alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Jason PATTERSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2656

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed January 30, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING, Appellant, v. The FLORIDA HORSEMEN'S BENEVOLENT & PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida Nonprofit Corporation, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1434

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 7, 2019

Ross Marshman, Chief Appellate Counsel for the Department of Business & Professional Regulation, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Bradford J. Beilly and John Strohsahl of Beilly & Strohsahl, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

*1192The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutual Wagering (the "Division") appeals an order from the Division of Administrative Hearings, finding Rule 61D-6.011, Florida Administrative Code (2016), was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. We agree with both parties that the language of the relevant statutory provision, section 550.2415(7), Florida Statutes (2015), is clear and unambiguous. *See**Fla. Hosp. v. Agency for Health Care Admin.* , 823 So.2d 844, 848 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (holding that if the language of a statute "is clear and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning, the statute should be given its plain meaning"). The provision provides that "[t]he division rules must include a classification system for drugs and substances and a corresponding penalty schedule for violations which incorporates the Uniform Classification Guidelines for Foreign Substances, Version 8.0, revised December 2014, by the Association of Racing Commissioners International, Inc." § 550.2415(7)(c), Fla. Stat. The parties agree that the referenced document includes a penalty schedule, and we reject the Division's argument that the statutory provision directs the Division to incorporate only the drug-classification portion of that document, rather than-as the statute says-a classification system "and a corresponding penalty schedule for violations which incorporates" that document. Because the Division adopted its own penalty schedule, it exceeded its delegated legislative authority.*

AFFIRMED.

Lewis, Winsor, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.

*

We agree with the parties that although the rule has been revised and now includes the required penalty schedule, the issue is not moot because disciplinary actions are pending below based on violation of the invalid rule. *See, e.g.,**Dep't of Health v. Shands Jacksonville Medical Ctr. Inc.* , 259 So.3d 247, 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (noting a matter is not considered moot where "collateral legal consequences flow from the issues to be resolved that may affect the rights of a party").
Exhibit 10.26
 AMERICAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC.
2010 NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICER COMPENSATION SUMMARY
 2010 Base Salary, Option Grants, and Restricted Stock Awards
 Name
    
    Title
    
    Base Salary
    
    Options
    
    Restricted StockAnthony P. Bihl, III
    
    President and Chief
Executive Officer
    
    $
    530,000
    
    
    
    196,140
    
    
    
    24,440Mark A. Heggestad
    
    Executive Vice
President and Chief
Financial Officer
    
    $
    311,200
    
    
    
    63,910
    
    
    
    7,970Maximillian D. Fiore
    
    Senior Vice
President and Chief
Technology Officer
    
    $
    293,800
    
    
    
    31,960
    
    
    
    3,990Joe W. Martin
    
    Senior Vice
President, General
Manager BPH Therapy
    
    $
    311,700
    
    
    
    48,570
    
    
    
    6,060Randall R. Ross
    
    Senior Vice
President, Human
Resources
    
    $
    261,100
    
    
    
    31,960
    
    
    
    3,990
 2010 Executive Variable Incentive Plan
 Name
    
    Title
    
    Target BonusAnthony P. Bihl, III
    
    President and Chief Executive Officer
    
    $
    530,000Mark A. Heggestad
    
    Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
    
    $
    186,720Maximillian D. Fiore
    
    Senior Vice President and Chief Technology Officer
    
    $
    117,520Joe W. Martin
    
    Senior Vice President, General Manager BPH Therapy
    
    $
    155,850Randall R. Ross
    
    Senior Vice President, Human Resources
    
    $
    104,440
# C_2023271EN.01001001.xml

| 31.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/10

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 31 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Aragón — Spain) — Asociación Estatal de Entidades de Servicios de Atención a Domicilio (ASADE) v Consejería de Sanidad de la Diputación General de Aragón

(Case C-676/20, (1) ASADE)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Purely internal situation - Public procurement - Directive 2014/24/EU - Articles 74 to 77 - Provision of social and health services - Use of concerted action agreements with private non-profit organisations - Services in the internal market - Directive 2006/123/EC - Scope - Article 2(2)(f) and (j))

(2023/C 271/12)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Aragón

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Asociación Estatal de Entidades de Servicios de Atención a Domicilio (ASADE)

Defendant: Consejería de Sanidad de la Diputación General de Aragón

Operative part of the order

Articles 76 and 77 of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC

must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation that reserves for non-profit organisations the right to conclude, in accordance with the principles of advertising, competition and transparency, agreements under which those organisations provide social or health services of general interest, in return for reimbursement of the costs they incur, irrespective of the estimated value of those services, where the purpose of those agreements is to achieve objectives of solidarity, without necessarily improving the adequacy or budgetary efficiency of the provision of those services by comparison with the regime that is generally applicable to public-procurement procedures, provided,

| — | first, that the legal and contractual framework within which the activity of those organisations is carried out contributes effectively to the social purpose and objectives of solidarity and budgetary efficiency on which that legislation is based, and |
| --- | --- |

—

first, that the legal and contractual framework within which the activity of those organisations is carried out contributes effectively to the social purpose and objectives of solidarity and budgetary efficiency on which that legislation is based, and

| — | secondly, that the principle of transparency, as specified in particular in Article 75 of that directive, is respected. |
| --- | --- |

—

secondly, that the principle of transparency, as specified in particular in Article 75 of that directive, is respected.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 19.4.2021.

---
1508.

#### COOPER *et al. v.*KING.

Under the Civil Code, §3717, “Payment of money due, to the creditor or his authorized or general agent, or one whom the creditor accredits as agent though he may not be so, or to his partner interested with him in the money, shall be good; and if such agent receives property other than money as money, the creditor is bound thereby.”

Appeal, from Houston superior court' — ■ Judge Felton. October 9,- 1908.

Argued December 14, 1908. —

Decided April 15, 1909.

The exceptions are to the direction of a verdict upon a rule to distribute money raised from a sheriff’s sale of property of Thorp. King had a distress warrant against Thorp for $90 and costs, and also a landlord’s lien for supplies, amounting to $126.13 and costs. Cooper had a mortgage fi. fa. against Thorp. Cooper was respondent in the rule, and made by his pleadings the point that King’s rent had been paid. Cooper made it appear, in the testimony, that he had paid to Davis & Company at Macon the note for $90, given by Thorp to King for rent; also that he had paid to Davis & Company certain notes of Thorp, aggregating about $166; but the testimony seems to indicate that the notes last referred to did not represent the items for which the landlord’s *77lien for supplies was prosecuted. King, in Ms testimony, admitted that he had placed the rent note with Davis & Company for collection. The judge directed a verdict ordering the sheriff to pay over the money to King on the landlord’s lien and distress warrant, in preference to the mortgage fi. fa. of Cooper. The record does not definitely disclose whether it was before or after the distress warrant was sworn out that Cooper paid Davis & Company the rent note.

*R. N. Holtzclaw, J. P. Duncan,*for plaintiffs in error.

Powell, J.

If King’s rent was paid either to him or to Davis & Company, the agents with whom he had placed the note for collection, before the distress warrant was issued, no portion of the proceeds from the property sold should have been appropriated to the distress warrant. If this payment was made after the distress warrant was sued out, then King would have been entitled to receive on his distress warrant only the cost which had accrued on it up to the time of payment of the note. Payment to Davis & Company was equivalent to payment to the plaintiff himself. Civil Code, § 3T1T. The court therefore erred in directing that any. portion of the proceeds be appropriated to the principal sum due on the distress warrant. *Judgment reversed.*
Richard HENDRICKSON, Appellant, v. Melissa ROCKS and o/b/o Minors, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3898

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

December 21, 2018 Rehearing Denied February 27, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Deandre COOPER v. STATE

CR-16-0903

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

September 1, 2017 Reh. denied September 22, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit
      32.1




**CERTIFICATE
      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 WGNB Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for
      the year ending December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, H.B. Lipham, III, President and
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
      adopted pursuant to §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.




Date:
              February 14, 2007/s/ H.B.
                Lipham, IIIH.B.
                Lipham, III
              President
                and Chief Executive Officer
              (Principal
                Executive Officer)
EX PARTE Robert W. KELLEY

CR-16-0818

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

August 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - (-)products_maps(1)
              - products_publications(3)
              - multimedia_video(1)
              - multimedia_video-149195(1)
              - other_basic-42(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(15)
              - arizona(1)
              - arkansas(1)
              - california(11)
              - colorado(10)
              - connecticut(1)
              - idaho(1)
              - kansas(1)
              - kentucky(1)
              - maine(2)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - missouri(2)
              - montana(3)
              - nevada(7)
              - new mexico(6)
              - new york(1)
              - north dakota(1)
              - oklahoma(1)
              - pennsylvania(3)
              - (-)rhode island(1)
              - south dakota(3)
              - texas(1)
              - utah(14)
              - virginia(1)
              - wyoming(1)

## By Year

map        January 1, 1966        Aeroradioactivity and generalized geologic maps of parts of New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts
2068.

#### Pope *v.*The State.

Accusation of disturbing divine worship, from the city court of Montieello — Judge Thurman. July 28, 1909.

Submitted October 5, —

Decided October 13, 1909.

*A. Y. Olement,*for plaintiff in error.

*Greene F. Johnson, solicitor,*contra.

Hill, C. J.

1. Overruling the motion to continue in this ease because of the absence of a witness was a proper exercise of discretion.

2. The charge of the court submitted the law of the ease as construed by the Supreme Court in *Nichols*v. *State,*103 *Ga.*61 (29 S. E. 431), and *Minter*v. *State,*104 *Ga.*743 (30 S. E. 989) ; and the exceptions to excerpts therefrom are without merit. The evidence supports the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*
# C_2020313EN.01001201.xml

| 21.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 24 June 2020 — UM

(Case C-277/20)

(2020/C 313/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UM

Other parties to the proceedings: HW as administrator of the estate of ZL, Marktgemeinde Kötschach-Mauthen, Finanzamt Spittal Villach

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a contract of donation mortis causa entered into between two German nationals habitually resident in Germany in respect of real estate located in Austria, granting the donee a right having the character of an obligation against the estate to registration of his title after the donor’s death pursuant to that contract and the donor’s death certificate, that is without the intervention of the probate court, is an agreement as to succession within the meaning of that provision? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a contract of donation mortis causa entered into between two German nationals habitually resident in Germany in respect of real estate located in Austria, granting the donee a right having the character of an obligation against the estate to registration of his title after the donor’s death pursuant to that contract and the donor’s death certificate, that is without the intervention of the probate court, is an agreement as to succession within the meaning of that provision?

| 2. | If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative:
  Is Article 83(2) of Regulation No 650/2012 to be interpreted as meaning that it also regulates the effect of a choice of applicable law made before 17 August 2015 for a contract of donation mortis causa that is to be qualified as an agreement as to succession within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the regulation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative:

Is Article 83(2) of Regulation No 650/2012 to be interpreted as meaning that it also regulates the effect of a choice of applicable law made before 17 August 2015 for a contract of donation mortis causa that is to be qualified as an agreement as to succession within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the regulation?

---

(1)  OJ 2012 L 201, p. 107.

---
# C_2021072EN.01001402.xml

| 1.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 23 November 2020 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v CS

(Case C-630/20)

(2021/C 72/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Respondent: CS

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1)?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---
Mary GORMAN v. RED RIVER BANK

NO. 2018-CC-2095

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 18, 2019

Denied.

WEIMER, J., would grant.

GUIDRY, J., would grant and remand.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - science_education(2)
              - science_faqs(32)
              - science_science(43)
              - products_data(30)
              - products_maps(182)
              - products_publications(706)
              - multimedia_audio(154)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(144)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(10)
              - multimedia_image(92)
              - multimedia_image-141769(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(73)
              - multimedia_image-141772(3)
              - multimedia_image-141774(1)
              - (-)multimedia_image-141775(12)
              - multimedia_image-141776(1)
              - multimedia_video(312)
              - multimedia_video-149194(183)
              - multimedia_video-149195(44)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149196(2)
              - multimedia_video-149197(24)
              - multimedia_video-149198(22)
              - multimedia_video-149225(3)
              - documents_file(5)
              - documents_file-149204(1)
              - documents_file-149213(1)
              - documents_file-149215(1)
              - documents_file-149218(1)
              - documents_file-149219(1)
              - news_news-149249(1)
              - news_newsletters(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(6)
              - other_basic-42(15)

## By Location

              - alaska(2)
              - california(2)
              - hawaii(3)
              - massachusetts(2)
              - montana(1)

## By Year

Charts or Graphs        December 31, 1997        Geologic map of Mauna Kea, showing generalized distribution of lava...

Charts or Graphs        December 31, 1972        Generalized geologic map of the Eocene Absaroka volcanic field

Charts or Graphs        December 31, 1997        Geologic map of Mauna Kea with generalized surface distribution of ...

Charts or Graphs        December 31, 2018        Nantucket and Marthas Vineyard geologic illustrations

Charts or Graphs        December 31, 2013        Geology of the Anza-Terwilliger Area, California

Charts or Graphs        April 1, 2023        Geologic map of the Timber Hill basalt Sweetwater Hills, Montana

Charts or Graphs        July 11, 2021        Geologic block-diagram and conceptual model of Mammoth Hot Springs

Science Animations        November 30, 2018        Shaking of Atwood Building, Mw 7.0 November 30, 2018, Anchorage quake

Science Animations        March 30, 2016        Shaking in the Atwood Building in Anchorage, Alaska

Charts or Graphs        December 31, 2017        Map shows hill-shaded bathymetric, backscatter, and photographic data

Charts or Graphs        June 15, 2018        Kilauea Volcano -- Lower East Rift Zone lava flows and fissures

Charts or Graphs        June 10, 2016        Potential Marine Benthic Habitats of Monterey Canyon and Vicinity

Charts or Graphs        December 31, 2017        IMMeRSS Cruise expedition area

Charts or Graphs        December 31, 2012        Acoustic Backscatter Intensity
# C_2022073EN.01003702.xml

| 14.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2021 — Stichting Comité N 65 Ondergronds Helvoirt v Commission

(Case T-569/20) (1)

(Environment - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Obligation of Member States to protect and improve ambient air quality - Request for an internal review - Refusal of the request as inadmissible)

(2022/C 73/44)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Stichting Comité N 65 Ondergronds Helvoirt (Helvoirt, Netherlands) (represented by: T. Malfait and A. Croes, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Haasbeek, G. Gattinara and M. Noll-Ehlers, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman, M. de Ree, J. Langer and J. Hoogveld, acting as Agents), European Parliament (represented by: W. Kuzmienko and C. Ionescu Dima, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Michoel and A. Maceroni, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 6 July 2020 rejecting as inadmissible a request for internal review of the decision to close the complaint procedure CHAP (2019) 2512.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Stichting Comité N 65 Ondergronds Helvoirt to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Stichting Comité N 65 Ondergronds Helvoirt to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 378, 9.11.2020.

---