alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### J. *K.*Williams and Dunham-Williams, a Corporation, and J. K. Williams Company, a Corporation, *Plaintiffs in Error,*v. C. W. Sherry, *Defendant in Error.*

Division B.

Opinion Filed December 5, 1927.

*MoElya <& Milledge,*for Plaintiffs in Error;

*Bobillard*c& *Copeland,*for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

In this case suit was brought by defendant in error against the plaintiffs in error. On the trial it develops that no liability is proven against one of the defendants in the court below, J. K. Williams Company, a *999corporation. Thereupon non-suit was entered as to that defendant. The result of the trial was a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the court below, defendant in error here, against Dunham-Williams Company, a corporation, and J. K. Williams.

There were seven (7) assignments of error, as follows:

‘ ‘ 1. The denial of a motion for a directed verdict made by the defendants at the close of the testimony by the plaintiff.

2. The denial of the motion for a directed verdict made by the plaintiff at the close of the testimony for the defendants.

3. The denial of the motion for a new trial.

4. The granting of a motion for a non-suit by the plaintiff as to the defendant, the J.-K. Williams Company.

5. The denial of a motion in arrest of judgment.

6. The denial of a motion for a judgment *non obstante veredicto.*

7. The entry of judgment for the plaintiff. ’ ’

We find no reversible error disclosed by the record. The judgment should be affirmed on authority of Paul v. Commerce Bank, 69 Fla. 62, 68 Sou. 68, in which the court construed Section 1372 of the General Statutes of Florida, now Section 2568 of the Revised General Statutes of Florida, using the following language:

“Where an action at law has been brought against several defendants and the evidence adduced at the trial fails to establish the liability of one of the defendants, the trial court may dismiss the action as to such defendant for the reason that there has been a misjoinder of such defendant, in accordance with the provisions of Section 1372 of the General Statutes of Florida.”

In that case the Court also held that,

“A verdict for the defendant should never be directed *1000by the court, unless it is clear that there is no evidence whatever adduced that could in law support a verdict for the plaintiff. If the evidence is conflicting or will admit of different reasonable inferences, or if there is evidence tending to prove the issue, it should be submitted to the jury as a question of fact to be determined by them, and not taken from the jury and passed upon by the court as a question of law. ’ ’

See also the Mechanics & Metals National Bank of the City of New York, a corporation, v. Angel et al., 79 Fla. 761, 85 Sou. 675; also Jonas et al. v. Burkes, 87 Fla. 68, 99 Sou. 252.

Judgment affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.

Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Case 3:04-cv-01191-B Document 50 Filed 04/25/05 Page 1 of 28 PageID 550
Case 3:04-cv-01191-B Document 50 Filed 04/25/05 Page 2 of 28 PageID 551
Case 3:04-cv-01191-B Document 50 Filed 04/25/05 Page 3 of 28 PageID 552
Case 3:04-cv-01191-B Document 50 Filed 04/25/05 Page 4 of 28 PageID 553
Case 3:04-cv-01191-B Document 50 Filed 04/25/05 Page 5 of 28 PageID 554
Case 3:04-cv-01191-B Document 50 Filed 04/25/05 Page 6 of 28 PageID 555
Case 3:04-cv-01191-B Document 50 Filed 04/25/05 Page 7 of 28 PageID 556
Case 3:04-cv-01191-B Document 50 Filed 04/25/05 Page 8 of 28 PageID 557
Case 3:04-cv-01191-B Document 50 Filed 04/25/05 Page 9 of 28 PageID 558
Case 3:04-cv-01191-B Document 50 Filed 04/25/05 Page 10 of 28 PageID 559
Case 3:04-cv-01191-B Document 50 Filed 04/25/05 Page 11 of 28 PageID 560
Case 3:04-cv-01191-B Document 50 Filed 04/25/05 Page 12 of 28 PageID 561
Case 3:04-cv-01191-B Document 50 Filed 04/25/05 Page 13 of 28 PageID 562
Case 3:04-cv-01191-B Document 50 Filed 04/25/05 Page 14 of 28 PageID 563
Case 3:04-cv-01191-B Document 50 Filed 04/25/05 Page 15 of 28 PageID 564
Case 3:04-cv-01191-B Document 50 Filed 04/25/05 Page 16 of 28 PageID 565
Case 3:04-cv-01191-B Document 50 Filed 04/25/05 Page 17 of 28 PageID 566
Case 3:04-cv-01191-B Document 50 Filed 04/25/05 Page 18 of 28 PageID 567
Case 3:04-cv-01191-B Document 50 Filed 04/25/05 Page 19 of 28 PageID 568
Case 3:04-cv-01191-B Document 50 Filed 04/25/05 Page 20 of 28 PageID 569
Case 3:04-cv-01191-B Document 50 Filed 04/25/05 Page 21 of 28 PageID 570
Case 3:04-cv-01191-B Document 50 Filed 04/25/05 Page 22 of 28 PageID 571
Case 3:04-cv-01191-B Document 50 Filed 04/25/05 Page 23 of 28 PageID 572
Case 3:04-cv-01191-B Document 50 Filed 04/25/05 Page 24 of 28 PageID 573
Case 3:04-cv-01191-B Document 50 Filed 04/25/05 Page 25 of 28 PageID 574
Case 3:04-cv-01191-B Document 50 Filed 04/25/05 Page 26 of 28 PageID 575
Case 3:04-cv-01191-B Document 50 Filed 04/25/05 Page 27 of 28 PageID 576
Case 3:04-cv-01191-B Document 50 Filed 04/25/05 Page 28 of 28 PageID 577
Migdalia GARCIA-CARRASQUILLO, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Flamur XHUDO, et al, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0734

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 26, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
Exhibit 4

Managements Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting

The management of the administrator of the Registrant is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting, and have designed such internal control over financial reporting to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), including a reconciliation to US GAAP.

Management has used the Internal Control  Integrated Framework to evaluate the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which is a recognized and suitable framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements.  Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

Management has evaluated the design and operation of the Registrants internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2006, and has concluded that such internal control over financial reporting is effective.  There are no material weaknesses that have been identified by management in this regard.

Date:

March 30, 2007

|                                                   |  |                                                                
|-------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Keith Conrad                                   |  | s/d Victor Roskey                                              
|Keith Conrad
President and Chief Executive Officer |  | Victor Roskey
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Fritz ALISME, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-2987

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 28, 2019]

*Affirmed.*
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does 4 not include the filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6
KISHOR LALLOO and 7 BHARTI LALLOO, 8 Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants-Appellees, 9
v. NO. 30,570 10 MICHAEL W. MYRIN and 11 REBECCA L. MYRIN, 12 Defendants/Counter Claimants-Appellants. 13 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY 14 Jerald A. Valentine, District Judge 15 K. Joseph Cervantes 16 Las Cruces, NM 17 for Appellees 18 Michael W. Myrin 19 Rebecca L. Myrin 20 Pleasanton, TX 21 Pro se Appellants 22
MEMORANDUM OPINION 232 CASTILLO, Judge. 1 Summary dismissal was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of 2 proposed disposition. No memorandum opposing summary dismissal has been filed, 3 and the time for doing so has expired. 4 Dismissed. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6

___________________________________ 7 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Judge 8 WE CONCUR: 9

__________________________________ 10JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 11

__________________________________ 12 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 13
# C_2021163EN.01003402.xml

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/34

---

Order of the General Court of 25 February 2021 — Ultrasun v EUIPO (ULTRASUN)

(Case T-437/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark ULTRASUN - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2021/C 163/46)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ultrasun AG (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 April 2020 (Case R 1453/2019-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign ULTRASUN as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Ultrasun AG shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ultrasun AG shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.

---
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 23

- 00144

- CV

Z ACHARY L ONG

, Appellant

V

.

R.E. W ATSON & A SSOCIATES

, I NC

. , Appellee §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 153rd District C ourt

of Tarrant County ( 153

- 331707

- 22 )

February 29, 2024

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that th e t rial court ’ s judgment

is affirmed.

It is further ordered that Appellant Zachary Long must pay all costs of this

appeal.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By __ /s/ Elizabeth Kerr

_________________ Justice Elizabeth Kerr
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ANVIL
HOLDINGS' FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN ITS 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED JANUARY
30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           3,397
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,867
<ALLOWANCES>                                       635
<INVENTORY>                                     41,356
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                80,748
<PP&E>                                          61,511
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,975
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 150,930
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,333
<BONDS>                                        126,835
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           36,139
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            39
<OTHER-SE>                                    (74,436)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   150,930
<SALES>                                        217,302
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               217,302
<CGS>                                          179,092
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,525
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,344
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,659)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,264)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,395)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,395)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    11.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    11.46
        

</TABLE>
# C_2016222EN.01002301.xml

| 20.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/23

---

Action brought on 18 April 2016 — Puma v EUIPO — CMS (CMS Italy)

(Case T-161/16)

(2016/C 222/29)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Costruzione Macchine Speciali Srl (CMS) (Alonte, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word elements ‘CMS ITALY’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 150 538

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 January 2016 in Case R 229/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision on the grounds that Article 8(5) EUTMR was not applied; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision on the grounds that Article 8(5) EUTMR was not applied;

| — | order EUIPO and Costruzione Macchine Speciali Srl (CMS) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and Costruzione Macchine Speciali Srl (CMS) to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 8(5), 76(1) and 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 8(5), 76(1) and 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Rule 19(2) of Regulation No 2868/95; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Rule 19(2) of Regulation No 2868/95;

| — | Infringement of the principles of legal security and sound administration. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principles of legal security and sound administration.

---
# C_2021502EN.01002701.xml

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Roller v EUIPO — Flex Equipos de Descanso (Dormillo)

(Case T-597/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark Dormillo - Earlier EU figurative mark DORMILON - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 502/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Roller GmbH & Co. KG (Gelsenkirchen, Germany) (represented by: W. Zürbig, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Flex Equipos de Descanso, SA (Getafe, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 June 2020 (Case R 2847/2019-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Flex Equipos de Descanso and Roller.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

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

2.

Orders Roller GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 390, 16.11.2020.

---
# C_2016343EN.01004401.xml

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/44

---

Action brought on 28 July 2016 — Carrera Brands v EUIPO — Autec (Carrera)

(Case T-419/16)

(2016/C 343/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Carrera Brands Ltd (Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China) (represented by: C. Markowsky, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Autec AG (Nuremberg, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the procedure before EUIPO

Details of the procedure before EUIPO

Proprietor of the mark at issue: the applicant

Proprietor of the mark at issue:

Mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Carrera’ — EU trade mark No 4 630 711

Mark at issue:

Proceedings before EUIPO: revocation proceedings

Proceedings before EUIPO:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 June 2016 in Case R 278/2015-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul paragraph 2 of the operative part of the contested decision and amend it to the extent that the decision of the Cancellation Division of 21 January 2015 is annulled; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul paragraph 2 of the operative part of the contested decision and amend it to the extent that the decision of the Cancellation Division of 21 January 2015 is annulled;

| — | annul the contested decision with regard to the rejection of the applicant’s request for the proceedings to be stayed; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision with regard to the rejection of the applicant’s request for the proceedings to be stayed; and

| — | in the alternative: amend the contested decision in such a way that the applicant’s request of 22 August 2014 for the proceedings to be stayed, repeated on 21 May 2015 in the appeal proceedings, is granted; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative: amend the contested decision in such a way that the applicant’s request of 22 August 2014 for the proceedings to be stayed, repeated on 21 May 2015 in the appeal proceedings, is granted;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 56(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 56(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation No 2868/95. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation No 2868/95.

---
# C_2021462EN.01004001.xml

| 15.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2021 — Sociedade da Água de Monchique v EUIPO — Ventura Vendrell (chic ÁGUA ALCALINA 9,5 PH)

(Case T-195/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark chic ÁGUA ALCALINA 9,5 PH - Earlier EU word mark CHIC BARCELONA - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 462/47)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Sociedade da Água de Monchique, SA (Caldas de Monchique, Portugal) (represented by: M. Osório de Castro, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, I. Ribeiro da Cunha and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Pere Ventura Vendrell (Sant Sadurni d’Anoia, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 January 2020 (Case R 2524/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Ventura Vendrell and Sociedade da Água de Monchique.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 January 2020 (Case R 2524/2018-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 January 2020 (Case R 2524/2018-4);

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

2.

Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         January 7, 2025.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 26, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 1203 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-1001, K2025-1000.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2025-00029 Filed 1-6-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Phillip Steve STAVRAKIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-251

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 20, 2019

Affirmed.