alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### NG FOOK v. PROCTOR, Com’r of Immigration.

No. 8364.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Feb. 8, 1937.

Edward H. Chavelle, of Seattle, Wash., for appellant.

J. Charles Dennis, U. S. Atty., and F. A. Pellegrini and Gerald Shucklin, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of Seattle, Wash. (J. P. Sanderson, U. S. Immigration Service, of Seattle, Wash., on the brief), for appellee.

Before WILBUR and GARRECHT, Circuit Judges, NETERER, District Judge.

NETERER, District Judge.

From an order denying writ and remanding petitioner to the immigration officers for deportation this appeal is prosecuted.

The petitioner is a Chinese of full blood and was born in China. He claims his grandfather Ng Fun was born in the Hawaiian Islands August 12, 1885; that Ng Fun went to China, and in 1902 a son, Ng Ming Yin, was born to him; that petitioner is the son of Ng Ming Yin and was born in China in 1920.

The question for decision is: Was Ng Fook the applicant given a fair hearing?

*332Consideration of the testimony of Ng Ming Yin'and Ng Fun’s in Ng Ah Park’s application for admission and Ng Ming Yin and appellant as to home in China and surroundings, habits of the alleged father, furnishings in the home, pictures and photographs of wife and mother kept in his home, Ng Quay, Ng Foo and Ng Leong, sons of Ng Ying, brother of appellant’s alleged grandfather, lived in the second house in the third row in the same village, and testimony of Ng ■Foo and Ng Léong in 1931 that Ng Ming Yin was not inarried, it is emphatically shown that tírese are material discrepancies and .the poard’s finding has material testimony to support it. The discrepancies are such as could not exist if the relationship of father and son obtained. The finding is binding on the court. The father the alleged son described is not the man the allege^ father demonstrated himself to be. The house and' colony of houses which, tpe .alleged son described is not the house and colony of houses where the father lived. A fair hearing was given. *

Affirmed.

*

 Weedin v. Yee Wing Soon, 48 F.(2d) 36 (C.C.A. 9); Wong Sun Ying v. Weedin, 50 F.(2d) 377 (C.C.A. 9); Lee Get Nuey v. Nagle, 53 F.(2d) 208 (C.C.A. 9); Chin Wing v. Nagle, 55 F.(2d) 609 (C.C.A. 9); Louie Foo v. Nagle, 56 F.(2d) 775 (C.C.A. 9); Lee Foo v. Nagle, 58 F.(2d) 764 (C.C. A. 9); Wong Hon Ping v. Haff, 63 F.(2d) 448 (C.C.A. 9). See. also, Lim Wun v. Nagle, 52 F.(2d) 396 (C.C.A. 9); Wong Soo v. Nagle, 60 F.(2d) 681 (C.C.A. 9); Wong Shong Been v. Proctor, 79 F.(2d) 881 (C.C.A. 9).
#### Allen H. Weiss, Respondent, v Allen J. Kozupsky, Appellant.

[656 NYS2d 907]

In an action to compel an accounting, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaccaro, J.), dated March 13,1996, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the action.

Ordered that the order is modified by adding a provision thereto directing a hearing pursuant to CPLR 7503 (a) as to whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

This matter concerns the breakup of the parties’ law partnership. The defendant asserts, *inter alia,*that the terms of the dissolution were memorialized in an unexecuted written agreement (hereinafter the unexecuted agreement) which the parties adopted and adhered to, and which contained an arbitration clause. The plaintiff alleges that there was an agreement to dissolve the parties’ law partnership (hereinafter the dissolution agreement), but denies that the unexecuted agreement has any legal effect, or that he agreed to arbitrate any disputes arising out of the dissolution agreement.

*515A dispute arose as to whether the defendant made the payments called for by the dissolution agreement and the plaintiff commenced this action for an accounting. The defendant served an answer, asserting, *inter alia,*as an affirmative defense, that the parties had agreed to arbitrate any disputes arising out of the dissolution. Therefore, he contends, the action should be stayed and the parties should be directed to proceed to arbitration. Thereafter, the defendant moved to dismiss this action and, in effect, also moved to compel arbitration. The Supreme Court denied the motion based on the existence of factual issues.

The Supreme Court correctly denied the defendant’s motion since the existence of an arbitration agreement would not entitle the defendant to dismissal of this action but merely to a stay thereof *(see, Allied Bldg. Inspectors Intl. Union of Operating Engrs. v Office of Labor Relations,*45 NY2d 735; *Blatt v Socket,*199 AD2d 451). However, it is clear from the record that a real controversy exists as to whether or not there was an enforceable agreement to arbitrate any disputes arising out of the parties’ dissolution agreement *(see generally, Brown Bros. Elec. Contr. v Beam Constr. Corp.,*41 NY2d 397; *L.N.L. Constr. v M.T.F. Indus.,*190 AD2d 714; *see also, Matter of Helen Whiting, Inc. [Trojan Textile Corp.],*307 NY 360, 367-368; McLaughlin, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C7501:l, at 253; *see also, Crawford v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith,*35 NY2d 291). Under these circumstances, the court should have directed a hearing as to whether or not there was an enforceable arbitration agreement (CPLR 7503 [a]; *see, Matter of Welton Becket Assocs. v LLJV Dev. Corp.,*193 AD2d 478; *see also, Matter of Mitsui & Co. Ltd. [Schneir],*255 App Div 620).

The plaintiff’s remaining contention is without merit. Pizzuto, J. P., Friedmann, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.
# C_2022024EN.01003802.xml

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/38

---

Order of the General Court of 11 November 2021 — QC v Commission

(Case T-77/21) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Pension - Transfer of national pension rights - Decision establishing the number of pensionable years of service - Circumscribed powers - Action for annulment and for damages - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law - No action brought for failure to fulfil obligations - Inadmissibility - Request for directions to be issued - Clear lack of jurisdiction)

(2022/C 24/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: QC (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin, B. Mongin and M. Brauhoff, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the notice of 6 April 2020 establishing the pension rights and, second, compensation for the material and non-material damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed, in part as manifestly lacking any foundation in law, in part as being inadmissible and, in part, on account of the fact that the Court clearly does not have jurisdiction to hear and rule on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed, in part as manifestly lacking any foundation in law, in part as being inadmissible and, in part, on account of the fact that the Court clearly does not have jurisdiction to hear and rule on the action.

| 2. | QC is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

QC is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 19.4.2021.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Form 10-Q for
the period ended September 30, 1996 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           482,993
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                       1,074
<MORTGAGE>                                       8,335
<REAL-ESTATE>                                      301
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 549,632
<CASH>                                             742
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          28,392
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 941,866
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                344,256
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             34,682
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 241,653
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                            2,802
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                108,250
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           22,758
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            16
<OTHER-SE>                                     151,445
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   941,866
<PREMIUMS>                                      82,451
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             29,552
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                 334
<OTHER-INCOME>                                   1,394
<BENEFITS>                                      54,101
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                      6,224
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            24,390
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,221
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,777
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,444
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,444
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     6.73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     4.06
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         1,935,896
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  391,382
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,327,278
<PP&E>                                         594,486
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (249,957)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,522,479
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          961,610
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       13,170
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,547,699
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3,522,479
<SALES>                                        1,215,650
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,215,650
<CGS>                                          401,965
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,071,651
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             27,137
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (285,103)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                35,116
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (249,987)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.03)



</TABLE>
#### ADMIRALTY YACHT REPAIR CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. William R. PONSOLDT, Appellee.

No. 70-988.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 15, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 25, 1972.

Ronald FitzGerald, of Fleming, O’Bryan & Fleming, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

H. Mark Purdy, of Parkhurst & LaHurd, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WALDEN, J., and SACK, MARTIN, Associate Judge, concur.

MAGER, J., dissents, with opinion.

MAGER, Judge

(dissenting) :

I must respectfully dissent for the reason that the final judgment in favor of the plaintiff is simply not supported by the evidence in the record. Plaintiff sought damages resulting from defendant’s alleged breach of warranties and misrepresentation of the age and condition of a yacht. Plaintiff had purchased the yacht from one Riley through the services of the defendant a yacht broker. Previous to the appeal sub judice plaintiff settled his claim for damages with the said Riley and now seeks to recover damages from defendant. Although the record does not indicate what damages plaintiff had incurred as a result of defendant’s breach, the trial court entered a judgment, less certain setoffs, in the amount of the *commission*paid by plaintiff to the defendant for the sale of the yacht.

Ordinarily the measure of damages is not the contract price or consideration which, in this case, was the commission paid by plaintiff to defendant; a person injured by the breach of a contract is entitled to compensation *for the loss he has suffered*because of the breach. I am unable to equate the commission paid on a sale with the “damages” incurred by plaintiff. See Fla.Jur., Damages § 25, and §§ 24-26 ; 28 Fla.Jur., Sales, § 236.

Accordingly, I would reverse the final judgment.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas June 2, 2022 No. 04-22-00097-CV Sharyn DACBERT , Appellant/Cross-Appellee

v. MEDICAL CENTER OPHTHALMOLOGY ASSOCIATES, L.L.P. and Michael Singer, Appellees/Cross- Appellants From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020-CI-06670 Honorable Martha Tanner, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R The Appellant’s/Cross-Appellee’s Third Motion to Extend Time for Filing Appellant’s/Cross-Appellee’s Brief is hereby GRANTED. Appellant’s/Cross-Appellee’s Brief is due on or before June 6, 2022.

_________________________________ Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 2nd day of June, 2022.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.1


                                  CERTIFICATION

         The undersigned, Bami Bastani, President and Chief Executive Officer of
ANADIGICS, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies that the Annual Report of the
Company on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




                                           /s/ Bami Bastani
                                           ----------------------------
Dated:  March 3, 2003                      Bami Bastani
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 4.6


 


CERTIFICATE OF DOMESTICATION


 


OF


 


ACE CONVERGENCE ACQUISITION CORP.


 





 






 


Pursuant to Sections 103 and 388 of the
General

Corporation Law of the State of Delaware


 





 






 


ACE Convergence Acquisition Corp., a Cayman
Islands exempted company limited by its shares, which intends to domesticate as a Delaware corporation pursuant to this Certificate
of Domestication (upon such domestication to be renamed “Achronix Semiconductor Corporation” and referred to herein
after such time as the “Corporation”), does hereby certify to the following facts relating to the domestication of
the Corporation in the State of Delaware:


 


1.            The
Corporation was originally incorporated on the 31st day of March, 2020 under the laws of the Cayman Islands.


 


2.            The
name of the Corporation immediately prior to the filing of this Certificate of Domestication is ACE Convergence Acquisition Corp.


 


3.            The
name of the Corporation as set forth in the Certificate of Incorporation is Achronix Semiconductor Corporation.


 


4.            The
jurisdiction that constituted the seat, siege social or principal place of business or central administration of the Corporation
immediately prior to the filing of this Certificate of Domestication is the Cayman Islands.


 


5.            The
domestication has been approved in the manner provided for by the document, instrument, agreement or other writing, as the case
may be, governing the internal affairs of ACE Convergence Acquisition Corp. and the conduct of its business or by applicable non-Delaware
law, as appropriate.


 









     


     


    

 


IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate of Domestication to be executed in its name this          day
of                         , 2021.


 


	 	ACE CONVERGENCE ACQUISITION CORP.,

                                            a Cayman Islands exempted company

	 	 
	 	By:	 
	 	 	Name:      
	 	 	Title:
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel, Center for Genetic Studies (7797).                    

*Date:*                         July 25, 2018.                    

*Time:*                         12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate contract proposals.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Gerald L. McLaughlin, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Policy and Review, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 4238, MSC 9550, Bethesda, MD 20892-9550, 301-827-5819,                         *gm145a@nih.gov.*

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No.: 93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: July 12, 2018.

Natasha M. Copeland,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2018-15279 Filed 7-17-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
No. 10801.

#### The H. H. Hessler Co. *v.*The Teutonic Insurance Co.

Decided January 19, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

*Mr. H. E. Parsons,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. C. W. Fuller*and *Mr. L. R. Canfield,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Summers, Davis and Price, JJ., concur.
#### Eugenie Murrhee SUTER, Petitioner, v. Max SUTER, Respondent.

No. 44135.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 17, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 279 So.2d 325.

ROBERTS, ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

CARLTON, C. J., and ERVIN, J., dissent.
Exhibit 10.8


 


CHARDAN NEXTECH ACQUISITION CORP.

17 State Street, Suite 2100


New York, NY 10004


[●], 2021


 


CHARDAN NEXTECH INVESTMENTS LLC

17 State Street, Suite 2100


New York, NY 10004


 


Ladies and Gentlemen:


 


This letter will confirm
our agreement that, commencing on the effective date (the “Effective Date”) of the registration statement
(the “Registration Statement”) for the initial public offering (the “IPO”)
of the securities of Chardan NexTech Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) and continuing until the earlier
of (i) the consummation by the Company of an initial business combination or (ii) the Company’s liquidation (in each case
as described in the Registration Statement) (such earlier date hereinafter referred to as the “Termination Date”),
Chardan NexTech Investments LLC (“Sponsor”) shall make available to the Company certain office space,
secretarial and administrative services as may be required by the Company from time to time, situated at 17 State Street, 21st
Floor, New York, NY 10004 (or any successor location). In exchange therefore, the Company shall pay Sponsor a sum not to exceed
$10,000 per month, respectively, on the Effective Date and continuing monthly thereafter until the Termination Date. Sponsor hereby
agrees that it does not have any right, title, interest or claim of any kind in or to any monies that may be set aside in a trust
account (the “Trust Account”) that may be established by the Company for the benefit of the Company’s
public stockholders upon the consummation of the IPO as described in the Registration Statement (“Claim”),
and hereby waives any Claim it may have in the future as a result of, or arising out of, any negotiations, contracts or agreements
with the Company, and will not seek recourse against the Trust Account for any reason whatsoever.


 


	 	 	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	CHARDAN NEXTECH ACQUISITION CORP.
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	By:	 
	 	 	 	Name:  	Jonas Grossman
	 	 	 	Title: 	Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	 	 
	

  AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED BY:	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	CHARDAN NEXTECH INVESTMENTS LLC	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:	 	 	 
	Name:  	Jonas Grossman	 	 
	Title: 	Managing Member