alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Hezekiah vs. Montross, surv.

Objections to testimony should not be entered upon the record. They can be presented only by bill of exceptions.

The objection, on an issue to the plea of *nil debet*to an action upon a note which has been made part of the declaration by oyer, that the II. E. K. who signed the note is not the H. E. K., defendant, must be disregarded as frivolous: so also that “ I ” before the word *“*promise,” in the note has been omitted.

*Writ of Error to Pulaski Circuit Court.*

Hon. John J. Clendenin, Circuit Judge.

Garland & Randolph, for plaintiff.

Bertrand, for defendant.

Mr. Justice Fairchild

delivered the opinion of the court.

To an action of debt by Montross, as surviving partner of Montross & Stillwell, Hezekiah appeared and craved oyer, which was granted by exhibiting and filing the two notes sued on. He then pleaded *nil debet,*to which issue was taken, and the case submitted to the court sitting as a jury. The finding of the court and judgment were for the-plaintiff, and Hezekiah has brought error.

In the order recording the trial and judgment, it is stated that the defendant objected to the notes being read in evidence, and the objections are fully set out in the order, but their statement is surplusage.

• The record should not have been encumbered with foreign matter, but if the defendant objected to testimony, and wdshed *455to preserve his objections, he could only do so by bill of exceptions.

But the objections were not well made, because, after the notes had been brought on to the record by oyer, they formed a part of the declaration, and there was then no ground for the objection that the defendant was not the H. E. Hezekiah who. signed the notes, or that the omission of the word “ I ” before “'promise,” in the second note could be of any effect.

. And if without oyer, on trial, such objections were made and preserved by bill of exceptions, they would be disregarded as frivolous.

Judgment affirmed.
#### Frank MIRABEL and Johnnie Simmons, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-715.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 18, 1971.

Rehearing- Denied July 27, 1971.

Law Offices of Henry Gonzalez, Tampa, for appellants.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Warren H. Petersen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellants having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.

PIERCE, C. J., and LILES and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.
#### DRILLING ENGINEERING, INC. v. INDEPENDENT INDONESIAN AMERICAN PETROLEUM COMPANY.

No. 53253.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 1, 1973.

In re:. Drilling Engineering, Inc. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Lafayette, 271 So.2d 285.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Evergreen Solar, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard G.
Chleboski, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(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 condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Richard G. Chleboski
--------------------------------
Richard G. Chleboski
Chief Financial Officer
May 12, 2004

                                       29
# C_2021297EN.01002102.xml

| 26.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Bottrop (Germany) lodged on 21 April 2021 — Fuhrmann-2-GmbH v B.

(Case C-249/21)

(2021/C 297/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Bottrop

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fuhrmann-2-GmbH

Defendant: B.

Question referred

Is the second subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Directive 2011/83/EU (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the question whether a button or a similar function — the activation of which forms part of the ordering process of a distance contract to be concluded by electronic means within the meaning of the first subparagraph of that provision and which is not labelled with the words ‘order with obligation to pay’ — is labelled with a corresponding unambiguous formulation within the meaning of that provision, indicating that placing the order entails an obligation to pay the trader, is to be answered solely by reference to the labelling of the button or of the similar function?

---

(1)  Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64).

---
#### RAYKOV *v.*CRITTALL CASEMENT WINDOW CO.

1. Master and Servant — 'Workmen’s Compensation Act — Finding of Department Supported by Evidence Conclusive.

Finding of department of labor and industry orf disputed question as to whether disability for which original award of compensation was made still continues is conclusive, where sustained by evidence.

*292. Same — Question Not Raised Before Department Not Considered on Appeal — Department’s Rules.

Question as to compliance with department’s Rule No. 20, raised at hearing before deputy, but not raised at hearing before department on appeal, is not considered by Supreme Court.

Appeal from Department of Labor and Industry.

Submitted October 9, 1931.

(Docket No. 68, Calendar No. 35,620.)

Decided December 8, 1931.

Joseph Baykov presented his claim against Crittall Casement Window Company, employer, and Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corporation, insurer, for an accidental injury while in defendant’s employ. Petition to stop compensation denied. Defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

J. *W. Calnon (Denton Jolly,*of counsel), for plaintiff.

*Kerr, Lacey & Scroggie,*for defendants.

Clark, J.

This is appeal from an order of the department of labor and industry denying petition of defendants to stop compensation.

The testimony of plaintiff and of his physician is to the effect that the disability for which the original award of compensation was made still continues. This testimony is disputed.

The finding of fact by,- the department, having some evidence to sustain it, is conclusive on this court.

At the hearing before the deputy commissioner, defendants raised the point that plaintiff had not answered their petition to stop compensation, and cited Buie No. 20 of the rules of the department. The record does not show this question to .have been *30*urged*before the commission on review. Therefore it will not be considered here. *Aske*v. *W. E. Wood Co.,*248 Mich. 327.

Affirmed.

Butzel, C. J., and Wiest, McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, and Fead, JJ., concurred.
#### Frank Potter et al., Individually and as Parents and Natural Guardians of Frank D. Potter and Another, Infants, Respondents, v National Grange Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[656 NYS2d 980]

Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs (see, *Matter of Eric D.*[appeal No. 1], 162 AD2d 1051). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Herkimer County, Kirk, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Doerr, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.
# C_2023083EN.01002101.xml

| 6.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 83/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 83/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2022 — Pharmadom v EUIPO — Wellbe Pharmaceuticals (WellBe PHARMACEUTICALS)

(Case T-644/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark WellBe PHARMACEUTICALS - Earlier national word mark WELL AND WELL - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2023/C 83/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pharmadom (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: M.-P. Dauquaire, 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: Wellbe Pharmaceuticals S.A. (Warsaw, Poland)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 July 2021 (Case R 1423/2020-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Pharmadom to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Pharmadom to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.

---
1

Filed 10/19/11



## IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTINE BAKER, as Administrator, )

Etc., )

)

Petitioner, )

) S179194

v. )

) Ct.App. 6 H034040

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION )

APPEALS BOARD and X.S., )

) WCAB Case No.

Respondents. ) ADJ1510738/SJ O 0251902

________________________________ ___ )

MODIFICATION OF OPINION

THE COURT:

The opinion in this matter filed on August 11, 20011, and appearing at 52 Cal.4th

434, is modified as follows:

1. On page 438, the second sentence on the page is modified to read: “They

generally com mence on the date the injured worker reaches a medically stable condition

(permanent and stationary) because, at that point, the full nature and extent of the

worker’s permanent disability, if any, can be determined.”

2. On page 439, in the paragraph car rying over from page 438, a new footnote 2 is

added following the clause “i.e., the permanent and stationary date in the case of total

permanent disability benefits, ” stating: “Our discussion of total permanent disability

benefits pertains only to those p ayable for injuries occurring before April 19, 2004. For

later injuries, it may be that an injured worker would become entitled to total permanent

disability payments, and corresponding COLA’s, before the worker’s medical condition2

is permanent and statio nary. (See §§ 4650, subd. (b) & 4656, subd. (c).) We express no

view on that question, which is not presented under the facts of this case.”

3. Subsequent footnotes are renumbered to account for new footnote 2 on page

439.

4. On page 443, in the firs t full paragraph on the page, immediately following the

citation to the Department of Rehabilitation case, the following additional citation is

added: “; but see fn. 2, ante , and § 4650, subd. (b) [when temporary disability payments

have expired under the time limits of § 4656, subd. (c), permanent disability payments

must begin within 14 days].”

5. On page 446, the third and fourth sentences in the first full paragraph on the

page are replaced by the following: “Moreover, workers who sustain industrial injuries

qualifying them for total permanent disability payments receive temporary disability

payments which, depending on the date of injury, may themselves be indexed to the

SAWW, thereby protecting the worker from the effects of inflation during the pe riod of

eligibility for temporary disability benefits. (See §§ 4453, subd. (a)(10), 4653, 4661.5.)”

This modification does not affect the judgment.
#### Willmon H. MAGEE v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 53348.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 12, 1973.

In re: Willmon H. Magee applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Washington, 276 So.2d 752.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
# C_2023063EN.01000201.xml

| 20.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 December 2022 — European Parliament v Giulia Moi

(Case C-246/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Law governing the institutions - Member of the European Parliament - Principle of ne ultra petita - Subject matter of the dispute - Rights of the defence - Article 232 TFEU - Operating arrangements of the Parliament - Sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Time limit for bringing proceedings - Cross-appeal)

(2023/C 63/02)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: European Parliament (represented by: T. Lazian, S. Seyr and M. Windisch, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Giulia Moi (represented by: M. Pisano and P. Setzu, avvocati)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal;

| 2. | Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs relating to the main appeal; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs relating to the main appeal;

| 3. | Orders Ms Giulia Moi to pay the costs relating to the cross-appeal. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Ms Giulia Moi to pay the costs relating to the cross-appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.

---
EXHIBIT
      23.2





Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm








We
      consent to the use of our report dated December 20, 2006, relating to the
      consolidated financial statements of Analytical Surveys, Inc. and Subsidiaries
      (the “Company”) which include the consolidated statements of operations,
      stockholder’s equity and cash flows for the year ended September 30, 2006,
      appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Analytical Surveys, Inc. as
      of
      September 30, 2007.




Our
      report contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the Company has
      suffered significant operating losses in 2006 and prior years and does not
      currently have external financing in place to fund working capital requirements,
      which raises substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a
      going concern.  The consolidated financial statements do not include
      any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.








/s/
      PANNELL KERR FORSTER OF TEXAS, P.C.





Houston,
      Texas


January
      14, 2008
# C_2023024EN.01003702.xml

| 23.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 November 2022 — Grupo Eig Multimedia v EUIPO — Globalización de Valores CFC & GCI (FORO16)

(Case T-796/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark FORO16 - Earlier EU figurative and word marks Cambio16, Energia16, Cambio16 radio - Earlier national figurative and word marks Camb16, DEFENSA Y SEGURIDAD 16, CAMBIO16 DIGITAL, EVENTOS 16, Salón16 - Relative ground for refusal - Family of marks - No evidence - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2023/C 24/51)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Grupo Eig Multimedia, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: D. Solana Giménez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas and R. Raponi, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Globalización de Valores CFC & GCI, SA (Mairena del Aljarafe, Spain) (represented by: I. Sánchez Iglesias, lawyer)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks in particular the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 October 2021 (Case R 1785/2020-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Grupo Eig Multimedia, SL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Grupo Eig Multimedia, SL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 84, 21.2.2022.

---
# C_2023063EN.01004301.xml

| 20.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/43

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2022 — Eurol v EUIPO — Pernsteiner (eurol LUBRICANTS)

(Case T-636/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark eurol LUBRICANTS - Earlier national word mark EUROLLUBRICANTS - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Articles 15 and 57 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Articles 18 and 64 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Use with the trade mark proprietor’s consent - No alteration of distinctive character - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001))

(2023/C 63/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eurol BV (Nijverdal, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Driessen and G. van Roeyen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: August Wolfgang Pernsteiner (Feldkirchen an der Donau, Austria) (represented by: J. Öhlböck, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 25 July 2021 (Case R 2403/2020-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Eurol BV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Eurol BV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.

---
Exhibit 11.   Statement re computation of per share earnings

The  reconciliation  of the numerators and denominators of the basic and diluted
earnings per common share  computations  for the years ended  December 31 are as
follows: (in thousands, except per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                           Years Ended
                                                December 31, 2003       December 31, 2002        December 31, 2001
                                                -----------------       -----------------        -----------------
                                                   Weighted  Per             Weighted  Per             Weighted  Per
                                             Net   Average  Share     Net    Average  Share    Net     Average  Share
                                           Income  Shares   Amount  Income   Shares   Amount  Income   Shares   Amount
                                           ------  ------   ------  ------   ------   ------  ------   ------   ------
<S>                                     <C>       <C>       <C>     <C>      <C>      <C>     <C>     <C>      <C>

Basic Earnings per Common Share
Net income available to common
   shareholders                          $16,366   11,816  $1.39   $12,877   9,809    $1.31   $10,540  9,779    $1.08
                                                           =====                                               =====

Effect of Dilutive Shares
Weighted average shares if converted                  175                      124                        45
                                                      ---                      ---                        --

Diluted Earnings per Common Share
Net income available to common
   shareholders                         $16,366    11,991  $1.36   $12,877   9,933    $1.30   $10,540  9,824    $1.07
                                        =======    ======  =====   =======   =====    =====   =======  =====    =====

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1205 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1205

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To amend the Fluid Milk Promotion Act of 1990 to define fluid milk 
  processors to exclude de minimis processors, and for other purposes.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1205

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend the Fluid Milk Promotion Act of 1990 to define fluid milk 
  processors to exclude de minimis processors, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Fluid Milk Promotion Amendments Act 
of 1993''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF FLUID MILK PROCESSOR.

    (a) Fluid Milk Processor.--Paragraph (4) of section 1999C of the 
Fluid Milk Promotion Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6402(4)) is amended to read 
as follows:
            ``(4) Fluid milk processor.--The term `fluid milk 
        processor' means any person who processes and markets 
        commercially more than 500,000 pounds of fluid milk products in 
        consumer-type packages per month.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1999J(e) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 
6409(e)) is amended by inserting after ``4504(g))'' the following: ``, 
and that are fluid milk processors,''.

            Passed the Senate July 1 (legislative day, June 30), 1993.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
```