alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Annie Lee BANKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNION PLANTERS BANK AND TRUST COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 155, Docket 28413.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued Nov. 8, 1963.

Decided Nov. 8, 1963.

Annie Lee Banks, appellant, pro se.

Wormser, Koch, Kiely & Alessandroni, New York City, Alden Mesrop, New York City, of counsel, for defendants-appellees Union Planters National Bank, and others.

Gerald G. Schwartz, New York City,, for defendant-appellee Brewster Management Corp.

Martin Schlesinger, New York City,, for defendant-appellee Finkel Realty Co.

Before WATERMAN, MOORE and; SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*500PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of two orders of the lower court, the first granting the motion of certain defendants to dismiss appellant’s complaint as to them on the ground that that court did not have jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the litigation, and the second dismissing the action altogether for the same reason.

In open court we affirm the orders below. It conclusively appears that there is no federal question involved in this litigation and there is a lack of the required diversity of citizenship to give the federal courts jurisdiction.
May 30, 1997

18171

#### Danielsen v. Danielsen

Affirmed
# C_2020287EN.01000701.xml

| 31.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/7

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — NG, OH v SC Banca Transilvania SA

(Case C-81/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Scope - Article 1(2) - Definition of ‘mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions’ - Supplementary provisions - Loan agreement denominated in a foreign currency - Term relating to the foreign exchange risk)

(2020/C 287/09)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: NG, OH

Defendant: SC Banca Transilvania SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a contractual term which has not been individually negotiated but which reflects a rule that, under national law, applies between contracting parties provided that no other arrangements have been established in that respect falls outside the scope of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.

---
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
NIC HOLAS HONC HAR IW , Truste e , Honc ha riw Fa m ily

Trust, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. C OUNTY OF STANISLAUS; B OARD OF SUPER

VISOR S OF C OUNTY OF STANISLAUS,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 16-17256 D.C . No. 1:16-c v-01183-LJO-B AM
ORDER *

On R e m and from

the Unite d State s Supre m e C ourt B e fore : SC HR OEDER , TOR R UELLA, ** and FR IEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s. Pursua nt to the Supre m e C ourt’ s de c ision in this m a tte r, Honc hariw v . C

ty
. of Stanislaus, C

al. , No. 18-294, 2019 W

L 2649780, a

t *1 (U.S. June 28, 2019), the
c a se is re m ande d to the distric t c ourt for re c onside ra tion in light of K n ic k v . Tw p. of Sc ott, Pe nnsy lv ania , 139 S. C t. 2162 (2019). 

# F IL ED
AUG 8 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Jua n R . Torrue lla , Unite d State s C irc uit Judge for the First C irc uit, sitting by

de signa tion.
# C_2021035EN.01004202.xml

| 1.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2020 — Repsol v EUIPO — Basic (BASIC)

(Case T-722/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark BASIC - Earlier national trade names basic and basic AG - Relative grounds for refusal - Use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance - Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Declaration of partial invalidity - Decision taken following the annulment of an earlier decision by the General Court - Referral of the case back to a Board of Appeal - Lack of competence of the authority referring the case - Article 1(d) of Regulation (EC) No 216/96 - Cross-claim)

(2021/C 35/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Repsol, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.-B. Devaureix and J.C. Erdozain López, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel (Munich, Germany) (represented by: D. Altenburg, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 August 2018 (Case R 178/2018-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Basic Lebensmittelhandel and Repsol.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 August 2018 (Case R 178/2018-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 August 2018 (Case R 178/2018-2);

| 2. | Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the cross-claim; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the cross-claim;

| 3. | Orders EUIPO and Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel to bear their own costs and each to pay half of the costs incurred by Repsol, SA. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EUIPO and Basic AG Lebensmittelhandel to bear their own costs and each to pay half of the costs incurred by Repsol, SA.

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 11.2.2019.

---
47 P.3d 746

May 31, 2002

24446

#### State v. Wenner

Affirmed
# C_2018427EN.01009901.xml

| 26.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/99 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/99

---

Action brought on 28 September 2018 —  BS (1) v Parliament

(Case T-593/18)

(2018/C 427/130)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: BS (2) (represented by: M. Maes and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the notice of amendment No. 15, dated 10 August 2017, concerning the applicant’s pension rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the notice of amendment No. 15, dated 10 August 2017, concerning the applicant’s pension rights;

| — | annul, so far as necessary, the decision to recover the purported overpayment of EUR 1 589,16 in respect of the months of September, October and November 2017 and EUR 4 815,16 as shown on the pension slip for December 2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, so far as necessary, the decision to recover the purported overpayment of EUR 1 589,16 in respect of the months of September, October and November 2017 and EUR 4 815,16 as shown on the pension slip for December 2017;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 2 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union inasmuch as the contested decisions are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 2 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union inasmuch as the contested decisions are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to good administration (Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) in so far as the defendant failed to give adequate reasons for its decision and failed to observe the applicant’s right to be heard and his right to have access to his file. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to good administration (Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) in so far as the defendant failed to give adequate reasons for its decision and failed to observe the applicant’s right to be heard and his right to have access to his file.

---

(1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality

(2)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality

---
Motion Denied and Order filed November 3, 2022.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-22-00286-CR

NO. 14-22-00287-CR

____________

BRADY JOSEPH RAY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 339th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 1736075 and 1736077

ORDER

In both of these appeals, appellant is represented by appointed counsel, 

Mandy Miller. Appellant’s brief was originally due July 18, 2022. We have 

granted a total of 90 days to file appellant’s brief until September 30, 2022. When 

we granted the last extension, we noted that no further extensions would be granted 

absent exceptional circumstances. No brief was filed by the due date. On October 
4, 2022, a late brief notice was sent. No response was filed by the due date of 

October 14, 2022. On October 17, 2022, counsel filed a further motion to extend 

time to file appellant’s brief. Counsel did not allege any exceptional circumstances 

in the request. 

We deny the motion to extend time and issue the following order.

We order Mandy Miller to file a brief with the clerk of this court in each of 

these appeals on or before November 17, 2022. If counsel does not timely file 

appellant’s brief as ordered, the court may issue an order abating these appeals and 

directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the reason for the failure 

to file the brief and the consideration of sanctions, appointment of new counsel, or 

other appropriate relief.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Jewell and Poissant.
# C_2021028EN.01000301.xml

| 25.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 28/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 November 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Kaplan International Colleges UK Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-77/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 132(1)(f) - Exemption of supplies of services made by independent groups of persons to their members - Applicability to VAT groups - Article 11 - VAT group)

(2021/C 28/03)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Kaplan International Colleges UK Ltd

Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Operative part of the judgment

Article 132(1)(f) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2008/8/EC of 12 February 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption laid down in that provision is not applicable to supplies of services made by an independent group of persons to a group of persons that may be regarded as a single taxable person, within the meaning of Article 11 of that directive, where not all the members of that latter group are members of that independent group of persons. The existence of provisions of national law which require that the representative member of such a group of persons possess the characteristics and status of the members of the independent group of persons concerned, for the purposes of application of the exemption for independent groups of persons, has no bearing in that regard.

---

(1)  OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.

---
#### The CITY OF WOODWARD, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff in Error, v. John MITCH, Defendant in Error.

No. 37312.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Dec. 4, 1956.

*1056Walter H. Thomas, Woodward, for plaintiff in error.

Bryan Billings, Woodward, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a judgment against the City of Woodward, a municipal corporation, defendant below. We will hereafter refer to the parties as they appeared in the trial court.

Plaintiff instituted this action to recover damages from defendant, for loss of services, society, comfort and companionship of his wife, Mae Mitch, and medical bills incurred, on account of injuries sustained by Mae Mitch when she fell on a sidewalk in the City of Woodward on August 16, 1954, at the hour of 2:30 o’clock in the afternoon. The cause was tried to a jury resulting in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $578, and defendant has appealed.

Except as to element of damages, and parties plaintiff, this case is identical, as to facts and law, to cause No. 37,078, City of Woodward v. Mitch, Okl., 297 P.2d 557, decided by this Court May 1, 1956.

In this case, as in that case, defendant for reversal urges error of the court in overruling its demurrer to plaintiff’s evidence and in refusing to grant peremptory instructions requested by the defendant.

The opinion in City of Woodward v. Mitch, supra, is hereby adopted as the opinion herein.

The cause is reversed and remanded, with directions that it be dismissed.

*1057JOHNSON, C. *].,*WILLIAMS, V. C. J., and WELCH, DAVISON, HALLEY, BLACKBIRD, JACKSON and CARLILE, JJ., concur.

CORN, J.,

dissents.

The Court acknowledges the aid of the Supreme Court Commissioners in the preparation of this opinion. After a tentative opinion was written by Commissioner Jean R. Reed and approved by Commissioners J. W. Crawford and James H. Nease, the cause was assigned to a Justice of this Court for examination and report to the Court. Thereafter, upon report and consideration in Conference, the foregoing opinion was adopted by the Court.
#### Goss v. Sumida

15623

11/18/94

Affirmed
EXHIBIT 99.1


                            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 Quarterly Report of American Medical Security
Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Samuel V. Miller, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




/s/ Samuel V. Miller

Samuel V. Miller, Chief Executive Officer
May 13, 2003

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2020036EN.01002801.xml

| 3.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 36/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2019 — Conte v EUIPO (CANNABIS STORE AMSTERDAM)

(Case T-683/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark CANNABIS STORE AMSTERDAM - Absolute ground for refusal - Trade mark contrary to public policy - Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 7(2) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2020/C 36/34)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Santa Conte (Naples, Italy) (represented by: C. Demichelis, E. Ortaglio and G. Iorio Fiorelli, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 August 2018 (Case R 2181/2017-2), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign CANNABIS STORE AMSTERDAM as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Santa Conte to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Santa Conte to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

---
#### Keith D. NELSON, Movant-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 15-3160

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: May 26, 2017

Filed: July 19, 2017

Paula K. Harms, Asst, Fed. Public Defender, Phoenix, AZ, David A. Ruhnke, Ruhnke & Barrett, Montclair, NJ (Jon' M. Sands, Fed. Public Defender, Phoenix, AZ, on the petition), for appellant.

. Lajuana M. Counts, Jeffrey E. Valenti, Asst. U.S. Attys., Kansas .City, MO (Thomas M. Larson, Acting U.S. Atty., on the response), for appellee.

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges'.

ORDER

Keith Nelson’s petition for panel rehearing filed December 15, 2016, has been considered by the panel and is granted. The petition for rehearing en banc is dismissed as moot.

Nelson’s petition argues that the panel’s order of September 15, 2016, applied an incorrect legal standard in evaluating his application for a certificate of appealability, We reject this contention. The order’s language, which 'is standard text .used by this court in denying an application for certificate of appealability, merely states that the court “has carefully reviewed the .original file of the district court,” Nelson attached to his application more than 900 pages of- exhibits from the original file of the district court; he presumably wanted the court to review these materials carefully. Nothing in the court’s order is inconsistent with the proper legal inquiry — i.e., “whether the applicant has shown that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” *Buck v. Davis,*— U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 759, 773, 197 L.Ed.2d 1 (2017) (internal quotation omitted).

On further review of the application, however, the panel concludes that it should be granted in part. The application is granted as to the first and second issues raised in the application involving four of Nelson’s claims in the district court:

> Claims A(2) *&*(3) — alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel in failing to conduct adequate mitigation investigation, including, failure to move for a con-, tinuance to complete one;

> Claim A(4) — alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel in failing to conduct an adequate investigation of defendant’s mental health;

> Claim A(5) — alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel in advising or instructing, defendant to decline to submit to a mental health examination by a government examiner.

*637The application is otherwise denied.1

The clerk is directed to establish a briefing schedule and to set the case for oral argument before this panel during the week of January 8-12, 2018, in St. Louis. Any motions for enlargement of the word limits on briefs must be filed at least two weeks before the applicable due date and should be referred to the panel.

1

. Chief Judge Smith would deny the application in its entirety. Judge Wollman would also grant the application as to the third issue raised in the application involving Claims A(15)(e) and B(2)(c) in the district court.
#### Frank Herbert REDDING, Jr., Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12328.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

Sept. 5, 1956.

Hickman & Hickman, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

BRETT, Judge.

The plaintiff in error, Frank Herbert Redding, Jr., defendant below, was charged by information in the Municipal Criminal Court of the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma, with the offense of operating a motor vehicle on a public highway, in said city, while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. He was tried by the Municipal Judge, found guilty, and his punishment fixed at a $100 fine and 30 days in jail. From the judgment and sentence thus impósed this appeal has been perfected.

The case was set for oral argument on July 16, 1956. No briefs were filed and no appearance made and the case was therefore submitted on the record. We have examined the information and the judgment and sentence. The evidence is sufficient to sustain the charge and no fundamental error is apparent. Under these conditions we have repeatedly held the judgment and sentence will be affirmed. Whitlow v. State, 85 Okl.Cr. 2, 184 P.2d 253; Dunnam v. State, Okl.Cr., 282 P.2d 778.

The evidence discloses the defendant, a painter with two prior drunk driving pleas of guilty and numerous drunkenness convictions, was observed slowly turning *372his automobile into *his*driveway off of North Boston Avenue. As he got out of his automobile, two officers saw him stagger and seeing his bloodshot eyes and noting his thickness of speech, arrested him for drunk driving. The evidence supports the conviction. The judgment and sentence is accordingly affirmed.

JONES, P. J., and POWELL, J., concur.