alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Johnnie Lee DARBY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-718.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 30, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

JACK EDWARD ALLEN,

Petitioner

v.

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA,

COMMON PLEAS COURT OF CLEARFIELD COUNTY,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 24 WM 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 27th day of April

, 2017, the Application for Leave to File Original

Process is GRANTED , and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus/Extraordinary Relief is

DENIED

.
# C_2021278EN.01002601.xml

| 12.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif de Dijon (France) lodged on 31 March 2021 — Mr X v Préfet de Saône-et-Loire

(Case C-206/21)

(2021/C 278/37)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif de Dijon

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mr X

Defendant: Préfet de Saône-et-Loire

Question referred

In requiring sickness insurance cover and sufficient resources not to become a burden on the social assistance system, do Articles 7(1)(b) and 8(4) of Directive 2004/38/EC of 29 April 2004 (1) introduce indirect discrimination ... to the detriment of persons who, due to their disability, are not in a position to work or who can work only in a limited capacity and who can therefore find themselves without sufficient resources to meet their needs without significant or even unreasonable reliance on the social assistance system of the host Member State where they reside?

---

(1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77).

---
#### TODD SHIPYARDS CORPORATION v. Nathan LOMM and M. Y. Lomm, His Wife.

No. 2301.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Fourth Circuit.

Nov. 6, 1967.

Terriberry, Rault, Carroll Yancey & Farrell, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee. Edward S. Bagley, G. Edward Merritt, New Orleans, of counsel.

Richard A. Dowling, New Orleans, for defendant-appellants.

Before McBRIDE, REGAN and CHASEZ, JJ.

McBRIDE, Judge.

Plaintiff brought this suit personally against the general manager (husband) and the liquidator (wife) of a corporation known as Commercial Iron and Metal Company for a substantial sum due plaintiff for merchandise sold to and delivered to the corporation which had been in liquidation for some 13 years. Plaintiff alleged that notwithstanding the corporation was in liquidation the defendants carried on its business as a going concern and they are liable for the amount of plaintiff’s claim for the reason the merchandise sold to the corporation was used by them for their own benefit and advantage. Plaintiff recovered judgment against both defendants in solido. Nathan Lomm appealed on his individual behalf and also, as her curator, on behalf of his wife who was under interdiction.

When the appeal first came before us for argument in 1966, it developed that Mrs. Lomm had departed this life after her appeal had been taken and her succession representative had not been made a party appellant; therefore, the matter was tried by this court as to appellant Nathan Lomm only and we affirmed the judgment against him.

*81Subsequently, Nathan Lomm, as his wife’s testamentary executor, was made a party appellant in these proceedings in her place and stead in accordance with the rules of this court.

The matter is now before us on the appeal taken on behalf of Mrs. Lomm.

There would be no good reason for discussing the issues involved for we have already done so in the previous opinion handed down by us. See 190 So.2d 125. Mrs. Lomm is liable unto plaintiff for the reason she failed in or neglected her duty to expeditiously wind up the affairs of Commercial Iron and Metals Company and carried forward the business on her own behalf, misusing or misapplying the corporation’s assets.

Therefore, the judgment appealed from is amended so as to run solidarily against Nathan Lomm, individually, and Nathan Lomm as executor of Mollie Redmann Lomm, and, as thus amended and in all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

Amended and affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
                                    EXHIBITS


EXHIBIT 11 - COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                               Three months ended
                                                                    March 31,
                                                          ----------------------------
                                                              1997            1996
                                                          -----------      -----------
<S>                                                        <C>              <C>       
Weighted average common shares outstanding                 12,885,000       12,875,000

Net effect of dilutive stock equivalents based on the
   treasury stock method using average market price
   in 1997 and ending market price in 1996                    428,118          885,524
                                                          -----------      -----------

Total weighted shares outstanding                          13,313,118       13,760,524
                                                          ===========      ===========

Net income                                                $ 1,139,636      $ 2,315,493
                                                          ===========      ===========

Net income per share                                      $      0.09      $      0.17
                                                          ===========      ===========
</TABLE>






                                       13
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 98 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 98

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 23, 1993

 Mr. Dingell 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 Energy and Commerce in 
          the first session of the One Hundred Third Congress.

    Resolved, That (a) for expenses of investigations and studies by 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce (hereinafter in this resolution 
referred to as the ``Committee''), including expenses for procurement 
of consultant services under section 202(i) of the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1946, there shall be paid out of the contingent 
fund of the House not more than $6,561,340.
    (b) Not more than $25,000 of the amount specified in subsection (a) 
may be used for consultant services referred to in 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 on 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>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AT JUNE 30, 2000 (UNAUDITED) AND THE STATEMENT
OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 (UNAUDITED) AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       7,009,945
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  287,251
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (119,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    747,670
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,751,700
<PP&E>                                         836,752
<DEPRECIATION>                                 301,450
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,619,469
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,789,720
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       177,157
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,652,592
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,619,469
<SALES>                                        783,969
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               783,969
<CGS>                                          711,905
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,314,117
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               128,461
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             221,005
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (8,334,597)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (8,334,597)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.47)


</TABLE>
Placeholder: C onfidential Business I nformation item

Pure Chem Separation CBI Comment on 2 - 3 - 1 2 For more information please contact David Don aldson by phone at 202 - 343 - 9086 or by email at donaldson.david@epa.gov .
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 7 Agreed to House (ATH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 7

        Fixing the daily hour of meeting for the 103d Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

 Mr. Moakley submitted the following resolution; which was considered 
                             and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
        Fixing the daily hour of meeting for the 103d Congress.

    Resolved, That unless otherwise ordered, the hour of meeting of the House 
shall be noon on Mondays and Tuesdays; 2 o'clock post meridiem on Wednesdays; 11 
o'clock ante meridiem on all other days of the week up to and including May 14, 
1993; and that from May 15, 1993, until the end of the first session, the hour 
of daily meeting of the House shall be noon on Mondays and Tuesdays and 10 
o'clock ante meridiem on all other days of the week.

                                 <all>
```
#### COBIN RESTAURANT, INC., Appellant, v. NEWPORT MOTEL, INC., Appellee.

No. 72-115.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 6, 1972.

Rehearing Denied July 5, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-07-1997
<CASH>                                           2,128
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,059
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    128,323
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               151,379
<PP&E>                                         159,639
<DEPRECIATION>                                  76,119
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 247,800
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           85,323
<BONDS>                                         66,344
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,530
<OTHER-SE>                                      66,598
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   247,800
<SALES>                                        575,219
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               575,219
<CGS>                                          415,195
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  415,195
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               150,817
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,761
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,817
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,629
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,629
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .29
        

</TABLE>
1

King, Melanie

From: Higgins, Cortney <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 4:03 PM

To: King, Melanie

Subject: Tribal Supplemental NPRM -- Follow up to Interagency Question

Hi Melanie,

Here’s the response to the clarifying question on the statement on the following comment:

•       On page 30, the proposal states “The EPA is not aware of any affected EGUs that are owned or operated by tribal

governments.”  Suggest including additional text explaining the significance of this statement with respect to this proposal.

Response:  I believe the comment suggests the relevance of whether an affected EGU is tribally‐owned, especially since

there are none now. I know the Navajo Nation has an option, in their lease, to buy into the NGS power plant (an affected

EGU), so NGS could become at least partially tribally owned. But, again, what is the relevance‐‐would it require Navajo

to have a TIP, would it change the EPA approach to this, or would there be a difference in their calculations?

Can EPA elaborate in the text to clarify what it would mean if an affected EGU was owned or operated by tribal govts.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Regards,

Cortney
#### CINCINNATI, NEW ORLEANS AND TEXAS PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. T. L. JAMES AND COMPANY, Inc., et al.

No. 2766.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Fourth Circuit.

Dec. 4, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 9, 1968.

Monroe & Lemann, Benjamin R. Slater, Jr., and J. Thomas Lewis, New Orleans, for plaintif f-appellant.

Porteous & Johnson, James L. Donovan, New Orleans, for defendants-appellants.

Before HALL, BARNETTE and JAN-VIER, JJ.

HALL, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in our No. 2764, New Orleans and Northeastern Railroad Company v. T. L. James and Company, La.App., 205 So.2d 48, the judgment appealed from in this case is amended by increasing the amount awarded in favor of Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas-Pacific Railway Company against T. L. James and Company, Inc., from $417.38 (sic) to the *55sum of $836.75 and as so amended and in all other respects the judgment is affirmed; costs of the appeals in this case to be borne by T. L. James and Company, Inc.

Amended and affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906

of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Burt Sugarman, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this quarterly report on Form
10-Q for the third quarterly period ended September 30, 2003 (Quarterly Report) of GIANT GROUP, LTD. (Registrant) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended and that information contained in such Quarterly Report presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



|Dated: |  | November 13, 2003                    
|------ |  | -------------------------------------
|       | 
|By:    |  | /s/ Burt Sugarman                    
|      
|Title: |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2021320EN.01001501.xml

| 9.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/15

---

Appeal brought on 9 April 2021 by Germann Avocats LLC against the order of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 4 February 2021 in Case T-352/18, Germann Avocats LLC v European Commission

(Case C-233/21 P)

(2021/C 320/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Germann Avocats LLC (represented by: N. Scandamis, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | confirm points 24 to 48 of the contested order fully rejecting the Commission's objection of inadmissibility; |
| --- | --- |

—

confirm points 24 to 48 of the contested order fully rejecting the Commission's objection of inadmissibility;

| — | for the rest, fully set aside the contested order; |
| --- | --- |

—

for the rest, fully set aside the contested order;

| — | annul pursuant to Article 263 TFEU the Commission’s decision contained in an undated letter received on 2 April 2018 rejecting the joint tender submitted by the Appellant for a follow-up study on trade union practices on non-discrimination and diversity in the workplace (call for tenders JUST/2017/RDIS/FW/EQUA/0042; OJ/S S215 — 09/11/2017 — 2017/S 215-446067); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul pursuant to Article 263 TFEU the Commission’s decision contained in an undated letter received on 2 April 2018 rejecting the joint tender submitted by the Appellant for a follow-up study on trade union practices on non-discrimination and diversity in the workplace (call for tenders JUST/2017/RDIS/FW/EQUA/0042; OJ/S S215 — 09/11/2017 — 2017/S 215-446067);

| — | order the Commission to pay damages in the amount of EUR 1; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay damages in the amount of EUR 1;

| — | alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court; and in any event |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court; and in any event

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant advances the following pleas in support of its appeal:

First, manifest distortion of facts and errors of law in relation to the misuse of powers, as well as violation of the principles of equality of arms and the right to be heard.

Second, infringement of the duty to state reasons and manifest errors of assessment.

Third, misuse of powers by infringement of the principles of equal treatment, legal certainty, sound administration and good faith.

Fourth, misuse of powers by infringement of the principle of transparency and protection of legitimate expectations regarding competition.

---
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, David W. Qualls, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Garden Fresh Restaurant Corporation; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not containany 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 annualreport; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this annual 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 inthis annual report; 

 

4. The registrant’sother certifying officers 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 we have: 

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its controlled subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within these entities,particularly during the period in which this annual 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 endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluations; and 

 

c) disclosed in this report any changes in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s fourth quarter that has materially affected or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

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

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial 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 significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date:November 26, 2003