alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Rosa Duroseau, Plaintiff, v Town of Hempstead et al., Appellants, and Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Respondent.

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant, the Town of Hempstead, appeals from so much of the order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Harwood, J.), entered April 25, 1984, as granted the motion of the third-party defendant Aetna Casualty & Surety Company for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, and denied that branch of a cross motion by third-party plaintiff Oceanside Truck Rental Corporation which was for summary judgment on its third-party complaint, and Oceanside Truck Rental Corporation appeals from stated portions of that order.

Appeal by Oceanside Truck Rental Corporation dismissed, for failure to perfect the same in accordance with the rules of the court (22 NYCRR 670.20 [f]).

Order affirmed insofar as appealed from.

Respondent is awarded one bill of costs payable by the Town of Hempstead.

Defendant Oceanside Truck Rental Corporation’s policy obligated the respondent insurer to defend and indemnify the insured with respect to accidents resulting in bodily injury "caused by an accident resulting from the * * * use of a covered auto”. Here, the injury resulted from plaintiff’s falling on a public highway allegedly because of a dangerous condi*580tion created by appellants having negligently plowed the snow on that highway. The snow had been plowed with the insured vehicle. Since the injury did not result from the intrinsic nature of the motor vehicle as such, nor did the use of the automobile itself produce the injury, but, at most, contributed to the condition which produced it, the injury does not come within the ambit of the "use or operation” clause *(see, Lumbermen’s Mut. Cas. Co. v Logan,*88 AD2d 971; *Matter of Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth. [Gholson],*71 AD2d 1004). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Brown and Kooper, JJ., concur. [124 Misc 2d 244.]
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 126 (Tuesday, July 6, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35506-35507]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14267]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[FRS 33694]


Radio Broadcasting Services; AM or FM Proposals To Change the 
Community of License

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

DATES: The agency must receive comments on or before September 7, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, 
Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rolanda F. Smith, 202-418-2054.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following applicants filed AM or FM 
proposals to change the community of license: GEORGIA-CAROLINA 
RADIOCASTING COMPANY, LLC,

[[Page 35507]]

WHTD(AM), Fac. ID No. 54562, From ELBERTON, GA, To CLAYTON, GA, File 
No. BP-20200728AAE; NELSON MULTIMEDIA, INC, WDYS(AM), Fac. ID No. 
69700, From GENEVA, IL, To SOMONAUK, IL, File No. BMP-20210524AAJ; 
BRANTLEY BROADCAST ASSOCIATES LLC, WWTM(AM), Fac. ID No. 54328, From 
DECATUR, AL, To MOORESVILLE, AL, File No. BP-20210505AAG; ZIMMER 
MIDWEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC., KBFL-FM, Fac. ID No. 33654, From BUFFALO, 
MO, To FAIR GROVE, MO, File No. 0000143246; CLARO COMMUNICATIONS, LTD, 
KUKA(FM), Fac. ID No. 2818, From SAN DIEGO, TX, To BISHOP, TX, File No. 
0000145176; ZIMMER MIDWEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC., KWTO-FM, Fac. ID No. 
63339, From SPRINGFIELD, MO, To BUFFALO, MO, File No. 0000143248; 
FAMILY LIFE MINISTRIES, INC., WCGT(FM), Fac. ID No. 172665, From 
TIDIOUTE, PA, TO CLINTONVILLE, PA, File No. 0000145265; RADIOACTIVE, 
LLC, WKFC(FM), Fac. ID No. 164241, From NORTH CORBIN, KY, TO CRAB 
ORCHARD, KY File No. 0000145184; CHOICE RADIO CORPORATION, WKKQ(FM), 
Fac. ID No. 3954, FROM BARBOURVILLE, KY, TO NORTH CORBIN, KY, File No. 
0000145185; SALEM COMMUNICATIONS HOLDING CORPORATION, WLTE(FM), Fac. ID 
No. 170949, From PENDLETON, SC, To POWDERSVILLE, SC, File No. 
0000148015; RADIOACTIVE, LLC, WPBK(FM), Fac. ID No. 164242, From CRAB 
ORCHARD, KY, HUSTONVILLE, KY, File No. 0000145182; SUTTON RADIOCASTING 
CORPORATION, WRBN(FM), Fac. ID No. 56201, From CLAYTON, GA, To TOCCOA, 
GA, File No. 0000143723; REVIVAL CHRISTIAN MINISTRIES, INC., WSGG(FM), 
Fac. ID No. 92857, From CANAAN, CT, To NORFOLK, CT, File No. 
0000145109; and RADIOJONES, LLC, WXRS-FM, Fac. ID No. 36212, From 
PORTAL, GA, To STATESBORO, GA, File No. 0000143396. The full text of 
these applications is available electronically via the Media Bureau's 
Consolidated Data Base System, https://licensing.fcc.gov/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/app_sear.htm or Licensing and Management System (LMS), 
https://apps2int.fcc.gov/dataentry/public/tv/publicAppSearch.html.

Federal Communications Commission.
Nazifa Sawez,
Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2021-14267 Filed 7-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
# C_2019406EN.01001302.xml

| 2.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 406/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 6 September 2019 — flightright GmbH v Austrian Airlines AG

(Case C-661/19)

(2019/C 406/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: flightright GmbH

Defendant: Austrian Airlines AG

Question referred

Should the second sentence of Article 7(1), read in conjunction with Article 7(4), of 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, (1) be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where passengers are transported on a flight which consists of two connecting flights, without any significant stopover at the connecting airport, only the distance of the second leg of the journey is relevant for the amount of the entitlement to compensation, where the claim is brought against the air carrier operating the second leg of the journey upon which an irregularity has occurred, and the transport on the first leg of the journey was operated by a different air carrier?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.

---
# C_2019328EN.01001001.xml

| 30.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 11 June 2019 — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. v Frontline Digital GmbH

(Case C-438/19)

(2019/C 328/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant, appellant and respondent: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.

Defendant, appellant and respondent: Frontline Digital GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | In the case of distance contracts, is there a supply of digital content to the consumer within the meaning of Article 16(m) of Directive 2011/83/EU (1) where the consumer concludes with a trader a contract for participation in an internet-based ‘dating website’? |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the case of distance contracts, is there a supply of digital content to the consumer within the meaning of Article 16(m) of Directive 2011/83/EU (1) where the consumer concludes with a trader a contract for participation in an internet-based ‘dating website’?

| 2. | If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative:
  Does the commencement of the supply of digital content by the trader to the consumer lead to the loss of the consumer’s right of withdrawal, as provided for in Article 16(m) of the Directive, even in the case where, contrary to Article 8(7) of the Directive, the trader has not sent beforehand to the consumer confirmation of the contract concluded together with the information referred to in that latter provision?
  If the consumer’s right of withdrawal continues in existence in that event: | Must the consumer be provided with information to that effect beforehand, in accordance with Article 6(1)(k) of the Directive? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative:

Does the commencement of the supply of digital content by the trader to the consumer lead to the loss of the consumer’s right of withdrawal, as provided for in Article 16(m) of the Directive, even in the case where, contrary to Article 8(7) of the Directive, the trader has not sent beforehand to the consumer confirmation of the contract concluded together with the information referred to in that latter provision?

If the consumer’s right of withdrawal continues in existence in that event:

Must the consumer be provided with information to that effect beforehand, in accordance with Article 6(1)(k) of the Directive?

---

(1)  Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64).

---
# C_2020061EN.01002001.xml

| 24.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 10 December 2019 — DQ v Ministre de la transition écologique et solidaire, Ministre de l’action et des comptes publics

(Case C-903/19)

(2020/C 61/24)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DQ

Defendants: Ministre de la transition écologique et solidaire, Ministre de l’action et des comptes publics

Question referred

Is the benefit of the provisions of Article 11(1) of Annex VIII to the Regulation laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities, (1) as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004, (2) reserved exclusively to officials and contract staff posted for the first time within a national administration after having been employed as officials, contract staff or temporary staff in an EU institution, or does that benefit also extend to officials and contract staff returning to the service of a national administration after having performed duties in an EU institution and having been assigned non-active status or granted leave for personal reasons during that period?

---

(1)  Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities and instituting special measures temporarily applicable to officials of the Commission (Conditions of Employment of Other Servants) (OJ 1968 L 56, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (OJ 2004 L 124, p. 1).

---
# C_2020068EN.01003602.xml

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/36

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 27 December 2019 – MG v HH

(Case C-946/19)

(2020/C 68/39)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: MG

Respondent: HH

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) (‘Brussels I Recast’) confer a directly enforceable right upon a person domiciled in a Member State? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) (‘Brussels I Recast’) confer a directly enforceable right upon a person domiciled in a Member State?

| 2. | If it does:






  a) | Where such a right is breached by the bringing of proceedings against that person in a third State, is there an obligation upon the Member State to provide a remedy, including by the grant of an anti-suit injunction? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

If it does:

a)

Where such a right is breached by the bringing of proceedings against that person in a third State, is there an obligation upon the Member State to provide a remedy, including by the grant of an anti-suit injunction?

| b) | Does any such obligation extend to a case where a cause of action available in the courts of a third State is not available under the law applicable in the courts of the Member State? |
| --- | --- |

b)

Does any such obligation extend to a case where a cause of action available in the courts of a third State is not available under the law applicable in the courts of the Member State?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012, L 351, p. 1).

---
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Annual Report of Oak Hill Financial, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the SEC on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ron J. Copher, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Ron J. Copher

Ron J. Copher
Chief Financial Officer
March 9, 2004


                                      -77-
# C_2020399EN.01003501.xml

| 23.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Daw v EUIPO (SOS Loch- und Rissfüller)

(Case T-626/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark SOS Loch- und Rissfüller - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2020/C 399/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Daw SE (Ober-Ramstadt, Germany) (represented by: A. Haberl, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 July 2019 (Case R 278/2019-4), relating to an application for registration of the word sign SOS Loch- und Rissfüller as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Daw SE to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Daw SE to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           6,489
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   55,787
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (998)
<INVENTORY>                                     42,589
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               105,384
<PP&E>                                          41,277
<DEPRECIATION>                                (21,786)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 376,340
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           48,785
<BONDS>                                        274,125
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,191
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   376,340
<SALES>                                        208,304
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               208,304
<CGS>                                          135,310
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  135,310
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                39,151
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,521
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,010
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,498
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,512
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,512
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.2**

----

**Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants**

Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Act”) provides that if part of a registration statement at the time it becomes effective contains an untrue statement of material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein not misleading, any person acquiring a security pursuant to such registration statement (unless it is provided at the time of such acquisition such person knew of such untruth or omission) may assert a claim against, among others, an accountant who has consented to be named or having certified any part of the registration statement or as having prepared or certified any report for the use in connection with the registration statement.This    form 10-K is incorporated by reference into the Company’s previously    filed Registration Statement File no. 333-07231, File no. 333-31785 and FileNo. 333-31787.Arthur Andersen LLP (“Andersen”) resigned as the Company’s independent Certified Public Accountant on June 17, 2002.  The Company has not been able to obtain, after reasonable efforts, the written consent of Andersen to the inclusion into this Form 10-K of Andersen’s audit reports with respect to the Company’sfinancial statements. Under these circumstances, Rule 437 under the Act permitsus to file this Form 10-K. However, as a result Andersen will not have any liabilityunder Section 11(a) of the Act for any untrue statements of a material fact containedin the financial statements audited by Andersen or any omission of a materialfact required to be stated therein. Accordingly, you would be unable to assertaclaim against Andersen under Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 

1

----
# C_2020087EN.01000701.xml

| 16.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 87/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 87/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 3 December 2019 — Sumal, S.L. v Mercedes Benz Trucks España, S.L.

(Case C-882/19)

(2020/C 87/09)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sumal, S.L.

Defendant: Mercedes Benz Trucks España, S.L.

Questions referred

| (A) | Does the doctrine of the single economic unit developed by the Court of Justice provide grounds for extending liability from the parent company to the subsidiary, or does the doctrine apply solely in order to extend liability from subsidiaries to the parent company? |
| --- | --- |

(A)

Does the doctrine of the single economic unit developed by the Court of Justice provide grounds for extending liability from the parent company to the subsidiary, or does the doctrine apply solely in order to extend liability from subsidiaries to the parent company?

| (B) | In the context of intra-group relationships, should the concept of single economic unit be extended solely on the basis of issues of control, or can it also be extended on the basis of other criteria, including the possibility that the subsidiary may have benefited from the infringing acts? |
| --- | --- |

(B)

In the context of intra-group relationships, should the concept of single economic unit be extended solely on the basis of issues of control, or can it also be extended on the basis of other criteria, including the possibility that the subsidiary may have benefited from the infringing acts?

| (C) | If it is possible to extend liability from the parent company to the subsidiary, what would be required in order for it to be possible? |
| --- | --- |

(C)

If it is possible to extend liability from the parent company to the subsidiary, what would be required in order for it to be possible?

| (D) | If the answers to the earlier questions support the extension of subsidiaries’ liability to cover acts of the parent company, would a provision of national law such as Article 71(2) of the Ley de Defensa de la Competencia (Law on the Protection of Competition), which provides only for liability incurred by the subsidiary to be extended to the parent company, and then only where the parent company exercises control over the subsidiary, be compatible with that Community doctrine? |
| --- | --- |

(D)

If the answers to the earlier questions support the extension of subsidiaries’ liability to cover acts of the parent company, would a provision of national law such as Article 71(2) of the Ley de Defensa de la Competencia (Law on the Protection of Competition), which provides only for liability incurred by the subsidiary to be extended to the parent company, and then only where the parent company exercises control over the subsidiary, be compatible with that Community doctrine?

---
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-87958, 333-127367, and 333-181318 on Form S-8 and No. 333-206656 on Form S-3 of Regal Entertainment Group of our report dated February 27, 2017, relating to the financial statements of National CineMedia, LLC, included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Regal Entertainment Group for the year ended December 31, 2016.

 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

 

Denver, CO

March 22, 2017

 

----