alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### 1411 Broadway Restaurant, Inc., et al., Appellants, v Keystone Associates et al., Respondents.

[655 NYS2d 367]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.), entered April 16, 1996, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs cause of action seeking to rescind the release it gave in connection with the 1411 property as fraudulently induced by defendants’ misrepresentation that they would give plaintiff a favorable lease at the Grace Building property is unsupported by allegations permitting an inference that defendants never intended to give plaintiff such a lease *(see, Stuart Lipsky, P. C. v Price,*215 AD2d 102). Indeed, the documentary evidence, which shows that a proposed lease was drafted, negotiations were underway, and schematic plans were reviewed, undermines any such claim. The documentary evidence also undermines any claim of reliance on the alleged misrepresentation, the lease proposal expressly stating that it did not constitute an offer *(see, Tribune Print. Co. v 263 Ninth Ave. Realty,*57 NY2d 1038). Nor can the alleged promise to give a lease be deemed a part of the consideration for the release *(see, L & K Holding Corp. v Tropical Aquarium,*192 AD2d 643, 644-645).

Since the remaining causes of action contained in the complaint are wholly dependent upon the release rescission claim, the complaint as a whole was properly dismissed. In view of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to consider defendants’ other grounds for the same relief. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Williams and Andrias, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18U.S.C. §1350)



I, J. Norman Rokosh, of Analytical Surveys, Inc., certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2003 (the
Report) which this statement accompanies 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 Analytical Surveys, Inc.



|Dated: December 23, 2003             
|-------------------------------------
|                                     
|/s/ J. Norman Rokosh                 
|J. Norman Rokosh                     
|President and Chief Executive Officer
LOG OF MEETING

DIRECTORATE FOR ENGINEERING SCIENCES

SUBJECT: ASTM Bassinet/Cradle Task Group Meeting

DATE OF MEETING: May 22 , 2013

PLACE OF MEETING: Via Conference Call

LOG ENTRY SOURCE: Patricia Edwards

COMMISSION ATTENDEES: Patricia Edwards, Mark Kumagai, Jonathan

Midgett

NON

- COMMISSION

ATTENDEES: Contact ASTM for attendee list

SUMMARY OF MEETING:

The ballot items associated with the removable bassinet bed stability requirement were

reviewed once again by the task group. Several changes were made to the latest draft.

The changes clarified a variety of things and provided wording consistency , but the intent

of the requirement was not changed. Scott Lewis, the subcommittee chair

, will pull

together a new draft and circulate it to the task group for another review, before

submitting it to ASTM for ballot.
#### THOMPSON *v.*WARDEN OF MARYLAND PENITENTIARY

[App. No. 27,

September Term, 1962.]

*Decided October 10, 1962.*

Before Bruñe, C. J., and Henderson, Hammond, Prescott, Horney and SybErT, JJ.

Per Curiam.

For the reasons stated in the opinion of Judge Loveless of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, application is denied.
#### Carlos M. DaSilva, Respondent, v Seville Central Mix Corp., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, et al., Defendants. J.D. Posillico, Inc./P. Scalamandre & Sons, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

[655 NYS2d 402]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Seville Central Mix Corp. appeals, as limited by its brief, and the third-party defendant J.D. Posillico, Inc./P. Scalamandre & Sons, Inc., a joint venture, separately appeals, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kohn, J.), entered September 15, 1995, as denied their respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Seville Central Mix Corp.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs payable to the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs; the respective motions of the defendant Seville Central Mix Corp. and the third-party defendant J.D. Posillico, Inc./P. Scalamandre & Sons, Inc., a joint venture, are granted, the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Seville Central Mix Corp. is dismissed, and the third-party complaint against J.D. Posillico, Inc./P. Scalamandre & Sons, Inc., a joint venture, is dismissed.

The Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action should have been dismissed, as the plaintiff’s injuries did not result from an elevation-related risk as contemplated by the statute *(see, Misseritti v Mark IV Constr. Co.,*86 NY2d 487; *Rodriguez v Tietz Ctr. for Nursing Care,*84 NY2d 841; *Matter of Sabovic v State of New York,*229 AD2d 586; *Phillips v City of New York,*228 AD2d 570). As to his cause of action based on Labor Law § 241 (6), the plaintiff failed to allege any violation of any provisions of the Industrial Code mandating compliance with concrete specifications which would be applicable to the facts of this ac*245tion *(see, Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co.,*81 NY2d 494; *Munroe v New Windsor Bus. Park*Assocs., 227 AD2d 600). The plaintiff’s causes of action to recover damages for negligence and violation of Labor Law § 200 should also have been dismissed, as there was no showing that the allegedly defective condition which contributed to his accident was created by the defendant Seville Central Mix Corp. (hereinafter Seville) or that Seville had actual or constructive notice of its existence *(see, Mantovi v Nico Constr. Co.,*217 AD2d 650). Furthermore, Seville had no duty to warn of any dangerous condition of which the plaintiff was aware *(see, Banks v Makita, U.S.A.,*226 AD2d 659).

Finally, the strict products liability and breach of warranty causes of action asserted against Seville must fail as Seville was not a manufacturer or seller, or otherwise part of the distributive chain *(see, Lawless v O’Brien,*222 AD2d 657; *Passaretti v Aurora Pump Co.,*201 AD2d 475). Rosenblatt, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.
#### Clarence L. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY and Schlumberger Well Services, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13300.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Aug. 29, 1977.

Baker, Culpepper & Brunson by Bobby L. Culpepper, Jonesboro, for plaintiff-appellant.

Watson, Murchison, Crews, Arthur & Corkern by William P. Crews, Jr., Natchi-toches, for defendants-appellees.

Before BOLIN, C. J., and PRICE and HALL, JJ.

*1011PRICE, Judge.

This is an action for workmen's compensation benefits brought by Clarence L. Smith against his employer, Schlumberger Well Services, and his employer’s insurer, The Travelers Insurance Company. The trial court rendered judgment rejecting plaintiff’s demands.

The sole issue on appeal is whether plaintiff has borne the burden of proving that he is presently disabled.

Smith was injured when a company truck in which he was riding overturned on Highway 174 in Red River Parish on August 17, 1975. He was paid compensation benefits of $65 per week until December 15,1975, at which time he was released by the treating physician as able to return to work. Plaintiff returned to the same work he was performing before the accident, and continued to work until April 27, 1976. He notified Schlumberger through his attorney on May 3, 1976, that he was disabled and demanded compensation payments be resumed. His request was rejected, and this action was instituted against Schlumberger. and Travelers for total disability benefits, penalties, and attorney’s fees.

Plaintiff contends that an injury to his back resulting from the accident continues to cause him such pain and discomfort that he is no longer able to perform his duties which require manual labor.

The crux of the case revolves around the conflicting opinions of two medical experts. Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Bennett H. Young, an orthopedic surgeon, testified that Smith has either herniated discs or a thoracic outlet syndrome, and that in either case corrective surgery is necessary to prevent total disability.

Defendants’ expert, Dr. A. E. Dean, Jr., also an orthopedic surgeon, contends plaintiff’s symptoms are the residual effects from a cervical sprain and are not sufficient to disable him. Dr. Dean examined the report of an electromyelographic study and the X-rays relied on by Dr. Young and testified he could not confirm the diagnosis of probable herniated discs or a thoracic outlet syndrome.

The trial judge found the lay testimony presented by plaintiff to be of no value in resolving the conflict of medical opinions, and further found that plaintiff had not demonstrated by competent evidence that the reason for quitting the job in April 1975 was because of his alleged present physical inability.

We find this conclusion of the trial court to be supported by the evidence and in accord with the rule that in workmen’s compensation suits, as in other civil actions, plaintiff must establish his claim for benefits by a preponderance of the evidence.

For these reasons, the judgment appealed is affirmed at appellant’s cost.
# C_2020114EN.01001401.xml

| 6.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 114/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 114/14

---

Action brought on 12 February 2020 — bonnanwalt v EUIPO — Bayerischer Rundfunk and Others (tagesschau)

(Case T-83/20)

(2020/C 114/14)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: bonnanwalt Vermögens- und Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: T. Wendt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bayerischer Rundfunk (Munich, Germany), Hessischer Rundfunk (Frankfurt am Main, Germany), Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk (Leipzig, Germany), Norddeutscher Rundfunk (Hamburg, Germany), Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg (Berlin, Germany), Saarländischer Rundfunk (Saarbrücken, Germany), Südwestrundfunk (Mainz, Germany), Westdeutscher Rundfunk Köln (Cologne, Germany), Radio Bremen (Bremen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietors of the trade mark at issue: Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘tagesschau’ — EU trade mark No 10 237 543

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 December 2019 in Case R 1487/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | declare EU trade mark No 10 237 543 to be revoked with effect from 15 November 2017, also in respect of the services ‘Provision of news programmes and reports’; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare EU trade mark No 10 237 543 to be revoked with effect from 15 November 2017, also in respect of the services ‘Provision of news programmes and reports’;

| — | order the EU trade-mark proprietors to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EU trade-mark proprietors to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of essential procedural requirements (obligation to state reasons); |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of essential procedural requirements (obligation to state reasons);

| — | Infringement of the first sentence of Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the first sentence of Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) and 58(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) and 58(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
****
 ****


**EXHIBIT 23.2

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

The Board of Directors
Habersham Bancorp:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration
Statement Nos. 33-64149, 33-61587, 33-61589, and 333-48507 on Form S-8 and
Registration Statement No. 333-18023 on Form S-3 of Habersham Bancorp of our
report dated January 23, 2004, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of
Habersham Bancorp and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2003, and the related
consolidated statements of earnings, changes in stockholders’ equity,
comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year
period ended December 31, 2003, which report appears in the December 31, 2004
annual report on Form 10-K of Habersham Bancorp.

/s/ KPMG LLP


Atlanta, Georgia
March 28, 2005**
#### Reinaldo FRYLE, Petitioner, v. SAXONY HOTEL, EMPLOYERS SERVICE CORPORATION, and the Industrial Relations Commission of the Florida Department of Commerce, Respondents.

No. 42759.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 23, 1973.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### PROTECTOR SECURITY CENTER, INC., Appellant, v. Dale M. HOKE, Appellee.

No. 72-1207.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 14, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Richard H. Cooper, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 18, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 33933]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15330]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank 
or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank 
holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the 
notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than August 2, 2018.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Kathryn Haney, Director of 
Applications) 1000 Peachtree Street NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30309. 
Comments can also be sent electronically to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1958696975707a786d7076776a375a7674747c776d6a59786d75377f6b7b37766b7e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="125362627e7b7173667b7d7c613c517d7f7f777c66615273667e3c7460703c7d6075">[email protected]</span></a>:
    1. Paula Swiber individually and as trustee for Wallace Carline and 
Gracie Carline, Mike Swiber, Glen David Carline, Carline Land 
Corporation, Carline Bouef Properties, all of Morgan City, Louisiana; 
Lisa Carline, of Miramar Beach, Florida; and Stephen Swiber, of Gibson, 
Louisiana; to retain shares of M C Bancshares, Inc., and thereby 
indirectly retain shares of M C Bank & Trust Company, both of Morgan 
City, Louisiana.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 13, 2018.
Ann Misback,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2018-15330 Filed 7-17-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 82 (Thursday, April 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 23845]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10216]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

National Endowment for the Arts

Arts Advisory Panel

    Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that one meeting 
of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts will be 
held at the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20506 as follows (ending time is approximate):
    Research (application review): May 11, 2011, by teleconference. 
This meeting, from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. EDT, will be closed.
    The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel 
review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial 
assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities 
Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to 
the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of 
November 10, 2009, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant 
to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code.
    Further information with reference to these meetings can be 
obtained from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of Guidelines & Panel 
Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506, or 
call 202/682-5691.

    Dated: April 22, 2011.
Kathy Plowitz-Worden,
Panel Coordinator, Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts.
[FR Doc. 2011-10216 Filed 4-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537-01-P
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Markey Walker, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Hannon, Appellant.

[655 NYS2d 339]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered November 15, 1993, convicting defendants, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing defendant Walker to a term of 25 years to life, and defendant Hannon to a term of 15 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Issues of credibility were properly presented to the jury and we see no reason to disturb its findings *(People v Gaimari,*176 NY 85, 94).

The court’s supplemental instruction to the jury, viewed in its entirety *(see, People v Coleman,*70 NY2d 817), properly explained the elements of felony murder.

Defendant Walker’s sentence was based on proper criteria and does not constitute an abuse of discretion. We have considered defendants’ other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.
#### Edgar C. WORTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-771.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 5, 1971.

Appeal from Court of Record, Broward County; William Clayton Johnson, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Elena FERRUCCI and Julius Ferrucci, Appellants, v. The TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Appellees.

No. 73-848.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 11, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Thomas James McDONALD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-58.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 3, 1971.

Appeal from Court of Record, Brevard County; Joe A. Cowart, Jr., Judge.

Appeal quashed.
EXHIBIT 32.1


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 Annual Report of TM Century, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the year ending  September 30, 2003 as filed with the  Securities and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, R. David  Graupner,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350,  as enacted  pursuant  to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2003,
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 condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/  R. David Graupner
----------------------

Chief Executive Officer

December 23, 2003