alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Arliss FOX, Steve Osborne and James A. Harrell, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF CREEK COUNTY, Oklahoma, DRUMRIGHT DIVISION, and The Honorable G. B. (Chuck) Coryell, the Judge thereof, Respondents.

No. 39704.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Dec. 19, 1961.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 30, 1962.

*485Yates & Braddock, Altus, for petitioners Arliss Fox and Steve Osborne.

Oden & Oden, Altus, for petitioner James A. Harrell.

Doyle Watson, Drumright, Wheeler & Wheeler, Tulsa, for respondents.

IRWIN, Justice.

The Petitioners, Arliss Fox, Steve Osborne and James A. Harrell, were co-defendants of Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, a foreign corporation, in an action brought in the Superior Court of Creek County, the same being case No. 3698. The plaintiffs in that action, L. H. McConnell and Kate McConnell, commenced proceedings in the Superior Court of Creek County against all the defendants for damages to land situated in Jackson County, and injunctive relief.

All of the defendants in Case No. 3698, in the Superior Court of Creek County filed their separate Special Appearances, Motions to Quash Summons and Pleas to the venue and jurisdiction of the Superior Court of Creek County. These pleas were overruled.

Defendant, Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, petitioned this Court in case No. 39,703, to assume original jurisdiction and issue a Writ of Prohibition to the Superior Court of Creek County and the Judge thereof, from further exercising jurisdiction over it in case No. 3698, Superior Court of Creek County.

Defendants, Fox, Osborne and Harrell petitioned this Court in the present proceeding to assume original jurisdiction and issue a Writ of Prohibition to the Superior Court of Creek County and the Judge thereof, from further exercising jurisdiction over them in case No. 3698, Superior Court of Creek County.

In the case of the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway Company v. Superior Court of Creek County, Drumright Division, Okl.Sup., 368 P.2d 475, on this date decided, this Court issued a Writ of Prohibition prohibiting the Superior Court of Creek County, for the reason venue of such action does not lie in Creek County.

We adopt the facts and rule of law as set forth in the above case which are applicable in the case at bar and hold that a Writ of Prohibition should issue prohibiting the Superior Court of Creek County and the Judge thereof, from further exercising jurisdiction over petitioners in Case No. 3698, Superior Court of Creek County, for the reason venue of such action does not lie in Creek County.

Writ granted.

WILLIAM, C. J., and WELCPI, DAVI-SON, HALLEY, JOHNSON, JACKSON and BERRY, JJ., concur.
# C_2008142EN.01003902.xml

| 7.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/39

---

Action brought on 24 January 2008 — Tomas v Parliament

(Case F-13/08)

(2008/C 142/73)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: Stanislovas Tomas (Pavlodar, Kazakhstan) (represented by: M. Michalauskas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the appointing authority's decision to dismiss the applicant and damages for the material and non-material loss suffered.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the appointing authority's decision to dismiss the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the appointing authority's decision to dismiss the applicant;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 125 000 by way of damages for the material and non-material loss suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 125 000 by way of damages for the material and non-material loss suffered;

| — | Order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-60166

Summary Calendar

PEARL L. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

DOCTOR LONNIE EDWARDS, In his official capacity as superintendent of

Jackson Public Schools District; JASON SARGENT, In his official capacity

and individually capacity,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:10-CV-73

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Pearl L. Johnson appeals from the district court’s grant of summary

judgment in favor of the defendants in her suit alleging claims for employment

discrimination and hostile work environment. Having reviewed the briefs, the

record, and the applicable law, we conclude that Johnson has failed to show

error. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment for the reasons given in

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 29, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-60166 Document: 00512128352 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/29/2013
No. 12-60166

the district court’s careful opinion, but we briefly address a few points raised on

appeal.

To the extent that Johnson argues she was not required to exhaust

administrative remedies for her discrimination claims, she is incorrect. See, e.g.,

Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378–79 (5th Cir. 2002). Johnson

also challenges the district court’s alleged failure to recuse. We note that

although Johnson filed a motion to recuse the magistrate judge, she did not seek

recusal of the district judge, and we see no basis in the record to question either

judge’s impartiality. See 28 U.S.C. § 455. We also find no merit in Johnson’s

argument that the district court violated her Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh

Amendment rights by deciding her case on summary judgment. See, e.g.,

Oglesby v. Terminal Transp. Co., 543 F.2d 1111, 1112–13 (5th Cir. 1976)

(holding that the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial is not violated when

a party fails to show a genuine issue of material fact as required by FED. R. CIV.

P. 56). Finally, given the district court’s broad discretion in enforcing filing

deadlines, see Hetzel v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 50 F.3d 360, 367 (5th Cir. 1995),

the court did not err by striking some of Johnson’s pleadings as untimely or by

declining to address issues raised in untimely pleadings.

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 12-60166 Document: 00512128352 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/29/2013
# C_2010148EN.01002702.xml

| 5.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 April 2010 — Coin v OHIM — Dynamiki Zoi (Fitcoin)

(Case T-249/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ‘Fitcoin’ - Earlier national, international and Community figurative marks ‘coin’ - Relative ground for refusal - Relevant public - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2010/C 148/48

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Coin SpA (Venice, Italy) (represented by: P. Perani and P. Pozzi, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: Ó. Mondéjar Ortuño, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Dynamiki Zoi AE (Athens, Greece)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2008 (Case R 1429/2007-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Coin SpA and Dynamiki Zoi AE.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 15 April 2008 (Case R 1429/2007-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 15 April 2008 (Case R 1429/2007-1);

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

2.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.

1

---
Law Offices
             NEUBERGER, QUINN, GIELEN, RUBIN & GIBBER, P.A.
                                 27th floor
                     BALTIMORE.  MARYLAND 21202-3201
                             (410) 332-8550
HOWARD S. SCHWARTZ                                                   (FAX NO,)
(410)332-8536                February 20, 1996                  (410) 332-8594



     VIA FACSIMILE 
     AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL

     Douglas G. Worrall, Esquire
     Smith, Somerville & Case
     100 Light Street
     Baltimore, Maryland     21202-1084

           Re:  Henderson's Wharf/Purchase of Condominium and
                      Parking Units Owned by Joseph & Eileen Mason

     Dear Doug:

               This  letter  will  confirm  our  clients,   agreement   with
     respect to the captioned transaction.    My   clients,   Henderson's
     Wharf  Baltimore,  L.P.,  Henderson's  Wharf  Marina,  L.P.,  and  the
     Council of Unit  owners  of  the  Residences  and  Inn  at  Henderson's
     Wharf  (collectively,  "buyer") , have  agreed  to  make  an
     outright purchase of  the  condominium  unit  and  parking  unit
     (collectively, "Unit") owned by your clients, Joseph and  Eileen  Mason
     ("Seller")  , for the purchase price of approximately $92,000.
     The   purchase price is composed  of  the  payoff  amount  of  the
     Seller's  mortgage (currently  approximately  $87,000)  plus  a  
     premium   of   $5,000.00.  Accordingly, it will not  be  necessary 
     to  conduct  an  appraisal  of  the Unit  as  originally  contemplated 
     by  Seller  and  Buyer  in  the Agreement of Purchase and sale by and
     between  Seller  and  Buyer  and  dated June 1, 1994 (the "Agreement").
     
               In order to  complete  this  transaction,  you  will  deliver
     to  me  the  Deed  (in  the  Form  of  Exhibit  D-1  attached  to   the
     Agreement) that was fully executed by seller (Deed") ,  as  well  as
     Buyer's $1,500.00 and interest  thereto  that  have  been  held  in  an
     escrow account and Seller's portion of  the  transfer  and  recordation
     taxes that will come out of Seller's  escrow  account  ("Funds").  I
     will call you the day  before  settlement  so  that  you  may  properly
     date the Deed and cut a check for the  Funds.  Upon  your  delivery  of
     the Deed, Buyer's escrowed funds and  the  Funds,  I  will  deliver  to
     you:  (1) $5,000.00; (2) a  Settlement  Sheet  showing  the  payoff  of
     the Seller's mortgage; and (3) written authorization to disburse
     Seller's remaining escrowed funds.

                                              Sincerely,
                                              
                                              HOWARD S. SCHWARTZ

       HSS/tms
       CC:        Mr. Terrence Sullivan
                  Mr. Charles Intravaia
                  Richard A. Monfred,Esquire
# C_2010148EN.01005102.xml

| 5.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/51

---

Order of the General Court of 12 April 2010 — Bulur Giyim Sanayi ve Ticaret Sirketi v OHIM — Denim (VIGOSS)

(Case T-431/08) (1)

1

2010/C 148/84

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.

1

---
HOULIHAN'S RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.
                  SCHEDULE OF FRANCHISE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
                                December 30, 1996

                                                                   Development
                                          Execution  Territory      Schedule
           Developer                         Date  (all or part)(total/deadline)
-----------------------------------------   -----   -----------  --------------

Oregon Irish Restaurants ................   4/94    OR            4 / 6/15/99

R H Restaurants, Inc. ...................   4/94    NV            3 / 6/15/99

Desert Hospitality and Onager Development   4/94    TX AZ CO      5 / 8/15/99

Executive Management, Ltd. ..............   7/94    NC            8 / 9/15/00

Copa Restaurants, Inc. ..................   10/94   WI            5 / 10/1/97

Bennett Hofford Company .................   1/95    SC            4 / 2/28/99

Hospitality & Leisure Investments, Inc. .   3/95    Puerto Rico   3 / 9/15/97

Clancy's Inc. ...........................   3/95    IN KY         5 / 3/31/99

Concessions International, L.P. .........   5/95    GA IL PA CA   5 / 3/31/99

Destock, Inc. ...........................   7/95    TN            7 / 4/30/01

Houlihan's of Cleveland .................   7/95    OH            8 / 2/28/02

T-Brothers, Inc. ........................   7/95    ND SD         2 / 10/1/98

Plaza International Restaurants, Inc. ...   9/95    FL            5 / 12/31/00

Grimaldi's of Albany, Inc. ..............   1/96    NY            5 / 11/15/99

Tukwila Foods ...........................   3/96    WA            4 / 1/30/00

Frel Ingenieros y Arquitectos ...........   8/96    Mexico        2 / 12/31/98

San Carlos ..............................   8/96    CA            5 / 8/30/01

Northcott Company .......................   9/96    MN IA NE      10 / 11/30/05

JDK .....................................   9/96    PA            6 / 4/15/01

<PAGE>
**Exhibit 23.2**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMWe hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 ASR(No. 333‐132672) and Form S‐8 (Nos. 333‐135910, 333‐125862, 333‐107659, 333‐73904, 333‐55978,333‐32092 and 333‐65923) of Hanover Compressor Company and in the registration statement on FormS‐4 of Iliad Holdings, Inc. of our report dated February 14, 2007 relating to the financialstatements, financial statement schedule, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting, which appears in this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10‐K/A./s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPHouston, Texas
# C_2009205EN.01001202.xml

| 29.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-557/08) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/35/EC - Ship-source pollution and introduction of penalties for infringements - Failure to transpose)

2009/C 205/22

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and A. A. Gilly, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: H. Walker, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.

1

---
# C_2021088EN.01001101.xml

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 88/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 January 2021 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-787/19) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 306 to 310 - Special scheme for travel agents - Application to all types of clients - National legislation excluding travel services that are provided to taxable persons who use those services for their business - Article 73 - Taxable amount - Determination of a taxable amount on a flat-rate basis for groups of services or for all services provided during the taxable period - Incompatibility)

(2021/C 88/12)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Wasmeier and J. Jokubauskaitė, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: F. Koppensteiner and A. Posch, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by excluding from the special value-added-tax (VAT) scheme applicable to travel agents travel services provided to taxable persons who use those services for their business, and by authorising travel agents, in so far as they are subject to that scheme, to determine the taxable amount for VAT on a flat-rate basis for groups of services or for all services provided during a tax year, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 73 and Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by excluding from the special value-added-tax (VAT) scheme applicable to travel agents travel services provided to taxable persons who use those services for their business, and by authorising travel agents, in so far as they are subject to that scheme, to determine the taxable amount for VAT on a flat-rate basis for groups of services or for all services provided during a tax year, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 73 and Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.

---
#### Jim PARKER, Petitioner, v. Robert RAINES, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, McAlester, Oklahoma, Respondent.

No. A-12768.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Dec. 16, 1959.

*1046Jim Parker, pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This is an original proceeding in habeas corpus filed by Jim Parker to obtain his release from the state penitentiary.

The record before the court reflects that petitioner was convicted of the crime of “Attempting to Obtain Property By Means of a Confidence Game.” Judgment and sentence was rendered against the defendant on the Sth day of November, 19S7. Defendant, within the time prescribed by law appealed his case to this court and the same was modified and affirmed on the 15th day of October, 1958. Defendant thereafter on the 6th day of May, 1959, filed in this Court his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The same grounds were alleged for his release as were set forth in his direct appeal.

This court has been consistent in adhering to the rule laid down in the case of In re Vassar, Okl.Cr., 338 P.2d 359 where the court said:

> “The Court of Criminal Appeals will not issue writ of habeas corpus where accused has appealed his judgment of conviction, the judgment is affirmed and question raised in habeas corpus proceedings were in existence and known to petitioner at time of appeal and were matters which properly should have been presented by appeal.”

Also, see In re Yarbrough, Okl.Cr., 295 P.2d 826.

The writ of habeas corpus is therefore denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rafael Alesandre, Also Known as Jimmy, Appellant.

Mahoney, P. J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Harrigan, J.), rendered September 1, 1989, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of five counts of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to five reduced charges of second degree criminal sale of a controlled substance. This plea was in full satisfaction of five separate indictments charging him with first degree criminal sale of a controlled substance and an unindicted charge of assault stemming from an incident while defendant was in jail. Defendant was subsequently sentenced to five concurrent prison terms of nine years to life. Defendant now appeals.

Defendant initially argues that he was denied due process by County Court’s failure to order a hearing to determine his mental competence. Such a hearing, however, must be premised on an objective determination by the court that a reasonable ground exists to doubt defendant’s competence *(see, Peo*
      *404
      *ple v Gensler,*72 NY2d 239, 245, *cert denied*488 US 932; *People v Armlin,*37 NY2d 167, 168). Here, both the plea colloquy and sentencing minutes fail to proffer any objective indication that County Court erred in not ordering a hearing. We note further that, between the entering of his guilty plea and sentencing, defendant was sent to a psychiatric center by authorities at the County Jail, apparently in response to a perceived suicide risk. Defendant was released therefrom and, at the time of sentencing, the court took notice of a psychiatric report rendered on defendant’s discharge which stated that defendant was alert, fully oriented, cooperative and exhibiting "no psychotic thinking”. Accordingly, we find no basis to disturb the court’s ruling in this regard *(see, People v Carbone,*159 AD2d 511, *lv denied,*76 NY2d 732).

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find all to lack merit. As noted in the People’s brief on appeal, however, defendant was erroneously sentenced on his conviction for class A-II felonies (Penal Law § 220.41 [7]) to a minimum term of imprisonment of nine years despite the statutory ceiling therefor of eight years and four months (Penal Law § 70.00 [3] [a] [ii]). The sentence should therefore be reduced *(see, People v Selikoff,*35 NY2d 227, 238, *cert denied*419 US 1122; *People v Gustafson,*101 AD2d 920). Although we generally remit cases where a plea is entered in return for a bargained-for sentence later revealed as unlawful *(see, People v West,*80 AD2d 680, 681), in this instance we choose to correct the sentence in accordance with the lawful minimum *(see,*CPL 470.15 [4] [c]).

Yesawich Jr., Levine, Mercure and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reducing the sentence imposed to five concurrent prison terms of 8 Ms years to life, and, as so modified, affirmed.