alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Ruth Magee, Petitioner, *v.*Board of Assessors of the Town of Nelson, Respondent. * (And 13 Other Proceedings.)

Supreme Court, Special Term, Madison County,

October 2, 1964.

*500*Ali, Gerber, Boyle & Parr {Rudolph*V. *Parr*of counsel), for petitioner. *Victor Levine*and *Philip G. Pinsky*for respondent.

*

 Affd. *sub*room. *Matter of Fieser*V. *Board of Assessors of Town, of Nelson*24 A D 2d 1045.— [Rep.

Howard A. Zeller, J.

Fourteen petitioners seek to review tax assessments made by the Board of Assessors of the Town of Nelson, Madison County, New York. Respondent moves to dismiss the petitions upon the grounds that notices and copies of the petitions were not timely served upon the clerk of the school district as required by section 708 of the Real Property Tax Law — allegedly a jurisdictional defect. As the petitions and answers differ only as to names, properties and amounts involved, they shall be deemed consolidated for present purposes.

Subdivision 2 of section 708 states that “ one copy of the petition and notice shall be mailed within ten days from the date of service thereof .as above provided [in subd. 1, personally on the clerk of the assessing unit] to the clerk of any school district within which any part of the real property on which the assessment to be reviewed is located * * *. The school district shall not thereby be deemed to have been made a party to the proceeding.” A substantially similar provision existed in the predecessor section 291 of the Tax Law. The reason for this provision is made apparent by subdivision 5 of section 1316 of the Real Property Tax Law providing that any final order on judicial review of an assessment shall be binding on any such school district) which thereupon shall refund any excess tax paid by the petitioner or taxpayer upon application made within three years from the entry of any final order establishing the same. The right of a taxpayer to be refunded any illegally assessed school taxes accrues at the time of payment. *(Erie R. R. Co.*v. *City of Rochester,*256 App. Div. 551, mot. for rearg. den. 257 App. Div. 1043, affd. 282 N. Y. 601.)

The purpose of subdivision 2 of section 708 of the Real Property Tax Law is to give notice to such a district that a review of an assessment made is being sought and that in due course an application for partial refund may be made. In the opinion of this court, failure to give notice to the school district within the strict statutory time limit does not affect the court’s jurisdiction over the respondent or of the subject matter in these proceedings.

Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petitions herein should be denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

<PAGE>


                                  Exhibit 32.1

                     CERTIFICATION OF DISCLOSURE 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 Infinity  Capital Group,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") I, Gregory
H. Laborde, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 USC
section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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.

Dated: May 17, 2006


/s/Gregory H. Laborde
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory H. Laborde, Chief Executive Officer and President


This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
No. 46518.

#### Protests 842143-G, etc., of Montgomery Ward & Co. et al. (Denver, etc.).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the cpurt dismissed the protests.
# C_2013055EN.01000801.xml

| 23.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/8

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Stockholm (Sweden) lodged on 7 January 2013 — Skandia America Corporation USA, filial Sverige v Skatteverket

(Case C-7/13)

2013/C 55/12

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Referring court

Förvaltningsrätten i Stockholm

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skandia America Corporation USA, filial Sverige

Applicant:

Defendant: Skatteverket

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Do supplies of externally purchased services from a company’s main establishment in a third country to its branch in a Member State, with an allocation of costs for the purchase to the branch, constitute taxable transactions if the branch belongs to a VAT group in the Member State? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do supplies of externally purchased services from a company’s main establishment in a third country to its branch in a Member State, with an allocation of costs for the purchase to the branch, constitute taxable transactions if the branch belongs to a VAT group in the Member State?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is the main establishment in the third country to be viewed as a taxable person not established in the Member State within the meaning of Article 196 of the Directive, (1) with the result that the purchaser is to be taxed for the transactions? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is the main establishment in the third country to be viewed as a taxable person not established in the Member State within the meaning of Article 196 of the Directive, (1) with the result that the purchaser is to be taxed for the transactions?

1

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

1

---
# C_2014102EN.01003003.xml

| 7.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/30

---

Order of the President of the Court of 11 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Pontevedra — Spain) — Pablo Acosta Padín v Hijos de J. Barreras SA

(Case C-276/13) (1)

1

2014/C 102/47

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.

1

---
# C_2015065EN.01000701.xml

| 23.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Retten i Kolding, Civilretten) — FOA, acting on behalf of Karsten Kaltoft v Kommunernes Landsforening (KL), acting on behalf of Billund Kommune

(Case C-354/13) (1)

1

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Dismissal - Ground - Obesity of the worker - General principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of obesity - Lack - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Prohibition of all discrimination on the basis of a disability - Existence of a ‘disability’)

(2015/C 065/09)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Referring court

Retten i Kolding, Civilretten

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: FOA, acting on behalf of Karsten Kaltoft

Applicant:

Defendant: Kommunernes Landsforening (KL), acting on behalf of Billund Kommune

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1) | EU law must be interpreted as not laying down a general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of obesity as such as regards employment and occupation; |
| --- | --- |

1)

EU law must be interpreted as not laying down a general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of obesity as such as regards employment and occupation;

| 2) | Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that the obesity of a worker can constitute a ‘disability’ within the meaning of that directive where it entails a limitation resulting in particular from long-term physical, mental or psychological impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder the full and effective participation of the person concerned in professional life on an equal basis with other workers. It is for the national court to determine whether, in the main proceedings, those conditions are met. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that the obesity of a worker can constitute a ‘disability’ within the meaning of that directive where it entails a limitation resulting in particular from long-term physical, mental or psychological impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder the full and effective participation of the person concerned in professional life on an equal basis with other workers. It is for the national court to determine whether, in the main proceedings, those conditions are met.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.

1

---
March 28, 1997

No. 96-1216.

#### Jane Phillips Episcopal Memorial Medical Center et al. *v.*Rishell, Curator of the Person and Estate of Lacey, an Incapacitated Person.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari dismissed only as to Jane Phillips Episcopal Memorial Medical Center under this Court’s Rule 46.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Z.M.S. &amp; Y Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Holness, Taber, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>GEICO General Insurance Company, Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>The Law Office of Printz &amp; Goldstein (Lawrence J. Chanice, Esq.), for appellant.Law Offices of Ilona Finkelshteyn, P.C., for respondent (no brief filed).</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Ingrid Joseph, J.), entered December 4, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from and as limited by the brief, denied the branches of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims for services billed under CPT codes 97810, 97811, 97813 and 97814.</p><p>ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is modified by providing that the branches of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims for services billed under CPT codes 97811, 97813 and 97814 are granted; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved for summary judgment, and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that it had fully paid plaintiff for the services at issue in accordance with the workers' compensation fee schedule. As to so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims for services billed under CPT codes 97810, 97811, 97813 and 97814, the Civil Court, by order entered December 4, 2014, limited the issues for trial, pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g), to the proper application of the fee schedule. Defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the order as denied the branches of its cross motion seeking summary judgment <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims for services billed under CPT codes 97810, 97811, 97813 and 97814.</p><p>For the reasons stated in <i>Z.M.S. &amp; Y Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Famojuro, Olajumoke v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.</i> (__ Misc 3d ___, 2017 NY Slip Op ______ [appeal No. 2015-398 K C], decided herewith), the order, insofar as appealed from, is modified by providing that the branches of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as sought to recover upon claims for services billed under CPT codes 97811, 97813 and 97814 are granted.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: December 22, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
Exhibit 99.1


                    Bingham Canyon Corporation

                 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                      18 U.S.C. Section 1350

     I, Brett D. Mayer, Principal Executive and Financial Officer of Bingham
Canyon Corporation certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

(1)  the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended
     March 31, 2003, 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 Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
     the Company.



Date: May 8, 2003
                        /s/ Brett D. Mayer
                        ________________________________________
                        Brett D. Mayer
                        Principal Executive and Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, J.C. Chatpar, certify that:

- I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Cyber Digital, Inc.;
- Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement 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 fiscal year covered by this annual report;
- Based on my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and other financial information 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 fiscal years presented in this annual report;
- The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and 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 ensure that 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 controls and 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 report based on such evaluation; and 
	c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal 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 to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and
- The registrant's other certifying officers 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's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

	a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonable likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

	b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over financial reporting.

 

June 27, 2008

/s/  J.C. Chatpar

J.C. Chatpar

Chief Executive Officer and 

Chief Financial Officer
#### RHOADS v. HOOPES.

December 31, 1836.

*Motion for a new*trial.

Where, on the trial of a feigned issue formed to determine disputed facts in case of contending claimants to the proceeds of the sheriff’s sale of land, there being several counts in the *narr.,*evidence is give» in relation to the facts set forth in one count only, and the jury render a general verdict, the court will direct judgment to be entered on the verdict on that particular count.

THE facts of this case were, that a *venditioni exponas*had issued against one Morton, at the suit of Chew. The real estate of Morton was sold under the writ by the sheriff, and the proceeds of sale were paid into court for distribution. The court appointed an auditor to report distribution, before whom appeared the parties in this case, *Rhoads*and *Hoopes,*claiming to be creditors of the fund as the holders of incumbrances. The plaintiff claimed an issue upon disputed facts before the auditor; he reported it to the court, which on motion directed a feigned issue to be formed according to the 87th section of the act, relating to executions, of June 16th, 1836, *{Vide*McDaniel v. Haly, 1 *Miles,*353.) The plaintiff in the feigned issue filed a declaration of two counts containing different averments of facts, to which the defendant filed special pleas. On the trial, the judge told the jury there was no evidence applicable to the second count, but left to them the facts which related to the first count. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff generally. The defendant moved for a new trial, and assigned several reasons. The one material to notice was as follows, viz:

“ Because the jury have found generally for the plaintiff, without finding whether the assignment of said judgment, was made in payment of the lot conveyed by Ilennis to Hoopes, or as security for the payment thereof, whereas it was their duty to have found one fact or the other.”

*Graham,*for the plaintiff.

*Chester,*for the defendant.

*52Authorities cited: I *Boss.*& *Pull.*329; *Doug.*376 ; 9 5. & *R.*23; 2 *S.*& *R.*219 ; 6 S. & i?. 385 ; 10 S. & *R.*211; 4 *Yeales*442 | 15 *Johns.*318; 3 *Term R.*750 ; 7 *Mass. R.*358.

Per Curiam.—

This being a feigned issue to determine disputed facts, is clearly within the control of the court after verdict, as to the entry of judgment. On the trial, no evidence relating to the issue presented by the second count and plea, was ottered. The jury, therefore, found the facts alleged in the first count in favour of the plaintiff, and the court will order judgment upon it. An entry will be made on the record accordingly.

Motion refused, and judgment for plaintiff on the first count.
#### STATE ex rel. Frederick BARROW v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 97-KH-3176.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 15, 1998.

In re Barrow, Frederick; — Plaintiffs); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “B”, No. 374-363; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 97KW-2109.

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J., not on panel.
No. 42153.

#### Protests 986400-G, etc., of Arturo Bianco & Son, Inc., et al. (New York).

*391Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 40880 the protests were sustained.
Form of Option Agreement



 Exhibit 10.14 
 ePAK HOLDINGS LIMITED 
 DIRECTORS’ AND EMPLOYEES’ SHARE INCENTIVE PLAN 

 ACCEPTANCE FORM 
  

			
	 To:
	  	The Committee
		  	EHL Directors’ and Employees Share Incentive Plan

  
  
  

					
	 Closing Date for Acceptance of Offer
	 	 :
	 	  

			
	 Number of Shares Offered
	 	 :
	 	  

			
	 Exercise Price per Share
	 	 :
	 	  


  
  
 I have read your Letter Of Offer dated
                             (“Offering Date”) and agree to be bound by the terms of
the EHL Directors’ and Employees Share Incentive Plan (the “Plan”). 
 I hereby accept the Option to subscribe for such number Scheme
Shares of par value HK$1.00 each in the capital of ePak Holdings Limited on the terms as set out in your Letter of Offer and the rules of the Plan, a copy of which I acknowledge receipt, and enclose a *cheque for/cash HK$1.00 in payment for the
purchase of the Option. 
 I understand that I am not obliged to exercise the Option. 
 I acknowledge and agree that notwithstanding this acceptance, the Option shall lapse and become null and void if not exercised within the Option Period and in the circumstances set out in the rules of the Plan.

 PLEASE PRINT IN BLOCK LETTERS 
  

					
	 Name in Full
	 	 :
	  	  

			
	 Designation
	 	 :
	  	  

			
	 Address
	 	 :
	  	  

			
	 Nationality
	 	 :
	  	  

			
	 NRIC/Passport No
	 	 :
	  	  

			
	 Signature
	 	 :
	  	  

			
	 Date
	 	 :
	  	  


 *Delete accordingly
# C_2015007EN.01001101.xml

| 12.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 — Kingdom of the Netherlands v European Commission

(Case C-610/13 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from European Union financing - Expenditure incurred by the Netherlands))

(2015/C 007/14)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman and M. de Ree, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and H. Kranenborg, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the appeal.

| 2) | Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 31, 1.2.2014.

1

---