thüringer Ministerium für Bau, Landesentwicklung und Medien

Referat EU- und Rechtsangelegenheiten im Verkehr, Luftverkehr, Binnenschifffahrt

Postfach 900 362

D-99106 Erfurt

Tel. (49-361) 379 14 11

Fax (49-361) 379 194 11

---
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 08-830 

________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENSE 

Status of Forces 

 Agreement between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and the DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC 

OF THE CONGO 

Effected by Exchange of Notes at 

Kinshasa August 28 and 30, 2008 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO 

Defense: Status of Forces 

Agreement effected by exchange of notes at 

 Kinshasa August 28 and 30, 2008; 

 Entered into force August 30, 2008.
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.036-7 Procedure for approval. ( a ) Signals are approved by the Coast Guard under the procedures in subpart 159.005 of this chapter.
( b ) [Reserved]
Editorial Note on Part 153
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 153 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50465, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59784, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 153.440 Cargo temperature sensors. ( a ) Except as prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section, when Table 1 refers to this section, the containment system must meet the following requirements: ( 1 ) A heated or refrigerated cargo tank must have a remote reading thermometer sensing the temperature of the cargo at the bottom of the tank.
( 2 ) A refrigerated tank must have a remote reading second thermometer near the top of the tank and below the maximum liquid level allowed by § 153.981.
( 3 ) Unless waived under § 153.491(a), a cargo tank endorsed to carry a Category A, B, or C NLS cargo must have a thermometer whose temperature reading is no greater than the temperature of the cargo at a level above the tank bottom at least one-eighth but no more than one-half the height of the tank if the cargo is— ( i ) A Category A NLS or a Category B NLS having a viscosity of at least 25 mPa.s at 20 °C;
( ii ) A Category C NLS having a viscosity of at least 60 mPa.s at 20 °C; or
( iii ) A Category A, B, or C NLS that has a melting point greater than 0 °C.
( b ) A readout for each remote thermometer required by this section must be at the point where cargo transfer is controlled.
( c ) A portable thermometer may be substituted for the equipment required in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section if— ( 1 ) Table 1 allows open gauging with the cargo; or
( 2 ) Table 1 allows restricted gauging with the cargo, and the portable thermometer is designed to be used through the containment system's restricted gauging system.
[CGD 78-128, 47 FR 21209, May 17, 1982, as amended by CGD 81-101, 52 FR 7781, Mar. 12, 1987; CGD 81-101, 53 FR 28974, Aug. 1, 1988 and 54 FR 12629, Mar. 28, 1989]
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF**

**THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Thomas J. Edelman, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Patina Oil & Gas Corporation;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: March 9, 2004
# C_2015262EN.01001301.xml

| 10.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2015 — Portugal v Commission

(Case T-3/11) (1)

1

((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Deficiencies in the Land Parcel Identification System and the Geographic Information System (LPIS-GIS), performance of on-the-spot checks and in calculation of sanctions (financial years 2005 to 2007)))

(2015/C 262/16)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo and J. Saraiva de Almeida, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and P. Rossi, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/668/EU of 4 November 2010 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2010 L 288, p. 24), in so far as it applied financial corrections on the Portuguese Republic totalling EUR 4 0 6 90  655,11 on account of ‘[w]eaknesses in LPIS-GIS [Land Parcel Identification System and Geographic Information System] system, performance of on-the-spot checks and in calculation of sanctions’ in the financial years 2005 to 2007.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 7.5.2011.

1

---
Exhibit 7 

2:14-cv-11700-PDB-MJH Doc # 1-8 Filed 04/29/14 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 128
2:14-cv-11700-PDB-MJH Doc # 1-8 Filed 04/29/14 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 129
2:14-cv-11700-PDB-MJH Doc # 1-8 Filed 04/29/14 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 130
# C_2014031EN.01000801.xml

| 1.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 31/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/8

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2013 — EMA v Commission

(Case T-116/11) (1)

1

(Arbitration clause - Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002 to 2006) - Dicoems and Cocoon contracts - Non-compliance with the contractual requirements in respect of some of the declared expenses - Termination of the contracts - Repayment of part of the sums paid - Damages - Counterclaim - Non-contractual liability - Unjust enrichment - Action for annulment - Act not open to challenge - Act part of a purely contractual framework from which it is inseparable - Debit note - Inadmissible)

2014/C 31/12

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Medical Association (EMA) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Franchi and L. Picciano, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and F. Moro, acting as Agents and D. Gullo, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

First, main claim seeking (i) the reimbursement of costs incurred for the performance of contract No 507126 relating to the Cocoon project and contract No 507760 relating to the Dicoems project, concluded on 7 and 19 December 2003 respectively between the Commission and the applicant, (ii) a declaration that the Commission decision to terminate those contracts is unlawful, (iii) annulment of the corresponding debit note and (iv) the payment of compensation for the harm suffered and, second, in the alternative a claim based on the non-contractual liability of the Commission.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Upholds the action of the European Medical Association (EMA) in so far as it seeks the reimbursement of direct staffing costs relating to the Cocoon and Dicoems contracts of EUR 17 231,28 and indirect related costs arising from the performance of the contracts. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Upholds the action of the European Medical Association (EMA) in so far as it seeks the reimbursement of direct staffing costs relating to the Cocoon and Dicoems contracts of EUR 17 231,28 and indirect related costs arising from the performance of the contracts.

| 2. | Dismisses the EMA’s action for the remainder. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the EMA’s action for the remainder.

| 3. | Dismisses the Commission’s counterclaim. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the Commission’s counterclaim.

| 4. | Orders each party to bear its own costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings in Case T-116/11 R. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders each party to bear its own costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings in Case T-116/11 R.

---

(1)  OJ C 120, 16.4.2011.

1

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE

CORPORATION, as Receiver for 

Washington Mutual Bank,

Plaintiff, Case No. 14-13706

v. Hon. John Corbett O’Meara

FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE

COMPANY, Successor by Merger to Lawyers

Title Insurance Corporation,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING FIDELITY’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Before the court is Defendant Fidelity National Title Insurance Company’s

motion for reconsideration of the court’s opinion and order dismissing Fidelity’s

counter-complaint. Specifically, Fidelity seeks reconsideration of the court’s

dismissal of its gross negligence defense. The standard for granting a motion for

reconsideration is as follows:

Generally, and without restricting the court’s discretion,

the court will not grant motions for rehearing or

reconsideration which merely present the same issues

ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable

implication. The movant shall not only demonstrate a

5:14-cv-13706-JCO-MKM Doc # 28 Filed 11/12/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1052
palpable defect by which the court and the parties have

been misled but also show that correcting the defect will

result in a different disposition of the case.

LR 7.1(h)(3). A motion for reconsideration “is not properly used as a vehicle to rehash old arguments or to advance positions that could have been argued earlier but

were not.” Smith v. Mount Pleasant Schools, 298 F. Supp.2d 636, 637 (E.D. Mich.

2003) (citing Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d 357,

374 (6th Cir. 1998)). 

In its motion for reconsideration, Fidelity argues that its gross negligence

defense is valid, an argument considered and rejected by the court. Upon review,

the court finds that Fidelity has not demonstrated a “palpable defect” by which the

court and the parties have been misled.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Fidelity’s motion for

reconsideration is DENIED.

s/John Corbett O’Meara 

United States District Judge

Date: November 12, 2015

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on this date, November 12, 2015, using the ECF system.

s/William Barkholz 

Case Manager

-2-

5:14-cv-13706-JCO-MKM Doc # 28 Filed 11/12/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1053
# C_2011331EN.01001001.xml

| 12.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/10

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 26 August 2011 — Sandra Schüsslbauer, Martin Schüsslbauer, Maximilian Schüsslbauer v Iberia Lineas Aéreas de España SA

(Case C-436/11)

2011/C 331/15

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Sandra Schüsslbauer, Martin Schüsslbauer, Maximilian Schüsslbauer

Applicants:

Defendant: Iberia Lineas Aéreas de España SA

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Does a passenger have a right to compensation under Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) in the case where departure was delayed for a period of time less than the limits specified in Article 6(1) of that regulation, but arrival at the final destination was at least three hours later than the scheduled arrival time?

1

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

1

---
§ 159.005-5 Preapproval review: Contents of application. ( a ) Each application must contain the following: ( 1 ) The name and address of the manufacturer and the factory where the finished equipment or material is produced.
( 2 ) One or more of the following as required by the applicable subpart: ( i ) Two sets of general plans of the equipment or material.
( ii ) Two sets of specifications of the equipment or material.
( iii ) A sample of the equipment or material accompanied by a written description of its components.
( 3 ) A statement signed by the manufacturer or the manufacturer's representative, that an official representative of the Coast Guard is allowed access to the place of manufacture and to the place of test to verify the information submitted in the application or to witness tests.
( 4 ) If the material submitted under paragraph (a)(2) of this section contains confidential commercial information that could cause substantial competitive harm if released to the public, a statement to the effect that the material is considered privileged and confidential under exemption (b)(4) of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), and that it should not be released to anyone other than the original submitter.
( b ) If the equipment or material is required by the subpart to be inspected and tested by an independent laboratory, the application must contain the following additional information: ( 1 ) The name and address of a laboratory that meets § 159.010-3(a) and that is selected by the manufacturer to perform or supervise the inspections and tests.
( 2 ) If the laboratory has not been accepted previously for inspecting and testing the manufacturer's equipment or material under the applicable subpart, the completed application under § 159.010-5(a).
[44 FR 73043, Dec. 17, 1979, as amended by CGD 85-205, 62 FR 25545, May 9, 1997]