alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James LAWSON, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-1259.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 13, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2021471EN.01001403.xml

| 22.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 471/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 471/14

---

Appeal brought on 22 March 2021 by Johann A. Löning against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) made on 20 January 2021 in Case T-543/20, Johann A. Löning v European Union, represented by the European Commission

(Case C-176/21 P)

(2021/C 471/20)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Johann A. Löning (represented by: W. Mathes, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 3 September 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Ninth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs.

---
# C_2020371EN.01002401.xml

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/24

---

Action brought on 10 September 2020 — Upper Echelon Products v EUIPO (Everlasting Comfort)

(Case T-562/20)

(2020/C 371/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Upper Echelon Products LLC (Austin, Texas, United States) (represented by: M. Izquierdo Blanco, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark Everlasting Comfort — Application for registration No 11 429 637

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2020 in Case R 952/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and grant trademark No 11 429 637 for all the products requested; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and grant trademark No 11 429 637 for all the products requested;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the procedural costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the procedural costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 75 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 75 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
# C_2022119EN.01003901.xml

| 14.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 119/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 119/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 January 2022 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Malpricht (APIRETAL)

(Case T-160/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Word mark APIRETAL - Declaration of revocation - No genuine use - No proper reasons for non-use - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2022/C 119/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: T. González Martínez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Frydendahl and D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ingrid Malpricht (Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: M.-C. Simon, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 January 2021 (Case R 1004/2020 4), relating to revocation proceedings between Ms Malpricht and Laboratorios Ern.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Laboratorios Ern, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Laboratorios Ern, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 31.5.2021.

---
#### Strawn vs. Norris et al.

If a party file a petition for discovery, and read a part of the answer in evidence the whole answer must be considered as evidence in the case, as well that which is not, as that which is, responsive to the interrogatories.

*Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court.*

Hon. Len B. Green, Circuit Judge.

Gallagher and Knight, for appellant.

Mr. Justice Compton

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this suit, an action of assumpsit, the plaintiff, finding it difficult to establish his demand without appealing to the conscience of the defendant, filed a petition for discovery, and obtained an answer. At the trial — which was before the court sitting as a jury — the plaintiff read the answer in evidence; and thereupon the defendant insisted that the whole answer should be considered by the court as evidence in the case, but *543the court decided that so much of it only as was responsive to the interrogatories in the petition should be so considered. In thus deciding, the court erroneously adopted the rule applicable to cases where the bill is for relief. Where the bill is for discovery merely, the rule is, that if the plaintiff makes use of the defendant’s answer, the whole of it must be read, and weighed together as evidence *(Greenleaf’s Evidence, vol.*3, *secs.*290, 291; *Glasscock vs. Hayes,*4 *Dana*58; *Lady Ormond vs. Hutchinson,*13 *Ves.*53; *Stillwell ex. vs. Badgett,*22 *Ark.*168); and the statute expressly provides that the answer to a petition for discovery shall be evidence in the same manner and with like effect as an answer to a bill in equity for discovery. *Gould's Dig., chap.*133, *sec.*97. The party seeking a discovery may introduce the answer in evidence, or not, at his option *(Conway el al. vs. Turner et al.,*3 *Eng.*356), but if he does introduce it, the whole of it must be considered.

The judgment must be reversed.
#### Randolph L. HOPKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-737.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 12, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                          0000753557
<NAME>                         LBO Capital Corp.
<MULTIPLIER>                             1
<CURRENCY>                                US Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                        JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         43
<SECURITIES>                               24,929
<RECEIVABLES>                                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           24,972
<PP&E>                                          0
<DEPRECIATION>                                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             24,972
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     585,708
<BONDS>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                    1,210
<OTHER-SE>                               (561,946)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               24,972
<SALES>                                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                0
<CGS>                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               5,814
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         52,735
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (58,549)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             0
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (58,549)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (0.00)



</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
                                   EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Parent
------

NS&L Bancorp, Inc.
 
                                               Percentage         Jurisdiction or
Subsidiaries (a)                              of Ownership     State of Incorporation
----------------                             ---------------   ----------------------
<S>                                          <C>               <C> 
Neosho Savings and Loan Association, F.A.           100%                United States
                                             
NS&L Enterprises, Inc. (b)                          100%                Missouri
                                             
Crawford Mortgage, Inc. (b)                         100%                Missouri
 
------------------
</TABLE>
(a)  The operation of the Corporation's wholly owned subsidiaries are included
     in the Corporation's Financial Statements contained in the Annual Report
     attached hereto as Exhibit 13.

(b)  Wholly-owned subsidiary of Neosho Savings and Loan Association, F.A.
#### Henry Lee TOOLE v. STATE of Florida.

No. 38818.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
260 La. 697

#### Jerry Lee NEDD v. STATE of Louisiana, Through the DEPARTMENT OF INSTITUTIONS.

No. 52073.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 11, 1972.

In re: Jerry Lee Nedd, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 255 So.2d 492.

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_2021289EN.01002102.xml

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/21

---

Appeal brought on 22 February 2021 by H.R. Participations SA against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2020 in Case T-535/19, H.R. Participations v EUIPO — Hottinger Investment Management (JCE HOTTINGUER)

(Case C-109/21 P)

(2021/C 289/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: H.R. Participations SA (represented by: P. Wilhelm and J. Rossi, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Hottinger Investment Management Ltd

By order of 2 June 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that H.R. Participations SA should bear its own costs.

---
<PAGE>   1

                                  EXHIBIT 23.1


                        INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
Habersham Bancorp:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-64149, 33-61587, 33-61589, 333-48507 on Forms S-8 and Registration Statement
No. 333-18023 on Form S-3 of Habersham Bancorp of our report dated January 20,
2000 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Habersham Bancorp and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1999 and 1998, and the related consolidated
statements of income, shareholders' equity and comprehensive income, and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1999,
which report appears in the December 31, 1999 annual report on Form
10-K of Habersham Bancorp.


                                                  /s/ KPMG LLP
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  KPMG LLP


Atlanta, Georgia
March 30, 1999
#### L. C. CRAWFORD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. P-63.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 11, 1971.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender and Vera Winter Lee, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed.

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and CARROLL, DONALD K„ JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

LETTER RE CHANGE IN ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLE

                                                                    EXHIBIT 18.1



January 18, 2000



Mr. Vicente Wright
Executive Vice President, Finance
California Steel Industries, Inc. and Subsidiary
14000 San Bernardino Avenue
Fontana, California 92335


Dear Vicente:

We have audited the consolidated balance sheets of California Steel Industries,
Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31, 1999 and 1998, and the related
consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each
of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1999, and have reported
thereon under date of January 18, 2000.  The aforementioned consolidated
financial statements and our audit report thereon are included in the Company's
annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999.  As stated in
Note 2 to those consolidated financial statements, the Company changed its
method of accounting for inventories from the last-in, first out (LIFO) method
to the first-in, first-out (FIFO) method and states that the newly adopted
accounting principle is preferable in the circumstances, because under the
current economic environment of low inflation, the change to FIFO would result
in a better measurement of operating results. In accordance with your request,
we have reviewed and discussed with Company officials the circumstances and
business judgement and planning upon which the decision to make this change in
the method of accounting was based.

With regard to the aforementioned accounting change, authoritative criteria have
not been established for evaluating the preferability of one acceptable method
of accounting over another acceptable method.  However, for purposes of
California Steel Industries, Inc.'s compliance with the requirements of the
Securities and Exchange Commission, we are furnishing this letter.

Based on our review and discussion, with reliance on management's business
judgment and planning, we concur that the newly adopted method of accounting is
preferable in the Company's circumstances.


                                       Very truly yours,


                                       KPMG LLP
##### **Exhibit 23.1**

##### ** **

Consentof Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

The Board of Directors

NeoRx Corporation:

 

We consent to the incorporationby reference in the registration statements Nos. 333-35442, 333-45398, 333-111344,333-113706, 333-115497 and 333-123672 on Forms S-3 and in the registrationstatements Nos. 333-89476, 333-71368, 33-43860, 33-46317, 33-87108, 333-32583,333-41764, 333-115729 and 333-126209 on Forms S-8 of NeoRx Corporation of ourreport dated February 28, 2006 with respect to the consolidated balancesheets of NeoRx Corporation as of December 31, 2005 and 2004, and therelated consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity andcomprehensive loss, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-yearperiod ended December 31, 2005.

 

Ourreport dated February 28, 2006 contains an explanatory paragraph thatstates that the company has suffered recurring losses, has had significantrecurring negative cash flows from operations, and has an accumulated deficitthat raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a goingconcern.  The consolidated financialstatements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome ofthat uncertainty.

 
| /s/ KPMG LLP           |   |
|------------------------|--------|
|                   |
| Seattle, Washington    |
| February 28, 2006 |

 

1

----
# C_2022318EN.01003601.xml

| 22.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 318/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/36

---

Order of the General Court of 28 June 2022 — Hangzhou Dingsheng Industrial Group and Others v Commission

(Case T-150/21) (1)

(Application for annulment - Dumping - Imports of certain aluminium foil originating in China - Initiation of an investigation for circumvention of the existing anti-dumping measures making imports subject to registration - Imports of aluminium foil consigned from Thailand, originating in China - Extension of the definitive anti-dumping duty - No longer any interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 318/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Hangzhou Dingsheng Industrial Group Co., Ltd, (Hangzhou, China), Dingheng New Materials Co., Ltd, (Rayong, Thailand) Thai Ding Li New Materials Co., Ltd, (Rayong) (represented by: G. Coppo and G. Pregno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Blanck and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their application under Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2162 of 18 December 2020 initiating an investigation concerning possible circumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2384 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/271 on imports of certain aluminium foil originating in the People’s Republic of China by imports of certain aluminium foil consigned from Thailand, whether declared as originating in Thailand or not, and making such imports subject to registration (OJ 2020 L 431, p. 48).

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. | Hangzhou Dingsheng Industrial Group Co., Ltd, Dingheng New Materials Co., Ltd and Thai Ding Li New Materials Co., Ltd are to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Hangzhou Dingsheng Industrial Group Co., Ltd, Dingheng New Materials Co., Ltd and Thai Ding Li New Materials Co., Ltd are to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 928 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 928

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a full exemption 
from the volume cap on private activity bonds for bonds used to finance 
                 high-speed intercity rail facilities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 17, 1993

  Mr. Coyne introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a full exemption 
from the volume cap on private activity bonds for bonds used to finance 
                 high-speed intercity rail facilities.

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

SECTION 1. BONDS FOR HIGH-SPEED INTERCITY RAIL FACILITIES FULLY EXEMPT 
              FROM VOLUME CAP.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (4) of section 146(g) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exception for certain bonds) is 
amended by striking ``75 percent of''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to bonds issued after the date of the enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT
99.0**

**REPORT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**


The Board
of Directors
Habersham
Bancorp:

We have
audited the consolidated balance sheet of Habersham Bancorp and subsidiaries
(the “Company”) 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.
These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated
financial statements based on our audits.

We
conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan
and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the
consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit
includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and
disclosures in the consolidated financial statements. An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our
opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly,
in all material respects, the financial position of Habersham Bancorp and
subsidiaries at December 31, 2003 and the results of their operations and their
cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2003
in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

KPMG LLP

Atlanta,
Georgia
January
23, 2004
No. 10717.

#### The Indiana Scale & Truck Co. *v.*Laughlin.

Decided February 16, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Lucas county. *Mr. D. L. Beall,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. T. J. McDonnel*and *Mr. Pierce J. Phelan,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Crew, C. J., Spear, Davis and Price, JJ., concur.
258 La. 707

#### BEYER AGENCY, INC. v. George L. DUXWORTH.

No. 51424.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 1971.

In re: George L. Duxworth applying for writ of certiorari.

Application denied. On the facts found by the District Judge, the result is correct.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 28, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 134358(52) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, JAMES MARTIN and LUCIA MARTIN, Justices Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 134358 COA: 273528 Kent CC: 04-008611-NI SMG, Defendant/Cross-Defendant/ Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee,

and

GRAND RAPIDS-KENT COUNTY CONVENTION AREA AUTHORITY, Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff/ Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee,

and

GRAND RAPIDS BALLET COMPANY, d/b/a GRAND RAPIDS BALLET, Third-Party Defendant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for r econsideration of this Court’s January 30, 2008 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

d0421 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 28, 2008

Clerk