alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF CHANCERY

OF THE

SAM GLASSCOCK III

VICE CHANCELLOR

STATE OF DELAWARE COURT OF CHANCERY COURTHOUSE

34 THE CIRCLE

GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947

Date Submitted: May 4, 2017

Date Decided: May 4, 2017

Stephen P. Norman, Esquire 

30838 Vines Creek Rd., Unit 3

Dagsboro, DE 19939

E. Chaney Hall, Esquire 

Fox Rothschild LLP

919 N. Market Street, Suite 300 

Wilmington, DE 19801

Re: Stephen P. Norman v. Chicago Title Insurance Co., 

Civil Action No. 12781-VCG

Dear Counsel:

The Defendant moved to dismiss this matter, alleging failure to state a claim 

and lack of both personal and subject matter jurisdiction. The motion was briefed 

and argued. At oral argument today, I found that Plaintiff’s Complaint failed to 

establish subject matter jurisdiction in the Court of Chancery. Thus, the matter is 

dismissed, subject to the Plaintiff’s election to transfer to the Superior Court within 

60 days of this Order, pursuant to 10 Del. C. Section 1902. 

At the end of the argument, the Plaintiff sought leave to amend his Complaint,

only so as to establish equitable jurisdiction. I indicated such an amendment was 

prohibited under Court of Chancery Rule 15(aaa). This was an error: Rule 15(aaa)

prohibits amendment after briefing a motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(6) and 
2

23.1.1 While the Defendant did seek dismissal in part under Rule 12(b)(6), and 

therefore the Plaintiff is foreclosed from amending his complaint to address 

deficiencies under that rule at this stage of the proceedings, I granted the motion to 

dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Amendment, 

for the purposes of establishing subject matter jurisdiction, is therefore controlled by 

Rule 15(a), and not prohibited under 15(aaa). To the extent my bench ruling of this 

date is to the contrary, it is withdrawn. Accordingly, the matter is dismissed for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction. The Plaintiff may transfer the matter to Superior Court 

within 60 days, or may pursue amendment subject to Rule 15(a), as he finds 

appropriate.

To the extent the foregoing requires an Order to take effect, IT IS SO 

ORDERED.

Sincerely,

/s/ Sam Glasscock III

Sam Glasscock III

 

1

See Ch. Ct. R. 15(aaa) (“Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this Rule, a party that wishes to 

respond to a motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(6) or 23.1 by amending its pleading must file 

an amended complaint, or a motion to amend in conformity with this Rule, no later than the time 

such party's answering brief in response to either of the foregoing motions is due to be filed.”) 

(emphasis added).
Conservation Practice Standard Overview

Helping People Help the Land

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. 

September 2016

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Residue and Tillage Management, Reduced

Till (Code 345)

Residue and tillage management, reduced till practice 

manages the amount, orientation, and distribution of 

crop and other plant residue on the soil surface year 

round while limiting the soil-disturbing activities used to 

grow and harvest crops in systems where the field 

surface is tilled prior to planting.

Practice Information

This practice includes tillage methods commonly referred to as mulch tillage where a majority of the 

soil surface is disturbed by noninversion tillage operations such as vertical tillage, chiseling, and 

disking, and also includes tillage/planting systems with relatively minimal soil disturbance. 

Mulch tillage includes the uniform spreading of residue on the soil surface, planning the number, 

sequence, and timing of tillage operations to achieve the prescribed amount of surface residue 

needed and using planting equipment designed to operate in high residue situations.

This practice benefits soil by increasing organic matter, improving soil tilth, and increases productivity 

as the constant supply of organic material left on the soil surface is decomposed by a healthy 

population of earth worms and other organisms.

Operations and maintenance for this practice includes evaluating the crop residue cover and 

orientation for each crop to ensure the planned amounts, orientation, and benefits are being 

achieved. 

Common Associated Practices

Residue and Tillage Management, Reduced Till (Code 345) is commonly applied with practices such 

as Conservation Crop Rotation (Code 328), Nutrient Management (Code 590), Integrated Pest 

Management (Code 595), and Irrigation Water Management (Code 449). 

For further information, contact your local NRCS field office.
# C_2004201EN.01001801.xml

| 7.8.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/18

---

Action brought on 17 May 2004 by Siegfried Krahl against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-179/04)

(2004/C 201/39)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 17 May 2004 by Siegfried Krahl, residing in Zagreb (Croatia), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the Commission's decision to recover the daily subsistence allowances paid to the applicant during the period when temporary accommodation was made available to him; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission's decision to recover the daily subsistence allowances paid to the applicant during the period when temporary accommodation was made available to him;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official of the Commission, took up his post in the Commission's delegation to Zagreb on 2 February 2002 and until 19 September 2002 stayed in accommodation made available by the Commission. By the contested decision, the Commission decided to recover the daily subsistence allowances paid to the applicant during that period on the ground that he was not entitled to them, as he had stayed in an apartment provided by the Commission.

In support of his action, the applicant claims that there has been a breach of Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. He alleges that the Commission made the accommodation available only on a temporary basis, without security of tenure, and that he was therefore not prevented from receiving the daily subsistence allowances. He further claims that there has been an infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations, on the ground that the Commission gave him specific assurances concerning payment of the daily subsistence allowances while he was staying in the apartment in question.

---
# C_2004166EN.01000101.xml

| 25.6.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.6.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

24 June 2004

(2004/C 166/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2122 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 130,32 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4324 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,66810 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1688 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5130 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 88,02 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,3580 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9559 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,58150 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 31,613 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 253,25 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6547 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4259 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,5582 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 40 852 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,6400 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 39,938 |
| TRL | Turkish lira | 1 802 919 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7412 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,6330 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,4526 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9228 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0746 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 400,88 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,6491 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2122

JPY

Japanese yen

130,32

DKK

Danish krone

7,4324

GBP

Pound sterling

0,66810

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1688

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5130

ISK

Iceland króna

88,02

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,3580

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9559

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,58150

CZK

Czech koruna

31,613

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

253,25

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6547

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4259

PLN

Polish zloty

4,5582

ROL

Romanian leu

40 852

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,6400

SKK

Slovak koruna

39,938

TRL

Turkish lira

1 802 919

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7412

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,6330

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,4526

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9228

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0746

KRW

South Korean won

1 400,88

ZAR

South African rand

7,6491

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
# C_2004153EN.01000101.xml

| 10.6.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 153/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.6.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 153/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

9 June 2004

(2004/C 153/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2157 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 132,57 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4393 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,66460 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0925 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5197 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 87,12 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1830 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,58300 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 31,335 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 251,98 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4529 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6568 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4255 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,6069 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 40 855 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,1400 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 39,955 |
| TRL | Turkish lira | 1 804 336 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7442 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,6391 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,4773 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9457 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0738 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 403,10 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 8,0714 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2157

JPY

Japanese yen

132,57

DKK

Danish krone

7,4393

GBP

Pound sterling

0,66460

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0925

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5197

ISK

Iceland króna

87,12

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1830

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,58300

CZK

Czech koruna

31,335

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

251,98

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4529

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6568

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4255

PLN

Polish zloty

4,6069

ROL

Romanian leu

40 855

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,1400

SKK

Slovak koruna

39,955

TRL

Turkish lira

1 804 336

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7442

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,6391

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,4773

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9457

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0738

KRW

South Korean won

1 403,10

ZAR

South African rand

8,0714

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
# C_2004168EN.01000201.xml

| 26.6.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/2

---

Action brought on 16 April 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(Case C-179/04)

(2004/C 168/02)

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 April 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Georgios Zavvos, a member of its Legal Service.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the necessary laws, regulations and administrative provisions to comply with Directive 2000/64/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 November 2000 amending Directives 85/611/EEC, 92/96/EEC and 93/22/EEC as regards exchange of information with third countries, and in any event by failing to communicate such provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive. |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the necessary laws, regulations and administrative provisions to comply with Directive 2000/64/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 November 2000 amending Directives 85/611/EEC, 92/96/EEC and 93/22/EEC as regards exchange of information with third countries, and in any event by failing to communicate such provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive.

1

| — | order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the settled case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, a Member State may not rely on domestic circumstances or difficulties to justify failure to comply with its obligations and the time-limits prescribed by Community law.

---

(1)  OJ L 290 of 17.11.200, p. 27.

1

---
# C_2004236EN.01000202.xml

| 23.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 236/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case No COMP/M.3480 — 3i/KEOLIS)

(2004/C 236/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 2 July 2004, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/) free of charge. This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/) free of charge. This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form in the ‘CEN’ version of the CELEX database, under document number 304M3480. CELEX is the computerized documentation system of European Community law. For more information on how to access Celex, see ‘subscriber information’ links below: |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form in the ‘CEN’ version of the CELEX database, under document number 304M3480. CELEX is the computerized documentation system of European Community law. For more information on how to access Celex, see ‘subscriber information’ links below:

CELEX: subscriber information

http://publications.eu.int/general/en/eulaw_en.htm

---
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsEnforcement Petition (2.206)Director's Decisions on Completed 2.206 Petitions

# Director's Decisions on Completed Petitions for 2017

*This page includes links to files in non-HTML format. See Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools for more information.*

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, March 16, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 2019
          - 2018
          - 2017
          - 2016
          - 2015
          - 2014
          - 2013
          - 2012
          - 2011
          - 2010
          - 2009
          - 2008
          - 2007
          - 2006
          - 2005
          - 2004
          - 2003
          - 2002
          - 2001
          - 2000
          - 1999
          - 1998
          - 1997

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, March 16, 2020
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-30875

PARKCREST BUILDERS, L.L.C., 

 Plaintiff-Counter Defendant - Appellee

v.

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 

 Intervenor - Appellee

v.

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF NEW ORLEANS, 

 Defendant-Counter Claimant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:15-CV-1533

Before KING, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Housing Authority of New Orleans (HANO) engaged Parkcrest 

Builders, LLC as the general contractor for the construction of a new housing 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 10, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-30875 Document: 00515339580 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/10/2020
No. 18-30875

2

project in New Orleans. The project faced numerous and extensive delays, 

eventually leading to Parkcrest’s termination as general contractor and, 

subsequently, the termination of its surety, Liberty Mutual. Parkcrest sued 

HANO for breach of contract in terminating the contract without cause; after 

HANO terminated Liberty Mutual from the project, Liberty Mutual intervened 

alleging HANO’s breach; and HANO filed a counterclaim against Liberty 

Mutual alleging bad faith breach and fraudulent misrepresentation. The 

district court determined, after a 7-day bench trial, that Parkcrest and Liberty 

Mutual were not to blame for the delays to the project, and found HANO liable 

to Liberty Mutual for the remaining balance of the contract minus undisputed 

items left for HANO to finish. HANO’s appeal asserts error at nearly every 

stage of the district court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. After careful 

review of the record in this case, full consideration of the parties’ briefs and 

oral arguments, and the district court’s thorough findings and conclusions, we 

affirm the district court’s judgment against HANO for essentially the reasons 

stated by that court.

The district court’s judgment included an unquantified award of 

attorneys’ fees against HANO. Although HANO’s appeal designates this 

award as error, we have previously held “that an order awarding attorney’s 

fees or costs is not reviewable on appeal until the award is reduced to a sum 

certain.” S. Travel Club, Inc. v. Carnival Air Lines, Inc., 986 F.2d 125, 131 (5th 

Cir. 1993); see also Thornton v. GMC., 136 F.3d 450, 453 (5th Cir. 1998) 

(“Normally, an unquantified award of attorney’s fees does not constitute a final 

appealable order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.”). Accordingly, we lack 

jurisdiction over this portion of HANO’s appeal, and therefore dismiss for want 

of jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED in part and DISMISSED in part.

 Case: 18-30875 Document: 00515339580 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/10/2020
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         4,534
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  7,174
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         1,392,684
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (124,254)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,396,660
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     665,189
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,396,660
<SALES>                                        184,126
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               184,126
<CGS>                                          96,859
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  96,859
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             40,496
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                49,840
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            49,958
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (3,650)
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   46,190
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  1.55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.55
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Annual Report of El Capitan Precious  Metals,  Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Charles C. Mottley, President & Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

      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, as of, and for the periods presented in the Report.


Date: January 12, 2006                  /s/ Charles C. Mottley
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Charles C. Mottley
                                        President & Chief Executive Officer

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to El Capitan  Precious  Metals,  Inc.  and  subsidiaries  and will be
retained by El Capitan Precious  Metals,  Inc. and subsidiaries and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request