alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### VAN EPS *v.*SLIGH FURNITURE CO.

Master and Servant — Workmen’s Compensation Act — Loss of Part of Phalange of Finger.

Loss of three-fourths of distal phalange of index finger is not loss of one-half of finger within meaning of workmen’s compensation act, providing that loss of first phalange shall be considered equal to loss of one-half of finger, and therefore compensation for said injury is governed by provision for disability; there being no specific award therefor (2 Comp. Laws 1929, § 8426).

On what amounts to loss of phalanges within meaning of workmen’s compensation act, see annotation in 18 A. L. R. 1354.

Certiorari to Department of Labor and Industry.

Submitted January 12, 1932.

(Docket No. 103, Calendar No. 36,178.)

Decided March 2, 1932.

Bert J. Van Eps presented his claim against Sligh Furniture Company, employer, and Furniture Mutual Insurance Company, insurer, for an accidental injury.

Award to plaintiff reversed, and remanded for proper award.

*Francis D. Campan,*for .defendants.

Potter, J.

Certiorari to the department of labor and industry to review an award granting plaintiff compensation for the loss of one-half of his index finger. The proof showed plaintiff lost three-quarters of the distal phalange of his index finger, which the commission held amounted to the loss of a phalange, and, under the statute, equal to the loss of one-half of such finger. If *Fanning*v. *W. E. Wood Co.,*255 Mich. 618, is to stand as the law, the department of labor and industry was in error in *113making this award. The case last above cited correctly states the rule. The reason therefor is that the case does not fall within the schedule of compensation applicable to specific cases fixed by 2 Comp. Laws 1929, §'8426. *We*cannot enlarge the language of the schedule. We cannot make the statute read, “The loss of a major portion of the first phalange of any finger shall be considered to be equal to the loss of the first phalange and equal to the loss of one-half of such finger.” Cases not falling within the language of the specific schedule are governed by the first paragraph of 2 Comp. Laws 1929, § 8426. The award of the department of labor and industry is set aside, and the cause remanded for disposition in accordance herewith.

Clark, C. J., and McDonald, Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.
Jacket: 420‐539

Title:

Agency: Department of Labor

Bid Opening: June 1, 2022 at 11:00am

Bid Terms Discounted Total

$145,541.00 2.0% 20 days $142,630.18

$191,677.00 0.25% 20 days $191,197.81

* = Awarded (TS)

VETS ‐ DOLEW Participant Guide

Contractor Name

*Monarch Litho, Inc.

Colonial Press International
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             JAN-29-1998
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  MAY-22-1998
<CASH>                              2,343
<SECURITIES>                            0    
<RECEIVABLES>                      22,005
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                       116,163
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  143,298
<PP&E>                            165,799
<DEPRECIATION>                     81,411
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    238,970
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              82,888
<BONDS>                            75,837
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                           13,825
<OTHER-SE>                         62,222
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      238,970
<SALES>                           243,869
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  243,869
<CGS>                             177,981
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     177,981
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   60,512
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  1,366
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     4,010
<INCOME-TAX>                        1,756
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 2,254
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                        2,254
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                        0.16
        


</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 21.1 Subsidiaries of Borders Group, Inc. SUBSIDIARY
    
    STATE OF INCORPORATIONBorders, Inc.
    
    ColoradoBorders Fulfillment, Inc.
    
    DelawareBorders Management, LLC
    
    MichiganBorders Online, LLC
    
    DelawareBorders Online, Inc.
    
    ColoradoBorders Outlet, Inc.
    
    ColoradoBorders Properties, Inc.
    
    DelawareWalden Book Company, Inc.
    
    ColoradoWalden
Online, Inc.
    
    ColoradoWaldenbooks Properties, Inc.
    
    DelawareBorders (UK) Limited
formerly Books etc.      Limited
    
    U.K.Borders New Zealand Limited
    
    New ZealandBorders PTE. Limited
    
    SingaporeBorders Australia PTY, Limited
    
    AustraliaBGI (UK) Limited
    
    U.K.BGP (UK) Limited
    
    U.K.Evermatch Limited
    
    U.K.Books Etc Properties Limited
    
    U.K.Meridian Books Limited
    
    U.K.Borders Superstores (UK) Limited
    
    U.K.Charing Cross Properties Limited
    
    U.K.
#### NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, doing business in Florida, Appellant, v. Jose Montes DeOCA, Appellee.

No. 72-1479.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 17, 1973.

Weinstein & Bavly, Miami, for appellant.

William F. Sullivan IV and Robert E. Brandt, Miami, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL and HAVERFIELD, JJ„ and SPECTOR, SAMUEL, Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Saumell, Fla.App.1973, 273 So.2d 101.
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 177

Impeaching Robert P. Aguilar, a judge of the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California, of high crimes and misdemeanors.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 19, 1993

Mr. SENSENBRENNER submitted the following resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Impeaching Robert P. Aguilar, a judge of the United States

District Court for the Northern District of California,

of high crimes and misdemeanors.

1 Resolved, That Robert P. Aguilar, a judge of the

2 United States District Court for the Northern District of

3 California, is impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Æ
#### LAYTON & SIPPLE *vs.*JAMES ANDERSON.

In an action on a book account, the defendant is entitled to a bill of particulars if applied for in time; But it is no ground' for a continuance, if such application be not made until the trial term.

Interest is allowable on a merchant’s account after sis months; and the jury may make rests in the account.

Capias case. Narr. Pleas. Issue.

*Robinson,*for defendant,

moved a continuance of the cause, on the ground that it was an action on a book account, embracing several years’ dealings, and that it was necessary for defendant to have a bill of particulars to prepare for his defence ; that he had applied to plaintiffs for such bill of particulars, on the first day of this term (a week now past,) and it had not yet been delivered. This was the first trial term. The motion was resisted, on the ground that the application for the bill of particulars was too late, and the account was so long that the plaintiffs had not had time to furnish it. They now tendered a copy of the account.

*Ridgely*and *BrincTcloe,*for plaintiffs.

*Robinson,*for defendant.

*The Court*

said, that it was not a legal ground of continuance. The party should have applied for the bill earlier.

Motion refused.

The parties then agreed to refer the cause, if the court would express an opinion as to the propriety of allowing interest on the account. The court said, it was usual to allow interest on a merchant’s account after six months. The best plan is to make rests in the ao count.
[Nos. 191-3; 202-3.

Division Three.

March 14, 1972.]

#### James J. Palmer, *Respondent,*v. Gus J. Cozza, *Appellant.*

*R. Max Etter, Sr.,*for appellant.

*Jack Steinberg,*for respondent.

Munson, C.J.

Defendant Gus J. Cozza appeals: (1) a judgment enforcing a promissory note in plaintiff James J. Palmer’s favor, and (2) the trial court’s refusal to grant a new trial after remand from this court in *Palmer v. Cozza,*2 Wn. App. 900, 471 P.2d 102 (1970).

Upon conflicting evidence, presented entirely by the tes*575timony (and accompanying exhibits) of the two individual parties, the trial court found defendant had drawn a note in plaintiff’s favor for $4,500, failed to honor same and was therefore liable to plaintiff for the face amount of the note, plus 7 per cent per annum interest from November 26, 1963, and $750 attorney’s fees.

Six days after entry of the court’s decision defendant moved for a 30-day extension of time in which to obtain new evidence showing alteration of the note and for a new trial. Arguments were'held 2% months later at which time, defendant having offered no affidavits or new evidence, the trial court denied the motions and entered judgment. Defendant appealed.

During the pendency of the appeal, defendant sought leave of this court to move the trial court for a new trial alleging newly discovered evidence in the form of 21 supporting affidavits concerning the authenticity of the note. Without the record of the previous proceedings before it, this court granted defendant’s motion in the belief that the trial court should have the opportunity to examine the material set forth therein. *Palmer v. Cozza, supra.*

After examining defendant’s affidavits and plaintiff’s countervailing ones, which when added together numbered 70, the trial court found the new material was cumulative and would not have affected the original decision. The trial court denied defendant’s motion for new trial and defendant again appealed. The appeals were consolidated.

Defendant failed to properly assign error to the trial court’s findings of fact alleged to be erroneous. The findings are accepted as verities. *Union Bank v. Kruger,*1 Wn. App. 622, 463 P.2d 273 (1969). The conclusions of law are amply supported by the findings of fact. Notwithstanding this rule, the other assignments of error required our examination of the record. While the evidence is disputed, we find substantial evidence in support of the trial court’s findings.

Likewise, our review of the record convinces us the trial court’s decision on both occasions when it considered defendant’s motion for new trial was proper, pursuant to the *576standards set forth in *Libbee v. Handy,*163 Wash. 410, 1 P.2d 312 (1931) and reiterated in *Kurtz v. Fels,*63 Wn.2d 871, 874, 389 P.2d 659 (1954).

Judgment affirmed.

Green and Evans, JJ., concur.

Petition for rehearing denied May 8, 1972.

Review denied by Supreme Court June 21, 1972.
# C_2020378EN.01003602.xml

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/36

---

Action brought on 14 August 2020 — TrekStor v EUIPO — Zagg (Protective covers for computer hardware)

(Case T-512/20)

(2020/C 378/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TrekStor GmbH (Bensheim, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and N. Willich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zagg Inc. (Salt Lake City, Utah, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Design at issue: European Union design No 1 253 876-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 June 2020 in Case R 294/2019-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to declare the contested design invalid in accordance with Article 25(1)(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to declare the contested design invalid in accordance with Article 25(1)(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 25(1)(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 25(1)(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

---
# Official Journal L 123/2014

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 123 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5724 April 2014 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 123

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5724 April 2014

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) No 379/2014 of 7 April 2014 amending Commission Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to air operations pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Regulation (EU) No 379/2014 of 7 April 2014 amending Commission Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to air operations pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 130 (Friday, July 6, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 31535]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14495]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9040-2]


Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information (202) 564-7156 or https://www2.epa.gov/nepa/

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 06/25/2018 Through 06/29/2018
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public 
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment 
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search

EIS No. 20180149, Draft, FHWA, ND, Little Missouri River Crossing, 
Comment Period Ends: 08/20/2018, Contact: Gary Goff (701) 221-9466.
EIS No. 20180150, Draft, USFS, WY, Medicine Bow Landscape Vegetation 
Analysis (LaVA) Project, Comment Period Ends: 08/20/2018, Contact: 
Melissa Martin (307) 745-2371.
EIS No. 20180151, Draft, USACE, FL, Lake Okeechobee Watershed 
Restoration Project, Comment Period Ends: 08/20/2018, Contact: Gretchen 
Ehlinger (904) 232-1682.
EIS No. 20180152, Draft, USACE, CT, Byram River Flood Risk Management 
Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and EIS, Comment Period Ends: 08/
20/2018, Contact: Kimberly Rightler (917) 790-8722.

Amended Notice

EIS No. 20180146, Final, USFS, WA, WITHDRAWN, LeClerc Creek Grazing 
Allotment Management Planning, Comment Period Ends: 08/13/2018, 
Contact: Gayne Sears (509) 447-7300.
    Officially withdrawn per request of the U.S. Forest Service.

    Dated: July 2, 2018.
Robert Tomiak,
Director, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2018-14495 Filed 7-5-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
#### James Harold GRIGG v. David MARTIN et al.

No. 53082.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 15, 1973.

In re: James Harold Grigg applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Webster. 269 So.2d 331.

Denied. The result is correct.

BARHAM, J., concurs. The factual determinations made by the Court of Appeal remove from the ambit of this case the question of any legal responsibility of corporate executives.
# C_2020068EN.01006701.xml

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/67

---

Action brought on 17 January 2020 – Deutsche Post v EUIPO – Pošta Slovenije (Representation of a device of a horn)

(Case T-25/20)

(2020/C 68/75)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: M. Viefhues, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pošta Slovenije d.o.o. (Maribor, Slovenia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark (Representation of a device of a horn) – Application for registration No 17 088 361

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 November 2019 in Case R 994/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
263 La. 992

#### John FULFORD v. Honorable Earl VERON, Judge, Ad Hoc, 15th Judicial District Court, Lafayette, Louisiana.

No. 53050.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 21, 1972.

In re: John Fulford applying for writs of mandamus, certiorari and habeas corpus.

Writs refused. We have considered the written return of the trial judge and conclude that his ruling is correct.
EXHIBIT 24

                             GARMENT CAPITOL ASSOCIATES

                                   FILE NO. 0-768

                                  POWER OF ATTORNEY

                   We, the undersigned general partners of Garment Capitol

         Associates ("Associates"), hereby severally constitute and appoint

         Stanley Katzman and Richard A. Shapiro and each of them,

         individually, our true and lawful attorneys with full power to

         them and each of them to sign for us, and in our names and in the

         capacities indicated below on behalf of Associates, any and all

         reports or other statements required to be filed with the

         Securities and Exchange Commission under Section 13 or 15(d) of

         the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 

              Signature              Title                    Date

         /s/Peter L. Malkin
            Peter L. Malkin          General Partner     April 10, 1996

         /s/Thomas N. Keltner, Jr.
            Thomas N. Keltner, Jr.   General Partner     May 14, 1998

         /s/Richard A. Shapiro 
            Richard A. Shapiro       General Partner     May 14, 1998<PAGE>






         STATE OF NEW YORK   )
                             : ss.:
         COUNTY OF NEW YORK  )

                   On the 10th day of April, 1996 before me personally came

         PETER L. MALKIN, to me known to be the individual described in and

         who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he

         executed the same.  

                                       /s/Notary Public 
                                          NOTARY PUBLIC









































                                         -2-<PAGE>






         STATE OF NEW YORK   )
                             : ss.:
         COUNTY OF NEW YORK  )

                   On the 14th day of May, 1998 before me personally came

         THOMAS N. KELTNER, JR. and RICHARD A. SHAPIRO, to me known to be

         the individuals described in and who executed the foregoing

         instrument, and acknowledged that they executed the same.  

                                       /s/Notary Public 
                                          NOTARY PUBLIC


  








                                                                  
























                                         -3-
Exhibit 23.1Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting FirmWe consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.s 33-91364, 333-120318, 333-125473, 333-153021 and 333-161596 on Form S-8 of our reports dated June 10, 2011, relating to the consolidated financial statements and consolidated financial statement schedule of Alliance One International, Inc., and the effectiveness of Alliance One International, Inc.'s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Alliance One International, Inc. for the year ended March 31, 2011./s/ Deloitte & Touche LLPRaleigh, North CarolinaJune 10, 2011