alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Registrant is a limited partnership which invests in real estate and real
estate joint ventures.  In accordance with industry practice, its balance
sheet is unclassified.  For full information, refer to the accompanying
audited financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000752744
<NAME> DEAN WITTER REALTY INCOME PARTNERSHIP II, L.P.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1995
<CASH>                                       7,424,199
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,387,459
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             126,033,674<F1>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                 116,720,438<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               126,033,674<F3>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,474,708<F4>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            19,554,394
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,079,686) 
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,079,686)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,079,686)<F5>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (8.25)<F6>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>In addition to cash and receivables, total assets include net investments
in real estate of $100,167,949, real estate held for sale of $10,769,096, 
investment in joint venture of $2,730,575, net deferred expenses of 
$2,009,275 and other assets of $545,121.
<F2>Other Stockholders' Equity represents partners' capital.
<F3>Liabilities include accounts payable and accrued liabilities of
$714,941, minority interest in joint venture of $8,341,537, and other
liabilities of $256,758.
<F4>Total revenue includes rent of $17,249,584, equity in earnings of joint
venture of $306,711, and interest and other revenues of $918,413.
<F5>Net loss includes loss on write-down of real estate held for sale of 
$4,886,200.
<F6>Represents net loss per Unit of limited partnership interest.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Eunice J. HIXSON and Edith J. Corderman, Appellants, v. John J. BERRYMAN and William Berryman, as Co-Executors of the Estate of Ila E. Burkhart, Deceased, Appellees.

No. 73-352.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 7, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 6, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Frazier KNIGHT, Relator, v. The Honorable Ralph O. CULLEN, as one of the Judges of the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 70-242.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 24, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Mandamus dismissed.
No. 72-1237.

#### Service Investment Co., Inc. *v.*State Mutual Life Assurance Company of America.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[No. 262-3.

Division Three.

December 1, 1971.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Jimmy Hill, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Yakima County, No. 15802, Lloyd L. Wiehl, J., entered June 26, 1970. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
**EXHIBIT23 (a)**

 

 

**INDEPENDENTAUDITORS’ CONSENT**

** **

** **

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of The Newhall Landand Farming Company on Form S-8 (registration numbers 033-53767, 033-53769,033-58171, 333-15303, and 333-57591) of our report dated January 15, 2002,appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Newhall Land and FarmingCompany for the year ended December 31, 2001 and to the reference to us underthe heading “Experts” in the Prospectus, which is part of the RegistrationStatements.

 

 
| /s/  DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP |
|-------------------------------------|

 

Los Angeles, California

March 28, 2002
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Amendment of federal advisory committee.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that it is amending the charter for the Defense Innovation Board (“the Board”).

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jim Freeman, Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-692-5952.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The Board's charter is being amended in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended) and 41 CFR 102-3.50(d). The DoD is amending the charter for the Board previously announced in the                     **Federal Register**                     on April 18, 2018 (83 FR 17153) to reflect a change in the committee's sponsor. The Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering will be the sponsor for the Board. The amended charter and contact information for the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) can be obtained at                     *http://www.facadatabase.gov/​.*

Dated: June 28, 2018.

Shelly E. Finke,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 2018-14262 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 30, 2022

NO. 03-22-00223-CV

Mark S Kemple and Charlene Patricia Kemple, Appellants

v.

Texas Residential Management, Kevin Shae, and Haydee Shae, Appellees

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, KELLY, AND SMITH

VACATED AND REMANDED ON JOINT MOTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the trial court on January 19, 2022. The

parties have filed a joint motion to vacate the trial court’s judgment and remand the appeal, and

having considered the motion, the Court agrees that the motion should be granted. Therefore, 

the Court grants the motion, vacates the trial court’s judgment without regard to the merits,

and remands the case to the trial court for rendition of a judgment in accordance with the 

parties’ agreement. Because appellants are indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of 

costs is made.
# C_2023179EN.01002702.xml

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2023 — Wizz Air Hungary v Commission (Blue Air; COVID-19 and rescue aid)

(Case T-142/21) (1)

(State aid - Romanian air transport market - Aid granted by Romania to Blue Air in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic - Blue Air rescue aid - Loan guaranteed by the Romanian State - Decision not to raise any objections - Action for annulment - Aid intended to make good the damage caused by an exceptional occurrence - Article 107(2)(b) TFEU - Assessment of the damage - Causal link - Beneficiary’s pre-existing difficulties - Taking avoidable costs into account - Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty - Article 107(3)(c) TFEU - Contribution of the aid to an objective of common interest - ‘One time, last time’ condition for rescue aid - Principle of non-discrimination - Freedom to provide services - Freedom of establishment - Obligation to state reasons)

(2023/C 179/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.) (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: E. Vahida, S. Rating and I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, V. Bottka and I. Barcew, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 5830 final of 20 August 2020 on State Aid SA.57026 (2020/N) — Romania — COVID-19: Aid to Blue Air.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 26.4.2021.

---
#### Anthony C. KALLAS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1417.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 31, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 8, 1973.

*422Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender and Stephen Lipton, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

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

Before CHARLES CARROLL and HAVERFIELD, JJ., and SPECTOR, SAM, Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant-appellant was indicted for (1) breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit a felony, (2) two counts of robbery, (3) two counts of false imprisonment, and (4) unlawful possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense. He was tried by a jury and found guilty on all counts except one count of robbery.

On appeal, defendant-appellant alleges that his conviction and sentence for unlawful possession of a weapon while engaged in a criminal offense are void as being for conduct not defined as a crime. We find this contention clearly erroneous as F.S. § 790.07 F.S.A. defines as a crime the possession of a weapon while one is engaged in a crime.

Defendant-appellant also argues that the trial court improperly denied his right to cross-examination by refusing to allow the chief prosecution witness to be questioned concerning an alleged agreement with defendant not to testify in exchange for a large sum of money. We cannot agree.

A search of the record reflects that counsel for the defense in fact did question the chief prosecution witness as follows: “Didn’t you make a phone call to Mr. Hogan telling him that if he would get your $25,000 from them, you’d forget the whole thing?” In addition, the witness was asked whether or not he had received $6,000 from the defendants and whether he gave one Wallach $1,600 to cover his (Wallach’s) civil damages. In light of the above, this argument must fail.

We also considered appellant’s remaining points and found that either they were not objected to during the course of the trial or they were without merit.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.
260 La. 701

#### I. J. ALLEN and C. H. Allen v. CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY et al.

No. 52076.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 11, 1972.

In re: I. J. Allen and C. H. Allen applying for Certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Bienville. 255 So.2d 842.

Writ denied. No error of law in the judgment under the facts found by the Court of Appeal.
# C_2021297EN.01002202.xml

| 26.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 22 April 2021 — Coca-Cola European Partners Deutschland GmbH v R.G.

(Case C-258/21)

(2021/C 297/25)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant on a point of law: Coca-Cola European Partners Deutschland GmbH

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: R.G.

Questions referred

| 1. | Does a collectively agreed rule implement Working Time Directive 2003/88/EC, (1) within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, if that collectively agreed rule provides for a higher level of compensation for irregular night work than for regular night work? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does a collectively agreed rule implement Working Time Directive 2003/88/EC, (1) within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, if that collectively agreed rule provides for a higher level of compensation for irregular night work than for regular night work?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
  Is a collectively agreed rule that provides for a higher level of compensation for irregular night work than for regular night work compatible with Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union if that rule is intended to compensate not only for the adverse effects on health caused by night work but also for the burden arising from the greater difficulty in planning for irregular night work? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

Is a collectively agreed rule that provides for a higher level of compensation for irregular night work than for regular night work compatible with Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union if that rule is intended to compensate not only for the adverse effects on health caused by night work but also for the burden arising from the greater difficulty in planning for irregular night work?

---

(1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).

---
# In the Missouri Court of Appeals

Eastern District

JANUARY 28, 2014

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED IN ACCORDANCE WIT H RULE

84.16(b) OR RULE 30.25(b).

1. ED98622 ALAN W. COHEN, APP V. LORRAINE M. COHEN, RES

2. ED99175 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V ARTHUR F. WEPPN ER, APP

3. ED99236 WILLIAM MEYERS, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES

4. ED99395 L. BEVINEAU-DICKSON, APP V STATE OF MISS OURI, RES

5. ED99674 HALVOR B. ANDERSON, RES V. SIEGEL-ROBER T, INC, APP

6. ED99693 MARTYN ADAMS, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, R ES
# C_2022011EN.01002701.xml

| 10.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2021 — PIK-KO v EUIPO — Haribo Ricqles Zan (P.I.C. Co.)

(Case T-73/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark P.I.C. Co. - Earlier national figurative mark PIK - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Declaration of partial invalidity)

(2022/C 11/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PIK-KO AD (Kazichene, Bulgaria) (represented by: A. Ivanova, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Capostagno, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Haribo Ricqles Zan (Marseilles, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2020 (Case R 1847/2019-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Haribo Ricqles Zan and PIK-KO.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders PIK-KO AD to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders PIK-KO AD to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 19.4.2021.

---
#### Pearl M. DICK, Appellant, v. Bernard I. DICK, Appellee.

No. 70-412.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 4, 1970.

*470Gerald T. Wetherington, Miami, for appellant.

Yelen & Yelen, Daniel Neal Heller, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and BARK-DULL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an interlocutory appeal of an order of the circuit court authorizing the defendant-husband to add a third party in a divorce action. The order was entered pursuant to a motion made by the defendant-husband after the plaintiff and defendant had introduced all their evidence and rested their case. The party whom the court authorized the defendant to join in the divorce suit is the defendant’s father-in-law.

The plaintiff-wife objected to the order allowing the addition of a third party defendant and has appealed from the adverse order.

The appellant contends that it was error for the trial judge to allow the third party to be joined as a defendant in the divorce action.

In support of her contention, she argues that the defendant has not alleged that the third party is or may be liable to him for all or some part of the relief sought against him as defendant by the plaintiff, and therefore the impleadings of the third party does not come within the scope of Rule 1.180 Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A.

We have considered the record, briefs and arguments of counsel and have concluded that there is no basis in the rule for the order allowing the defendant to bring in the third party since defendant’s cause of action against the third party is totally unrelated to the divorce action. It is the subject of an independent action and should not be joined in the divorce action. Hendrie v. Hendrie, 118 Fla. 478, 159 So. 667 (1935); Hill v. Hill, 123 Fla. 571, 167 So. 414 (1936).

The order appealed is reversed.
#### Adrian MILLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-776.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 25, 1974.

James A. Gardner, Public Defender, and W. Daniel Kearney, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard C. Booth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See,*State v. High (Fla.1973), 281 So.2d 356.

HOBSON, A. C. J., and McNULTY and GRIMES, JJ., concur.
# C_2022198EN.01004402.xml

| 16.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 March 2022 — Hrebenyuk v EUIPO (Shape of a stand-up collar)

(Case T-252/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a stand-up collar - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 198/63)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Anna Hrebenyuk (Griesheim, Germany) (represented by: H.-J. Ruhl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 February 2021 (Case R 1902/2020-5), concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a stand-up collar as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Anna Hrebenyuk to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Anna Hrebenyuk to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 263, 5.7.2021.

---
# C_2020191EN.01003701.xml

| 8.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/37

---

Action brought on 9 April 2020 — Tikal Marine Systems v EUIPO — Ultra Safety Systems (Ultra Tef-Gel)

(Case T-192/20)

(2020/C 191/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tikal Marine Systems GmbH (Norderstedt, Germany) (represented by: M. Mahnkopf, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ultra Safety Systems Inc. (Mangonia Park, Florida, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark Ultra Tef-Gel — European Union trade mark No 15 369 739

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 January 2020 in Case R 2499/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Cancellation Division of 28 November 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Cancellation Division of 28 November 2018;

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | declare the trade mark at issue valid; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the trade mark at issue valid;

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

—

order the defendant and intervener to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
#### Dianne Greer BROOMFIELD v. Conrad Allen BROOMFIELD.

No. 53319.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 22, 1973.

In re: Conrad Allen Broomfield applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

Writ refused. Showing made is insufficient to show an abuse of discretion by the trial Judge.