alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Curtis M. PARTON and Curtis M. Parton, Jr., co-partners dba Parton & Parton, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Scott IVEN and Glen Marlow, Defendants in Error.

No. 38798.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

July 19, 1960.

William D. Lunn, Muskogee, for plaintiffs in error.

Jack Bliss, Tahlequah, for defendants in error.

BERRY, Justice.

In this action plaintiffs in error, Curtis M. Parton and Curtis M. Parton, Jr., co-*211partners dba Parton & Parton, hereafter referred to as “plaintiffs”, sought to recover a money judgment against the defendant in error, Glen Marlow, hereafter referred to as “defendant”.

On January 22, 1959, which was the date this action was filed, a summons was issued. The summons was served on defendant the following day. The summons was not served on Scott Iven who was named as the other party defendant in the petition and summons. Scott Iven is not a party to this appeal. The summons was defective in that it was not dated and failed to fix the time within which the defendant should answer and the time within which the sheriff should make his return.

On March 26, 1959, an alias summons was issued pursuant to praecipe filed by plaintiffs’ attorney. This summons, which was in all things regular, was served on defendant March 27, 1959. The alias summons was issued and served after the time fixed by applicable statute of limitation for filing instant action had expired.

On March 31, 1959, defendant filed a motion to quash the summons first referred to. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed an application for leave to amend the original summons “by inserting therein the date of issue of said summons, to-wit: January 22, 1959 and by inserting therein the answer and return date respectively, to-wit: February 21, 1959 and February 1, 1959.” The original summons was unquestionably vulnerable to the motion to quash unless the defects therein were cured by the amendments suggested by plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs contend that the original summons was not void; that it was subject to being amended in accordance with their application; that the trial court erred in not permitting them to so amend the summons and erred in sustaining the motion to quash the original summons.

We are of the opinion that under the facts of this case, plaintiffs’ action in causing an alias summons to issue which was served, must be said to have waived and abandoned their asserted right to amend the original summons, and for said reason they are not in a position to assert that the trial court erred in entering the complained-of judgment. In Harder v. Woodside et al., 196 Okl. 449, 165 P.2d 841, we held in substance that where an original summons is defective and an alias summons is issued and served the alias becomes the original; that by issuing the alias summons the plaintiff abandons reliance upon the original summons and its service and waives the right to question the court’s ruling on a motion to quash the original.

We are of the opinion that for reasons stated, the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed.

DAVISON, C. J., WILLIAMS, V.C.J., and JOHNSON, BLACKBIRD and IRWIN, JJ., concur.

JACKSON, J., concurs in result.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1325 CA 13-00358 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

PAUL FOTI, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GINA FOTI, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

JOAN de R. O’BYRNE, ROCHESTER (MICHAEL STEINBERG OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

KAMAN, BERLOVE, MARAFIOTI, JACOBSTEIN & GOLDMAN LLP, ROCHESTER (MICHAEL PAUL OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Kenneth R. Fisher, J.), entered April 4, 2012 in a divorce action. The order granted the motion of defendant for partial summary judgment determining that various real estate entities and management companies were her separate property.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and defendant’s motion is denied.
Memorandum: In this divorce action, defendant moved for partial summary judgment determining that various real estate entities and management companies (hereafter, entities) were her separate property. We agree with plaintiff that Supreme Court erred in granting the motion. Although defendant established that her father gifted the entities to her as separate property ( see generally Allen v Allen , 263 AD2d 691, 692), there is an issue of fact whether defendant thereafter commingled her interests in the entities with marital property ( see generally Richter v Richter , 77 AD3d 1470, 1471; Haas v Haas , 265 AD2d 887, 888). Here, the parties filed a joint federal tax return in which defendant reported her interest in the entities as tax losses, and “[a] party to litigation may not take a position contrary to a position taken in an income tax return” ( Mahoney-Buntzman v Buntzman , 12 NY3d 415, 422).

Entered: February 7, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
**Exhibit 32.1**
**CERTIFICATION****Pursuant to 18 United States Code §1350**
     The undersigned hereby certifies that theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter endedJune 30, 2003 of Fisher Scientific International Inc. (the“Company”) filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the informationcontained in such report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations ofthe Company.
 /s/ PAUL M. MONTRONE      Paul M. Montrone     *Chief Executive Officer*
July 31, 2003
     A signed original ofthis written statement required by Section 906 has been providedto Fisher Scientific International Inc. and will be retained by itand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Hana
Biosciences, Inc. does hereby certify that to the best of his
knowledge:





(a) the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Hana Biosciences, Inc. for the nine months
ended September 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(b)
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Hana Biosciences,
Inc.





Dated:
      November 12, 2009
              /s/ Steven R. Deitcher,
  MDSteven
      R. Deitcher, MDPresident
      and Chief Executive OfficerDated:
      November 12, 2009
              /s/ John P. IparraguirreJohn
      P. IparraguirreVice
      President, Chief Financial
Officer
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 113 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5295]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              THE JOURNAL

  The SPEAKER. The Chair has examined the Journal of the last day's 
proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.
  Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.

                          ____________________
```
# C_2009205EN.01000901.xml

| 29.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-272/08) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/83/EC - Right of asylum - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

2009/C 205/14

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and E. Adsera Ribera, Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: B. Plaza Cruz, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to have adopted, within the presribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by not adopting, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by not adopting, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 15.08.2008.

1

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Enrique Falcon, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Browne, J.), rendered February 15, 1989, convicting him of rape in the first degree, rape in the second degree (two counts), rape in the third degree (two counts), incest (five counts), and endangering the welfare of a minor (five counts), after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was charged with several crimes relating to his alleged engagement in sexual intercourse with his daughter over a period of approximately four years. At the trial, the defendant’s daughter testified that the defendant had sexual intercourse with her on different occasions. Also, a doctor testified that in her opinion, the defendant’s daughter had been sexually abused.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]). The defendant argues that the court should not have credited his daughter’s testimony because it was incredible. However, the resolution of issues of credibility is for the trier-of-fact which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88). Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1381]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

 A TRIBUTE TO THE CAMELLIA SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA AND RECOGNITION OF THEIR 
                            50TH ANNIVERSARY

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. DANIEL E. LUNGREN

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, August 1, 2012

  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to 
recognize the 50th anniversary of the Camellia Symphony Orchestra of 
Sacramento, California.
  The Camellia Symphony Orchestra is one of Sacramento's prized assets 
and has deep roots in the region.
  Today's Orchestra traces its beginnings back to a small group of 
local musicians who began informally gathering together and playing 
music, simply for the fun of it. This group began performing at Encina 
High School, originally naming themselves the ``Pot Luck Symphony.''
  On September 1, 1962, the group formally organized eventually 
adopting the name the North Area Community Symphony. Ever since that 
September evening, the Orchestra has continued to grow, educate and 
entertain people in the Sacramento area.
  By 1970 the Orchestra changed its name to the Camellia Symphony and 
became a regular participant of Camellia Day events held annually by 
the City of Sacramento. As the Orchestra has grown, it continues to 
earn national praise while also showcasing the talent of Sacramentans 
across the country. In 1979 the Camellia Symphony won its first of many 
future ASCAP awards, and in 1986 won the prestigious ``INDIE'' award 
for best classical release.
  As the years have progressed, the Camellia Symphony Orchestra has 
developed and produced innovative, historical and exciting 
performances, earning a reputation as one of the finest orchestras in 
the region. While earning this reputation of excellence, the Orchestra 
has continued to give back to the Sacramento community, providing 
opportunities for local musicians to display their musical ability. The 
Orchestra's commitment to community is seen through its ongoing 
collaboration with a variety of Sacramento events and organizations, 
such as Camerata California, the Strauss Festival, St. John's Lutheran 
Church and many others in the region.
  On behalf of all those in the Sacramento area who appreciate what the 
Camellia Symphony Orchestra means to our community, I would like to 
congratulate them on their 50th anniversary and wish them many more 
years of success and prosperity.

                          ____________________
```
# C_2009055EN.01000902.xml

| 7.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/9

---

Action brought on 11 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

(Case C-551/08)

(2009/C 55/15)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Yerrell and M. Kaduczak, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005 on reinsurance and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 92/49/EEC as well as Directives 98/78/EC and 2002/83/EC (1), and in any event by not informing the Commission of the adoption of those provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 64 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2005 on reinsurance and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 92/49/EEC as well as Directives 98/78/EC and 2002/83/EC (1), and in any event by not informing the Commission of the adoption of those provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 64 of that directive;

1

| — | order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of Directive 2005/68/EC expired on 10 December 2007.

---

(1)  OJ L 323 of 9.12.2005, p. 1.

1

---
#### The Home Ins. Co. et al., Appellees, *v.*Board of County Commrs. of Lorain County, Appellant.

(No. 32069

Decided March 22, 1950.)

*Mr. Dan K. Cook,*for appellees.

*Mr. Paul J. Mikus,*prosecuting attorney, and *Mr. Harold 8. Ewing,*for appellant.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*.Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Stewart, Turner and Taft, JJ., concur.
# C_2020045EN.01001301.xml

| 10.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/13

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Criminal proceedings against A, B

(Case C-486/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - State aid - Tax levied on confectionery, ice cream and soft drinks - Exemption of similar products liable to constitute State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU - Power to impose criminal penalties for failure to fulfil obligations as regards that tax)

(2020/C 45/09)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Criminal proceedings against

A, B

Operative part of the order

EU law must be interpreted as not precluding a natural person, acting on behalf of a company subject to a consumption tax levied on certain products, such as the tax at issue in the main proceedings, who failed to fulfil its obligations as regards that tax, from facing criminal sanctions under the applicable national law, even though the exemption enjoyed by other undertakings as regards similar products should be considered State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU.

---

(1)  OJ C 295, 2.9.2019.

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1392]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                      CONGRATULATING ABBY JOHNSTON

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. STEVE STIVERS

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, August 2, 2012

  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Upper 
Arlington resident, Abby Johnston, on winning an Olympic silver medal 
in the women's 3-meter springboard synchronized diving competition at 
the 2012 London Olympic Games. On July 29, 2012, Miss Johnston and her 
diving partner, Kelci Bryant, took home America's first-ever Olympic 
medals for this event.
  In Columbus and Central Ohio, we take our sports very seriously. Abby 
Johnston was cheered on by her fans both here at home and abroad. In 
London, her parents, Elaine and David Johnston, as well as former 
coaches and teammates from Upper Arlington High School and the local 
U.S. Elite Diving Academy rooted for her poolside. Back in Ohio, Abby's 
accomplishment is a true point of pride for our city and it brings us 
together to celebrate as a community.
  An athlete works hard, dedicates many hours to practice, and puts 
forth a great deal of effort, but an Olympian takes all of that to a 
much higher level. I ask that all Members of Congress join me in 
offering my congratulations to our very own hometown Olympian, Abby 
Johnston, on winning her silver medal at the 2012 London Olympic Games.

                          ____________________
```
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS





     We hereby  consent to the  incorporation  of our report dated  February 13,
2004, relating to the consolidated  financial statements of Tri-County Financial
Corporation,  by reference in Registration  Statements Nos. 33-97174,  333-79237
and  333-70800,  each of Form  S-8,  and in the  Annual  Report  on Form 10-K of
Tri-County Financial Corporation, for the year ended December 31, 2003.


/s/ Stegman & Company

Baltimore, Maryland
March 26, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1996
<CASH>                                             864
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,781
<ALLOWANCES>                                       685
<INVENTORY>                                     20,910
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,522
<PP&E>                                          73,147
<DEPRECIATION>                                  32,617
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  84,976
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,946
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,315
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,758
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    84,976
<SALES>                                         29,999
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                29,999
<CGS>                                           25,799
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   29,803
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (96)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    83
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 445
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (236)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (404)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                168
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       168
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                Name                        State Of Incorporation                          Trade Names
-------------------------------------       ----------------------                      --------------------    

<S>                                         <C>                                         <C>
Kenneth O. Lester Company, Inc.             Tennessee

Caro Foods, Inc.                            Louisiana

         KMB Produce, Inc.                  Texas                                       KMB Produce

                                                                                        Fresh Advantage

                                                                                        Prime Source

         Southland Distribution
                  System, Inc.              Louisiana


Hale Brothers/Summit, Inc.                  Tennessee                                   Hale Brothers

Pocahontas Foods, USA, Inc.                 Virginia                                    Pocahontas USA

         T & S Transportation of
                  Richmond, Inc.            Virginia                                    T & S Transportation

         PFG Holding, Inc.                  Florida


Milton's Foodservice, Inc.                  Georgia

Performance Food Group of Texas, Inc.       Texas                                       PFG of Texas

W.J. Powell Company, Inc.                   Georgia

AFI Food Service Distributors, Inc.         New Jersey

Affiliated Paper Companies, Inc.            Alabama

Virginia Foodservice Group, Inc.            Virginia
</TABLE>