alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### NUWAY LAUNDRY COMPANY, an Oklahoma Corporation, Plaintiff in Error, v. Leona GORE, Defendant in Error.

No. 37550.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Oct. 1, 1957.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 13, 1957.

McKinney & McKinney, Oklahoma City,, for plaintiff in error.

Lester Lloyd, Jr., Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

HALLEY, Justice.

Parties to this appeal will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court, wherein defendant in error was plaintiff and plaintiff in error was defendant. The case was tried to the court without a jury.

Plaintiff took three lady’s suits and one man’s sweater to the defendant to be dry cleaned. Plaintiff’s evidence showed that the jacket of each suit was shrunk to the extent that the owner could not wear the jackets and that the suits were made unusable thereby. The sweater belonged to-plaintiff’s husband and was so badly shrunk that he could not wear it. - Testimony was offered as to the purchase price of the aritcles and how much they had been worn.

The defendant’s evidence showed that it did not shrink these articles of clothing and that they were returned to plaintiff at the size she brought them to defendant.

The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff for $125.00, fifty dollars each for two suits, one of which cost’$71.50 and the second $75.00, and $25.00 for the third suit which cost $50.00. Plaintiff’s claim for the sweater was disallowed.

 This being a case of legal cognizance and. it being clearly established defendant was a bailee for hire if there is any evidence reasonably tending to sustain the trial court, its judgment -must be affirmed. The three suits involved in this action were for all practical purposes of no- value to the plaintiff after the cleaning so the judgment for the plaintiff will be approved if the proof of the extent of the loss is established. *750Plaintiff testified what she paid for the suits and the time of the purchase and the extent to which these suits had been worn. No evidence was offered to contradict this as to value. It has long been the rule in this jurisdiction that in absence of other evidence the price paid for a suit is prima facie evidence of its value. Gouge v. Hoge, 203 Okl. 149, 218 P.2d 1036; Burgess v. Felix, 42 Okl. 193, 140 P. 1180.

The trial court in the exercise of its judgment reduced the amount allowed on each suit substantially. We find no error in the decision reached by the court below and it is affirmed.
# C_2018152EN.01005501.xml

| 30.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 152/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/55

---

Action brought on 5 March 2018 — Sona Nutrition v EUIPO — Solgar Holdings (SOLGAR Since 1947 MultiPlus WHOLEFOOD CONCENTRATE MULTIVITAMIN FORMULA)

(Case T-155/18)

(2018/C 152/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sona Nutrition Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Solgar Holdings, Inc. (Ronkonkoma, New York, United States)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark in colours light green, light brown, beige, dark brown and golden brown, SOLGAR Since 1947 MultiPlus WHOLEFOOD CONCENTRATE MULTIVITAMIN FORMULA — Application for registration No 13 781 315

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 December 2017 in Case R 1323/2017-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and Solgar Holdings, Inc., if it should intervene in these proceedings, to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and Solgar Holdings, Inc., if it should intervene in these proceedings, to bear the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation No 2017/1001; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation No 2017/1001;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          24,601
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     26,238
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               120,839
<PP&E>                                          32,485
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,194
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 183,607
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,200,561
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,710
<OTHER-SE>                                  (1,020,845)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   183,607
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  352,517
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,587,956
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             332,144
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (3,272,617)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (3,272,617)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (3,272,617)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.43)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION

I, John B.
Sawyer, certify that:

1. I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Global Aircraft Solutions,
Inc.

2. Based
on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this annual 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 annual report;

4. The
registrant's other certifying officers 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
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this annual 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 annual 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 officers 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 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; and

Date:
April 15, 2007

| | /s/    John B. SawyerJohn B. Sawyer President, Chief
Operating Officer and Director
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# C_2023173EN.01004201.xml

| 15.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/42

---

Order of the General Court of 20 March 2023 — ZK v Commission

(Case T-627/18) (1)

(2023/C 173/55)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 4, 7.1.2019.

---
### NUMBER 13 - 1 7 - 00 499 - C R 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

JOHN EDWARD HAGENSIC K , A PPELLANT ,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, A PPELLEE

.

On a ppeal from the 3 6 th District Court of Aransas County, Texas.



## ORDER OF ABATEMENT
Before Justices Rodriguez, Longoria, and Hinojosa

Order Per Curiam Appellant ’ s appointed counsel, Chris Iles , has filed a motion requesting to withdraw as counsel. According to h is motion to withdraw, counsel has recently discovered a conflict of interest and requests new appellate counsel be appointed. Adequate reason for the discharge of counsel and appointment of new counsel rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. Carroll v. State , 176 S.W.3d 249, 2552

(Tex. App.

-- Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. ref'd). In those circumstances where the appointment of substitute counsel may be necessary, an appellate court, when faced with a motion to withdraw, should abate the proceeding to the trial court for determination o f this issue. Accordingly, we ABATE the appeal and REMAND the cause to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this order. Upon remand, the trial court shall determine whether appellant ’ s court

- appointed attorney should remain as appellant 's counsel; and, if not, whether appellant is entitled to new appointed counsel. If the trial court determines that there is no reason to discharge appellant ’ s current appointed attorney and appoint substitute counsel, the court shall
enter an order to th at effect. If the trial court determines that new counsel should be appointed, the name, address, email address, telephone number, and state bar number of newly appointed counsel shall be included in the order appointing counsel. The trial
court shall fu rther cause its order to be included in a supplemental clerk's record to be filed with the Clerk of this Court on or before the expiration of thirty days from the date of
this order.
It is so ordered. Per Curiam
Do not pu blish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.2 (b)

. D elivered and filed th e 2nd day of January , 201 8

.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
    Our audits included the financial statement schedule of Biocircuits
Corporation listed in Item 14(a). This schedule is the responsibility of the
Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our
audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when
considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,
presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.
 
   
    We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Form S-8 No. 33-48296, No. 33-50642, No. 33-64066, No. 33-89006, No.
333-07447 and No. 333-21257) pertaining to the Employee's Stock Purchase Plan,
the Non-Employee Directors' Stock Option Plan, the Dual Stock Option Plan and
the Written Compensation Contract of Biocircuits Corporation and in the
Registration Statements (Form S-3 No. 333-13673, No. 333-19797 and No.
333-26079) and the related Prospectuses, of our report dated January 13, 1997
with respect to the financial statements of Biocircuits Corporation included in
the Annual Report (Form 10-K/A-2) for the year ended December 31, 1996, and our
report included in the preceding paragraph with respect to the financial
statement schedule included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K/A-2) of Biocircuits
Corporation.
    
 
                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
 
   
Palo Alto, California
July 18, 1997
<PAGE>

                                                       EXHIBIT 10.48


                  Confidential Letter of Understanding

March 28, 1997

To:        Patrick McNallen
From:      Donald Hawthorne


The following summarizes the terms we agreed to this week. These terms modify 
the April 18, 1996 and July 18, 1996 letters of understanding, as amended.

1.  The amount of the standby letter of credit is reduced to the following 
amounts:

           March 1997           $700,000
           April                $700,000
           May                  $700,000
           June                 $700,000
           July                 $700,000
           August               $700,000
           September            $700,000
           October              $700,000
           November             $700,000
           December             $700,000

In August 1997, KMC Systems, Inc. ("KMC") agrees to revisit the amount of the 
standby letter of credit for the balance of 1997, when their financial 
exposure is expected to be below the above amounts.

2.  The exercise price of the KMC warrant is reduced from $7.00 per share to 
$2.00 per share. All other terms of the warrant remain unchanged.

In addition, KMC agrees to shut down all IOS activity other than the shipment 
of instruments through the end of April in exchange for the issuance of a 
warrant to purchase 50,000 shares of Biocircuits Common Stock at an exercise 
price of $0.01 per share to KMC. KMC agrees that the issuance of this warrant 
covers the entire cost of the shutdown and KMC waives any and all rights to 
other compensation 

<PAGE>

Biocircuits-KMC March 28, 1997 Letter of Understanding


as defined in Section 5 of the original contract between the two companies.



Acknowledged and agreed to:

KMC Systems, Inc.

/s/ Patrick W. McNallen
--------------------------------------
Patrick W. McNallen
Vice President/General Manager
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 901 Reported in House (RH)]

<DOC>

                                                 House Calendar No. 155
114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 901

                          [Report No. 114-800]

 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 
 5325) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal 
        year ending September 30, 2017, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 28, 2016

     Mr. Cole, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 
 5325) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal 
        year ending September 30, 2017, and for other purposes.

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 5325) making 
appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2017, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment 
thereto, and to consider in the House, without intervention of any 
point of order, a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on 
Appropriations or his designee that the House concur in the Senate 
amendment. The Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as 
read. The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
the motion to adoption without intervening motion.
                                                 House Calendar No. 155

114th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 901

                          [Report No. 114-800]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 
 5325) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal 
        year ending September 30, 2017, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 28, 2016

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
# C_2021431EN.01001401.xml

| 25.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 431/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 431/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 September 2021 — European Commission v Tempus Energy Ltd, Tempus Energy Technology Ltd, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-57/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Aid scheme - Article 108(2) and (3) TFEU - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Article 4(3) and (4) - Concept of ‘doubts as to the compatibility of a notified measure with the common market’ - Decision not to raise objections - Formal investigation procedure not initiated - Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 - Code of Best Practice for the conduct of State aid control procedures - ‘Pre-notification’ contacts - Procedural rights of interested parties - Electricity capacity market in the United Kingdom)

(2021/C 431/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and P. Němečková, acting as Agents,)

Other parties to the proceedings: Tempus Energy Ltd, Tempus Energy Technology Ltd (represented by: J. Derenne and D. Vallindas, avocats, and by C. Ziegler, Rechtsanwalt), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: initially, F. Shibli, S. McCrory and Z. Lavery, and, subsequently, F. Shibli, S. McCrory, acting as Agents, and G. Facenna QC and D. Mackersie, Barrister)

Intervener in support of the appellant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 November 2018, Tempus Energy and Tempus Energy Technology v Commission (T-793/14, EU:T:2018:790); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 November 2018, Tempus Energy and Tempus Energy Technology v Commission (T-793/14, EU:T:2018:790);

| 2. | Dismisses the action in Case T-793/14; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action in Case T-793/14;

| 3. | Orders Tempus Energy Ltd and Tempus Energy Technology Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union and before the Court of Justice; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Tempus Energy Ltd and Tempus Energy Technology Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union and before the Court of Justice;

| 4. | Orders the Republic of Poland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Republic of Poland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.

---
August 30, 1999

21463

#### Whaler’s Wharf, Ltd. v. Schumann's Corp.

Affirmed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,921
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,990
<ALLOWANCES>                                       241
<INVENTORY>                                      7,087
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,626
<PP&E>                                          11,163
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,195
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  25,440
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,304
<BONDS>                                          2,530
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              714
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            39
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,976
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,440
<SALES>                                         43,098
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                43,098
<CGS>                                           32,670
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,670
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   251
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 895
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,596)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        97
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,693)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,693)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.96)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.96)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2018427EN.01000202.xml

| 26.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/2

---

Appeal brought on 17 May 2018 by Safe Skies LLC against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 22 March 2018 in Case T-60/17: Safe Skies v EUIPO

(Case C-326/18 P)

(2018/C 427/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Safe Skies LLC (represented by: V. Schwepler, Rechtsanwältin)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 4 October 2018 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---