alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Cleveland Smith, Appellant, v New York City Transit Authority, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

[656 NYS2d 888]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Goldberg, J.), dated March 19, 1996, which denied his motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim on the defendant New York City Transit Authority.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s application pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim. The key factors to be considered in determining whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim are whether the claimant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for failing to serve a timely notice of claim, whether the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days following its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits *(Matter of O'Mara v Town of Cortlandt,*210 AD2d 337; *Matter of Sosa v City of New York,*206 AD2d 374; *Levettley v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth.,*207 AD2d 330). The plaintiff, who was allegedly injured when he fell because of a defective floor mat on a bus in August 1994, failed to establish a reasonable excuse for his delay in serving a notice of claim. He also failed to prove that the defendant New York City Transit Authority *507(hereinafter NYCTA) had actual knowledge of the claim within the appropriate time, since the incident report lacked sufficient detail and made no mention of any defective condition regarding the allegedly defective floor mat in the bus *(Matter of Serrano v New York City Hous. Auth.,*197 AD2d 694; *Evans v New York City Hous. Auth.,*176 AD2d 221; *Matter of McLoughlin v City of New York,*178 AD2d 193; *Matter of Mallory v City of New York,*135 AD2d 636, 637). Finally, we find that the defendant NYCTA would be substantially prejudiced at this late date if the plaintiffs application were to be granted *(Matter of Blackwell v City of New York, 156*AD2d 684). Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
# C_2020077EN.01005901.xml

| 9.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 77/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/59

---

Action brought on 23 January 2020 – Lotto24 v EUIPO (LOTTO24)

(Case T-38/20)

(2020/C 77/80)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Lotto24 AG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: O. Brexl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark LOTTO24 in orange (Pantone 130) and red (Pantone 1807) – Application for registration No 17 996 822

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 November 2019 in Case R 1216/2019-2

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. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
# C_2022318EN.01001601.xml

| 22.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 318/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Novartis AG, Novartis Farma SpA, Roche SpA v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

(Case C-261/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU - Obligation on Member States to provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by EU law - Article 267 TFEU - Obligation on the referring court to give full effect to the interpretation of EU law provided by the Court of Justice - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Access to an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law - Judgment of a national court of last instance after a preliminary ruling by the Court - Alleged non-conformity of that judgment with the interpretation of EU law provided by the Court - National legislation preventing the bringing of an action for revision of that judgment)

(2022/C 318/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Novartis AG, Novartis Farma SpA, Roche SpA

Defendant: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

Interveners: Società Oftalmologica Italiana (SOI) — Associazione Medici Oculisti Italiani (AMOI), Regione Emilia-Romagna, Regione Lombardia, Altroconsumo, Novartis Farma SpA, Roche SpA, Novartis AG, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Associazione Italiana delle Unità Dedicate Autonome Private di Day Surgery e dei Centri di Chirurgia Ambulatoriale (Aiudapds), Coordinamento delle associazioni per la tutela dell’ambiente e dei diritti degli utenti e consumatori (Codacons), Ministero della Salute — Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(3) and Article 19(1) TEU, and Article 267 TFEU, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding provisions of procedural law of a Member State which, while observing the principle of equivalence, have the effect that, where the supreme court of the administrative system of that Member State gives a decision settling a dispute in which it had made a request to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU, the parties to that dispute may not seek a revision of that decision of the national court based on the contention that the latter disregarded the interpretation of EU law provided by the Court of Justice in response to that request.

---

(1)  OJ C 263, 5.7.2021.

---
5-3.C

COMPANY:  Global Marine Inc. (the "Company")

ITEM:     Resolutions of the Board of Directors

SUBJECT:  Directors' Fees and Expense Reimbursement

DATE:     August 11, 1999


          RESOLVED that the resolutions of this Board of
Directors adopted on August 5, 1997, relating to directors' fees
and expense reimbursement be, and they hereby are, superseded in
their entirety, and that the following resolutions be, and they
hereby are, effective in their stead; and it was further

          RESOLVED that the fees payable to each director of the
Company who is not an officer or employee of the Company be, and
they hereby are, $8,000 per calendar quarter (payable with
respect to each calendar quarter on the date of the first regular
meeting of the Board of Directors during such calendar quarter),
plus $1,000 for participation in each regular meeting of the
Board of Directors, whether in person or by telephone, $1,000 for
attendance at each of the Company's annual management
conferences, $1,500 for attendance at each special meeting of the
Board of Directors, $1,000 for participation by telephone in each
special meeting of the Board of Directors, $1,000 for
participation in each meeting of any Committee of the Board of
Directors, whether in person or by telephone, and $1,000 per day
for services performed in the capacity of a director on special
assignment at the request of the Board of Directors or the
Company's management; and it was further

          RESOLVED that, in addition to the fees authorized by
the preceding resolution, each director of the Company who is a
chairman of a Committee of the Board of Directors and is not an
officer or employee of the Company be paid $1,000 per calendar
quarter (payable with respect to each calendar quarter on the
date of the first regular meeting of the Board of Directors
during such calendar quarter); and it was further

          RESOLVED that each director of the Company who is not
an officer or employee of the Company shall be reimbursed for all
expenses incurred by such director in attending each annual
management conference and each meeting of the Board of Directors
of the Company including regular meetings, special meetings and
meetings of any Committee of the Board of Directors, and in
performing services in the capacity of a director on special
assignment at the request of the Board of Directors or the
Company's management, the reimbursement for such expenses to be
paid upon receipt by the Company of an invoice or expense account
covering such expenses; and it was further

          RESOLVED that the directors' fees and expense
reimbursement authorized by the foregoing resolutions shall
become effective on August 12, 1999, with the exception of the
fee of $1,000 per day for services performed in the capacity of a
director on special assignment at the request of the Board of
Directors or the Company's management, which is effective as of
May 7, 1999.
# C_2021228EN.01002101.xml

| 14.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 19 March 2021 — EF v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

(Case C-172/21)

(2021/C 228/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant: EF

Defendant and respondent: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Questions referred

| 1. | Is a corporate fare which is more favourable than the standard fare (in casu, EUR 152.00 instead of EUR 169.00), and which is based on a framework agreement between an air carrier and another undertaking and which can be booked only for employees of the undertaking concerned for the purposes of business trips, a reduced fare not available directly or indirectly to the public within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is a corporate fare which is more favourable than the standard fare (in casu, EUR 152.00 instead of EUR 169.00), and which is based on a framework agreement between an air carrier and another undertaking and which can be booked only for employees of the undertaking concerned for the purposes of business trips, a reduced fare not available directly or indirectly to the public within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, is such a corporate fare not also part of a frequent flyer programme or other commercial programme of an air carrier or tour operator within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, is such a corporate fare not also part of a frequent flyer programme or other commercial programme of an air carrier or tour operator within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---
# Official Journal L 109/2010

| | ISSN 1725-2555
  doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2010.109.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 109 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5330 April 2010 |

ISSN 1725-2555

doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2010.109.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 109

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5330 April 2010

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | | Commission Regulation (EU) No 369/2010 of 29 April 2010 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables | 1 |
| | | Commission Regulation (EU) No 370/2010 of 29 April 2010 fixing the allocation coefficient to be applied to applications for export licences for certain milk products to be exported to the Dominican Republic under the quota referred to in Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009 | 3 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

Commission Regulation (EU) No 369/2010 of 29 April 2010 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

Commission Regulation (EU) No 370/2010 of 29 April 2010 fixing the allocation coefficient to be applied to applications for export licences for certain milk products to be exported to the Dominican Republic under the quota referred to in Regulation (EC) No 1187/2009

3

| 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.
|    |                                                                            |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this transition report on Form 10-K of Magnetek, Inc.; and |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this 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 period covered by this report. |

|                                       |
|---------------------------------------|
|                                       |  |
| /s/  PETER M. MCCORMICK          |   |
| Peter M. McCormick                    |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Carlos A. TAUCEDA v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 53857.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 14, 1973.

In re: Carlos A. Tauceda applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Writ denied. The ruling of the trial judge is correct, La.Code Crim.Proc. art. 880.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



The Board of Directors
Smithway Motor Xpress Corp.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statements  (No.'s
333-10249,  333-10251,  333-21253,  and 333-81855) on Form S-8 of Smithway Motor
Xpress Corp.  of our report  dated  February 7, 2002,  relating to  consolidated
balance sheets of Smithway Motor Xpress Corp.  and  subsidiaries  as of December
31,  2001  and  2000,  and the  related  consolidated  statements  of  earnings,
stockholders'  equity,  and cash  flows for each of the years in the  three-year
period ended  December 31, 2001,  which report  appears in the December 31, 2001
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Smithway Motor Xpress Corp.








/s/ KPMG LLP

Des Moines, Iowa
March 27, 2002
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7552

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TONY DEANGELO MCLAUGHLIN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. Wallace W. Dixon,

Magistrate Judge. (CR-02-251; CA-04-892-2)

Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: March 3, 2006

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tony Deangelo McLaughlin, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Hairston,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Tony Deangelo McLaughlin seeks to appeal the report and

recommendation of a magistrate judge, issued on September 13, 2005.

This Court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28

U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order

McLaughlin seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an

appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 131 (Monday, July 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31775-31776]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14574]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--UHD Alliance, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on June 7, 2018, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), UHD Alliance, Inc. (``UHD 
Alliance'') filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in 
its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of 
extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, Arcadyan Technology Corporation, Hsinchu City, TAIWAN, 
and Onkyo Corporation, Osaka, JAPAN, have been added as parties to this 
venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned

[[Page 31776]]

activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and UHD Alliance intends to file 
additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On June 17, 2015, UHD Alliance filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on July 17, 2015 (80 FR 42537).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on March 8, 
2018. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on April 9, 2018 (83 FR 15175).

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics Unit, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2018-14574 Filed 7-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              AUG-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                                 SEP-01-1994
<PERIOD-END>                                   AUG-31-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1
<CASH>                                              19,615
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      392,542
<ALLOWANCES>                                        50,000
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   545,515
<PP&E>                                           3,237,750
<DEPRECIATION>                                     114,443
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,821,604
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              631,217
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            16,599
<OTHER-SE>                                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,269,233
<SALES>                                          1,500,375
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,503,548
<CGS>                                            1,404,042
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,404,042
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,317,325
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    40,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  28,350
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,164,951)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         6,414
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,171,365)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,171,365)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
      32.1





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Whitemark Homes, Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
      undersigned hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his
      knowledge:




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 operation of the Company.




Date:  May
      20,
      2008





/s/
                Douglas KanterDouglas
                KanterChief
                Executive Officer andActing
                Principal Financial Officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Whitemark Homes, Inc. and will be retained
      by Whitemark Homes, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or its staff upon request.


fc
@t~(~ ~l(e-

, 6D8 ~J f(qdttgf fd26 

"A-UuJ ........... 'York / Ai? ...... lo03~ .. ..... ...... ... .
No. 72-6274.

#### Phillips *v.*Hooker, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas would grant certiorari.