alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Geekie vs. Wells and another.

Appeal : *Finding not reviewed in, when no bill of exceptions in recoi'd.*

On appeal from the judgment in an action tried by the court without a jury, where the court found that the facts stated in the answer were true, this court, in the absence of any bill of exceptions, cannot review the findings, but, if it appears that the facts stated in the answer support the conclusions of law and the judgment, must affirm the judgment.

APPEAL from the Circuit. Court for *Oconto*County.

This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover the possession or value of certain shingles, alleged to have been seized by him on an attachment issued in certain proceedings insti*363tuted by one McCann against Levi W. Hart and Cyrus S. Hart, to enforce a laborer’s lien tbereon, which shingles were afterwards (it is alleged) converted by the defendants to their own use.

The answer, among other things, avers that the defendants were the owners of the shingles, and denies that. McCann performed labor upon them, or that the sheriff seized them on the attachment. In the view taken of the case, it is unnecessary to state the pleadings more fully.

The cause was tried by the court without a jury; and the judge found that the allegations of both the complaint and answer were true, and held, as a conclusion of law, that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. From a judgment against him, entered pursuant to this conclusion, the plaintiff appealed.

*W. H. Webster,*for appellant.

*A. Reinhart,*with *Hastings & Oreen,*of counsel, for respondent.

LyoN, J.

It is too well settled to admit of controversy, that, on appeal from a judgment in an action tried by the court without a jury, we cannot review the findings of fact unless the testimony is preserved in a bill of exceptions, nor the conclusions of law unless due exceptions _ thereto were taken in the court below. The record in this cause contains no bill of exceptions, and fails to show that any exception was taken to the conclusion of law filed by the judge. Hence we can only determine, on this appeal, whether the pleadings support the conclusion of law and judgment. It is very clear that the answer states facts which constitute a perfect defense to the action. The pleadings do, therefore, support the conclusion and judgment. On this record we cannot determine whether the findings of fact are or are not inconsistent with each other.

*By the Court.*— The judgment is affirmed.
# C_2014334EN.01000701.xml

| 25.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 334/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 334/7

---

Special Report No 13/2014 ‘EU support for rehabilitation following the earthquake in Haiti’

(2014/C 334/07)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 13/2014 ‘EU support for rehabilitation following the earthquake in Haiti’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://eca.europa.eu

A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:

| European Court of Auditors |
| --- |
| Publications (PUB) |
| 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi |
| 1615 Luxembourg |
| LUXEMBOURG |
| Tel. +352 4398-1 |
| E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu |

European Court of Auditors

Publications (PUB)

12, rue Alcide De Gasperi

1615 Luxembourg

LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1

E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu

or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.

---
#### In the Matter of the Estate of McCoskry Butt, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, New York County,

December 20, 1937.

*735
      *Edgar Hirschberg*[SoZ *Zaretski*of counsel], for the State Tax Commission, appellant.

*Kobbé, Thatcher, Frederick & Hoar [Joseph F. McCloy*and *M. Francis Bravman*of counsel], for trustee, respondent.

Delehanty, S.

This is an appeal by the State Tax Commission from the order of July 30, 1937, modifying the *pro forma*order of August 7,1922, fixing the transfer tax. The ground of appeal is that the modifying order improperly eliminated a tax based on the full life estate of Mae I ranees Butt contained in the original order and inserted therein a tax based on the actual period Mae Frances Butt was the beneficiary of the trust.

The testator died on March 3, 1921, and by the terms of his will Mae Frances Butt, his daughter-in-law, was entitled to receive for her life or until her remarriage the income of one-third of the residuary estate. In the original order of August 7,1922, her life interest in this fund was valued at $213,110 and a tax imposed thereon of $7,405. Mae Frances Butt remarried on January 8, 1935, and, therefore, enjoyed the fund only for a period of approximately thirteen years. The value of her interest in the fund for this period amounts to but $130,017, the tax on which amounts to but $3,950.68. In the modifying order this latter figure was inserted in place of the tax of $7,405 which had been finally fixed in the original order and paid in accordance therewith.

Section 230 of the Tax Law, effective on the date of this decedent’s death, provided: “ Where an estate for life or for years can be divested by the act or omission of the legatee or devisee it shall be taxed as if there were no possibility of such divesting.” Under this provision, it has been held that a life estate which may terminate on the marriage of the life tenant is taxable as a full life estate without diminution on account of the possibility of the remarriage. *(Matter of Plum,*37 Misc. 466.) -.

The fixation in the original order of a final tax against Mae Frances Butt based on her full life estate was proper and was improperly modified in the order of July 30, 1937. The appeal is sustained. ¡

Submit, on notice, order modifying the order fixing tax in accordance with this decision.
# C_2016112EN.01000101.xml

| 30.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7813 — Sanofi/Google/DMI JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 112/01)

On 23 February 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7813. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7813. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2016077EN.01000101.xml

| 27.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 77/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7912 — Fluor/Stork)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 77/01)

On 23 February 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7912. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7912. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

ELIZABETH ANN GRAY, *

 * No. 15-1542V

Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran

*

v. * Filed: November 1, 2016

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Stipulation; influenza (“flu”) vaccine;

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Guillain-Barré syndrome (“GBS”).

*

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Russell W. Lewis, IV, Johnson Law Group, Nashville, TN, for Petitioner;

Douglas Ross, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION1

On November 1, 2016, the parties filed a joint stipulation concerning the 

petition for compensation filed by Elizabeth Ann Gray on December 17, 2015. In 

her petition, petitioner alleged that the influenza vaccine, which is contained in the 

Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”), 42 C.F.R. §100.3(a), and which she received 

on October 3, 2014, caused her to suffer Guillain-Barré Syndrome (“GBS”). 

Petitioner further alleges that she suffered the residual effects of this injury for 

more than six months. Petitioner represents that there has been no prior award or 

settlement of a civil action for damages on her behalf as a result of her condition.

Respondent denies that the influenza vaccine caused petitioner to suffer 

GBS or any other injury. 

 

1 The E-Government Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and 

Promotion of Electronic Government Services), requires that the Court post this decision on its 

website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing 

redaction of medical information or other information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). 

Any redactions ordered by the special master will appear in the document posted on the website.
2

Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint stipulation, attached hereto. The 

undersigned finds said stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the 

Court in awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

Damages awarded in that stipulation include:

A lump sum payment of $125,000.00 in the form of a check payable to 

petitioner, Elizabeth Ann Gray. This amount represents compensation 

for all damages that would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC, Appendix B, 

the clerk is directed to enter judgment in case 15-1542V according to this decision 

and the attached stipulation.2

Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Dan Hoffman, at (202) 357-

6360.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master

 

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties can expedite entry of judgment by each 

party filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review by a United States Court of Federal 

Claims judge.
# C_2016030EN.01000102.xml

| 27.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7835 — Randstad/Proffice)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 30/02)

On 22 January 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7835. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7835. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-23-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-22-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           5,680
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,327
<ALLOWANCES>                                       728
<INVENTORY>                                      1,090
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,006
<PP&E>                                          12,525
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,103
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  26,544
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,260
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           12,920
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,315
<OTHER-SE>                                     (27,675)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    26,544
<SALES>                                          3,644
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,218
<CGS>                                            3,398
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,761
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,399
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   548
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  95
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (8,350)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        14
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (8,364)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (8,364)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.78)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.78)
        

</TABLE>
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-15-00409-CV

CITY OF PHARR 

v.

GERMAN GARCIA, ANNA LEAL, DOMINGO LOPEZ JR.,

SAN JUANITA DE LA FUENTE, AND EZEQUIEL PEREZ

On Appeal from the

430th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Cause No. C-5232-14-J

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed in part and reversed 

in part, and the case should be remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the 

judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART, and the 

case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Costs of the 

appeal are adjudged against the party incurring same.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

December 1, 2016
# C_2015336EN.01000101.xml

| 10.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 336/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

9 October 2015

(2015/C 336/01)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1362 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 136,65 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4599 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,74070 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2683 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0919 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,1895 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,109 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 311,59 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2170 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4150 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,2973 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5502 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4698 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,8057 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6964 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5855 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 298,05 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,0674 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,2094 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6290 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 346,50 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6919 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 51,945 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 69,3640 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,392 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,2601 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,6271 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 73,6258 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1362

JPY

Japanese yen

136,65

DKK

Danish krone

7,4599

GBP

Pound sterling

0,74070

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2683

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0919

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,1895

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,109

HUF

Hungarian forint

311,59

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2170

RON

Romanian leu

4,4150

TRY

Turkish lira

3,2973

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5502

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4698

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,8057

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6964

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5855

KRW

South Korean won

1 298,05

ZAR

South African rand

15,0674

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,2094

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6290

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 346,50

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6919

PHP

Philippine peso

51,945

RUB

Russian rouble

69,3640

THB

Thai baht

40,392

BRL

Brazilian real

4,2601

MXN

Mexican peso

18,6271

INR

Indian rupee

73,6258

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

EARL D. BOOTH, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

UNPUBLISHED 

December 1, 2016 

v No. 331807; 332014 

Court of Claims 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, LC No. 13-000173-MZ 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

Before: RONAYNE KRAUSE, P.J., and O’CONNELL and GLEICHER, JJ. 

O’CONNELL, J. (dissenting). 

 I respectfully dissent. 

 In Booth v Dep’t of Corrections, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of 

Appeals, issued June 9, 2015 (Docket No. 324319), unpub op at 1, this Court remanded this case 

for the lower court to consider two issues: an in camera review of the recording and for the trial 

court to consider Booth’s entitlement to partial attorney fees. The lower court ruled in favor of 

defendant on both issues. I would affirm the well-reasoned decision of the lower court. 

 In IBM v Dep’t of Treasury, ___ Mich App ____; ___ NW2d ___ (2016), this Court held 

that a lower court cannot exceed the scope of a remand order. It necessarily follows that on this 

second appeal, neither Booth nor the majority opinion can expand the issues to be resolved on 

second appeal. However, this is exactly what has occurred in this appeal. I would limit this 

appeal to the two issues stated above because to do otherwise allows the appellant to re-litigate 

issues ad infinitum, similar to a Phoenix arising from the ashes. 

 In Booth, we clearly stated that our remand was limited to discerning whether a 

conversation between Booth and the prisoner may also be heard on the recording. We stated, 

“Booth clarified at oral argument before this Court that a conversation between Booth and the 

prisoner may also be heard on the recording, and it is access to this specific conversation—not 

any private conversation between the prisoner and his mother—that Booth seeks.” Booth, unpub 

at 3. We then remanded this case for an in camera review of the recording to determine if any 

discernable conversation was available. Id. The sole purpose of the remand in Booth was to 

determine if any of Booth’s comments were discernable on the recording. 

 On remand, the lower court conducted an in camera hearing and concluded that no 

discernable conversation could be heard between Booth, the prisoner, and the prisoner’s mother. 
-2- 

The majority, after attempting to listen to this conversation, agrees with the lower court. As a 

result of this conclusion, there exists no disclosable information under the Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA), MCL 15.231 et seq. It necessarily follows that no attorney fees can be 

awarded. 

 Unfortunately, the majority seeks to expand this appeal to determine if the balance of the 

conversation between the prisoner and his mother is subject to FOIA. That issue was decided in 

the first appeal and cannot be re-litigated. People v Davis, 300 Mich App 502, 508; 834 NW2d 

897 (2013). Because plaintiff has prevailed in no part of this appeal, no production of further 

documents or other information in connection with plaintiff’s FOIA campaign will follow. 

Therefore plaintiff is not entitled to any attendant fees or costs under MCL 15.240(6). 

 I would affirm. 

/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
## TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT: ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT:

ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS

August 2006

U.S. Department of Energy Assistant Secretary Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Building Technologies Program Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards Washington, DC 20585This document was prepared for the Department of Energy by staff members of Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Navigant Consulting, Inc.