alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 11-10584.

#### Leo *v.*Garmin International, Inc.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-10-00249-CV

IN RE ROY EDWARD ADDICKS, JR.

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Roy Addicks, Jr. has filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining 

that Respondent, the Honorable Donald L. Kraemer, Judge of the Twelfth District Court

of Walker County, has refused to direct Robyn Flowers, the District Clerk of Walker 

County, to file and forward Addicks’s notice of restricted appeal to us.

1 Addicks 

allegedly tendered his notice of restricted appeal to the District Clerk for filing on 

August 25, 2009, in Cause No. 23,962, styled Gordon Simmonds v. Charles T. O’Reilly, 

 

1 Typically, a mandamus proceeding to compel the filing or forwarding of a notice of appeal is brought 

against the trial court clerk rather than the trial court judge. See, e.g., In re Mullins, No. 10-09-00143-CV, 

2009 WL 2959716 (Tex. App.—Waco Sept. 16, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re Smith, 270 S.W.3d 783 (Tex. 

App.—Waco 2008, orig. proceeding). “Mandamus relief is appropriate when a trial court clerk fails to file 

and forward a notice of appeal to the appropriate court of appeals.” Smith, 270 S.W.3d at 785 & n.2.
In re Addicks Page 2

et al., filed in the Twelfth District Court.2

A review of our records indicates that Simmonds appealed Cause No. 23,962 to 

this court in 2009 and it was docketed as No. 10-09-00097-CV, but pursuant to a Texas 

Supreme Court order, the appeal was transferred to the Fourteenth District Court of 

Appeals in Houston on April 8, 2009.

3 The Houston court of appeals dismissed that 

appeal for want of jurisdiction (without prejudice to filing a new appeal after a final 

judgment was signed) because the judgment was not final and appealable. Simmonds v. 

O’Reilly, No. 14-09-00337-CV, 2010 WL 2517976 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] June 

24, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.). For that reason, Addicks’s request for mandamus relief is 

moot, as the trial court has jurisdiction of the underlying case and there was no final 

judgment for Addicks to appeal. We thus deny his petition, and all pending motions 

are dismissed as moot.

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Reyna, and

Justice Davis

Petition denied; all pending motions dismissed as moot

Opinion delivered and filed November 24, 2010

[OT06]

 

2 Addicks states that he filed a motion to join (or intervene) in the trial court in Simmonds’s lawsuit.

3

In a motion filed with us, Addicks states that he forwarded a copy of his restricted notice of appeal to us 

on or about August 25, 2009, but by that time, the appeal of Cause No. 23,962 had been transferred to the 

Houston court, which possesses the file for the appeal. Our clerk would have forwarded anything sent 

by Addicks to the Houston court. That court’s website reflects the filing of several “amended notices of 

appeal” after the appeal was transferred, but we cannot ascertain whether any of them might be 

Addicks’s restricted notice of appeal. Finally, in an April 12, 2010 letter, we advised Addicks that the 

appeal had been transferred to Houston and that we were forwarding a letter from him to Robyn Flowers 

to that court.
Submitted September 28, 2015,

affirmed February 1,

petition for review denied August 4, 2017 (361 Or 801)

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Plaintiff-Respondent, v.*IVAN AVILA-CARRILLO, *Defendant-Appellant.*

Jackson County Circuit Court

130261FE; A155289

388 P3d 732

Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Patrick M. Ebbett, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Sercombe, Presiding Judge, and Hadlock, Chief Judge, and Tookey, Judge.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed. *State v. Alcantar,*283 Or App 114, 388 P3d 1124 (2016).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF NORTHLAND CRANBERRIES, INC. AS OF AND FOR
THE PERIOD ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 1995 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1995
<CASH>                                             250
<SECURITIES>                                     1,260
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,563
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      5,751
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,129
<PP&E>                                         121,794
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,742
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 141,156
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,088
<BONDS>                                         48,028
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            66
<OTHER-SE>                                      59,307
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   141,156
<SALES>                                         20,840
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,703 
<CGS>                                            9,534
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      737
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 616
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,816
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,246
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,570
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,570
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.48
        

</TABLE>
#### Allen Township Ambulance Corps v. Renoll

*733
      *Daniel G. Spengler,*for plaintiff.

*Nicholas Noel III,*for defendant.

September 21, 1987

FREEDBERG. *J.,*

This matter is before the court for disposition of defendant’s preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer. The complaint contains allegations that plaintiff provided ambulance service to transport defendant from the scene of a vehicle accident in which she “was injured and in a disoriented state and unable to authorize service.” A few hours after her arrival at Muhlenberg Medical Center, it was necessary to transfer plaintiff to Easton Hospital, at the request of Muhlenberg Medical Center. Defendant remained disoriented throughout. For the transportation, the plaintiff seeks $338. Defendant filed a preliminary objection, contending that, since she did not contrae. for the services provided by the ambulance corps, she does not have to pay.

In *Jones v. Woods,*76 Pa. 408 (1874), the Supreme Court held that a voluntary service rendered by one to another, without any precedent request, or subsequent promise, forms no ground of action. However, in *Greek Catholic Union v. Russin,*346 Pa. 236, 29 A.2d 489 (1943), it was noted that there is an exception to this rule, where the person on whose behalf the service is rendered is not sui juris, and it is necessary for someone temporarily to protect his interests. Further, an agreement to pay for *734medical services is implied by law unless the services were intended to be and were accepted as a gift or act of benevolence. *McKeehan Estate,*358 Pa. 548 (1948). Unlike the rule in England, where it is held that medical services are, rendered gratuitously in the hope of an honorarium in the absence of an express contract, it is the universal rule in the United States that those providing medical services are entitled to compensation under an implied agreement to pay for them. Physicians, Surgeons, and Other Healers, 61 Am. Jur. 2d §380, provides in relevant part:

> “Ordinarily, such an agreement may be implied in fact, but such implication is not necessary to the physician’s right of recovery, for the law will imply the agreement in the absence of any agreement in fact. So, a physician attending an unconscious man at the request of a third person has a right, growing out of the agreement implied in law, to recover the reasonable value of the services from the patient, or from the estate of the patient in case the latter dies.”

Given the public policy in favor of establishing and maintaining an effective and efficient emergency medical services system in Pennsylvania, we have no difficulty in applying this doctrine to the provision of ambulance services to an unconscious accident victim such as defendant. See the Emergency Medical Services Act, 1985, July 3, P.L. 164, 35 P.S. 6921 et seq.

Wherefore, we enter the following

ORDER

And now, this September 21, 1987, the preliminary objection of defendant is denied and dismissed. Defendant is granted leave to file a responsive pleading within 20 days from the date of this order.
# C_2023094EN.01003701.xml

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2023 — De Dietrich Process Systems v EUIPO — Koch-Glitsch (KARR)

(Case T-352/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark KARR - Absolute ground for invalidity - Article 7(1)(c) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) and Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2023/C 94/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: De Dietrich Process Systems GmbH (Mainz, Germany) (represented by: M. Körner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl and T. Klee, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Koch-Glitsch LP (Wichita, Kansas, United States)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 April 2022 (Case R 1105/2021-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 April 2022 (Case R 1105/2021-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 April 2022 (Case R 1105/2021-1);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 1.8.2022.

---
EXHIBIT 32.2



     CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350


I, Howard L. Flanders, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
All American Semiconductor, Inc., hereby certify, to my knowledge:

         (1)      that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of All American
                  Semiconductor, Inc. for the quarterly period ended on March
                  31, 2006 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
                  the date hereof at File No. 0-16207 (the "Report") fully
                  complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
                  applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2)      that the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
                  in all material respects, the financial condition and results
                  of operations of All American Semiconductor, Inc.

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.




Date:  May 22, 2006                          /s/ HOWARD L. FLANDERS
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Howard L. Flanders
                                             Executive Vice President and Chief
                                             Financial Officer
##### 



EXHIBIT 12.2 ARCHSTONE-SMITH OPERATING TRUST
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES
AND PREFERRED SHARE DISTRIBUTIONS
 
(Dollar amounts in thousands) Years Ended December 31,2004(1)
    
    
    2003(1)
    
    
    2002(1)
    
    
    2001(1)
    
    
    2000(1)Earnings from operations
    
    $
    131,797
    
    
    $
    116,932
    
    
    $
    137,947
    
    
    $
    100,078
    
    
    $
    101,887Add:Interest Expense
    
    
    175,249
    
    
    
    160,871
    
    
    
    149,538
    
    
    
    34,223
    
    
    
    53,781Earnings as adjusted
    
    $
    307,046
    
    
    $
    277,803
    
    
    $
    287,485
    
    
    $
    134,301
    
    
    $
    155,668Combined
fixed charges and Preferred Share distributions:Interest expense
    
    $
    175,249
    
    
    $
    160,871
    
    
    $
    149,538
    
    
    $
    34,223
    
    
    $
    53,781Capitalized interest
    
    
    23,572
    
    
    
    26,854
    
    
    
    32,377
    
    
    
    29,186
    
    
    
    37,079Total fixed charges
    
    
    198,821
    
    
    
    187,725
    
    
    
    181,915
    
    
    
    63,409
    
    
    
    90,860Preferred Share distributions
    
    
    16,254
    
    
    
    26,153
    
    
    
    34,309
    
    
    
    25,877
    
    
    
    25,340Combined fixed charges and
Preferred Share distributions
    
    $
    215,075
    
    
    $
    213,878
    
    
    $
    216,224
    
    
    $
    89,286
    
    
    $
    116,200Ratio of earnings to combined
fixed charges and Preferred
Share distributions
    
    
    1.4
    
    
    
    1.3
    
    
    
    1.3
    
    
    
    1.5
    
    
    
    1.3
  a.
    Net earnings from discontinued operations have been reclassified for all periods presented.
No. 11-7501.

#### Smith *v.*Pennsylvania.

Sup. Ct. Pa. Certio-rari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q FILING.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          21,209
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,365
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                22,037
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     43,007
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         592,108
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           590,369
<LOANS>                                      1,436,217
<ALLOWANCE>                                      7,178
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,183,062
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,890,504
<SHORT-TERM>                                    57,481
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             18,288
<LONG-TERM>                                     17,700
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           18,347
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     180,742
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,183,062  
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 26,762
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               12,191
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                38,953
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              21,490
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,701
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           15,252
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      252
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 10,322
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,394
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       6,394
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    320
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,074
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.87
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                      3,053
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 1,752
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 7,051
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       90
<RECOVERIES>                                        13
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                7,178
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             7,178
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
No. 11-11060.

#### Lobo-Lopez *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS FINANCIAL INFORMATION FROM FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND
RELATED NOTES FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2000
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       2,021,655
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,071,002
<PP&E>                                       1,358,447
<DEPRECIATION>                                 879,492
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,658,360
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          238,284
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        58,834
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,311,518
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,370,360
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,878,020
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,828,303)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.34)



</TABLE>
No. 12-5126.

#### Baisey *v.*Stansberry, Warden.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.
**Exhibit 23**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements pertaining to theUnited States Lime & Minerals, Inc. 1992 Stock Option Plan, as Amended and Restated, (Form S-8 Nos.33-58311 and 333-101290), and in the Registration Statement pertaining to the United States Lime &Minerals, Inc. 2001 Long-Term Incentive Plan (Form S-8No. 333-90876), of our report dated March 17, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of United States Lime & Minerals,Inc. and subsidiaries included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,2004.
ERNST & YOUNG LLP
Dallas, Texas
|
|

|Energy Market and Economic Impacts of H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009                                                                            
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Figure 14. Renewable Electricity Standard Compliance in the ACESA Basic Case, 2012-2030 (percent).  Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800).
|Figure 14. Renewable Electricity Standard Compliance in the ACESA Basic Case, 2012-2030 (percent).  Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800).
|Figure 14. Renewable Electricity Standard Compliance in the ACESA Basic Case, 2012-2030 (percent).  Need help, contact the National Energy Information Center at 202-586-8800).
Exhibit 32.1



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Galaxy Nutritional Foods, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
E. Broll, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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.




                                        /s/ Michael E. Broll
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        Michael E. Broll
                                        Chief Executive Officer
                                        February 14, 2005