alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020247EN.01003902.xml

| 27.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/39

---

Action brought on 27 May 2020 — Stadtwerke Frankfurt am Main v Commission

(Case T-322/20)

(2020/C 247/54)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Stadtwerke Frankfurt am Main Holding GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: C. Schalast, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant's decision of 26 February 2019 (Case M.8871); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant's decision of 26 February 2019 (Case M.8871);

| — | join the proceedings within the meaning of Article 68(5) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court with actions concerning the same order M.8871, which, because of the substantive link, are cumulative and form a single decision terminating the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

join the proceedings within the meaning of Article 68(5) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court with actions concerning the same order M.8871, which, because of the substantive link, are cumulative and form a single decision terminating the proceedings;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on two pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-320/20, Mainova v Commission.

---
# C_2021368EN.01001001.xml

| 13.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 368/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 368/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 28 June 2021 — IRnova AB v FLIR Systems AB

(Case C-399/21)

(2021/C 368/08)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Svea hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: IRnova AB

Defendant: FLIR Systems AB

Question referred

Is an action seeking a declaration of better entitlement to an invention, based on a claim of inventorship or co-inventorship according to national patent applications and patents registered in a non-Member State, covered by exclusive jurisdiction for the purposes of Article 24(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters?

---

(1)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.

---
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 486

Returning to the Senate S. 729, to amend the Toxic Substances Control

Act to reduce the levels of lead in the environment.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 21, 1994

Mr. GIBBONS submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

Returning to the Senate S. 729, to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce the levels of lead in the

environment.

1 Resolved, That the bill of the Senate (S. 729) to

2 amend the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce the lev3 els of lead in the environment, and for other purposes,

4 in the opinion of this House, contravenes the first clause

5 of the seventh section of the first article of the Constitu6 tion of the United States and is an infringement of the

7 privileges of this House and that such bill be respectfully

8 returned to the Senate with a message communicating this

9 resolution.

Æ
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-21-0000676

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

In the Matter of the DECLARATION OF REVOCABLE TRUST OF 

PEARL W. MA, dated June 23, 1988, a.k.a. 

PEARL W. MA REVOCABLE TRUST, dated June 23, 1988, a.k.a. 

PEARL WONG MA TRUST, dated June 23, 1988.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

(T. NO. 1CTR-21-0000082 (Trust))

ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF APPEAL

(By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Nakasone and McCullen, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the Stipulation for Dismissal of

Appeal With Prejudice, filed December 28, 2021, by Successor

Trustee-Appellee Kent Ma, the papers in support, and the record,

it appears that (1) the appeal has not been docketed; (2) the

parties stipulate to dismiss the appeal with prejudice and bear

their own attorneys' fees and costs, under Hawai#i Rules of

Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 42(b); (3) the stipulation is

dated and signed by all self-represented parties and counsel for

all other parties appearing in the appeal; and (4) because the

appeal has not been docketed, dismissal is authorized by 

HRAP Rule 42(a).

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-21-0000676

04-JAN-2022

07:52 AM

Dkt. 7 OAWST
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the stipulation is

approved and the appeal is dismissed with prejudice. The parties

shall bear their own attorneys' fees and costs on appeal.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 4, 2022.

/s/ Katherine G. Leonard

Associate Judge

/s/ Karen T. Nakasone

Associate Judge

/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen

Associate Judge

2
#### PRATT AND WHITNEY AIRCRAFT and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. Lawrence Henry HUBER et al., Respondents.

No. 40747.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 12, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
# C_2022064EN.01000901.xml

| 7.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/9

---

Appeal brought on 24 August 2021 by Innovative Cosmetic Concepts LLC against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 16 June 2021 in Case T-196/20, Chanel v EUIPO — Innovative Cosmetic Concepts (INCOCO)

(Case C-523/21 P)

(2022/C 64/14)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Innovative Cosmetic Concepts LLC (represented by: J. Oria Sousa-Montes, P. Revuelta Martos and I. Temiño Ceniceros, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Chanel

By order of 16 December 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) ruled that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed.

---
No. 00-999.

#### Ward *v.*Orange County, Florida.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

July Term 2014

JEANNE E. CHARLES,

Appellant,

v.

H & R BLOCK BANK,

Appellee.

No. 4D13-2895

[ September 10, 2014 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. 

Lucie County; Sherwood Bauer, Jr., Judge; L.T. Case No. 

562010CA003619.

Ramon Rubio of the Law Office of Ramon Rubio, P.L., Fort Lauderdale, 

for appellant.

Wm. David Newman, Jr. of Choice Legal Group, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, 

for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this mortgage foreclosure case, we accept appellee’s concession that 

the trial court erred in granting appellee final summary judgment because 

appellee did not properly serve pleadings, including an amended 

complaint, motion for summary judgment and hearing notice, on appellant 

at the designated e-mail address. Accordingly, we reverse this case and 

remand it to the trial court for further proceedings.

Reversed and Remanded.

GROSS, TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
I would like a Drone (UAV) Pilot certificate.
#### ARTIST MARKET, INC., et al., Appellants, v. GALLOWAY STORES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 67-57.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Oct. 11, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2020304EN.01001901.xml

| 14.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/19

---

Action brought on 22 July 2020 — Industria de Diseño Textil v EUIPO — Ffauf Italia (ZARA)

(Case T-467/20)

(2020/C 304/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Industria de Diseño Textil; SA (Arteixo, Spain) (represented by: G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero Lavie, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ffauf Italia SpA (Riese Pio X, Italy)

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 word mark ZARA — Application for registration No 89 29952

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 May 2020 in Case R 2040/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | partially annul the contested decision in so far as it upheld the opposition for goods and services in classes 29, 30, 35 and 43 and reject the existence of likelihood of confusion within the meaning of article 8(1)(b) of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council for all the contested goods and services; |
| --- | --- |

—

partially annul the contested decision in so far as it upheld the opposition for goods and services in classes 29, 30, 35 and 43 and reject the existence of likelihood of confusion within the meaning of article 8(1)(b) of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council for all the contested goods and services;

| — | order EUIPO and if the case might be, the other party in proceedings before the EUIPO, to pay the costs of the current appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and if the case might be, the other party in proceedings before the EUIPO, to pay the costs of the current appeal.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 47(2) and (3) of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Rule 22(3) and (4) of the Commission Implementing Regulation (EC) 2868/95; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 47(2) and (3) of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Rule 22(3) and (4) of the Commission Implementing Regulation (EC) 2868/95;

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

—

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

---
257 La. 446

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Ronald G. WIKBERG v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 51078.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 13, 1971.

In re: Ronald G. Wikberg applying for writs of habeas corpus, mandamus and certiorari.

Application for evidentiary hearing by trial court is granted. See Order.

On considering the petition of relator in the above numbered and entitled cause:

It is ordered that the Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Laf'ayette, without delay, grant a full evidentiary hearing on relator’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in that Court and in this Court, and make a determination of the merits of his application after the hearing.
IV

House Calendar No. 176

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 461

[Report No. 103–556]

Waiving certain points of order against the bill (H.R. 4603) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the

Judiciary, and related agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and making supplemental appropriations for these

departments and agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994,

and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 22, 1994

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

RESOLUTION

1 Resolved, That points of order against consideration

2 of the bill (H.R. 4603) making appropriations for the De3 partments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary,

4 and related agencies programs for the fiscal year ending

5 September 30, 1995, and making supplemental appropria6 tions for these departments and agencies for the fiscal

7 year ending September 30, 1994, and for other purposes,

8 for failure to comply with clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI or
2

HRES 461 RH

1 clause 7 of rule XXI are waived. During consideration of

2 the bill, all points of order against provisions in the bill

3 for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived

4 except as follows: beginning with ‘‘notwithstanding’’ on

5 page 3, line 18, through ‘‘Act,’’ on line 19; beginning with

6 ‘‘That’’ on page 36, line 16, through ‘‘Provided further,’’

7 on page 37, line 6; and beginning with ‘‘: Provided’’ on

8 page 48, line 25, through ‘‘Treasury’’ on page 49, line

9 4. Where points of order are waived against only part of

10 a paragraph, any point of order against matter in the bal11 ance of the paragraph may be applied only within the bal12 ance of the paragraph and not against the entire para13 graph. The amendment printed in the report of the Com14 mittee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall have

15 precedence over a motion that the Committee of the Whole

16 rise and report the bill to the House with such amend17 ments as may have been adopted, if the amendment is of18 fered by a Member designated in the report.

House Calendar No. 176

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 461

[Report No. 103–556]

RESOLUTION

Waiving certain points of order against the bill

September 30, 1994, and for other purposes.ments and agencies for the fiscal year endinging supplemental appropriations for these departfiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and makJudiciary, and related agencies programs for thepartments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the(H.R. 4603) making appropriations for the DeJUNE 22, 1994

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
#### LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS v. B. D. MOORING.

No. 53909.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 21, 1973.

In re: B. D. Mooring applying for writs of certiorari (review), prohibition and mandamus.

Application not considered. There is no final judgment or sentence, and we will not review a case so postured.
#### Louis FELDMAN, Appellant, v. ROYAL CASTLE SYSTEMS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 71-456.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 9, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Sinclair JOHNSON, alias “Cuz”, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. P-209.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 23, 1972.

Rehearing Denied April 24, 1972.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and Michael J. Minerva, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and A. S. Johnston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Judge.

The appellant was charged by one count of an amended information with the possession of the narcotic drug heroin and by a second count with the sale of heroin, and has appealed from his judgment of conviction and sentence.

The principal question presented for our determination in this appeal is whether, when a defendant is convicted of possession and sale of a narcotic drug and the evidence of possession and sale involves the same transaction, the trial court is precluded from imposing separate consecutive sentences for the sale and the possession.

After the appellant was convicted of possession of heroin on September 20, 1970, under the first count of the said information and the sale of heroin on the same date under the second count, the trial court sentenced the appellant to four years imprisonment under each count, the sentences to run consecutively.

Our examination of the transcript of the trial testimony shows that the convictions under both counts were based upon the same transaction or occurrence.

In our opinion, this appeal is controlled by the recent decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District of Florida, in Yost v. State, 243 So.2d 469 (Fla.App.1971), involving a substantially identical legal situation. In that case the defendant was charged in the first count with unlawful sale of marijuana on August 9, 1969; in the second count with unlawful sale of marijuana on August 12, 1969; in the third count with unlawful possession of marijuana on August 9, 1969 ; and in the fourth count with unlawful possession of marijuana on August 12, 1969. The evidence showed that the defendant made two sales of marijuana on August 9 and 12, 1969. Like in the present case, the marijuana allegedly possessed on the specified date was the same as sold on that date. Our sister court affirmed the convictions but remanded the cause for re-sentencing, saying:

> “In Florida, where an information contains more than one count, but each is a facet or phase of the same transaction, only one sentence may be imposed; and the sentence which should be imposed is for the highest offense charged.”

We think that the trial court’s error in imposing the subject sentences was com*213pounded by providing that the said sentences should run consecutively, instead of concurrently.

Upon the authority of the Yost case, *supra,*we reverse the sentence on the first (possession) count and affirm the sentence on the second (sale) count, without the necessity of bringing the appellant before the trial court for re-sentencing.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part, with directions.

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON, J., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                AUG-9-1997
<CASH>                                        31471000
<SECURITIES>                                 142262000
<RECEIVABLES>                                 66109000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  247532000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             514178000
<PP&E>                                      1528045000
<DEPRECIATION>                               690428000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              1483950000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        338803000
<BONDS>                                      185141000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                      62672000
<OTHER-SE>                                   814231000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                1483950000
<SALES>                                     1863718000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            1863718000
<CGS>                                       1342967000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               1826529000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             8844000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               37189000
<INCOME-TAX>                                  14636000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           22553000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  22553000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .37
        


</TABLE>
# C_2020329EN.01001602.xml

| 5.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/16

---

Action brought on 16 July 2020 — ZU v Commission

(Case T-462/20)

(2020/C 329/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZU (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decisions of the Appointing Authority of 5 September 2019, denying information relevant for his defence, and of 6 April 2020, rejecting his complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decisions of the Appointing Authority of 5 September 2019, denying information relevant for his defence, and of 6 April 2020, rejecting his complaint;

| — | order the defendant to pay an amount of EUR 50 000, in compensation for the non-material damage suffered, together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been made; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay an amount of EUR 50 000, in compensation for the non-material damage suffered, together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been made; and

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

—

order the defendant 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 violation of the applicant’s right of defence and his right to effective remedy. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging violation of the applicant’s right of defence and his right to effective remedy.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Appointing Authority made a manifest error in assessing the subject matter of the complaint, omitting a key plea and showing a disregard for the likelihood of/change in the applicant’s legal situation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Appointing Authority made a manifest error in assessing the subject matter of the complaint, omitting a key plea and showing a disregard for the likelihood of/change in the applicant’s legal situation.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                               OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                 SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                              615
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                       2,297
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  4,176
<PP&E>                                           61,933
<DEPRECIATION>                                   20,381
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   48,062
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            10,853
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                             41
<OTHER-SE>                                       37,772
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     48,062
<SALES>                                          71,373
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 71,373
<CGS>                                            19,318
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    65,829
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     66
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  529
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   4,949
<INCOME-TAX>                                      1,945
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               3,004
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                      3,004
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      0.72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.72
        

</TABLE>