alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NUMBER 13-20-00479-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG 

 

THE CITY OF PORT ISABEL,

TEXAS, JJ ZAMORA, AND

MARTIN CANTU, Appellants,

v.

BROWNSVILLE NAVIGATION

DISTRICT OF CAMERON

COUNTY, TEXAS, Appellee.

 

On appeal from the 445th District Court

of Cameron County, Texas.

 

ORDER

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Hinojosa and Silva

Order Per Curiam

Appellants, the City of Port Isabel, JJ Zamora, and Martin Cantu, appeal the trial 

court’s order sustaining appellee Brownsville Navigation District of Cameron County, 
2

Texas’s (BND) plea to the jurisdiction. On June 30, 2022, this Court abated the appeal 

and requested the parties to provide us with an update on the related federal appeal. We 

further directed the parties to file briefs with this Court discussing whether the disposition 

of the federal appeal rendered this appeal moot. On July 11, 2022, appellee filed a status 

report with this Court and included a copy of the federal appeal opinion. The briefs 

regarding mootness were due August 10, 2022.

On August 4, 2022, the parties filed a joint motion for extension of time to file 

additional briefing pursuant to order of abatement and motion to enter briefing schedule. 

We GRANT the parties’ joint motion for extension in part and DENY in part. We GRANT 

the parties’ joint motion to enter briefing schedule. The briefing schedule is as follows:

Appellants shall file a brief no later than twenty days from the date of this order; 

appellee shall file a brief no later than twenty days following the filing of appellants’ brief. 

Appellants may file a reply brief no later than ten days following the filing of appellee’s 

brief. The appeal may be reinstated upon completion of the additional briefing or upon 

further order of this Court.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed on the

11th day of August, 2022.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

JAMES C. JONES AND FRANCES T. JONES, H/W

v.

SUNOCO, INC., (R&M), F/K/A SUN COMPANY, INC.AND F/K/A SUN OIL COMPANY, INC., SAFETY

- KLEEN SYSTEMS, INC., CRC INDUSTRIES, INC., 3M COMPANY, ADVANCED AUTO PARTS, INC., THE PEP BOYS

- MANNY, MOE & JACK, ACE HARDWARE CORP., ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS, INC., D/B/A

PERMATEX AND D/B/A GUOUT AND

D/B/A LPS LABORATORIES AND D/B/A WYNN'S KENDALL REFINING INC., ASHLAND, INC., UNION OIL OF CALIFORNIA D/B/A UNOCAL, WITCO DISTRIBUTION, INC. WAL

- MART STORES, INC. HUNT REFINING COMPANY, HUNT OIL COMPANY,

RUST

- OLEUM CORP., INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A PARKS CORP., FUCHS

LUBRICANTS CO.

PETITION OF: HUNT OIL COMPANY :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 61 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior CourtORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 1st day of August, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.

It is further ordered that the Application for Stay is DENIED.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. LOUIS B. SAPERSTEIN, *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS.

September 12, 1960.

*Messrs. Van Riper*¿6 *Belmont*for the petitioners.

*Mr. Brendan Byrne*and *Mr. John F. Grane*for the respondent.

Denied.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 
|   |  

CAPE LEVEQUE

SECURITIES PTY LTD

AFS License   No. 246543

ABN 64 092 942 704 |  |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|

 

Level 8, 350 Collins Street, Melbourne Vic 3000

 

**STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL**

 

Friday, November 17, 2011

 

Genetic Technologies Limited

**Attn: Mr Tom Howitt**

60-70 Hanover Street

Fitzroy

Victoria 3065

By email: tom.howitt@gtglabs.com

 

Dear Tom

 

**Consent to be named in USA November 20F Annual Filing**

 

We consent to the reference to us and to our valuation report in relation to the options granted by Genetic Technologies Limited (the “Company”) in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended June 30, 2011.

 

Yours Sincerely

 

 

**Brendan Brown**

Authorised Representative 

Managing Director

 

ABN 64 092 942 704 AFS Licence Number 246543 Telephone: +61 3 8685 8964; Fax +61 3 8080 0776;

 

----
#### In the Matter of Joy Goldberg, Petitioner, v Lorraine Cortez-Vasquez, Respondent.

[942 NYS2d 335]

Determination of respondent, dated March 11, 2010, which revoked petitioner’s real estate broker’s license and notary commission, and directed that no action be taken to restore the license until petitioner demonstrated that she had refunded the sum of $10,475, plus statutory interest from November 28, 2006, to the seller, Julio Alejandro, Jr., unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Michael D. Stallman, J.], entered January 11, 2011) dismissed, without costs.

*532Respondent’s finding that petitioner participated in a scheme in a real estate transaction which defrauded the mortgage lender by making it appear that a deposit was paid by the purchaser, when none was provided, was supported by substantial evidence in the record *(see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176, 180-181 [1978]). To the extent petitioner argues that the witnesses against her were incredible because they were involved in the deception, we defer to the credibility findings of the administrative law judge *(see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward,*70 NY2d 436, 443 [1987]). The penalty imposed is not disproportionate and does not shock the conscience *(see Matter of Featherstone v Franco,*95 NY2d 550 [2000]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Catterson, DeGrasse and Román, JJ.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor
Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted), Robert Portman, Chief
Executive Officer and President of PacificHealth Laboratories, Inc. (the
"Company"), and Stephen P. Kuchen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each
hereby certifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge:

1. The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31,
2004, and to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 99.132 (the
"Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company at the end of the period covered by the Periodic Report and results of
operations of the Company for the period covered by the Periodic Report.

DATE: April 14, 2005


By: /s/ David Mastroianni
    -------------------------
David Mastroianni, Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)

DATE: April 14, 2005


By: /s/ Stephen P. Kuchen
    -------------------------
Stephen P. Kuchen, Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Herbert Katzen, Appellant. Lillian Roberts, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Weiss, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 29, 1984, which adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was ineligible to receive *1069benefits because he was not capable of employment and charged him with a recoverable overpayment of benefits.

Claimant, age 61, was last employed as a hardware salesman from January 1982 until August 20, 1983, when he was laid off for lack of work. His application for unemployment insurance benefits was approved effective September 11, 1983. Shortly thereafter, on September 14, 1983, claimant filed for disability benefits from the Federal Social Security Administration *(see,*42 US Stat 423). He also applied for disability benefits from his union. By notice dated March 15, 1984, claimant was determined to be incapable of working as of September 14, 1983 and unemployment benefits paid since that date in the amount of $3,060 were deemed recoverable (Labor Law § 597 [4]). The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board sustained the determination and this appeal ensued.

The record establishes that claimant suffers from several debilitating ailments preventing him from working at this time and that his entitlement to Federal disability benefits was confirmed, effective February 1, 1984 *(see,*42 US Stat 423 [d]). We recognize that claimant’s application to the Social Security Administration may be deemed supportive evidence of a factual determination of disability and resulting disqualification. The difficulty with this case, however, is that we are unable to determine whether the Board gave the application that effect or erroneously assumed that the mere filing of the application ipso facto established a disability *(see, Matter of Roehsler*[Cather-*wood],*19 AD2d 927; *see,*62 NY Jur, Unemployment Insurance, § 107, at 92 [1968]). It is pertinent that the administrative law judge concluded that he was constrained to find claimant ineligible as of September 14,1983, the date the disability application was filed. Such a mechanical interpretation should be rejected *(Matter of Roehsler*[Catherwood], *supra).*While a remittal might be necessary in some circumstances to determine when claimant became unavailable for employment *(supra),*here claimant’s disability may properly be deemed established as of the date his Federal disability application was granted, i.e., February 1, 1984. Since claimant’s unemployment insurance benefit payments terminated effective January 29, 1984, it follows that there was no overpayment and no right to recovery.

Decision reversed, with costs, and objections to claimant’s eligibility from September 14, 1983 through January 29, 1984 are overruled. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Main, Casey and Weiss, JJ., concur.
# C_2019337EN.01001902.xml

| 7.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 337/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 337/19

---

Action brought on 14 August 2019 – Lozano Arana and Others v EUIPO – Coltejer (LIBERTADOR)

(Case T-564/19)

(2019/C 337/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Antonio Lozano Arana (Cali, Colombia), Daniel Simon Benmaor (Marseille, France), Marion Esther Benmaor (Marseille), Valérie Brigitte Danielle Servant (Marrakech, Morocco) (represented by: M. Angelier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Coltejer SA (Itagüí, Antioquia, Colombia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietors of the trade mark at issue: Applicants before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark LIBERTADOR – European Union trade mark No 9 067 414

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 June 2019 in Case R 2482/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of essential procedural requirements (right of defense, right to access to a judge); |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of essential procedural requirements (right of defense, right to access to a judge);

| — | Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
# C_2021110EN.01002602.xml

| 29.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 110/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2021 — Spadafora v Commission

(Case T-130/19) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Vacancy notice - Post of head of unit - Rejection of application - Middle managers - Principle of impartiality - Responsibility)

(2021/C 110/29)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Sergio Spadafora (represented by: G. Belotti, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and T. Bohr, acting as Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: CC (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 18 May 2018 appointing CC as head of the [confidential] unit of the [confidential] Directorate and, second, an order that the Commission pay compensation in respect of the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Sergio Spadafora to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and CC. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Sergio Spadafora to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and CC.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.

---
# C_2020077EN.01003101.xml

| 9.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 77/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/31

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 30 December 2019 — Les Chirurgiens-Dentistes de France, Confédération des Syndicats médicaux français, Fédération des Syndicats pharmaceutiques de France, Syndicat des Biologistes, Syndicat des Médecins libéraux, Union dentaire, Conseil national de l’Ordre des Chirurgiens-Dentistes, Conseil national de l’Ordre des Masseurs-Kinésithérapeutes, Conseil national de l’Ordre des Infirmiers v Ministre des Solidarités et de la Santé, Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche et de l’Innovation, Premier ministre

(Case C-940/19)

(2020/C 77/42)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Les Chirurgiens-Dentistes de France, Confédération des Syndicats médicaux français, Fédération des Syndicats pharmaceutiques de France, Syndicat des Biologistes, Syndicat des Médecins libéraux, Union dentaire, Conseil national de l’Ordre des Chirurgiens-Dentistes, Conseil national de l’Ordre des Masseurs-Kinésithérapeutes, Conseil national de l’Ordre des Infirmiers

Defendants: Ministre des Solidarités et de la Santé, Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche et de l’Innovation, Premier ministre

Question referred

Does Article 4f(6) of Directive 2005/36/EC of 7 September 2005 (1) preclude a Member State from introducing the possibility of partial access to one of the professions covered by the mechanism for the automatic recognition of professional qualifications laid down by the provisions of Chapter III of Title III of that directive?

---

(1)  Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22).

---
* District Judge of the Western District of Louisiana,

sitting by designation. 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-20894

 

BERNARD JOHNSON INC; ET AL, 

Plaintiffs,

BERNARD JOHNSON INC,

Plaintiff - Counter Defendant - Appellee,

versus

LAVINA S HASSON dba L S INVESTMENTS; ET AL

Defendants,

THEODORE A HASSON

Defendant - Counter Plaintiff and 

Third Party Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOHN H POLK; EDWARD MIKE DAVIS; MICHAEL D HARRIS;

RAYMOND MARTIN; GREGG YOUNG; PETER LOTZ; DAVID

BLASCHKE; FRANK MOON,

Third Party Defendants - Appellees. 

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas 

(H-93-CV-1988) 

 

December 8, 1997

Before HIGGINBOTHAM and STEWART, Circuit Judges, and WALTER*,

District Judge. 

PER CURIAM:
**Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

2

AFFIRMED. See Local Rule 47.6.**
Order entered September 17, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00913-CV

SHEIK TEHUTI, Appellant

V.

ATMOS ENERGY CORP, Appellee

On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-12135

ORDER

The clerk’s record in this case is incomplete. Specifically, the clerk’s record does not 

include the answer of Sheik Tehuti filed on February 7, 2014. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS

Gary Fitzsimmons, District Clerk of Dallas County, Texas, to file within five days of the date of 

this order a supplemental clerk’s record including the answer of Sheik Tehuti. The Court directs 

the Clerk to transmit this order electronically to Gary Fitzsimmons, District Clerk and all parties.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification Required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

(as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)



I, Steven Dinetz, as Chief Executive Officer of NextMedia Operating, Inc. (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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the Report), being filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, 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: March 28, 2005 |  | /s/  Steven Dinetz            
|                     |  | Name: Steven Dinetz           
|                     |  | Title: Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to NextMedia Operating, Inc. and will be retained by NextMedia Operating, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2019312EN.01002701.xml

| 16.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 312/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 312/27

---

Action brought on 4 July 2019 — Pearson Loan Finance and Others v Commission

(Case T-484/19)

(2019/C 312/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Pearson Loan Finance Unlimited (London, United Kingdom), Pearson Overseas Holdings Ltd (London), and Pearson International Finance Ltd (London) (represented by: A. von Bonin and O. Brouwer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision C(2019) 2526 final of 2 April 2019 on the State aid SA.44896 implemented by the United Kingdom concerning CFC Group Financing Exemption; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C(2019) 2526 final of 2 April 2019 on the State aid SA.44896 implemented by the United Kingdom concerning CFC Group Financing Exemption;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging errors in law, manifest errors of assessment and failure to adequately state reasons in the identification, in the contested decision, of the reference system. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging errors in law, manifest errors of assessment and failure to adequately state reasons in the identification, in the contested decision, of the reference system.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging errors in law, manifest errors of assessment and failure to adequately state reasons in wrongly characterising, in the contested decision, the group financing exemption as a derogation from the normal operation of the reference system. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging errors in law, manifest errors of assessment and failure to adequately state reasons in wrongly characterising, in the contested decision, the group financing exemption as a derogation from the normal operation of the reference system.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging errors in law and manifest errors of assessment in finding, in the contested decision, that the group financing exemption discriminates between economic operators. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging errors in law and manifest errors of assessment in finding, in the contested decision, that the group financing exemption discriminates between economic operators.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging errors in law and manifest errors of assessment in the contested decision, in concluding that the group financing exemption is not justified by the nature or overall structure of the reference system. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging errors in law and manifest errors of assessment in the contested decision, in concluding that the group financing exemption is not justified by the nature or overall structure of the reference system.

---
# C_2020215EN.01003501.xml

| 29.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Clatronic International v EUIPO (PROFI CARE)

(Case T-5/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark PROFI CARE - 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 - Obligation to state reasons)

(2020/C 215/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Clatronic International GmbH (Kempen, Germany) (represented by: O. Löffel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 October 2018 (Case R 504/2018-1), relating to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark PROFI CARE.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Clatronic International GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Clatronic International GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.

---