alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 64

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to the

important contributions of the men and women in the number one

industry of New York State, the agriculture industry.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 3, 1993

Mr. SOLOMON submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Agriculture

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with

respect to the important contributions of the men and

women in the number one industry of New York State,

the agriculture industry.

Whereas October 17, 1993 is the 12th Annual Celebration of

New York Agriculture known as the New York State

Farm Harvest Celebration;

Whereas agriculture is New York State’s largest industry

with an annual farm value of almost $3,000,000,000;

Whereas New York’s thirty-eight thousand five hundred

farms provide employment for some one hundred and

thirteen thousand individuals and total in-State food employment reaches four hundred and twenty-five thousand;
2

HRES 64 IH

Whereas a viable and strong agricultural industry is not only

beneficial to New York’s farm and food industry, but to

the economy of New York State, hundreds of local communities and to all consumers in and out of New York

State;

Whereas New York State is a tremendous agricultural resource base with abundant rainfall, productive soils, sufficient growing season and proximity to the Nation’s largest markets;

Whereas New York State is a leader in the production of a

variety of products such as dairy, cheese, apples, grapes,

onions, potatoes, cabbage, sweet corn, nursery plants,

tart cherries, beets, and maple syrup for the United

States; and

Whereas New York farms are an important provider to the

Nation of a variety of agricultural goods such as cattle,

eggs, green beans, lettuce, cauliflower, celery, poultry,

grain, hay, and others: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives, that we honor the important contributions of

3 New York’s farmers and other men and women in the New

4 York State agriculture industry.

Æ
No. 10398.

#### Stafford *v.*The Cleveland Electric Railway Co.

Decided October 13, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Lake county.

*Messrs. Alvord & Reynolds*and *Mr. J. F. Herrick,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Squire, Sanders &*
      *432
      *Dempsey,*and *Mr. H. E. Elammer,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, C. J., Crew, Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT ToSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 200218 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Goldfield Corporation (the"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Stephen R. Wherry, Vice President, Treasurer, AssistantSecretary and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that:

(1)   The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to The Goldfield Corporation and will beretained by The Goldfield Corporation and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Date: November 11, 2004

/s/ Stephen R. WherryStephen R. Wherry Vice President, Treasurer,   AssistantSecretary and   Chief Financial Officer
# C_2021028EN.01006101.xml

| 25.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 28/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/61

---

Action brought on 20 November 2020 — Fashion Energy v EUIPO — Retail Royalty (1st AMERICAN)

(Case T-699/20)

(2021/C 28/90)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fashion Energy Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: T. Müller and F. Togo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Retail Royalty Co. (Las Vegas, Nevada, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark 1st AMERICAN — Application for registration No 8 622 078

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 September 2020 in Case R 426/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | dismiss the opposition and allow the European Union trade mark application No 8 622 078 to proceed to registration; |
| --- | --- |

—

dismiss the opposition and allow the European Union trade mark application No 8 622 078 to proceed to registration;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to pay the entire costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to pay the entire costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of the duty to state reasons; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the duty to state reasons;

| — | 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.

---
#### TOPP IMPORT & EXPORT, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. The HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee.

No. 72-1317.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 17, 1973.

Rehearing Denied May 9, 1973.

*222Smathers & Thompson, and Roland R. Parent, Miami, for appellant.

Ralph & Boyd, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J„ and HEN-DRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-appellant seeks review of a summary judgment in favor of The Home Insurance Company, one of two defendants below.

Defendant Piggy-Back Shippers Association of Florida, Inc., a non-profit corporation, is composed of several hundred members, one of which is the plaintiff, Topp Import & Export, Inc. The association acts as a freight consolidation consultant for its members resulting in the obtainment of advantageous freight rates. It never issued its own bill of lading, owned no equipment, neither bought nor sold merchandise, nor did it ship merchandise on its own behalf other than merchandise belonging to its members. Piggy-Back, designated as the insured, obtained from the defendant The Home Insurance Company an insurance policy in the form of a specially designed all risk coverage on freight. The policy covered the merchandise being the property of the insured, but did not insure against loss or damage to export or import items. The plaintiff, Topp Import & Export, was furnished a copy of this policy. Thereafter, Topp requested Piggy-Back to arrange for transportation of goods from Seattle, Washington to East Rutherford, New Jersey. The goods, composed of radios and tape recorders imported from Japan, were placed into two trailers which in turn were put on a railroad car. While being transported by rail, one of the trailers struck a low overpass and plaintiff’s goods were damaged. The second trailer was hijacked en route to plaintiff’s warehouse in New Jersey. Plaintiff filed suit against the defendants, The Home Insurance Company and Piggy-Baclc Shippers Association. The lower court granted summary judgment in favor of The Home Insurance Company. Plaintiff appeals this judgment. The issues as to defendant Piggy-Back Shippers Association of Florida are not a subject of this appeal.

We are in accord with the finding of the lower court that paragraph 6(d) 1 of the insurance policy clearly excludes loss or damage to export or import shipments as in the case sub judice. See Florida Greenheart Corporation v. Gautier, Fla.1965, 172 So.2d 589.

Accordingly, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

. “6. This policy does not insure against loss or damage:

> 

> “(d). To *export or import shipments; . . .*” [Emplipsis supplied]

>
H. Res. 232

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

August 2, 1993.

Resolved, That the House has heard with profound sorrow of the death of the Honorable Paul B. Henry, a Representative from the State of Michigan.

Resolved, That a committee of such Members of the

House as the Speaker may designate, together with such

Members of the Senate as may be joined, be appointed to attend the funeral.

Resolved, That the Sergeant at Arms of the House be

authorized and directed to take such steps as may be necessary for carrying out the provisions of these resolutions and

that the necessary expenses in connection therewith be paid

out of the contingent fund of the House.

Resolved, That the Clerk communicate these resolutions

to the Senate and transmit a copy thereof to the family of

the deceased.
2

HRES 232 EH

Resolved, That when the House adjourns today, it adjourn as a further mark of respect to the memory of the

deceased.

Attest:

Clerk.
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 21.1

                      Subsidiaries of Borders Group, Inc.



SUBSIDIARY                              STATE OF INCORPORATION
----------                              ----------------------

Borders, Inc.                           Colorado
Borders Fulfillment, Inc.               Delaware
Borders Online, Inc.                    Delaware
Borders Outlet, Inc.                    Colorado
Borders Properties, Inc.                Delaware
Planet Music, Inc.                      North Carolina
Niche Marketing Limited, Inc.           Ohio
Niche Marketing LLC
 d/b/a All Wound Up!                    Ohio
The Library, Ltd.                       Missouri
Walden Book Company, Inc.               Colorado
Waldenbooks Properties, Inc.            Delaware
Books (UK) Limited
 formerly Books etc. Limited            U.K.
Borders New Zealand Limited             New Zealand
Borders PTE. Limited                    Singapore
Borders Australia PTY, Limited          Australia
BGI U.K. Limited                        U.K.
BGP U.K. Limited                        U.K.
Paperchase Products Limited             U.K.



* BGI owns 19.9% with an option to acquire the remaining shares.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2009-1287 

(Reexamination No. 90/006,932) 

IN RE ARVINMERITOR, INC. 

Theodore W. Olds III, Carlson, Gaskey & Olds, P.C., of Birmingham, Michigan, 

argued for appellant. With him on the brief was David J. Gaskey. 

Nathan K. Kelley, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent 

and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia, argued for the Director of the United 

States Patent and Trademark Office. With him on the brief were Raymond T. Chen, 

Solicitor, and William LaMarca, Associate Solicitor. Of counsel was Thomas W. Krause, 

Associate Solicitor. 

Appealed from: United States Patent and Trademark Office 

 Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

 
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

 

 2009-1287 

(Reexamination No. 90/006,932) 

IN RE ARVINMERITOR, INC. 

 Judgment

ON APPEAL from the United States Patent and Trademark Office 

 Board of Patent Appeals & Interferences 

in CASE NO(S). 90/006,932. 

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 

Per Curiam (MAYER, PLAGER, and DYK, Circuit Judges ) 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

DATED December 11, 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

Jan Horbaly, Clerk
263 La. 111

#### TEXAS EASTERN TRANSMISSION CORPORATION et al. v. David Roy ARCENEAUX et al.

No. 52886.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 19, 1972.

In re: “Column 2” Defendants (heirs of Gadrac Arceneaux Lyons) applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Acadia. 265 So.2d 796.

Writ refused. The result is correct.
#### FLORIDA CITY, a municipal corporation, et al., Appellants, v. Pedro TAYLOR and William Adams, Individually and as City Manager of Florida City, Appellees.

No. 73-1208.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 16, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Truman MERRITT v. STATE.

No. 38820.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1969.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 29, 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 223 So.2d 574.
#### James Harold RICHARD v. HEBERT’S CREAMERY, INC., et al.

No. 6500.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

May 24, 1978.

*1089Morrow & Morrow, Patrick C. Morrow, Opelousas, for plaintiff-appellant.

Onebane, Donohoe, Bernard, Torian, Diaz, McNamara & Abell, Edward C. Abell, Jr., Lafayette, for defendant-appellee.

Before CULPEPPER, DOMENGEAUX and WATSON, JJ.

WATSON, Judge.

This is a suit in tort by plaintiff, James Harold Richard, against defendant, Hebert’s Creamery, Inc., and certain executive officers of the corporation. Defendants filed exceptions of no right and no cause of action, contending that plaintiff was acting in the course and scope of his employment at the time the alleged injuries were received, and Act 147 of 1976 gives them immunity from personal liability.

The accident is alleged to have occurred on September 9, 1976 and the effective date of the act was October 1, 1976.

The trial court held that the act should be given retroactive application and sustained the exception, dismissing plaintiff’s suit.

On appeal, the only issue is whether Act 147 of 1976, which amended LSA R.S. 23:1032 to legislatively prohibit the so-called “executive officer suits”, is to be given retroactive application.

The act in question is substantive in nature and is not interpretative, remedial, or procedural. Accordingly, it is prospective in application and not retroactive. *Green*v. *Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.,*352 So.2d 366 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1977); *Billedeaux v. Adams,*355 So.2d 1345 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1978).

The judgment of the trial court is reversed; the exceptions of no right and no cause of action are overruled, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

All costs on appeal are taxed against defendants-appellees.

REVERSED AND REMANDED
# C_2023024EN.01000602.xml

| 23.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 November 2022 — Vincent Thunus and Others v European Investment Bank (EIB)

(Case C-91/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Staff of the European Investment Bank (EIB) - Remuneration - Annual salary adjustment - Action for annulment and for damages)

(2023/C 24/07)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Vincent Thunus, Jaime Barragán, Marc D’hooge, Alexandra Felten, Christophe Nègre, Patrick Vanhoudt (represented by: L. Levi, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (represented by: A. V. García Sanchez, T. Gilliams, J. Klein and E. Manoukian, acting as Agents, and by P.–E. Partsch, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Vincent Thunus, Mr Jaime Barragán, Mr Marc D’hooge, Ms Alexandra Felten, Mr Christophe Nègre and Mr Patrick Vanhoudt to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Vincent Thunus, Mr Jaime Barragán, Mr Marc D’hooge, Ms Alexandra Felten, Mr Christophe Nègre and Mr Patrick Vanhoudt to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.

---
Exhibit 23.2



CONSENT OF NAVIGANT CONSULTING



We hereby consent to the references to our firm with respect to Georgia-Pacific Corporations probable insurance recoveries for asbestos liabilities
contained in the Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended April 2, 2005 of Georgia-Pacific Corporation and any amendments thereto. In giving the foregoing consent, we do not admit that we come within the category of persons whose consent is required
under Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the Securities Act), or the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, nor do we admit that we are experts with respect to any part of such Form 10-Q within the meaning of the
term experts as used in the Securities Act or the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.



Navigant ConsultingBy:

/s/ WILLIAM T. JONESName:

William T. JonesTitle:

Managing Director




Lawrenceville, New Jersey

April 28, 2005
No. 10704.

#### Payne *v.*Durkle.

Decided October 20, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Preble county.

*Messrs. Craig & Craig; Mr. James L. Sayler*and *Mr. Edgar A. Belden,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. W. B. Marsh*and *Messrs. Risinger & Rising er}*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, Crew and Spear, JJ., concur.
#### Robert L. PRINCE, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE, DIVISION OF SECURITIES, et al., Respondents.

No. EE-109.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 16, 1978.

Rehearing Denied July 28, 1978.

*1101Ben R. Patterson and Jerry G. Traynham of Patterson & Traynham, Tallahassee, for petitioner.

Ryland Terry Rigsby, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Tallahassee, for respondent Dept, of Banking and Finance, and L. Keith Pafford, Tallahassee, for respondent Career Service Commission.

SMITH, Judge.

A petition for review of an order of the Career Service Commission sustaining the Department of Banking and Finance in its discharge of petitioner from its employ. The notice of dismissal was not deficiently general; but any vagueness was remedied or remediable through pre-hearing APA procedures. Sections 120.57(1)(b)2d, 120.58(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1977). Substantial competent evidence supports the Commission’s findings on several of the grounds for dismissal, including at least one ground of conduct unbecoming a public employee. No substantial departure from the procedural requirements of Chapter 120 has been demonstrated. The proceeding satisfied due process standards. No other error appears,

AFFIRMED. Petitioner’s motion for an award of attorney’s fees is DENIED,

McCORD, C. J., and BOYER, J., concur.
#### WELCOME GRAY, Administrator of HENRY READ, deceased, *vs.*AUGUSTUS SCOUT.

Amicable action, entered and referred to three referees.

The report stated, in the usual form, that “ the subscribers, referees named in the annexed rule of court, having met the parties at, &c., heard the allegations, proofs, &c., do award, &cand it was signed by but *two*of them.

Judgment was opposed because it did not appear from the report that *all*the referees acted; and

*Gray*and *Gilpin,*for plaintiff.

*Hamilton*and *Wales,*for defendant.

*The Court*

set aside the award on this ground, at the term to which it was returned. By consent, the case was again referred.
# C_2022207EN.01000801.xml

| 23.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 207/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/8

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio de Stato — Italy) — Comune di Venezia v Telecom Italia SpA, Infrastrutture Wireless Italiane SpA — Inwit SpA

(Case C-467/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Approximation of laws - Electronic communications networks and services - Restrictions on the installation of mobile phone base transceiver stations established by local authorities - Insufficient details concerning the reasons why an answer to the question referred is necessary for the outcome of the dispute in the main proceedings - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2022/C 207/10)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio de Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Comune di Venezia

Defendant: Telecom Italia SpA, Infrastrutture Wireless Italiane SpA — Inwit SpA

Intervener: Regione Veneto

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy), by decision of 22 July 2021, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.

---
# C_2020371EN.01002202.xml

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/22

---

Action brought on 7 September 2020 — Yadex International v EUIPO — Sütas süt ürünleri (PINAR Tam kivaminda Süzme Peynir Yumusacik ve Leziz)

(Case T-560/20)

(2020/C 371/25)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Yadex International GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: N. Johnson, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sütas süt ürünleri AS (Bursa, Turkey)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark PINAR Tam kivaminda Süzme Peynir Yumusacik ve Leziz — International registration No 1 396 036

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 July 2020 in Case R 2126/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and allow the applicant’s appeal of 23 September 2019 against the decision of the Opposition Division of 23 July 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and allow the applicant’s appeal of 23 September 2019 against the decision of the Opposition Division of 23 July 2019;

| — | order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law

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

—

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

---
H. Res. 68

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

February 4, 1993.

Resolved, That Representative Steven Schiff, New Mexico, be and he is hereby, elected to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

Attest:

Clerk.