alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020262EN.01003201.xml

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/32

---

Action brought on 3 June 2020 — AC Milan v EUIPO — InterES (ACM 1899 AC MILAN)

(Case T-353/20)

(2020/C 262/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Associazione Calcio Milan SpA (AC Milan) (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Perani and G. Ghisletti, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: InterES Handels- und Dienstleistungs Gesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (Nuremberg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark ACM 1899 AC MILAN in red, black and white — International registration designating the European Union No 1 329 545

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 February 2020 in Case R 161/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to bear the fees and costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceeding. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to bear the fees and costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceeding.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 10(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 10(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

| — | Infringement of Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 18(1)(a) 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. |
| --- | --- |

—

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

---
# C_2022472EN.01002201.xml

| 12.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 472/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 472/22

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 27 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Mainz — Germany) — ID v Stadt Mainz

(Case C-544/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Directive 2006/123/EC - Article 15(1), (2)(g) and (3) - Services in the internal market - Fees of architects and engineers - Fixed minimum tariffs - Direct effect of provisions of EU law and possible inapplicability of national legislation)

(2022/C 472/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Mainz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ID

Defendant: Stadt Mainz

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market does not apply to a situation in which a contract was concluded before the entry into force of that directive and where all the effects of that contract were exhausted prior to the deadline for the transposition of the directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 2, 3.1.2022.

---
# C_2021062EN.01004001.xml

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/40

---

Action brought on 23 December 2020 — PrenzMarien v EUIPO — Molson Coors Brewing Company (UK) (STONES)

(Case T-766/20)

(2021/C 62/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PrenzMarien GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: M. Kloth, R. Briske and D. Habel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Molson Coors Brewing Company (UK) Ltd (Burton Upon Trent, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark STONES — European Union trade mark No 8 810 707

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 September 2020 in Case R 274/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and revoke the contested European Union trade mark in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and revoke the contested European Union trade mark in its entirety;

| — | make an award of costs in favour of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

make an award of costs in favour of the applicant.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Articles 19(1) and 10(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Articles 19(1) and 10(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625.

---
#### John E. MILLER v. I. H. SALTZ.

No. 9671.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Sept. 25, 1973.

Wayne P. Bourg, Morgan City, for appellant.

Isaac Abramson, Shreveport, for appel-lee.

MOTION TO DISMISS

The joint motion of I. H. Saltz, defendant and appellant and John E. Miller, plaintiff and appellee in the above entitled and numbered proceeding respectfully shows that:

I.

The above matter is an appeal from a judgment of the 16th Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Mary, ordering the defendant I. H. Saltz, to pay to John E. Miller certain sums of money.

II.

That the demand which comprises the subject matter of this appeal has been compromised by the parties and the defendant-appellant. I. H. Saltz, has satisfied the demands of John E. Miller, plaintiff-appel-lee in this matter.

Wherefore, movers pray that after due proceedings had the appeal taken herein by I. H. Saltz be dismissed and that the answer to the appeal filed herein by John E. Miller be dismissed and set aside, all at appellant’s costs.

LEVY, BURLEIGH & BOURG

Approved by:

(s) Isaac Abramson

Isaac Abramson

ORDER

SARTAIN, Judge.

Considering the foregoing joint motion, it is ordered that the appeal and the answer to the appeal herein be dismissed and set aside at appellant’s cost.
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 212

Relating to State actions to protect children from injury in motor vehicle

accidents.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 29, 1993

Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut submitted the following resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

RESOLUTION

Relating to State actions to protect children from injury

in motor vehicle accidents.

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that each of the several States should take

3 such action as may be necessary or appropriate to require

4 by law that—

5 (1) while a motor vehicle is in operation—

6 (A) any child who has not attained 4 years

7 of age must be secured in a federally-approved

8 child safety seat that is appropriately attached

9 to the vehicle, and
2

•HRES 212 IH

1 (B) any child who has attained 4 years of

2 age but not 17 years of age must be properly

3 restrained, regardless whether occupying a front

4 or back seat;

5 (2) the operator of a motor vehicle (regardless

6 of the State of residency of the operator) has a legal

7 duty to ensure that the requirements referred to in

8 paragraph (1) are complied with; and

9 (3) the failure of an individual to comply with

10 the duty referred to in paragraph (2) constitutes a

11 moving violation under such law.

Æ
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

American Prepaid Professional Services, Inc. - Florida
American Dental Plan, Inc. - Florida
American Dental Plan of Georgia, Inc. - Georgia
American Dental Plan of Ohio, Inc. - Ohio
American Dental Plan of Alabama, Inc. - Alabama
American Dental Plan, Inc. - North Carolina
American Dental Plan of North Carolina, Inc. - North Carolina
Dental Care Plus Management, Corp. - Illinois
CompDent of Illinois, Inc. - Illinois
Texas Dental Plans, Inc. - Texas
National Dental Plans, Inc. - Delaware
Dental Plans International, Inc. - Texas
Dental Provider Resources, Inc. - Texas
DentiCare, Inc. - Texas
UniLife Insurance Company - Arizona
CompDent Corporation - Kentucky
CompDent of Alabama - Alabama
CompDent of Georgia, Inc. - Georgia
CompDent of Tennessee, Inc. - Tennessee
HealthStream Services, Inc. - Tennessee
* Dental Health Management, Inc. - Delaware
* DentLease, Inc. - Delaware
* American Dental Providers of Arkansas, Inc. - Delaware
* Diamond Dental of Arkansas, Inc. - Delaware

*formed January 1997
Exhibit 32.2
 Certification Required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350  (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
  (1)
    
    the accompanying Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 (the
Report), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/  Randy L. KotlerRandy L. KotlerExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### John Robert ENTERKIN, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. In the Matter of a Child Named Angela Michelle DEVAUX, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 3922.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

May 10, 1972.

Long, Sleeth & Hughes by Edwin R. Hughes, Jena, for defendant-appellant.

Parker & Parker by Elodie K. Parker, Jena, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before FRUGÉ, MILLER and DO-MENGEAUX, JJ.

MILLER, Judge.

Plaintiff John Robert Enterkin, Sr. has moved to dismiss the devolutive appeal taken from a judgment signed January 6, 1972, which decree that plaintiff was not the father of the infant appellant Angela Michelle Devaux. The appeal was taken on January 18, 1972 in forma pauperis, without bond, on affidavits which did not meet the requirements of LSA-C.C.P. Art. 5183. The rule to traverse the January 18, 1972 pauper order was filed in the trial court on February 4, 1972 but not considered.

A new affidavit was signed on February 23, 1972 and filed on February 29, 1972. Nevertheless, plaintiff appellee is entitled to traverse the facts alleged in the affidavits as well as the authority of those who executed the affidavits. LSA-C.C.P. Art. 5184.

We remand the case to the trial court to take evidence on this issue and to rule on the issues raised by the rule to traverse. Cahee v. Associated Indemnity Corp., 247 So.2d 279 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1971).

*100The motion to dismiss is denied. Costs of this proceeding are to be assessed when the merits of the case are decided.

Remanded.
<PAGE>

                           GTE Southwest Incorporated

                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                               Six Months Ended
(Dollars in Millions)                                            June 30, 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                                   <C>
Income before provision for income taxes                                $ 147.9
Interest expense                                                           27.2
Portion of rent expense representing interest                               9.2
Amortization of capitalized interest                                         .3
                                                            --------------------
Earnings, as adjusted                                                   $ 184.6
                                                            ====================
Fixed charges:
Interest expense                                                        $  27.2
Portion of rent expense representing interest                               9.2
Capitalized interest                                                         .3
                                                            --------------------
Fixed Charges                                                           $  36.7
                                                            ====================
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                                         5.03
                                                            ====================
</TABLE>
# C_2023271EN.01002001.xml

| 31.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/20

---

Order of the President of the Court of 17 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart — Germany) — Paypal (Europe) Sarl and Cie, SCA v PQ

(Case C-190/21, (1) Paypal)

(2023/C 271/27)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.

---
EXHIBIT 32.2





Certification Pursuant to


18 U.S.C. Section 1350


As Adopted Pursuant to


Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002











I, Jill R. Marlatt, Controller (Principal Financial Officer), certify that this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained herein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Gateway Energy Corporation and its subsidiaries for the periods presented.








Date:  August 16, 2010                                                                                                                                  /s/  Jill R. Marlatt


Jill R. Marlatt


Controller


(Principal Financial Officer)
#### MID-FLORIDA ASPHALT CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Scott KELLY, Appellee.

No. 71-528.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 25, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Balance
Sheets for CIMARRON-GRANDVIEW GROUP, INC. at  June 30, 2000, and the  Statements
of Income for the period  ended June 30, 2000, and is  qualified in its entirety
by reference  to  such  financial  statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         139,322
<SECURITIES>                                    10,583
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               149,905
<PP&E>                                           4,122
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 154,027
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       693,949
<OTHER-SE>                                    (539,922)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   154,027
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,169
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,769
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (6,600)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (6,600)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (6,600)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00






</TABLE>
#### Pettillo, ad. vs. Hopson.

On a plea of failure of consideration the defendant is, most assuredly, entitled to an abatement for only so much as the consideration had failed.

*Appeal from ' Van Burén Circuit Court.*

Hon. William C. Bevens, Circuit Judge.

Byers & Cox, and Stillwell & Woodruff, for appellant.

If there was any failure of consideration, it was only partial: the pleas were not-supported, and of course the verdict ought to have been for appellant. 6 *Ark.*416; 17 *lb.*10; 10 *lb.*273; 19 *lb.*666.

Mr. Chief Justice English

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Pettillo, as administrator of Hylton, sued Hopson on a note for $150, executed to his intestate.

Hopson interposed two special pleas, alleging, in substance, *197that the note sued on was executed in consideration that Hylton would convey and deliver to him seven acres of land, which he had failed to do, whereby the consideration, upon which the note was given, had.wholly failed, etc.

Upon the trial of issues to the pleas, the defendant introduced evidence conducing to prove that he purchased of Hylton the seven acres of land and the improvement referred to in the pleas, at $300, paid him part of the price in money and property, and gave him the note sued on for the remainder. That Hylton had agreed to make him a deed for the seven acres of land, and deliver him possession thereof, but failed to do either. That the land was not worth more than $50. That Hylton was also to deliver to him possession of the improvement on the public land; and it was proven that defendant did obtain possession of the improvement, and sold it for $500.

The plaintiff asked the court, sitting as a jury, to declare the law to be, in effect, that defendant was not entitled to an abatement of the note beyond the value of the seven acres of land, which Hylton had failed to convey to him. But the court refused so to declare the law to be, rendered judgment for the defendant, and refused the plaintiff a new trial.

Most assuredly the defendant had no right to keep back the full amount of the note, when there was but a partial failure of the consideration upon which it was executed. 1 *St. & P.*226; *Ib.*71.

The judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded, with instructions to grant the appellant a new trial.
Exhibit 8.1


                    SUBSIDIARIES OF W.P. STEWART & CO., LTD.


Subsidiary                                         JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION
-------------------------------------------------  -----------------------------
W.P. Stewart & Co. (Europe), Ltd. ...............             England
NS Money Management Ltd. ........................             Bermuda
Cribewell Investments ...........................             Curacao
TPRS Services N.V. ..............................             Curacao
W.P. Stewart & Co., Inc. ........................            Delaware
W.P. Stewart Securities Limited .................             Bermuda
W.P. Stewart Asset Management Ltd. ..............             Bermuda
W.P. Stewart Fund Management Limited.............             Ireland
W.P. Stewart Asset Management (NA), Inc. ........            New York
W.P. Stewart Asset Management, Inc. .............            Delaware
W.P. Stewart Asset Management (Europe), Ltd. ....             Bermuda
W.P. Stewart Asset Management (Curacao), N.V. ...      Netherlands Antilles
W.P. Stewart Asset Management (Europe), N.V. ....         The Netherlands
TPR Curacao N.V. ................................      Netherlands Antilles
WPSH Management N.V. ............................      Netherlands Antilles


                                      E-2
# C_2020255EN.01002302.xml

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/23

---

Action brought on 29 May 2020 — König Ludwig International v EUIPO (Royal Bavarian Beer)

(Case T-332/20)

(2020/C 255/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: König Ludwig International GmbH & Co. KG (Geltendorf, Germany) (represented by: O. Spuhler and J. Stock, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark Royal Bavarian Beer — Application for registration No 1 384 147

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 April 2020 in Case R 1714/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in combination with Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and the right to be heard; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in combination with Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and the right to be heard;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 1(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 1(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
EXHIBIT NO. 15











To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of
Gerber Scientific, Inc.







|Re: | Registration Statements on Form S-8,
|--- | ------------------------------------
|    | File No. 2-93695, No. 33-58668,     
|    | No. 333-26177, No. 333-42879,       
|    | No. 333-81447, No. 333-83463, and   
|    | No. 333-39754                       
|    |                                     
|    | Registration Statement on Form S-3, 
|    | File No. 33-58670                   
|    |                                     

With respect to the subject Registration Statements, we acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our report dated September 11, 2002 related to our review of interim financial information.



Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act, such reports are not considered a part of a Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.











/ s / KPMG LLP





KPMG LLP









Hartford, Connecticut
September 12, 2002