alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Abatement Order filed October 22, 2019

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00727-CV

____________

AMERICAN WORKERS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., ASSOCIATION 

HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT, INC., Appellants

V.

INSURETY CAPITAL, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 215th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2019-53545

ABATEMENT ORDER

Notice was filed on October 15, 2019 that appellant is in bankruptcy. Tex. R. 

App. P. 8.1. According to the notice, on October 14, 2019, appellants American 

Workers Insurance Services, Inc. and Association Health Care Management, Inc.

petitioned for voluntary bankruptcy protection in the United States Bankruptcy 

Court for the Northern District of Texas under case number 19-44208-mxm11. A 

bankruptcy suspends the appeal from the date when the bankruptcy petition is filed 
until the appellate court reinstates the appeal in accordance with federal law. Tex. R. 

App. P. 8.2. Accordingly, we ORDER the appeal abated.

When a case has been suspended by a bankruptcy filing, a party may move 

the appellate court to reinstate the appeal if permitted by federal law or the 

bankruptcy court. Tex. R. App. P. 8.3. If the bankruptcy court has lifted or terminated 

the stay, a certified copy of the order must be attached to the motion. Id. A party 

filing a motion to reinstate shall specify what further action, if any, is required from 

this court when the appeal is reinstated. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.1(a).

For administrative purposes only, and without surrendering jurisdiction, the 

appeal is abated and treated as a closed case until further order of this court.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Wise and Hassan.
#### Harvey Hamilton FLEMMING, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 70-407.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 19, 1970.

Habeas corpus denied.
#### Georgia H. BANORES, Appellant, v. Alfred S. AUSTIN and R. A. Austin, d/b/a Austin Development Company, and Roy R. Horst, Appellees.

No. 40500.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 2, 1971.

Charles Cetti, Pensacola, and John S. Burton, Plant City, for appellant.

*649Donald A. Pleasants, of Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings & Evans, Tampa, for appellees.

ADKINS, Justice.

This is an appeal from the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, having been transferred to this Court from the District Court of Appeal, Second District, 240 So.2d 850.

Stephen E. Banores was injured due to the negligence of the Appellees and recovered a final judgment. This judgment was satisfied by payment. Thereupon, the Appellant, wife of Stephen E. Banores, brought suit for damages due to loss of consortium arising out of this injury to her husband.

After filing an answer, the Appellees, Defendants below, filed a motion for judgment on the pleading which was granted on the ground that a wife cannot maintain an action for loss of consortium.

Upon appeal, the District Court of Appeal, Second District, noted that constitutional questions were raised, as Appellant argued that denying a wife damages for loss of consortium while allowing them to a similarly deprived husband violated the equal protection clause of U.S.Const. Amend. XIV and § 4 of the Declaration of Rights of the Fla.Const., F.S.A. On November 13, 1970, the District Court of Appeal transferred the cause to this Court.

On April 7, 1971, this Court rendered its opinion in Gates v. Foley, 247 So.2d 40, wherein we held that deprivation to the wife of the husband’s companionship, affection and sexual relation (or consortium, as therein defined) constitutes a real injury to the marital relationship and one which should be compensable at law if due to the negligence of another. This determines the question involved in the case *sub judice.*

We have receded from the authorities relied upon by the trial judge when he entered final judgment for the Defendants.

Under the circumstances, the filing of additional briefs would merely necessitate useless labor on the part of the attorneys involved.

We accept jurisdiction. Scudder v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad, 247 So.2d 46 (opinion filed April 7, 1971).

The final judgment on behalf of the Appellees is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceeding.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON and BOYD, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.9

		AMERICAN ACQUISITION OPPORTUNITY INC.

		12115 Visionary Way

		Fishers, Indiana

		[•], 2021

		American Resources Corporation
12115 Visionary Way
Fishers, Indiana

		Ladies and Gentlemen:

		This letter will confirm our agreement that, commencing on the effective date (the “Effective Date”) of the registration statement on Form S-1 (the “Registration Statement”) for the initial public offering (the “IPO”) of the securities of American Acquisition Opportunity Inc. (the “Company”) and continuing until the earlier of (i) the consummation by the Company of an initial business combination (a “Business Combination”) or (ii) the Company’s liquidation (in each case as described in the Registration Statement) (such earlier date hereinafter referred to as the “Termination Date”), American Resources Corporation (“ARC”) shall make available to the Company certain office space, utilities, and secretarial, administrative and consulting services as may be required by the Company from time to time, situated at 12115 Visionary Way, Fishers, Indiana (or any successor location). In exchange therefore, the Company shall pay ARC a sum equal to $10,000 per month, commencing on the Effective Date and continuing monthly thereafter until the Termination Date. ARC agrees that payment of such amounts may be deferred, without interest, until the date of consummation by the Company of the initial Business Combination upon a determination by the Company’s audit committee that the Company lacks sufficient funds held outside the Trust Account (as defined below) to pay the Company’s actual or anticipated expenses in connection with the Company’s initial Business Combination. ARC hereby agrees that it does not have any right, title, interest or claim of any kind in or to any monies that may be set aside in a trust account (the “Trust Account”) that may be established by the Company for the benefit of the Company’s public stockholders upon the consummation of the IPO as described in the Registration Statement (“Claim”) and hereby waives any Claim it may have in the future as a result of, or arising out of, any negotiations, contracts or agreements with the Company in connection with this letter agreement and will not seek recourse against the Trust Account for any reason whatsoever.

		Very truly yours,

			

						AMERICAN ACQUISITION OPPORTUNITY INC.

						 	 
	
						By:        _____________________________________

						 	 
	
						Name: Mark C. Jensen

						 	 
	
						Title: Chief Executive Officer

						 	 
	
						AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED BY:

						 	 
	
						AMERICAN RESOURCES CORPORATION

						 	 
	
						By:        _____________________________________

						 	 
	
						Name:

						 	 
	
						Title:
# C_2022073EN.01003101.xml

| 14.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/31

---

Appeal brought on 22 December 2021 by European Union Copper Task Force against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 13 October 2021 in Case T-153/19, European Union Copper Task Force v Commission

(Case C-828/21 P)

(2022/C 73/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Union Copper Task Force (represented by: I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas and C. Vila Gisbert, abogadas)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the judgment under appeal;

| — | issue a judgment on the substance of the action for annulment or, subsidiary, refer the case back to the General Court for judgment; |
| --- | --- |

—

issue a judgment on the substance of the action for annulment or, subsidiary, refer the case back to the General Court for judgment;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law.

The General Court erred in law in relation to the scope of its judicial review and has breached the appellant’s right to an effective judicial protection.

The General Court infringed the principle of non-arbitrariness by failing to require a harmonized approach in the scope of application of PBT (persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity) criteria.

The General Court infringed the precautionary principle and the principle of proportionality.

The General Court breached the rules of procedure by dismissing the appellant’s request to appoint an expert.

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 29 (Friday, February 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 7846]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3099]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EXPORT IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES

 [OMB Control No: 3048-0024 EIB 92-79]

Agency Information Collection: Emergency Submission for OMB 
Review

AGENCY: Export Import Bank of the United States.

ACTION: Notice (2011-0020).

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 
(44 U.S.C., 3501-3521), this notice announces that the Export Import 
Bank of the United States (Ex-Im), will submit to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) the following emergency proposal for the 
collection of information in reference to the Broker Registration 
Application Form EIB 92-79.
    This application is used by insurance brokers to register with the 
Export Import Bank. The application provided the Export Import Bank 
staff with the information necessary to make a determination of the 
eligibility of the broker to receive commission payments under the 
Export Import Bank's credit insurance programs. The Export Import Bank 
is submitting this emergency submission for a six (6) month approval 
from OMB to provide time to revise the application and update their 
burden hours. The Bank will be removing the question in reference to 
women and/or ethnic minority owned.
    After the publication of this notice in the Federal Register and 
Office of Management and Budget approval for the six (6) month 
emergency submission, the Export Import Bank will proceed with the 
normal approval process and publish the 60 day and 30 day public 
comment notices in the Federal Register.
    Titles and Form Number: EIB 92-79 Broker Registration Form.
    OMB Number: 3048-0024.
    Type of Review: Emergency Submission.
    Need and Use: This application is used by insurance brokers to 
register with Export Import Bank. The application provides Export 
Import Bank staff with the information necessary to make a 
determination of the eligibility of the broker to receive commission 
payments under Export Import Bank's credit insurance programs.
    Affected Public: This form affects entities involved in the export 
of U.S. goods and services.
    Annual Number of Respondents: 50.
    Estimated Time per Respondent: 2 hours.
    Government Annual Burden Hours: 200 hours.
    Frequency of Reporting or Use: Once every three (3) years.

Sharon A. Whitt,
Agency Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011-3099 Filed 2-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
```
#### H & B RESTAURANT and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, Petitioners, v. Christine BROWN and Florida Industrial Relations Commission, Respondents.

No. 44569.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 14, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 6, 1974.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
#### Clyde WATSON et ux. v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF RAILROAD et al.

No. 62056.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 5, 1978.

In re: Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Co. and James C. Massey, applying for certiora-ri, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of Livingston. 355 So.2d 1366.

Denied.
#### EDWARD T. BAILEY *vs.*SAMUEL McDOWELL.

Lottery tickets are regarded as an article of merchandize, and properly chargeable i'c a book account

Cash not so chargeable.

Case.

Narr. Common counts, goods sold, &c. &c. Pleas, non assumpsit, act of limitations and set off. Replications and issues.

This was an action for lottery tickets sold to the deft, by plff. who is a lottery broker. The plff. produced and proved his books, which were objected to on the ground that lottery tickets are not matters properly chargeable in account.

The *court*

required proof that the lottery office was licensed, and also that these lotteries were authorized by law, and these being shown, a majority of the court admitted the book in evidence. The act of assembly authorizes the sale of these tickets, recognizes it *“as a trade or business,”*to be carried on at a particular stand or place, and requires such stand to be licensed; the tickets, therefore, are a matter of merchandize. The book verified by the oath of the party is evidence to prove the sale and delivery of goods, wares and merchandizes, and other matters properly chargeable- in an account. 8 *B-l. Laws*243 *Big.*89.

*Judge Robinson*dissented. A lottery ticket is but a promise to pay such prize as may be drawn opposite to its number; it has no value in itself, but merely the evidence of value, and in this respect it may be likened to cash, which, according to established decisions, is not a matter properly chargeable in a book account. *Smith & Brown*vs. *McBeath, administrator of Lowber. Common Pleas, Kent, November T.,*1811. It is perhaps more like a promissory note, the sale of which could not be established by an entry in the party’s book of accounts. I cannot therefore regard lottery tickets as an article of trade and merchandize, but would require proof of the actual sale and delivery.

It afterwards appeared that the tickets sold were in lotteries authorized by this state, consolidated or united with lotteries granted by other states. The court required proof of the authority for all the lotteries so consolidated together. If any one of them is not duly *347authorized by a special grant, the tickets would all be illegal. The plff. failed to produce this proof, and was nonsuited.

*Wales,*for plaintiff.

*J. A. Bayard,*for defendant.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1010 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

                                                        Calendar No. 72

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1010

                          [Report No. 103-49]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To authorize appropriations for the Federal Election Commission for 
                           fiscal year 1994.

_______________________________________________________________________

                May 24 (legislative day, April 19), 1993

                 Read twice and placed on the calendar

                                                        Calendar No. 72
103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1010

                          [Report No. 103-49]

  To authorize appropriations for the Federal Election Commission for 
                           fiscal year 1994.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                May 24 (legislative day, April 19), 1993

Mr. Ford, from the Committee on Rules and Administration, reported the 
    following original bill; which was read twice and placed on the 
                                calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize appropriations for the Federal Election Commission for 
                           fiscal year 1994.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the second 
sentence of section 314 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
U.S.C. 439c) is amended by striking out ``and'' after ``1978,'' and by 
inserting after ``1981'' the following: ``, and $23,654,000 for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1994''.
```
# C_2021329EN.01000802.xml

| 16.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Brașov (Romania) lodged on 10 May 2021 — S. C. Techno-Gaz K.F.T. PAKS v U. A. T. Comuna Dalnic

(Case C-298/21)

(2021/C 329/11)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Brașov

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant– respondent: S. C. Techno-Gaz K.F.T. PAKS

Defendant — appellant: U. A. T. Comuna Dalnic

Question referred

Do the principle of the freedom to provide services under Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 25 of Directive 2004/18 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, (1) and the principles of free and fair competition between economic operators and proportionality, which are specific to European Union law, preclude national legislation on public contracts, such as the Romanian rules laid down in Article 96(1) of [Hotărârea Guvernului (Government Decree)] No 925/2006, which provide that, where certain parts of a public contract are to be performed by one or more subcontractors, the contracts produced must be consistent with the tender and will form an integral part, in the annex, of the public contract, interpreted as meaning that the subcontracted services must be of the same value/price as that stipulated in the main contract for the services in question?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).

---
#### ALPHA PORTLAND CEMENT CO. et al., Appellants, v. Harwell G. DAVIS, Individually and as Collector of Internal Revenue, et al., Appellees.

No. 8323.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 10, 1937.

Forney Johnston, Jos. F. Johnston, and Borden Burr, all of Birmingham, Ala., and Niel P. Sterne, of Anniston, Ala., for appellants.

J. P. Jackson, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., Robert H. Jackson, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., for appellees.

Before FOSTER, SIBLEY, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

On the authority of Beeland Wholesale Company et al. v. Harwell G. Davis, Individually and as Collector of Internal Revenue (C.C.A.) 88 F.(2d) 447, decided February 16, 1937, the judgment in the above numbered and entitled cause is affirmed.
#### Gateway State Bank, Respondent, and John R. Addrizzo et al., Appellants-Respondents, v Laura Estates, Ltd., et al., Defendants, and Anthony B. Dacchille, Respondent-Appellant.

[655 NYS2d 998]

In an action brought on by a motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, the plaintiff’s assignees, John R. Addrizzo, M.D., IRA and Chitoor Govindaraj, M.D., IRA, appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), dated November 21, 1995, as denied their cross motion for attorney’s fees and the defendant Anthony B. Dacchille appeals from so much of the same order as denied his motion, *inter alia,*for an accounting, the return of surplus money, the filing of a satisfaction piece, a hearing to determine adverse claims pursuant to CPLR 6225, and discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly concluded that there was no proof that the judgment herein had been satisfied in whole or in part *(see,*CPLR 5236 [g] [1]). Accordingly, it properly denied Anthony B. Dacchille’s motion. In view of all the circumstances the cross motion by the plaintiff’s assignees for legal fees was also properly denied. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.
Order entered February 24, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-01023-CV

FIRST CASH LTD., FIRST CASH CREDIT, LTD. AND PAWN TX, INC.,

Appellants

V.

DONALD LEE JONES, Appellee

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-06127

ORDER

Before the Court is appellee’s third motion for extension of time to file his 

brief. The brief was due February 16th, and appellee explains the extension is 

necessary “due to the widespread power outage and loss of internet connection” 

resulting from the winter storms.

We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief be filed no later than March 

5, 2021. 

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
# C_2022222EN.01002701.xml

| 7.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — Cilem Records International v EUIPO — KVZ Music (HALIX RECORDS)

(Case T-118/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark HALIX RECORDS - Earlier national word and figurative marks HALIX RECORDS - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Rule 19(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 7(1) and (2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625))

(2022/C 222/45)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Cilem Records International UG (Augsburg, Germany) (represented by: E. Hecht, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: KVZ Music Ltd (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: D. Stechern, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 January 2021 (Case R 1060/2020-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Cilem Records International and KVZ Music.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Cilem Records International UG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by EUIPO; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Cilem Records International UG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by EUIPO;

| 3. | Orders KVZ Music Ltd to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders KVZ Music Ltd to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.

---