alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

LAURA BRODBECK, *

* No. 17-344V

Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran

*

v. * Filed: October 19, 2020

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Stipulation; influenza (“flu”) vaccine; 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * brachial neuritis.

*

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Howard S. Gold, Gold Law Firm, LLC, Wellesley Hills, MA, for Petitioner;

Dhairya D. Jani, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent. 

UNPUBLISHED DECISION1

On October 16, 2020, the parties filed a joint stipulation concerning the 

petition for compensation filed by Laura Brodbeck on March 14, 2017. Petitioner 

alleged that influenza vaccine she received on October 14, 2014, which is 

contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”), 42 C.F.R. §100.3(a), caused 

her to suffer from brachial neuritis. Petitioner further alleges that she suffered the 

residual effects of this injury for more than six months. Petitioner represents that 

there has been no prior award or settlement of a civil action for damages on her 

behalf as a result of her condition.

Respondent denies that the influenza vaccine caused petitioner to suffer 

from brachial neuritis or any other injury. 

1 The E-Government Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and 

Promotion of Electronic Government Services), requires that the Court post this decision on its 

website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing 

redaction of medical information or other information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). 

Any redactions ordered by the special master will appear in the document posted on the website.
2

Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint stipulation, attached hereto. The 

undersigned finds said stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the 

Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

Damages awarded in that stipulation include:

A lump sum payment of $30,235.00 in the form of a check payable to 

petitioner. This amount represents compensation for all damages that 

would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC, Appendix B, 

the clerk is directed to enter judgment according to this decision and the attached 

stipulation.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties can expedite entry of judgment by each 

party filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review by a United States Court of Federal 

Claims judge.
# C_2020068EN.01006001.xml

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/60

---

Action brought on 9 January 2020 — Schneider v EUIPO — Frutaria Comercial de Frutas y Hortalizas (Frutaria.)

(Case T-12/20)

(2020/C 68/68)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Markus Schneider (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: M. Bergermann and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Frutaria Comercial de Frutas y Hortalizas, SL (Zaragoza, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark Frutaria. in green (Pantone 363) — EU trade mark No 5 922 885

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 October 2019 in Case R 284/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision, in so far as it upholds the registration of EU trade mark No 5 922 885 for the following goods:






  — | Class 29: Dried fruits |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision, in so far as it upholds the registration of EU trade mark No 5 922 885 for the following goods:

—

Class 29: Dried fruits

| — | Class 31: Fresh fruits and fresh vegetables |
| --- | --- |

—

Class 31: Fresh fruits and fresh vegetables

| — | Class 35: Export of fresh fruits; |
| --- | --- |

—

Class 35: Export of fresh fruits;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) and 58(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
#### BRITT v. HENRY.

No. 38648.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 220 So.2d 917.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

ORDER AMENDING RULE 1959 OF THE 

PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF CIVIL 

PROCEDURE

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

NO. 652

CIVIL PROCEDURAL RULES 

DOCKET 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 27th day of October, 2016, upon the recommendation of the 

Domestic Relations Procedural Rules Committee; the proposal having been submitted 

without publication pursuant to Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(a)(3):

IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of 

Pennsylvania that Rule 1959 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure is amended

in the attached form.

This ORDER shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and 

shall be effective in 60 days.

Additions to the rule are shown in bold and are underlined.

Deletions from the rule are shown in bold and brackets.
#### William OATMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-776.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 22, 1974.

*432Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Mark King Leban, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before PEARSON, CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

On this appeal, the defendant, who was found guilty of the possession of heroin and possession of drug paraphernalia, urges that the court erred in failing to discharge him pursuant to Rule 3.191, CrPR, 33 F.S.A., the speedy trial rule. Appellant admits that the record shows his motion for continuance was made prior to the expiration of the time limit. He relies, however, upon the proposition that the continuance was necessary because the State had failed to comply with the rules requiring discovery.

We need not discuss whether a defendant is entitled to discharge under such circumstances because the record does not support appellant’s position that his motion for continuance was made necessary by the State’s action. Appellant moved for an order of the court requiring certain discovery. No such order was ever entered. Appellant made no attempt to secure such an order nor did he call to the court’s attention the fact that such an order was necessary to his defense. Actually, it appears that there was no need for such discovery inasmuch as the only witnesses testifying against the appellant were police officers and an investigator who participated in the apprehension of the appellant.

Affirmed.
# C_2022064EN.01001302.xml

| 7.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Cluj (Romania) lodged on 19 October 2021 — SC Zes Zollner Electronic SRL v Direcția Regională Vamală Cluj — Biroul Vamal de Frontieră Aeroport Cluj Napoca

(Case C-640/21)

(2022/C 64/21)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: SC Zes Zollner Electronic SRL

Respondent: Direcția Regională Vamală Cluj — Biroul Vamal de Frontieră Aeroport Cluj Napoca

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 173 or Article 174 of Regulation No 952/2013 (1) apply where the consignee of the goods reports a quantity in excess of that stated in the original customs declaration? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 173 or Article 174 of Regulation No 952/2013 (1) apply where the consignee of the goods reports a quantity in excess of that stated in the original customs declaration?

| 2. | Does the expression ‘goods other than those which [the customs declaration] originally covered’ within the meaning of Article 173 of the regulation refer to goods that differ quantitatively or qualitatively, or both? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the expression ‘goods other than those which [the customs declaration] originally covered’ within the meaning of Article 173 of the regulation refer to goods that differ quantitatively or qualitatively, or both?

| 3. | In the case of a quantitative difference that exceeds the quantity of goods stated in the customs declaration, does the consignee of the goods have any procedural remedy under the [abovementioned] regulation enabling the consignee to correct the errors without incurring administrative or criminal penalties? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the case of a quantitative difference that exceeds the quantity of goods stated in the customs declaration, does the consignee of the goods have any procedural remedy under the [abovementioned] regulation enabling the consignee to correct the errors without incurring administrative or criminal penalties?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1).

---
2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 11-17-2005 

# Gond a v . M etro Li fe Ins C o P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-4188

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Gond a v . M e tr o L i fe In s C o " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 216. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/216NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 04- 4188

___________ RO NAL D M . GONDA , A ppel l ant v. M E T RO P OL I T AN L I F E I NS UR ANC E CO M P ANY;

W I LL I AM F REI DT, J R.

___________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 00- cv- 02286) D i stri ctJudg e: T he H on orabl e D on et t a W . A m brose

___________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober18, 2005 B efore: S M ITH , S T A P L E T O N , and N Y G A A R D , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed N ovember17, 2005)

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udge.

A ppel l antR onal d G onda appe al s t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof A ppel l ee M e t r o p o l i t a n Li f

e I n s u r a n c e ’ s ( “ M e tLi f e ” ) mo t i o n f

o rs u mma r yj u d g me n to n c l a i ms2

ar i s i ng fr om t he pur chas e of a l i fe i ns ur ance pol i cy . W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291 and, gui ded byouropi ni ons i n D i lw or th v. Metr opol i t an Li f e I ns ur ance C o. , 418 F. 3d 345 ( 3d C i r . 2005) and Tran v . Me tr o p o lita n L ife In s u r a n c e C o ., 408 F. 3d 1 3 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ), w e w i l l r ever s e.

B e c a u se th is c a se p re se n ts to u s f a c ts a n d iss u e s a lm o st id e n tica l to th a t in ournot - pr ece dent i al opi ni on i n W yckof f v. Metr opol i t an Li

f e I ns ur ance Co. , N o. 04- 4098 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . w e w i l l acc or di ngl yr ever s e and r emand fors ubs t ant i al l yt he s ame r eas ons as s etoutt her ei n.
#### SYSTEMS ENGINEERING LABORATORIES, INCORPORATED, Appellant, v. Keith L. NUHN, Appellee.

No. 73-757.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 14, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Humes T. Lasher, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Joseph BIALKOWICZ and Bella Bialkowicz, his wife, Petitioners, v. PAN AMERICAN CONDOMINUM NO. 3, INC., Respondent.

No. 40762.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 12, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 242 So.2d 506.

CARLTON, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
"This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements of  Georgia-Pacific Corporation for the six months ended
July 1, 2000, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements."
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-01-2000
<CASH>                                              30
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,497
<ALLOWANCES>                                        28
<INVENTORY>                                      2,072
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,765
<PP&E>                                          16,137
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,090
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  17,196
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,246
<BONDS>                                          5,475
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           155
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,973
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    17,196
<SALES>                                         10,912
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,912
<CGS>                                            8,121
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,121
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   526
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    11
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 291
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    756
<INCOME-TAX>                                       282
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                474
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       474
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F2>
<FN>
<F1>Georgia-Pacific Group EPS - Basic     2.34
The Timber Company EPS - Basic        0.91
<F2>Georgia-Pacific Group EPS - Diluted     2.30
The Timber Company EPS - Diluted        0.91
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### Zack T. MILLER v. JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 1539.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

March 15, 1937.

Sid White, of Oklahoma City, Old., for appellant.

Cohoon & Heiple and Embry, Johnson, Crowe & Tolbert, all of Oklahoma City, Old., for appellee John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co.

Before LEWIS and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed, at appellant’s costs, for failure to prosecute, on motion of appellee.
### M A N D A T E

TO THE 389TH DISTRICT COURT of HIDALGO COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 29th day of

August, 2014, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

TALAL NIMER EL HAJ, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13-13-00326-CR (Tr.Ct.No. CR-3117-12-H)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be VACATED IN PART

and AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED by this Court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial

court VACATED IN PART and AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

      

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 23rd day of January, 2015.

Dorian E. Ramirez, CLERK
# C_2022191EN.01000603.xml

| 10.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 11 October 2021 — S.H. v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov

(Case C-627/21)

(2022/C 191/08)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: S.H.

Respondents: Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov

Question referred

Can the principle of neutrality of VAT, [recital 30] and Articles 16, 184, 186, 187, 188 and 192 of Directive 112/2006/EC (1) be interpreted as being compatible with national legislation relating to adjustment of the deductible tax in respect of capital goods (in particular Article 305(4)(a) of Legea nr. 227/2015 privind Codul fiscal (Law No 227/2015 establishing the Tax Code) and point 79(14)(b) of the Normele metodologice de aplicare a Legii nr. 227/2015 privind Codul fiscal (Rules for applying Law No 227/2015 establishing the Tax Code), approved by Hotărârea Guvernului nr. 1/2016 (Government Decision No 1/2016), laid down pursuant to Article 305(4)(a) of the Tax Code, in conjunction with Article 316(11)(e) of Law No 227/2015 establishing the Tax Code), and with the practice of the tax administration affecting the initial deductibility of VAT paid in respect of the purchases of capital goods by requiring the taxable person to adjust downwards the deductible VAT on the ground that the tax authority annulled, of its own motion, the taxable person’s registration for VAT purposes for a certain period because of a failure to carry on economic activities in relation to the time during which the capital goods were not the subject of supplies of services or goods during the period between the annulment of the tax authority’s own motion and re-registration for the purposes of VAT?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1, Special edition in Romanian: Chapter 09 Volume 003 P. 7).

---
#### H. E. GOODMAN INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., and Harvey E. Goodman, Appellants, v. LITTLE RIVER BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Appellee. H. E. GOODMAN INSURANCE AGENCY INC., and Harvey E. Goodman, Appellants, v. UNITED BONDING INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

Nos. 70-225, 70-226.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 29, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeals dismissed.
#### Clifford Lee SHAMBLIN v. Mrs. Elayn HUNT, Director, Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 53316.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 22, 1973.

In re: Clifford Lee Shamblin applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Writ denied. The defendant has been sentenced to hard labor, a correct legal sentence. The place of commitment corrected ex parte by the trial court is a pure ministerial act.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 95 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 95

Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House for expenses of 
investigations and studies by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs in the 
            first session of the One Hundred Third Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 18, 1993

  Mr. Montgomery (for himself, Mr. Stump, Mr. Evans, Mr. Rowland, Mr. 
  Slattery, and Mr. Sangmeister) submitted the following resolution; 
      which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House for expenses of 
investigations and studies by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs in the 
            first session of the One Hundred Third Congress.

    Resolved, That (a) for expenses of investigations and studies by 
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs (hereinafter in this resolution 
referred to as the ``Committee''), including expenses for--
            (1) procurement of consultant services under section 202(i) 
        of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946; and
            (2) provision of assistance for members of professional 
        staff in obtaining specialized training under section 202(j) of 
        such Act;
there shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the House not more 
than $911,759.
    (b) Not more than $55,000 of the amount specified in subsection (a) 
may be used for consultant services referred to in paragraph (1) of 
such subsection and not more than $1,500 of such amount may be used for 
specialized training referred to in paragraph (2) of such subsection.
    Sec. 2. Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers 
authorized by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, 
and approved by the Committee on House Administration.
    Sec. 3. Amounts shall be available under this resolution for 
investigations and studies carried out during the period beginning at 
noon January 3, 1993, and ending immediately before noon on January 3, 
1994.
    Sec. 4. Amounts made available under this resolution shall be 
expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on 
House Administration.

                                 <all>
```
#### David Wayne SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-733.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District..

Feb. 8, 1974.

James W. Geiger, Devitt, Geiger, O’Neal & Booth, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and C. Marie Bernard, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

WALDEN, Judge.

The appellate proposition presented is:

> Did the trial court have jurisdiction to withdraw its adjudication and sentence and place the defendant on probation eight (8) months after the trial court’s original sentence of one (1) year in the county jail.

The answer is “no.” There was no jurisdiction and, hence, the judicial act causing grievance was a nullity. We reverse the appealed order upon authority of Sayer v. State, Fla.App. 1972, 267 So.2d 42. We remand with respectful instructions to reinstate the original sentence, giving credit thereon to appellant for time served.

Reversed and remanded.

OWEN, C. J., and MAGER, J., concur.