alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STEAK 'N SHAKE OPERATIONS, INC., Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Michael DAVIS, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

Nos. 1D17-1096 1D17-1121 (Consolidated for disposition)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 27, 2019

Jason C. Taylor of McConnaughhay, Coonrod, Pope, Weaver, & Stern, Tallahassee, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

John S. Mills of The Mills Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

Per Curiam.

*695Mike Davis slipped and fell inside a Tallahassee Steak 'n Shake restaurant. About a year later, Davis sued Steak 'n Shake Operations, Inc. (SNS), alleging negligence. The case went to trial, and the jury awarded more than $ 100,000 in damages. SNS now appeals, arguing the trial court erred in denying its motions for summary judgment, directed verdict, and new trial. Davis cross-appeals the court's denial of his motion for attorney's fees under section 768.79, Florida Statutes. We affirm the final judgment against SNS and reverse the denial of attorney's fees.

The evidence showed that Davis walked into the Steak 'n Shake shortly after a hostess mopped part of the floor. Davis walked over a recently mopped area and fell. There was conflicting evidence on several points, including whether the hostess was using a wet mop (as opposed to a dry mop), whether she adequately warned Davis, and whether she placed a warning sign in the right spot. We find no error in the court's decision to deny SNS's motion for summary judgment, its motion for direct verdict, and its motion for new trial.

As to Davis's cross-appeal, we reverse the order denying his motion for attorney's fees. Early on, Davis served an offer of judgment, proposing to settle "all claims" against SNS for $ 9500. SNS never accepted, and the judgment was well over twenty-five percent of the offer. *See* § 768.79(6)(b), Fla. Stat. This denial and subsequent recovery would ordinarily require an award of attorney's fees. *See**Jordan v. Food Lion, Inc.* , 670 So.2d 138, 140 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) ; *see also* § 768.79(6)(b), Fla. Stat. But the supreme court has held "that settlement proposals must clarify which of an offeree's outstanding claims against the offeror will be extinguished by any proposed release." *State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols* , 932 So.2d 1067, 1080 (Fla. 2006). And it has said that "[i]f ambiguity within the proposal could reasonably affect the offeree's decision, the proposal will not satisfy the particularity requirement." *Id.* at 1079. Here, SNS contends that the offer was ambiguous (and therefore invalid) because Davis amended his complaint after serving his offer, rendering the earlier offer ambiguous. We reject this argument and conclude that the nonmaterial amendment to the complaint did not render the earlier offer ambiguous. We therefore reverse and remand for entry of an order awarding fees.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED .

Makar, Winokur, and Winsor, JJ., concur.
## 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

              - new mexico(1)
              - rhode island(1)

## By Year

General        August 2, 2018        370.410.1 - Training - General Provision

General        December 29, 2023        Science Information Service (SIS)

General        July 11, 2019        Giuseppina Mattietti

General        July 11, 2019        Madalyn Blondes

General        July 11, 2019        Sally Sennert

General        May 1, 2019        General Questions To Pose While Exploring Topographic Maps

General        July 11, 2019        Alanna Simpson

General        July 11, 2019        Geoff Gilleaudeau

General        July 11, 2019        Jacob Richardson

General        July 11, 2019        William F. Hoover

General        July 11, 2019        Jess Rodysill

General        January 24, 2023        Don't Take It for Granite

General        August 3, 2018        429.1 - Space Management

General        March 1, 2018        Birdsall-Dreiss Distinguished Lecturer: Clifford I. Voss

General        July 30, 2020        New Mexico Water Science Center Sediment Laboratory

Strategic Plan        November 30, 2022        Western Fisheries Research Center 2023-2027 Strategic Plan
# C_2022024EN.01002902.xml

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2021 –Włodarczyk v EUIPO — Ave Investment (dziandruk)

(Case T-434/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark dziandruk - Absolute ground for invalidity - Absence of bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2022/C 24/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Piotr Włodarczyk (Pabianice, Poland) (represented by: M. Bohaczewski and A. Zalewska, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ave Investment sp. z o.o. (Pabianice) (represented by: K. Błach Morysińska, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 May 2020 (Case R 2192/2019-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mr Włodarczyk and Ave Investment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Piotr Włodarczyk to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Piotr Włodarczyk to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 31.8.2020.

---
Annie M. KAPLAN, Appellant, v. PALM TRAN, INC., a Florida Not For Profit Corporation, and Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners, Appellees.

No. 4D18-154

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 7, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
Brendan MCGALL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4616

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 10, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This proceeding is dismissed for failure of the petitioner to comply with this court's two orders of November 21, 2018.

LaROSE, C.J., and NORTHCUTT and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 674 

Designating May 5, 2024, as the ‘‘National Day of Awareness for Missing 

and Murdered Native Women and Girls’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 2, 2024 

Mr. DAINES (for himself, Mr. TESTER, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. 

LANKFORD, Mr. RICKETTS, Mr. HOEVEN, Mr. MORAN, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. 

PADILLA, Ms. CORTEZ MASTO, Ms. BALDWIN, Ms. SMITH, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. SINEMA, Mr. HICKENLOOPER, Mrs. MURRAY, Ms. BUTLER, 

Mr. LUJA ́N, Ms. ROSEN, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. HEINRICH, Mr. BENNET, Ms. 

KLOBUCHAR, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. ROUNDS, and Mr. SULLIVAN) submitted 

the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating May 5, 2024, as the ‘‘National Day of Awareness for Missing and Murdered Native Women and 

Girls’’. 

Whereas American Indians and Alaska Natives are 2.5 times 

more likely to experience violent crimes and at least 2 

times more likely to experience rape or sexual assault 

crimes compared to any other group of people in the 

United States; 

Whereas, according to a study commissioned by the Department of Justice, in some Tribal communities, American 

Indian women face murder rates that are more than 10 

times the national average murder rate; 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 674 ATS 

Whereas, according to the most recently available data from 

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2017, 

homicide was the sixth leading cause of death for American Indian and Alaska Native females between 1 and 44 

years of age; 

Whereas the Hawaii State Commission on the Status of 

Women released reports finding that 64 percent of trafficking survivors in Hawaii identified as being Native Hawaiian; 

Whereas little data exists on the number of missing American 

Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian women in 

the United States; 

Whereas, on July 5, 2013, Hanna Harris, a member of the 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe, was reported missing by her 

family in Lame Deer, Montana; 

Whereas the body of Hanna Harris was found 5 days after 

she went missing; 

Whereas Hanna Harris was determined to have been raped 

and murdered, and the individuals accused of committing 

those crimes were convicted; 

Whereas the case of Hanna Harris is an example of many 

similar cases; and 

Whereas Hanna Harris was born on May 5, 1992: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates May 5, 2024, as the ‘‘National 

3 Day of Awareness for Missing and Murdered Native 

4 Women and Girls’’; and 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 674 ATS 

1 (2) calls on the people of the United States and 

2 interested groups— 

3 (A) to commemorate the lives of missing 

4 and murdered American Indian, Alaska Native, 

5 and Native Hawaiian women whose cases are 

6 documented and undocumented in public 

7 records and the media; and 

8 (B) to demonstrate solidarity with the fam9 ilies of victims in light of those tragedies. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Airport Planning

Research and Development

Presented to: Airport Safety R&D 

By: Holly Cyrus, Project Manager

Date: April 1&2, 2014

*

 Airport Planning

*

  April 1&2, 2014

Airport Planning (RPD 132)

Contract Funds ($K)

TOTALS:

*

Airport PlanningApril 1&2, 2014

*

 Airport Planning

*

  April  1&2, 2014

FAA’s Airport and Airspace Simulation Model Enhancements

Engine Version 
        - ?Version 3.9 was released in                September  2012 with 19 additional enhancements.
        - ?Version 4.0 was released in March 2013 with 30 additional enhancements.
        - ?Version 4.1 will be released the end of September 2013 with about 27-29 additional enhancements.

*

 Airport Planning

*

  April  1&2, 2014

FAA’s Airport and Airspace Simulation Model Enhancements

?Engine Version  4.0 was released the end of March 2013 with 30  enhancements. 

Summary:
        - Major deicing upgrade
        - Simulating multiple flight levels on one node-link level
        - Miscellaneous bug fixes

Engine Version 4.1 will be released the end of September 2013 with 	about  27-29 enhancements.

Summary:
        - Dynamic taxiing enhancements; dynamic gate re-evaluation
        - New PDARS output format for animation software
        - Airspace movement & blocking enhancements
        - New output tables to validate runway occupancy data and airspace separations
        - Improved gate logic for efficient gate use
        - Various bug fixes

*

 Airport Planning

*

  April  1&2, 2014

FAA’s Airport and Airspace Simulation Model Enhancements

?The FAA’s Airport & Airspace Simulation Model is being used by Landrum & Brown for San Francisco and Denver airports.  The objectives of these studies:
        - SFO: Analyzing various scenarios to limit delay during runway construction
        - 
        - DEN: Simulating deicing improvements

*

 Airport Planning

*

  April 1&2, 2014

Questions or Comments?

Holly.Cyrus@faa.gov,  Visual Guidance Engineer

Jennifer.Morris@faa.gov, Manager, Capacity Analysis

Office of Performance Analysis and Strategy

Andrew.Lamb@faa.gov, Software Engineer

John.Zinna@faa.gov,  Software Engineer

FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center

Airport Safety Technology R&D Section

ANG-261, Building 296

Atlantic City International Airport, NJ  08405
# C_2021329EN.01002802.xml

| 16.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2021 — Eggy Food v EUIPO (YOUR DAILY PROTEIN)

(Case T-464/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark YOUR DAILY PROTEIN - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 329/37)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Eggy Food GmbH & Co. KG (Osnabrück, Germany) (represented by: J. Eberhardt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 May 2020 (R 2235/2019-5), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign YOUR DAILY PROTEIN as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Eggy Food GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Eggy Food GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.

---
Robert BELLANTONIO, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Eileen Bellantonio, Appellant, v. SOUTHWEST VOLUSIA HEALTHCARE CORPORATION D/B/A Florida Hospital Fish Memorial and Memorial Health Systems, Inc., D/B/A Florida Health Oceanside, Appellees.

Case No. 5D18-0451

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 15, 2019 Rehearing Denied February 15, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
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 Quarterly Report of FCStone Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal
1st Quarter 2007 ending November 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul G. Anderson, 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:



|(1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(b) 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 result of operations of the Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Paul G. Anderson   
|Paul G. Anderson       
|Chief Executive Officer

January 16, 2007

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



37.
EX PARTE Gerard David MCCREE, Jr.

CR-16-0910

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

September 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geomagnetic Storm

Filters

              - (-)news_news-149248(1)

## By Location

              - district of columbia(1)
              - maryland(1)
              - (-)massachusetts(1)
              - new york(1)
              - pennsylvania(1)

## By Year

National News Release        March 5, 2019        New U.S. Geological Survey Report Assesses Risk of Once-Per-Century Geomagnetic Superstorm to the Northeastern United States
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A0499. SARKIS AGASARKISIAN AND THE BEST JEWELRY

MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. v. KHADELA JAGDISH

KUMARJIVARAV BHAI, D/B/A FIVE STAR DIAMOND, LLC.,ETAL.

Upon consideration of the Appellants’ Motion to Remand the above styled

case, the same is hereby GRANTED. Case is Remanded to the trial court until such

time as the record is prepared and complete, at which time the parties may refile 

the Notice of Appeal such that the case can be redocketed in this Court.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

01/19/2016

January 19, 2016
Exhibit
32.1




Certification
required by Rule 13a-14(b) or


Rule
15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of


the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of NGP Capital Resources Company (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John H.
Homier, President and 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 to my knowledge:




(1)
              The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
  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: May
11, 2009




/s/
      John
      H. HomierJohn
      H. HomierPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer
Giles E. ORCUTT, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-5039

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 25, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
William Patrick SMITH v. ALABAMA BOARD OF PARDONS & PAROLES

CR-16-0987

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

September 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 18

- 00139

- CV

JODY LONG APPELLANT

V.

AERONAUTICAL INDUSTR IAL DISTRICT LODGE 776; PAUL BLACK, IN HIS OFFICI AL CAPACITY AS PRESIDEN T

DIRECTING BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE OF DI STRICT LODGE 776; AND EARNEST BOONE, IN HIS OFFICI AL CAPACITY AS SECRETAR Y

TREASURER OF DISTRIC T LODGE 776 APPELLEES

------------

FROM THE 342ND DISTR ICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 342

- 295833

- 17

------------



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

------------

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2 We have considered “Appellan t’ s Motion to D ismiss Appeal.” It is the

court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellant, for which let execution

issue. See Tex . R. App. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: PITTMAN, J.; SUDDERTH

, C.J.; and WALKER

, J

.

DELIVERED: July 12, 2018
BTXN 117a (rev. 10/02)

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

In Re: §

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Christopher Brandon Judge and Raquelle Ann Judge

Debtor(s)

 Case No.: 23−41465−elm7

 Chapter No.: 7

Kristin Newman 

Plaintiff(s) Adversary No.: 23−04066−elm

 vs.

Christopher Brandon Judge and Raquelle Ann Judge

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN AN ADVERSARY PROCEEDING

To the above−named defendant:

You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon Kristin Newman, Plaintiff's attorney (or if Plaintiff is not

represented by counsel, upon Plaintiff), whose address is 1409 Kaitlyn lane

Keller, TX 76248 , either a motion or an answer to the complaint which is now served upon you. If you elect to

respond first by motion, as you may pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7012, that governs the time within which your

answer must be served. Otherwise, you are required to serve your answer upon Plaintiff's attorney (or upon Plaintiff if

Plaintiff is not represented by counsel) within 30 days of the date of issuance of this summons by the clerk (or by the

following date prescribed by the court: N/A) except that the United States or an office or agency thereof shall serve

an answer to the complaint within 35 days after the date of issuance of the summons.

{If this summons and complaint is served in a foreign country} Service of your answer must be made by the following

date prescribed by the court N/A.

The motion or answer served by you must be filed with this court before service or within a reasonable time after

service. IF YOU FAIL TO RESPOND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SUMMONS, JUDGMENT BY

DEFAULT WILL BE TAKEN AGAINST YOU FOR THE RELIEF DEMANDED IN THE COMPLAINT.

DATED: 8/16/23 FOR THE COURT:

Robert P. Colwell, Clerk of Court

by: /s/Karyn Rueter, Deputy Clerk

Case 23-04066-elm Doc 3 Filed 08/16/23 Entered 08/16/23 10:04:33 Desc Summons

in an Adversary Procee Page 1 of 2
In Re: Newman v. Judge et al

Case No. 23−41465−elm7 −7

Adv. No. 23−04066−elm

SUMMONS SERVICE EXECUTED

I,___________________________________________________________________________

of**_________________________________________________________________________

certify:

 If service was made by personal service, by residence service, or pursuant to state law, I further certify that I am,

and all times during service of process was, not less than 18 years of age and not a party to the matter concerning

which service of process was made;

 That on the __________ day of ____________________________________,_______ I served a copy of the

within summons, together with the complaint filed in this proceeding, on

the defendant in this proceeding, by {describe here the mode of service}

the said defendant at

I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on ___________________ _____________________________

(Date) (Signature)

**____________________________________________________________________

State mailing address

Case 23-04066-elm Doc 3 Filed 08/16/23 Entered 08/16/23 10:04:33 Desc Summons

in an Adversary Procee Page 2 of 2
Areci ROBLEDO, Appellant, v. State of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING, Appellee.

No. 4D18-997

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 7, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
B.L., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3506

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 30, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Because B.L. has failed to serve an initial brief as provided by this court's order of December 19, 2018, this appeal is dismissed for failure to prosecute.

KELLY, ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.