alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. ACME SPECIALTY CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, Appellee.

No. 73-897.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 26, 1974.

Stuart Simon, County Atty., and Steven Lee, Asst. County Atty., for appellant.

Ullman, Kimler & Entin, Miami, for ap-pellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

BARKDULL, Chief Judge.

By this appeal, the County questions the correctness of a final judgment holding null and void those portions of a County ordinance banning the sale of “sparklers”. Section 791.01, Fla.Stat.,1 F.S.A., defining fireworks, has a specific exemption as to sparklers and provides in part that they may be offered for sale.

 The Supreme Court of Florida has recently had occasion to review the propriety of a municipality attempting to enact an ordinance prohibiting activities authorized by a general State statute. Rinzler v. Carson, Fla.1972, 262 So.2d 661. Examining the ordinance under attack in light of the cited statute, the sale of sparklers having been specifically approved by the Legislature of this State, we believe the trial court was correct in the final judgment declaring so much of the County’s fireworks ordinance2 which prohibits such sale to be unconstitutional.

Therefore, the final judgment here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

. “791.01 Fireworks defined

> * * :!: * *

> “ (2) The term ‘fireworks’ shall not include sparklers, toy pistols, toy canes, toy guns, or other devices in which paper caps containing twenty-five hundredths grains or less of explosive compound are used, providing they are so constructed that the hand cannot come in contact with the cap when in place for the explosion, and toy pistol paper caps which contain less than *twenty*hundredths *grains*of explosive mixture, the sale and use of which shall be permitted at all times.”

2

. County ordinances under Home Rule Charter are to be treated the same as municipal ordinances. See: Applied Research Laboratories of Florida, Inc. v. Homer, Fla.App.1971, 249 So.2d 732; Delano v. Dade County, Fla.1973, 287 So.2d 288.
# C_2022073EN.01004701.xml

| 14.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/47

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 30 November 2021 — ID and Others v Parliament

(Case T-711/21 R)

(Application for interim measures - Civil service - Conditions of access to the European Parliament buildings at its three places of work related to the health crisis - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2022/C 73/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: ID and the six other applicants whose name appear in the annex to the order (represented by: P. de Bandt, M. Gherghinaru and L. Panepinto, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: D. Boytha, S. Bukšek Tomac and L. Darie, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of operation of the decision of the Bureau of the Parliament of 27 October 2021 on exceptional health and safety rules governing access to the European Parliament buildings at its three places of work.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim relief is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim relief is dismissed.

| 2. | The order of 5 November 2021, ID and Others v Parliament (T-711/21 R) is cancelled. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The order of 5 November 2021, ID and Others v Parliament (T-711/21 R) is cancelled.

| 3. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The costs are reserved.

---
# C_2021422EN.01003902.xml

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/39

---

Order of the General Court of 23 August 2021 — Cristalfarma v EUIPO — Reinhard Kosch (STILAXX)

(Case T-234/21) (1)

(2021/C 422/54)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Tenth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 242, 21.6.2021.

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 11, 2019

No. 04-19-00700-CV

IN RE IMPLICITY MANAGEMENT COMPANY

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

On October 10, 2019, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus and an emergency

motion to stay litigation pending final resolution of the petition for writ of mandamus. This 

court believes a serious question concerning the mandamus relief sought requires further 

consideration. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(b). The respondent and the real party in interest may file 

a response to the petition in this court no later than October 29, 2019. Any such response must 

conform to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.4. 

Relator’s request for a stay is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The trial 

court’s September 16, 2019 “Order on Defendant, American Risk Insurance Company’s Second 

Amended Motion to Compel and For Sanctions” is STAYED pending final resolution of the 

petition for writ of mandamus. The trial court’s hearing scheduled for October 14, 2019 on (1) 

relator’s motion to quash the subject depositions and (2) the real party in interest’s motion to 

enforce the taking of the subject depositions and for sanctions is STAYED pending final 

resolution of the petition for writ of mandamus. Relator’s request to stay all trial court

proceedings in the underlying case is DENIED.

It is so ORDERED on October 11, 2019.

 PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _______________________

 Luz Estrada

 Chief Deputy Clerk

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2016CI11019, styled Implicity Management Company v. American Risk 

Insurance Co., Inc., pending in the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Cathleen M. 

Stryker presiding.
# C_2022237EN.01004902.xml

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/49

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — Dorit-DFT v EUIPO — Erwin Suter (DORIT)

(Case T-208/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark DORIT - Earlier national company names - Relative ground for refusal - No use in trade of a sign of more than mere local significance - Article 8(4) and Article 52(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 237/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Dorit-DFT Fleischereimaschinen GmbH (Ellwangen, Germany) (represented by: E. Strauß, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Erwin Suter AG Maschinenfabrik Retus (Kölliken, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Brecht, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 February 2021 (Case R 127/2020-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Dorit-DFT Fleischereimaschinen and Erwin Suter Maschinenfabrik Retus.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Dorit-DFT Fleischereimaschinen GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Dorit-DFT Fleischereimaschinen GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.

---
# C_2022198EN.01004902.xml

| 16.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/49

---

Order of the General Court of 15 March 2022 — Thomas Henry v EUIPO (Spicy Ginger)

(Case T-220/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 198/72)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Thomas Henry GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and N. Willich, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2021 (Case R 435/2020-1), relating to an application for registration of the word sign Spicy Ginger as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Thomas Henry GmbH. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Thomas Henry GmbH.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.

---
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 135 (Friday, July 13, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 32687]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15106]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[USITC SE-18-033]


Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

Agency Holding the Meeting: United States International Trade 
Commission.

Time and Date: July 19, 2018 at 11:00 a.m.

Place: Room 101, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 
(202) 205-2000.

Status: Open to the public.

Matters to be Considered: 
    1. Agendas for future meetings: None.
    2. Minutes.
    3. Ratification List.
    4. Vote on Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1378 and 1379 (Final) (Low Melt 
Polyester Staple Fiber from Korea and Taiwan). The Commission is 
currently scheduled to complete and file its determinations and views 
of the Commission by August 1, 2018.
    5. Outstanding action jackets: None.
    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, 
not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the 
agenda of the following meeting.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: July 10, 2018.
William Bishop,
Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018-15106 Filed 7-11-18; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
# C_2023063EN.01003701.xml

| 20.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2022 — SU v EIOPA

(Case T-296/21) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Contract for a fixed period - Non-renewal - Renewal procedure - Taking into account of appraisal reports - Non-finalised appraisal report - Liability - Material damage - Loss of opportunity - Non-material damage - Unlimited jurisdiction - Implementation of a judgment of the General Court)

(2023/C 63/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: SU (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) (represented by: C. Coucke and E. Karatza, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

By her action based on Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) of 15 July 2020 by which the latter did not renew her contract and, so far as necessary, of the decision of 11 February 2021 by which it rejected her complaint and, secondly, compensation for the material and non-material damage she claims to have suffered as a result.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) of 15 July 2020 not to renew SU’s contract as a member of the temporary staff; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) of 15 July 2020 not to renew SU’s contract as a member of the temporary staff;

| 2. | Annuls the decision of EIOPA of 11 February 2021 rejecting SU’s complaint; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls the decision of EIOPA of 11 February 2021 rejecting SU’s complaint;

| 3. | Orders EIOPA to pay EUR 10 000 as compensation for the material damage sustained by SU; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EIOPA to pay EUR 10 000 as compensation for the material damage sustained by SU;

| 4. | Orders EIOPA to pay EUR 5 000 as compensation for the non-material damage sustained by SU; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders EIOPA to pay EUR 5 000 as compensation for the non-material damage sustained by SU;

| 5. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 6. | Orders EIOPA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Orders EIOPA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 9.8.2021.

---
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. John Alwin McADAM, Appellee.

No. 72-818.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 11, 1973.

Rehearing Denied May 7, 1973.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.

James A. Gardner, Public Defender, and Mary Jo M. Gallay, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of State v. Penley, 276 So.2d 180 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1973).

MANN, C. J., and LILES and BOARD-MAN, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Day International Group,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Thomas J. Koenig, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial position and results of operations of the
Company.





/s/ Thomas J. Koenig
---------------------
Thomas J. Koenig
Chief Financial Officer
August 13, 2002
<PAGE>
                                                       [LOGO OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN]


                                                                      Exhibit 23

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                   -----------------------------------------



As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our report
and to all references to our Firm included in or made part of this Form 10-K and
to the incorporation by reference of our report included in this Form 10-K into
the Company's previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos.
33-44012, 33-44599, 33-64032, 333-2676, 333-70057 and 333-57130).


/s/ Arthur Andersen, LLP
------------------------
    Arthur Andersen, LLP

Denver, Colorado
 April 3, 2001
Exhibit 31.2



I, Vincent J. Milano, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the registrant, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ViroPharma
Incorporated.



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not
contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;



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



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



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



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



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



5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the 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 over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



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



|                                                                       
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Vincent J. Milano                                                  
|Vincent J. Milano Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
|



November 8, 2004
# C_2022418EN.01000602.xml

| 31.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 September 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — SRS, AA v Minister for Justice and Equality

(Case C-22/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/38/EC - Right of Union citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States - Article 3(2), first subparagraph, point (a) - Concept of ‘other family members who are members of the household of the Union citizen having the primary right of residence’ - Assessment criteria)

(2022/C 418/08)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: SRS, AA

Defendant: Minister for Justice and Equality

Operative part of the judgment

Point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 3(2) of 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,

must be interpreted as meaning that:

the concept of ‘any other family members who are members of the household of the Union citizen having the primary right of residence’, mentioned in that provision, refers to persons who have a relationship of dependence with that citizen, based on close and stable personal ties, forged within the same household, in the context of a shared domestic life going beyond a mere temporary cohabitation entered into for reasons of pure convenience.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 19.4.2021.

---
# C_2022171EN.01003402.xml

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2022 — Ancor Group v EUIPO — Cody’s Drinks International (CODE-X)

(Case T-198/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - EU word mark CODE-X - Earlier national word and figurative marks Cody’s - Earlier international figurative mark Cody’s - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 171/45)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ancor Group GmbH (Igersheim, Germany) (represented by: J. Wachsmuth and W. Berlit, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Cody’s Drinks International GmbH (Bremen, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 February 2021 (Case R 208/2020-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Cody’s Drinks International and Ancor Group.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 February 2021 (Case R 208/2020-5); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 February 2021 (Case R 208/2020-5);

| 2. | Rejects the opposition brought by Cody’s Drinks International GmbH; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Rejects the opposition brought by Cody’s Drinks International GmbH;

| 3. | Orders EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.

---