alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Rebecca W. Schwartz et al., as Executors of Milton Schwartz, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Kings County,

September 14, 1959.

*Emile Z. Berman*and *A. Harold Frost*for petitioner.

*Meyer Alterman*for executors.

Maximilian Moss, S.

The petitioner, claiming the status of a creditor, seeks to compel the executors to settle their account, and to reserve sufficient assets to pay the amount claimed as damages in an action for personal injuries. Petitioner, a non*204resident, instituted the action in the Supreme Court, Kings County, on May 16, 1956, for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by himself and his infant son on June 4, 1955. Among the several objections to the relief requested, the executors urge that petitioner has no status as a creditor, and that the right to compel an accounting must await determination of the Supreme Court action.

Petitioner is not the holder of a contingent or unliquidated claim against the estate within the meaning of section 207 of the Surrogate’s Court Act. An untried action in negligence does not constitute a debt of the estate until damages are fixed. The adjudicated cases do not indicate any reservation of estate assets in any instance where the claimant is the plaintiff in a negligence action. In *Matter of Baldwin*(157 Misc. 538), the court held that a claim which is neither due nor ascertainable does not fall within the terms of section 207 and that a claimant thereunder is not a creditor. In the instant case, petitioner will not have the status as a creditor until the determination of the pending litigation and a settlement is reached or judgment is rendered in his favor. In such event, section 170 *et seq.*of the Decedent Estate Law, provides the means of obtaining assets in the hands of distributees. The petition is dismissed without prejudice to its renewal after determination of the pending action between the parties in the Supreme Court.

Settle decree on notice.
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation
by reference in the following Registration Statements of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc.:



| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 33-37855 on Form S-8;
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-19215 on Form S-8;
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-93773 on Form S-8;
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-53531 on Form S-8;
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-75742 on Form S-8;
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-75744 on Form S-8;
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-113945 on Form S-8;
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-124677 on Form S-8;
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 33-57920 on Form S-3;
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 33-133854 on Form S-8;
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-142615 on Form S-8;
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-150807 on Form S-8;
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-151942 on Form S-8;
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-159077 on Form S-8;
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-166654 on Form S-8;
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-167833 on Form S-3;
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-174170 on Form S-8; and
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-181521 on Form S-8
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------

of our reports dated February 21, 2012 relating to the consolidated financial statements and consolidated financial statement schedule of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. and the effectiveness
of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc.s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2011.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Independent Registered Chartered Accountants

Saskatoon, Canada

July 5, 2012
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 21

- 00104

- CV

C AROLYN W ILLIAMS

, Appellant

V

.

L

ADERA

, Appellee §

§

§

§ On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2

of Denton County ( CV

- 202 0

- 00600

- JP )

June 3, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of

jurisdiction

.

SECON D DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _ /s/ Elizabeth Kerr

__________________ Justice Elizabeth Kerr
# C_2010221EN.01003902.xml

| 14.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2010 — Matratzen Concord v OHIM — Barranco Schnitzler and Barranco Rodriguez (MATRATZEN CONCORD)

(Case T-351/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark MATRATZEN CONCORD - Earlier national word mark MATRATZEN - Relative ground for refusal - Evidence of use of the earlier mark - Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based - Article 73 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2010/C 221/63

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Matratzen Concord GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: J. Albrecht, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Defendant:

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Pablo Barranco Schnitzler and Mariano Barranco Rodriguez (Sant Just Desvern, Spain)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 May 2008 (Case R 1034/2007-2), relating to opposition proceedings between (i) Pablo Barranco Schnitzler and Mariano Barranco Rodriguez and (ii) Matratzen Concord GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 May 2008 (Case R 1034/2007-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 May 2008 (Case R 1034/2007-2);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.

1

---
# C_2011145EN.01002303.xml

| 14.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 145/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 31 March 2011 — Italy v EESC

(Case T-117/08) (1)

1

(Rules on the use of languages - Vacancy notice concerning the recruitment of the Secretary-General of the EESC - Publication in three official languages - Information relating to the vacancy notice - Publication in all official languages - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Articles 12 EC and 290 EC - Article 12 of the CEOS - Regulation No 1)

2011/C 145/37

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: R. Adam, Agent, and by P. Gentili, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) (represented initially by: M. Bermejo Garde, and subsequently by: M. Arsène, Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain, (represented by: F. Díez Moreno, Agent)

Intervener in support of the applicant:

Re:

Re:

ACTION for annulment, firstly, of vacancy notice No 73/07 concerning a post of Secretary-General in the Secretariat of the EESC, published in the English, French and German versions of the Official Journal of the European Union of 28 December 2007 (OJ 2007 C 316 A, p. 1), and, secondly, of the corrigendum to that vacancy notice published in the English, French and German versions of the Official Journal of the European Union of 30 January 2008 (OJ 2008 C 25 A, p. 19)

Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls vacancy notice No 73/07 concerning a post of Secretary-General in the Secretariat of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), published on 28 December 2007, as corrected on 30 January 2008; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls vacancy notice No 73/07 concerning a post of Secretary-General in the Secretariat of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), published on 28 December 2007, as corrected on 30 January 2008;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.

1

---
May 14, 1997

18420

#### Simon v. Comprehensive Home Care

Affirmed
# C_2009256EN.01003702.xml

| 24.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/37

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 July 2009 — Visonic v OHIM — Sedea Electronique (VISIONIC)

(Case T-569/08) (1)

1

2009/C 256/66

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  C 55, 7.3.2009.

1

---
# C_2010037EN.01003502.xml

| 13.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2009 — Media-Saturn v OHIM

(Case T-476/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for figurative Community trade mark BEST BUY - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2010/C 37/47

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Media-Saturn-Holding GmbH (Ingolstadt, Germany) (represented initially by: K. Lewinsky; subsequently by: C.-R. Haarmann and E. Warnke, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 August 2008 (Case R 591/2008-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign BEST BUY as a Community trade mark

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Media-Saturn-Holding GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Media-Saturn-Holding GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.

1

---
# C_2021138EN.01001501.xml

| 19.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/15

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 January 2021 — Camelia Manéa v CdT

(Case C-892/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Civil service - Member of the temporary staff - Fixed-term contract - Decision not to renew the contract - Withdrawal of the decision and adoption of a new decision refusing renewal with effect from the date of the first decision - Action for annulment and for damages - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

(2021/C 138/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Camelia Manéa (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) (represented by: M. Garnier and J. Rikkert, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, avocat)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | Ms Camelia Manéa shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms Camelia Manéa shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.

---
# C_2010179EN.01003801.xml

| 3.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2010 — European Commission v Meierhofer

(Case T-560/08 P) (1)

(Appeals - Civil service - Recruitment - Open competition - Decision that a candidate had failed the oral test - Commission’s refusal to comply with a measure of organisation of procedure)

(2010/C 179/65)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Stefan Meierhofer (Munich, Germany) (represented by: H. -G. Schiessl, lawyer)

Re:

APPEAL against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 October 2008 in Case F-74/07 Meierhofer v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I A 1-0000 and II A-1-0000 seeking to have that judgment set aside

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 October 2008 in Case F-74/07 Meirehofer v Commission [2008] ECR-SC A-I-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 October 2008 in Case F-74/07 Meirehofer v Commission [2008] ECR-SC A-I-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000;

| 2. | Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal.

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.

---
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12** 
**- 1154** 

I n R e: GROVER L. DILLON, SR. ,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

.

( 1:98

- cr
- 00140

- 1 ; 1:10

- cv
- 00266 )

Submitted : March 15, 2012 Decided: March 28, 20 12

Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Grover L. Dillon, Sr. , Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CUR IAM:
Grover L. Dillon, Sr., petitions for a writ of
mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting

on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion. He seeks an
order from this court directing the district court to act. Our

review of the district court’s docket reveals that , on February

14, 2012, the district court denied Dillon’s § 2255 motion.
Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided

Dillon’ s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We
dispense with oral arg ument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CURTIS LEE SHEPPARD, JR.,

Appellant,

v.

WICHITA COUNTY DISTRICT 

ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, WICHITA 

COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK’S OFFICE, 

78TH DISTRICT COURT OF WICHITA 

COUNTY, and ALL POLITICAL 

SUBDIVISIONS OF THE STATE OF 

TEXAS,

Appellees.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-19-00106-CV

Appeal from the

98th District Court of

Travis County, Texas

(TC# D-1-GN-16-004721)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below.

It appearing to this Court that Appellant is indigent for purposes of appeal, this Court makes 

no other order with respect thereto. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION



I, Patrick J. Tewell, certify that:



1.  I have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of TransCommunity Financial Corporation for the period ended September 30, 2007;



2.  Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;



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



4.  The registrants other certifying officer 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 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 report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 officer 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 the 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.



|                       |                         | 
|---------------------- | ----------------------- | 
|Date:
November 2, 2007 | /s/  Patrick J. Tewell  | 
|                       | Patrick J. Tewell       | 
|                       | Chief Financial Officer | 
|                       |                         |
# C_2008260EN.01000602.xml

| 11.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/6

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 15 July 2008 — Latex Srl v Agenzie delle Entrate, Amministrazione Dell'Economia e delle Finanze

(Case C-316/08)

(2008/C 260/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte Suprema di Cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Latex Srl

Applicant:

Defendants: Agenzie delle Entrate, Amministrazione Dell'Economia e delle Finanze

Defendants:

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 18(4) of the Sixth Directive (1), given the neutrality of the VAT system, permit the Member States to completely exclude the right to deduct, also in the period following the years concerned, providing only for a refund? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 18(4) of the Sixth Directive (1), given the neutrality of the VAT system, permit the Member States to completely exclude the right to deduct, also in the period following the years concerned, providing only for a refund?

1

| 2. | If the answer is in the affirmative, do Article 18(4) and the principle of the effectiveness of the protection of rights arising under the Community legal system impose an obligation on the Member States nonetheless to ensure that those refunds are made within a reasonable period of time? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer is in the affirmative, do Article 18(4) and the principle of the effectiveness of the protection of rights arising under the Community legal system impose an obligation on the Member States nonetheless to ensure that those refunds are made within a reasonable period of time?

---

(1)  Directive 388/77/EEC, OJ L 145, p. 1.

1

---