alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Cheatham vs. Roberts.

Where incompetent evidence is not objected to, either when offered, or by motion to exclude it, but is presented for the first time as one of the'causes on a motion for new trial, the party merely appeals to the discretion of the court for a favor to be extended to him, and its refusal is not an error of law.

*Appeal from Desha Circuit Court.*

Hon. John C. Murray, Circuit Judge.

Faust, for the appellant.

Fabrebby *&*Finley, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Fairchild

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Roberts brought an action of assumpsit against Cheatham, on ' an account for about one hundred and eighty-six dollars, of which nearly all was charged for money advanced to steamboats for freight and charges upon goods left for Cheatham upon the wharf-boat of Roberts; but an item of fifteen dollars was charged for storing the merchandize on which advances had been made, and for storing other merchandize. It did not appear in proof, on *652the trial, that any other merchandise than that on which advances had been made, had been stored by Roberts, whence it is argued that there is a want of evidence to sustain the charge for storage; but the proof was, that it was worth fifteen dollars to store the goods mentioned in the account.

The only witness, who testified in the case, had ,personal knowledge of the correctness of the charges, except of the items charged from the 9th of June to the 4th of September, 1856, and these he supposed to be correct, as he had seen the steamboat receipts to Roberts for the amounts charged. This evidence was received by the court sitting as a jury without objection from the defendant. If the testimony had been resisted as incompetent, either when offered, or upon motion to exclude it after it was given, the court would doubtless have sustained the objection to its admissibility, or would have disregarded it at the request of the defendant, as on a motion to exclude, had the trial been by a jury; or, on the motion of the defendant, the court might have declared it as law that the evidence was not to be considered. But when the evidence was before the court sitting as a jury, we cannot say that the court ought not to have taken it into consideration in its finding, any more than we could say a jury should not consider it in making their verdict. In eithar case, it belongs to the ti’ibunal of fact to judge as it may from the facts proved. When the defendant raised the question upon the legal character of this evidence, for the first time, in his motion for a new trial, he did not present any point of law for adjudication, but only appealed to the discretion of the court for a favor to be extended to him; and its refusal was not an error of law.

The judgment is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 282 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 104

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 282

                          [Report No. 103-304]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

  Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 281) 
making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1994, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            October 20, 1993

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                                 House Calendar No. 104
103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 282

                          [Report No. 103-304]

  Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 281) 
making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1994, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 20, 1993

   Mr. Moakley, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 281) 
making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1994, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, to 
consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 281) making 
further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1994, and for 
other purposes. Debate on the joint resolution shall not exceed one 
hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to 
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
```
#### William Clifford HORNE, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-11.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 14, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### HEMBREE NATIONAL CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, and J. D. Hembree, individually, Appellants, v. PAUL N. HOLLEY & ASSOCIATES, INC., a Florida corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 71-812.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 5, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Brevard County; C. T. Johnson, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### OKLAHOMA *v.*TEXAS.

No. 13, Original.

Decree announced January 4, 1926.1

Decree (1)' confirming report of commissioners showing that they have run, located and marked portions of the interstate boundary along the south bank of Red River, other than the Big Bend and Fort Augur areas, from the 100th meridian of longitude.to the ■ eastern limit of Lamar County, Texas; (2) establishing the same as the true boundary between Texas and .Oklahoma, at the places designated in the report, subject to future change by erosion and accretion; (3). directing that copies of decree, report and maps be transmitted to the Chief Magistrates of the two States.

1

 For another order of this date, respecting the expenses and compensation of the commissioners, see post, p. 539.

On consideration of the third report of the Commissioners, heretofore selected to run, locate and mark portions of the boundary between the States of Texas and Oklahoma along the south bank of the Red River, showing that they have run, located and marked particular portions of such boundary from the One Hundredth meridian of longitude to the eastern limit of Lamar Cflunty, Texas, other than the Big Bend and Fort Augur areas covered by two reports heretofore presented and confirmed, which said third report was presented and filed herein November 16, 1925;

And no objection or. exception to such report being presented, although the time therefor has expired;

It' is now adjudged, ordered and decreed that the said report be in all respects confirmed.

It is further adjudged, ordered and decreed that the boundary line delineated and set forth in the report and *315on the maps accompanying the same and referred to therein be established and declared to be the true boundary between the States of-Texas and Oklahoma along the Red River at the several places designated in such report, subject, however, to such changes as may hereafter be wrought by the natural and gradual processes known as erosion and accretion as specified in the second, third and fourth paragraphs of the decree rendered herein March 12, 1923, 261 U. S. 340.

It is further ordered that the clerk of this Court do transmit to the Chief Magistrates of the States of Texas and Oklahoma copies of this decree, duly authenticated under the seal of this Court together with copies of the said report and of the maps accompanying the same.
discretion to impose consecutive sentences, see NRS 176.035(1). We

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion at sentencing.

Second, Gonzalez contends that the district court erred by granting his habeas petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing. Gonzalez, however, is not an aggrieved party because the district court granted the relief he requested—a new sentencing hearing. See generally NRAP 3B; NRS 177.015. Moreover, any challenge to the district court's ruling on Gonzalez's habeas petition is independently appealable and not properly raised in an appeal from the amended judgment of conviction. See NRS 34.575(1). 1 Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider this claim. Accordingly, we

ORDER the amended judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Parraguirre

Saitta

'As the State points out in its fast track response, it appears that the district court has not yet entered and filed a formal, written order granting Gonzalez's habeas petition.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2
(0) 1947A cera

### cc: Hon. Douglas W. Herndon, District Judge Potter Law Offices Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 

### 3
(0) 1947A
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

# AGENCY:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

# ACTION:

Notice of charter amendment.

# SUMMARY:

This gives notice under (the Federal Advisory Committee Act of October 6, 1972, that the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services, has amended their charter to increase the number and meetings from approximately three times per year to up to eight times per year. Also, this amendment gives notice to change the name of the DNV Healthcare to DNV-GL; to add the American Society of Nephrology (ASN), the American Association of Kidney Patients (AAKP), the Pediatric Infectious Disease Society (PIDS), and the National Association of Directors of Nursing Administration (NADONA) as non-voting liaison organizations to the committee, and to include expertise in environmental microbiology; and increase the number of meetings up to eight times a year. The amended filing date is May 4, 2018.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Erin Stone, M.A., HICPAC, Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, NCEZID, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop A-31, Atlanta, Georgia 30333; Email:                         *HICPAC@cdc.gov.*

                        The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                         **Federal Register**                         notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                    

Elaine Baker,

Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. 2018-13995 Filed 6-28-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
#### William Nugent SMITH, Petitioner, v. RINGLING BROS. BARNUM & BAILEY et al., Respondents.

No. 41493.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 28, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
# Official Journal C 21/28 J

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 21 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4928 January 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 21

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4928 January 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2006/C 021/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2006/C 021/2 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1) | 2 |
| 2006/C 021/3 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4025 — ATEL/EOSH) (1) | 3 |
| 2006/C 021/4 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1) | 4 |
| 2006/C 021/5 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.2313 — Teka/Finatlantis/Holdivat) (1) | 7 |
| 2006/C 021/6 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4022 — Belgian State/CVC/Post Danmark/De Post-La Poste) (1) | 7 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2006/C 021/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2006/C 021/2

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1)

2

2006/C 021/3

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4025 — ATEL/EOSH) (1)

3

2006/C 021/4

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1)

4

2006/C 021/5

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.2313 — Teka/Finatlantis/Holdivat) (1)

7

2006/C 021/6

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4022 — Belgian State/CVC/Post Danmark/De Post-La Poste) (1)

7

---

| | III   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | European Environment Agency |
| 2006/C 021/7 | 2006 Call for proposals — European Topic Centre on Water ‘2007-2010’ — European Topic Centre on Air and Climate Change ‘2007-2010’ — European Topic Centre on Land Use and spatial information ‘2007-2010’ | 8 |

III   Notices

European Environment Agency

2006/C 021/7

2006 Call for proposals — European Topic Centre on Water ‘2007-2010’ — European Topic Centre on Air and Climate Change ‘2007-2010’ — European Topic Centre on Land Use and spatial information ‘2007-2010’

8

---

| | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- |
| 2006/C 021/8 | Corrigendum to the Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Directive 98/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to machinery (OJ C 336, 31.12.2005) | 10 |

Corrigenda

2006/C 021/8

Corrigendum to the Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Directive 98/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to machinery (OJ C 336, 31.12.2005)

(OJ C 336, 31.12.2005)

10

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                      33,850,000
<SECURITIES>                                17,613,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               20,749,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,440,000
<INVENTORY>                                  9,613,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            79,967,000
<PP&E>                                      11,946,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,310,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              85,641,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,722,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  76,909,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                85,641,000
<SALES>                                     54,322,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            54,322,000
<CGS>                                       24,412,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               57,779,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               607,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,406,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,090,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    36,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,126,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,126,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.32)


</TABLE>
# C_2023216EN.01000701.xml

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 April 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — A1, A2 v I

(Case C-352/21, (1) A1 and A2 (Insurance of a pleasure craft))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Rules of jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance - Article 15(5) - Possibility of departing from those jurisdictional rules by agreement - Article 16(5) - Directive 2009/138/EC - Article 13(27) - Concept of ‘large risks’ - Hull insurance contract - Jurisdiction clause between the insurer and the insured - Enforceability of that clause against the insured - Pleasure craft not used for commercial purposes)

(2023/C 216/08)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: A1, A2

Defendant: I

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, read in conjunction with Article 16(5) thereof,

must be interpreted as meaning that a hull insurance contract relating to a pleasure craft not used for commercial purposes does not fall under Article 15(5) of that regulation.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 9.8.2021.

---
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
132282 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 132282 COA: 271872 Oakland CC: 2005-203502-FC CRAIG IVAN HILL, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 1, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

t1120 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.

November 29, 2006

Clerk
256 La. 862

#### Mrs. Diane HULL, Widow of James B. Hull, Jr., Individually and on Behalf of the Minors Duane Philip Hull and Daryl Thomas Hull v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 50776.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 30, 1970.

In re: The Singer Company and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 236 So.2d 847.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in its judgment.
# C_2021035EN.01005801.xml

| 1.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/58

---

Action brought on 9 December 2020 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v NG

(Case T-721/20)

(2021/C 35/77)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer, and B. Mastantuono, acting as Agent)

Defendant: NG

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | order the defendant to pay Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking the sum of EUR 141 094,80 in relation to Grant Agreement No 632 506 ‘Wireless Flexible sensor co-operation for structural health Diagnosis/prognosis’ under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Union, together with interest at the rate of 3,5 % set by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, from 9 July 2019 until the date of actual payment; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking the sum of EUR 141 094,80 in relation to Grant Agreement No 632 506 ‘Wireless Flexible sensor co-operation for structural health Diagnosis/prognosis’ under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Union, together with interest at the rate of 3,5 % set by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, from 9 July 2019 until the date of actual payment;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following plea in law:

The defendant failed to fulfil its contractual obligations by failing to reimburse the amount relating to staff costs, held not to be eligible for funding. As a result, the applicant issued, on 23 May 2019, a debit note for the amount of EUR 141 094,80 already paid to Alpha Consulting Service Srl, in accordance with the provisions of the grant agreement. There is no doubt whatsoever in the present case as to the facts giving rise to the obligations incumbent on the defendant as shareholder and representative of Alpha Consulting Service Srl, which has been removed from the commercial register. The objections made by that company after the debit note was issued are generic, incomplete and not supported by evidence and, therefore, appear to be entirely unfounded. As a result, the applicant is entitled to seek recovery and reimbursement of the amount paid, plus default interest.

---