alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023155EN.01001001.xml

| 2.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas -Lithuania) — R.J.R. v Registrų centras VĮ

(Case C-354/21, (1) Registrų centras)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - European Certificate of Succession - Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 - Article 1(2)(l) - Scope - Article 68 - Contents of the European Certificate of Succession - Article 69(5) - Effects of the European Certificate of Succession - Succession immovable property located in a Member State other than that of the succession - Registration of that immovable property in the land register of that Member State - Legal requirements for such registration under the law of that Member State - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1329/2014 - Mandatory nature of Form V in Annex 5 to that implementing regulation)

(2023/C 155/12)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: R.J.R.

Defendant: Registrų centras VĮ

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 1(2)(l), 68(l) and 69(5) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession

must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude legislation of a Member State which provides that an application for registration of immovable property in the land register of that Member State may be rejected where the only document submitted in support of that application is a European Certificate of Succession which does not identify that immovable property.

---

(1)  OJ C 349, 30.8.2021.

---
# C_2020255EN.01003101.xml

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/31

---

Action brought on 11 June 2020 — Birkenstock Sales v EUIPO (Form of a pattern of a sole of a shoe)

(Case T-365/20)

(2020/C 255/40)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Birkenstock Sales GmbH (Linz am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: C. Menebröcker und K. Middelhoff, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for an EU position mark (Form of a pattern of a sole of a shoe) — Application for registration No 14 576 284

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 March 2020 in Case R 1706/2019-1

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.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
EXHIBIT 99.17



CONSENT OF LAURA INARA KARREI



March 27, 2013



Brigus Gold Corp.

United States Securities and Exchange Commission



Re: Brigus Gold Corp.



Ladies and Gentlemen:



I hereby consent to the use of my name in connection with the
following documents and reports, which are either referenced in or filed as exhibits with the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the
year ended December 31, 2012 (the “Form 40-F”) of Brigus Gold Corp. (the “Company”) to which this consent
relates: (A) the Company’s Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2012 and (B) the Company’s Management’s
Discussion and Analysis for the year ended December 31, 2012, and (ii) all other references to the undersigned included or incorporated
by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-113889, 333-162558 and 333-167757), as amended, and Form
F-10 (File No. 333-174604), as amended, or any related abbreviated registration statement filed by the Company with the Securities
and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or in any amendment to any of the
foregoing, or to any prospectuses or amendments or supplements thereto.



|Sincerely,               | 
|------------------------ | 
|                         | 
|/s/ Laura Inara Karrei   | 
|Name: Laura Inara Karrei |
#### Davis, Agent, etc., *v.*Vance.

*New trial*— Failure *to introduce additional evidence*— Willful *tort and contributory negligence.*

(No. 18162

Decided April 22, 1924.)

Error to the Court of Appeals of Gallia county.

*Messrs. Wilson & Rector; Mr. F. C. Amos*and *Mr. H. C.*Johnston, for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. R. M.*Switzer, for defendant in error.

By the Court.

This cause was before this court and decided on July 5, 1921, at which time this court reversed the Court of Appeals and the court of common pleas, a report of which will be found in 103 Ohio St., 59, 133 N. E., 85. The major question before the court at that time was upon the subject of willful tort. This court reversed the lower courts for error of law in the charge to the jury on that subject, and the cause was remanded to the court of common pleas for new trial. This court did not at that time feel justified in rendering final judgment, notwithstanding the fact that it was held upon the undisputed facts shown by the record that Vance was guilty of contributory negligence which would prevent a recovery. Inasmuch as the error in the former judgment was a result in part of evidence introduced and rejected under an erroneous notion of willful tort, which if established would preclude the defense of contributory negligence, the court was of the opinion that Vance should have an opportunity to try his case accord*207ing to legal principles then declared by the court. The record as presented in the instant case is a transcript of the former record, with the addition of one stipulation, which, in the opinion of the court, does not change the situation. The judgment of the 'Court of Appeals is therefore reversed, and the judgment of the court of common pleas affirmed-upon the authority of our former decision, reported in 103 Ohio St., 59, 133 N. E., 85.

*Judgment reversed.*

Marshall, C. J., Robinson, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur. >

Wanamaker, J., not participating.
#### THE FLORIDA BAR v. Francisco COSIO.

No. 36754.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 1969.

Appeal dismissed without opinion.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

DESIGNATION OF CHAIR OF THE 

APPELLATE COURT PROCEDURAL 

RULES COMMITTEE

:

:

:

:

:

NO. 303

APPELLATE COURT RULES 

DOCKET

 ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 14th day of April, 2023, Peter J. Gardner, Esquire, is hereby 

designated as Chair of the Appellate Court Procedural Rules Committee, commencing 

July 1, 2023.
# C_2021053EN.01004801.xml

| 15.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/48

---

Action brought on 16 December 2020 — Boquoi Handels v EUIPO (Representation of an ice crystal on a blue circular background)

(Case T-734/20)

(2021/C 53/64)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Boquoi Handels OHG (Grünwald, Germany) (represented by: S. Lorenz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark (Representation of an ice crystal on a blue circular background) — Application for registration No 17 970 116

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2020 in Case R 522/2020-2

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.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---
# C_2020201EN.01002502.xml

| 15.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/25

---

Action brought on 28 February 2020 — IV v Commission

(Case T-145/20)

(2020/C 201/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: IV (represented by: J. Lemmer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | order the European Commission and the Centre Polyvalent de l’Enfance Interinstitutionnel, jointly and severally to communicate to (X) the attendance records of his child (Y) for the years 2019 and 2020 in their possession, subject to a non-committal penalty payment of EUR 500 (five hundred euros) for each day of delay from the date of delivery of the decision to be adopted; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission and the Centre Polyvalent de l’Enfance Interinstitutionnel, jointly and severally to communicate to (X) the attendance records of his child (Y) for the years 2019 and 2020 in their possession, subject to a non-committal penalty payment of EUR 500 (five hundred euros) for each day of delay from the date of delivery of the decision to be adopted;

| — | order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 1 500 by way of irrecoverable costs which the applicant had to incur in order to enforce his rights, as well as the costs and expenses of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 1 500 by way of irrecoverable costs which the applicant had to incur in order to enforce his rights, as well as the costs and expenses of the present proceedings.

Plea in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant puts forward a single plea in law, alleging infringement by the defendant of Article 42 ‘Right of access to documents’ of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which provides that ‘Any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State, has a right of access to documents of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union, whatever their medium’.

---
#### William M. NOVELLA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-729.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 3, 1973.

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>       5
                
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             11-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         Jun-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            Aug-01-1997  
<PERIOD-END>                              Jun-30-1998
<CASH>                                     1,391,000                          
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      0
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           1,694,000
<PP&E>                                       338,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                56,000 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             2,240,000 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        660,000
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                      24,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 1,556,000   
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               2,240,000
<SALES>                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   0
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              4,223,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (33,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            58,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (4,248,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (4,248,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                              (4,248,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.20)
        

</TABLE>
#### Renfro, ad. vs. White.

It is within the power of the Probate Court, on the application of a surety in an administration bond, to require the administrator to- give a new bond, when it is made to appear that the sureties in his bond are insufficient.

*Appeal from, Hempstead Circuit Court.*

Hon. Lem B. Green, Circuit Judge.

Gallagher, for the appellant.

Hempstead, for the appellee.

Mr. Chief Justice English

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Renfro was the administrator *de bonis non*of Bolen C. Phillips, deceased, under bond in the penal sum of $200,000.

White, one of his sureties, made application to the Probate Court of Hempstead county, from which his letters had issued, for an order requiring him to execute a new bond, upon the ground that his original bond had not been taken according to law, the sureties being insufficient.

Upon the notice and affidavit required by sec. 36, *chap.*4, *Gould’s Dig.,*and upon proof that the aggregate value of the property of the sureties in the bond was not equal to the value of the personal estate of Phillips, in the hands of Renfro, the Probate Court ordered him to give a new bond. Pie appealed from the order to the Circuit Court, where, on inspection of the record, the judgment of the Probate Court was affirmed, and he appealed to this court.

Upon examination of the record, we find no satisfactory *196showing that the Probate Court exercised unwarranted authority, or abused the sound legal discretion vested in it by law; in making the order complained of. See *State, use, etc. vs, Stroop, ante.*

The judgment of the Circuit Court must be affirmed.
# C_2020339EN.01002502.xml

| 12.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 339/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 339/25

---

Action brought on 17 August 2020 — Mandelay v EUIPO — Qx World (QUEST 9)

(Case T-516/20)

(2020/C 339/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mandelay Magyarország Kereskedelmi Kft. (Mandelay Kft.) (Szigetszentmiklós, Hungary) (represented by: V. Luszcz, C. Sár and É. Ulviczki, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Qx World Kft. (Budapest, Hungary)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trademark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark QUEST 9 — Application for registration No 17 885 953

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 June 2020 in Case R 1900/2019-2

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 of the applicant incurred in the present proceedings and in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the applicant incurred in the present proceedings and in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

| — | should there be an intervention, to order the intervener to bear the costs of the applicant incurred in the present proceedings and in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

should there be an intervention, to order the intervener to bear the costs of the applicant incurred in the present proceedings and in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas 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;

| — | Infringement of Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 97 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 97 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of essential procedural requirements; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of essential procedural requirements;

| — | Infringement of the duty to provide adequate reasons. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the duty to provide adequate reasons.

---
# C_2021009EN.01002501.xml

| 11.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/25

---

Action brought on 16 October 2020 — Validity v Commission

(Case T-640/20)

(2021/C 9/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Validity Foundation — Mental Disability Advocacy Centre (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: B. Van Vooren, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision C(2020) 5540 final of 6 August 2020 addressed to the Co-executive Director of the Validity Foundation, pursuant to Regulation 1049/2001 (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C(2020) 5540 final of 6 August 2020 addressed to the Co-executive Director of the Validity Foundation, pursuant to Regulation 1049/2001 (1);

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the right to participation in public life, in conjunction with the right to independent living and integration of persons with disabilities (Article 26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Articles 29 and 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the right to participation in public life, in conjunction with the right to independent living and integration of persons with disabilities (Article 26 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Articles 29 and 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities).

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision constitutes an infringement of Article 4(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, as read in light of Article 15(3) TFEU and Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision constitutes an infringement of Article 4(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, as read in light of Article 15(3) TFEU and Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

---
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 396 Agreed to House (ATH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 396

Concerning the exercise of the powers and duties of the chairman of the 
                      Committee on Appropriations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 23, 1994

Mr. Hoyer submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Concerning the exercise of the powers and duties of the chairman of the 
                      Committee on Appropriations.

    Resolved, That the powers and duties conferred upon the chairman of 
the Committee on Appropriations by the rules of the House shall be 
exercised by Representative Obey of Wisconsin, as acting chairman, 
until otherwise ordered by the House.

                                 <all>
```
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

IRWIN HICKS, JR.,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D22-1783

LT Case No. 2010-CF-001532-A

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________/

Decision filed August 8, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Lake County,

G. Richard Singeltary, Judge.

Irwin Hicks, Jr., Arcadia, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Bonnie Jean 

Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, 

Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

JAY, HARRIS and SOUD, JJ., concur.