alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022198EN.01001101.xml

| 16.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2022 — European Commission v Ireland

(Case C-125/21) (1)

(Action for failure to fulfil obligations - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Mutual recognition of judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union - Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA - Failure to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the framework decision - Failure to notify to the European Commission)

(2022/C 198/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Tomkin and S. Grünheid, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Ireland (represented by: M. Browne, M. Lane and J. Quaney, acting as Agents, and by M. Gray, Senior Counsel)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union and by failing to notify the text of such provisions to the European Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 29(1) and (2) of that framework decision; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union and by failing to notify the text of such provisions to the European Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 29(1) and (2) of that framework decision;

| 2. | Orders Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 26.4.2021.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 144 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 144

      Calling for freedom and democracy for the people of Kashmir.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 30, 1993

  Mr. Burton of Indiana submitted the following resolution; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
      Calling for freedom and democracy for the people of Kashmir.

Whereas the historically independent people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir 
        (commonly referred to as ``Kashmir'') have been denied the plebiscite 
        that was promised them by resolutions adopted in 1948 and 1949 by the 
        United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan;
Whereas those resolutions were agreed to by the Government of India and the 
        Government of Pakistan, with the firm support of the United States;
Whereas the United States, as the world's most powerful democracy, has supported 
        the principle that the status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir should 
        be decided by the democratic method of a plebiscite under impartial 
        control and supervision;
Whereas despite those resolutions, the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir 
        have suffered through 2 wars and continuous unrest for more than 40 
        years while being denied the right to self-determination by the 
        Government of India;
Whereas the inevitable frustrations of a people being governed without their 
        consent have resulted in an upsurge of conflict and violence in the 
        State of Jammu and Kashmir;
Whereas the Government of India has responded to this situation by isolating the 
        State of Jammu and Kashmir from the outside world; and
Whereas there have been an increasing number of reports of unwarranted use of 
        deadly force, as well as torture, rape, beatings, restriction of medical 
        services, and other violations of basic human rights: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This resolution may be cited as the ``Freedom for Kashmir 
Resolution''.

SEC. 2. POLICY DECLARATIONS.

    The House of Representatives--
            (1) reaffirms that the question of the future status of the 
        State of Jammu and Kashmir should be decided through the 
        democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite; and
            (2) calls on the President, the United Nations, and the 
        international community to use all measures at their disposal 
        to establish the conditions necessary for a free and impartial 
        plebiscite in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

                                 <all>
```
#### Henry Lee RUDOLPH, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Adult Corrections, State of Florida, Respondent.

No. 70-258.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 7, 1970.

Henry Lee Rudolph, in pro. per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Morton J. Hanlon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for respondent.

MANN, Judge.

The record at the time of Rudolph’s guilty plea was inadequate to show volun-tariness, so we reversed summary denial of his post-conviction petition. Rudolph v. State, Fla.App.1970, 230 So.2d 14. The record of the evidentiary hearing held thereafter does not refute Rudolph’s claim that he was not given notice of the denial of his petition in time to appeal. Respondent concedes in his response to this petition for habeas corpus that he cannot refute this allegation and questions whether further hearing would be useful. We agree. See Cappetta v. Wainwright, Fla.1967, 203 So.2d 609.

Accordingly, we issue the writ to afford appellate review in the manner provided in Baggett v. Wainwright, Fla.1969, 229 So.2d 239.

HOBSON, C. J., and LILES, J., concur.
_______________________________________ __ ___________________ ______________ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 4, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. 125250(59) Stephen J. Markman, Justices

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, SC: 125250 v COA: 242050 Oakland CC: 01-177534-FC NICHOLAS JAMES JACKSON, Defendant-Appellee/ant.

On order of the Chi ef Justice, the motion by defendant-appellant for extension of the time for filing his reply brief is considered, and it is GRANTED.

c100405 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 4, 2005

Clerk
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION

 

I, Marc T. Giles, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Gerber Scientific, Inc.;

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;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

    a)   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

    b)   Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

    c)   Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function(s)):

    a)   All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

    b)   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  December 10, 2004
No. 10987.

#### The Pennsylvania Company *v.*Raub, by etc.

Decided December 22, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Mahoning county.

*Messrs. Arrel, Wilson &*Harrington, for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Anderson, McNab & Anderson*and *Messrs. W. S. Anderson & Son,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, C. J., Si-iauck and Summers, JJ., concur.
#### Ralph A. BUCHMAN, Petitioner, v. Robert F. STONEROCK and Angus S. Barlow, as members of the State Board of Accountancy, State of Florida, Respondents.

No. Q-46.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 11, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 30, 1971.

Hugh M. Davenport, of Greene, Greene, Smith & Davenport, and Harold B. Haimo-witz, Jacksonville, for petitioner.

E. Earle Zehmer, of Bedell, Bedell, Ditt-mar, Smith & Zehmer, Jacksonville, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Petition for writ of prohibition denied on authority of Raybon v. Burnette, 135 So.2d 228 (Fla.App.1961) headnote 3; Suarez v. State, 95 Fla. 42, 115 So. 519 (1928).

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur.
#### Orville BAKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-827.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 29, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.13



                    MODIFICATION TO FUSA EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

                    SUMMARY OF SALARY AND REIMBURSEMENT TERMS


This summary is designed to outline salary, bonus and reimbursement of expenses
which will govern the relationship between Ben J. Lipps ("Employee") and
Fresenius Medical Care AG ("Employer"), including modifications and reformations
to be made to that certain Employment Agreement by and between Employee and
Fresenius USA, Inc., dated January 1, 1992 (the "Existing Agreement").


SALARY TERM

o    Effective Date as of January 1, 1997

BASE SALARY

o    $600,000 per annum
o    Reviewed every 18 months

BONUS

o    Employee shall be awarded an incentive-based bonus consistent with the
     terms of the FMCNA Management Bonus Plan

REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES

o    Reimbursement of reasonable travel; entertainment and other business
     expenses
o    For 1997 and 1998 ONLY: Employer shall reimburse Employee for reasonable
     expenses incurred in connection with the rental and maintenance for an
     apartment in the State of California and shall reimburse Employee for
     reasonable expenses incurred in connection with commuting to and from such
     California apartment in his Boston residence twice each month.

\s\ Gerd Krick                     \s\ Udo Werle                   \s\ Ben Lipps
--------------                     -------------                   -------------
Dr. Gerd Krick                     Udo Werle                       Ben Lipps
President & CEO                    CFO
FMC-AG                             FMC-AG
No. 10708.

#### Federal Union Surety Co. *v.*Smith et al.

Decided December 8, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Crawford county.

*Mr. F. M. Dotson*and *Messrs. Kennedy & Kennedy,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Finley & Gallinger; Messrs. Beer & Guernsey; Mr. C. F. Schaber; Mr. J. W. Miller*and *Messrs. Leuthold & Leuthold,*for *449defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, C. J., Si-iauck, Crew, Summers and Spear, JJ., concur.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 985

To include infection with the agent for acquired immune deficiency syndrome

as a communicable disease of public health significance for which an

alien is excludable under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 18, 1993

Mr. MCCOLLUM (for himself, Mr. SOLOMON, Mrs. ROUKEMA, Mr. SMITH of

Texas, Mr. MICHEL, Mr. GINGRICH, Mr. ARMEY, Mr. HUNTER, Mr.

HYDE, Mr. DELAY, Mr. DORNAN, Mr. GOODLING, Mr. COLLINS of Georgia, Mr. BUNNING, Mr. BUYER, Mr. RAMSTAD, Mr. SANTORUM, Mrs.

MEYERS of Kansas, Mr. GOSS, Mr. YOUNG of Florida, Mr. LEWIS of

Florida, Mr. STEARNS, Mr. CANADY, Mr. SHAW, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr.

FIELDS of Texas, Mr. QUINN, Mr. ARCHER, Mrs. BENTLEY, Mr. KING,

Mr. SAXTON, Mr. MCKEON, Mr. ROYCE, Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas, Mr.

SENSENBRENNER, Mr. PACKARD, Mr. WELDON, Mr. CRANE of Illinois,

Mr. BEREUTER, Mr. KYL, Mr. SPENCE, Mr. FAWELL, Mr. THOMAS of

Wyoming, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. SAM JOHNSON

of Texas, Mr. STUMP, Mr. INGLIS, Mr. BALLENGER, Mr. DOOLITTLE,

Mr. BARTON of Texas, Mr. HERGER, Mr. COBLE, Mr. COMBEST, Mr.

INHOFE, Mr. MCDADE, Mr. ROTH, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. SUNDQUIST, Mr.

MOORHEAD, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr. OXLEY, Mr. LIVINGSTON, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. SKEEN, Mr. EVERETT, Mr. CAMP, and Mr. MCCANDLESS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the

Judiciary

A BILL

To include infection with the agent for acquired immune

deficiency syndrome as a communicable disease of public

health significance for which an alien is excludable under

the Immigration and Nationality Act.
2

•HR 985 IH

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. EXCLUSION OF ALIENS INFECTED WITH THE

4 AGENT FOR ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY

5 SYNDROME.

6 (a) EXCLUSION OF ALIENS ON HEALTH-RELATED

7 GROUNDS.—Section 212(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Immigration

8 and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(1)(A)(i)) is amend9 ed by inserting at the end ‘‘which shall include infection

10 with the etiologic agent for acquired immune deficiency

11 syndrome,’’.

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

13 this section shall take effect 30 days after the date of en14 actment of this Act.

Æ
#### Della M. LESCRYNSKI and William Lescrynski, Appellants, v. Farnham D. MIDDLEBROOK and Allstate Insurance Company, Appellees.

No. 71-681.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 29, 1972.

George J. Adler, of Meyers & Mooney, Orlando, for appellants.

Lon S. Cornelius, Jr., of Maguire, Voor-his & Wells, Orlando, for appellees.

WALDEN, Judge.

Della and William Lescrynski, plaintiffs below, were pruning trees on defendant Middlebrook’s rental property. William cut a large limb but it lodged in a fork of the tree. He offered to kick it loose while balancing on a ladder.

Della was concerned for her husband’s safety, so she volunteered to steady the ladder. The limb dislodged, striking Della’s head and causing the injuries complained of.

Della and William sued defendant, claiming negligence in his active supervision, failure to properly warn of danger and utilization of inadequate equipment and personnel for the specialized job.

Defendant denied negligence and affirmatively alleged contributory negligence and assumption of risk. Summary judgment was awarded in defendant’s favor. We reverse.

The facts are in massive conflict. For instance, defendant claims he was a mere spectator for only one minute before the accident. Plaintiffs say he was actively supervising for approximately three hours.

In summary judgment law all facts and inference are to be resolved *216against the moving party. He had the burden of proving the nonexistence of material, genuine fact issues. Further, summary judgment procedures should be cautiously applied in negligence cases. Stephens v. Moody, Fla.App.1969, 225 So.2d 586; Holl v. Talcott, Fla.1966, 191 So.2d 40; Suhr v. Dade County, Fla.App.1967, 198 So.2d 837.

Additionally, contributory negligence and assumption of risk are ordinarily issues for jury determination. Generally the serious posing of such defenses would preclude summary judgment. Koven v. Owens, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 311; Beikirch v. City of Jacksonville Beach, Fla.App.1964, 159 So.2d 898; Allen v. Kamp’s Beauty Salon, Inc., Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 678 and Suhr v. Dade County, supra.

We hold that the critical discrepancies in the deposed testimony of the parties, plus the affirmative defenses raised, necessite resolution through a full trial. We reverse and remand for that purpose.

Reversed and remanded.

REED, C. J., and MAGER, J., concur.
No. 11075.

#### Dittrick, Trustee, *v.*Conway et al.

Decided February 2, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Summit county.

*Messrs. Grant, Sieber &*Mather, for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. W.B. Neff; Mr. W. D. McTighe*and *Messrs. Koehler, Koehler & Mottinger,*for defendants in error.

*467Judgment affirmed, the question of right to appeal being waived by the parties.

Crew, C. J., Summers and Shauck, JJ., concur.
No. 10723.

#### Urbanowitz, by etc., *v.*Flandermeyer et al.

Decided December 15, 1908.

*451Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

*Mr. Hermann*Preusser, for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Max J. Pfister*and *Mr. Alex. H. Martin,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, Crew, Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.
|   | We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements: |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |
|--------|--------|

|   |   1. Registration Statements (Form S-3 Nos. 333-75040, 333-120947, 333-139124, 333-141161, and 333-160404), |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   2. Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-49632) pertaining to the ANADIGICS, Inc. Stock Option Plan, 1994 Long-Term Incentive and Share Award Plan, 1995 Long-Term Incentive Share Award Plan and Employee Stock Purchase Plan, |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   3. Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-32533 and 333-63836) pertaining to the ANADIGICS, Inc. 1997 Long-Term Incentive and Share Award Plan for Employees, |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   4. Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-125971) pertaining to the ANADIGICS, Inc. 2005 Long Term Incentive and Share Award Plan and the Amended and Restated Employee Stock Purchase Plan, |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   5. Registration Statement (Form S-8 Nos. 333-136280 and 333-157711) pertaining to the ANADIGICS, Inc. Amended and Restated 2005 Long-Term Incentive and Share Award Plan, |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   6. Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-151293) pertaining to the ANADIGICS, Inc. Amended and Restated Employee Stock Purchase Plan and the Amended and Restated 2005 Long-Term Incentive and Share Award Plan, and |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|     |  7. Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-172129) pertaining to the ANADIGICS, Inc. Amended and Restated 2005 Long Term Incentive and Stock Award Plan and the amended and restated  Employee Stock Purchase Plan; |
|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | MetroPark, New Jersey |
|--------|-----------------------|

|   | March 9, 2011 |
|--------|---------------|
#### Lawrence C. Vannata et al., Respondents, v Louis Ambrosio, an Infant, by His Mother and Natural Guardian, Marie Ambrosio, et al., Appellants.

[655 NYS2d 381]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, (1) from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.), dated June 14, 1996, as compelled them to authorize the release of certain school disciplinary records, and (2), by permission, from so much of the same order as directed them to answer deposition questions regarding the infant defendant’s medication needs.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which directed the defendants to answer deposition questions regarding the infant defendant’s medication needs; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiffs sought an authorization directing the release of the infant defendant’s school records regarding "guidance counseling, detention, suspension from school, referral cards and occasions when the parents were called to school” for the three-year period preceding the incident which is the subject of this action. The Supreme Court directed the defendants to authorize the release of the infant defendant’s "school disciplin*282ary records”. That directive does not include the child’s medical records. Therefore, the question of the physician-patient privilege does not arise.

Similarly, in the order appealed from, the court did not direct the defendants to provide an authorization for the infant defendant’s medical records. Consequently, that issue is not before us on this appeal.

Insofar as the depositions are concerned, the plaintiffs failed to identify any questions regarding the infant defendant’s medication needs which the defendants refused to answer at their depositions. We conclude, therefore, that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in directing a further deposition with respect to that subject. Rosenblatt, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.