alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ernest Koetke *vs.*Henry E. Ringer.

June 3, 1891.

Appeal from Justice of Peace — Jurisdictional Amount. — A defendant may, under Gen. St. 1878, *o.*65, § 113, appeal to the district court on questions of fact, or of law and fact, where the amount claimed in the eómplaint exceeds $30, though the recovery against him be less than $15. Following *Shunk*v. *Hellmiller,*11 Minn. 104, (164.)

Action to recover $100 damages for trespass on plaintiff’s land, brought in justice’s court, where plaintiff had judgment for$l. Defendant appealed, on questions of law and- fact, to the district court for Faribault county, where a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction was denied, and the action was tried before *Severance,*J., and a jury, and verdict rendered for defendant. Judgment was entered on the verdict, and the plaintiff appealed.

*G. N. Andrews*and *D. F. Morgan,*for appellant.

*Quinn & Putnam,*for respondent.

Gilfillan, C. J.

Gen. St. 1878, *c.*65, § 113, gives the right of appeal on questions of fact, or of law and fact, to any “person aggrieved by any judgment rendered by any justice, when the judgment exceeds fifteen dollars, or, in an action of replevin, when the value of the property, as sworn to in the affidavit, exceeds fifteen dollars, or when the amount claimed in the complaint exceeds thirty dollars.” Here are three cases. In one the right to appeal depends on the amount of the recovery alone; in another, on the sworn value of the property alone; in the third, on the amount claimed in the complaint alone. Why the statute makes the defendant’s right of appeal, in an action to recover money, depend on the amount claimed in the complaint, instead of on the amount recovered against him, we do not know; but such is the clear meaning of its terms, if, as decided by this court in *Shunk*v. *Hellmiller,*11 Minn. 104, (164,) the last of the three cases applies to actions other than in replevin. That decision covers this case.

Judgment affirmed.
# C_2019337EN.01001401.xml

| 7.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 337/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 337/14

---

Action brought on 6 August 2019 – Riginos Emporiki kai Mesitiki v EUIPO – Honda Motor (ONDA 1962)

(Case T-548/19)

(2019/C 337/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Riginos Emporiki kai Mesitiki AE (Glyfada, Greece) (represented by: V. Oikonomidis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Honda Motor Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark in colours white, black and blue ONDA 1962 – Application for registration No 15 419 559

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 May 2019 in Case R 2384/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the contested decision in its entirety, so that the appeal is upheld and the opposition is entirely rejected; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the contested decision in its entirety, so that the appeal is upheld and the opposition is entirely rejected;

| — | order that the defendant bears all costs arising from or relevant to the proceedings before the Opposition Division, the Board of Appeal and present proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the defendant bears all costs arising from or relevant to the proceedings before the Opposition Division, the Board of Appeal and present proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
#### In the Matter of Belmont East Company, Respondent, v New York City Conciliation and Appeals Board et al., Appellants.

Appeal from order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered on May 18, 1983, unanimously dismissed as moot, without costs and without disbursements. No opinion. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Asch and Fein, JJ.
#### Travelers Insurance Company, Respondent, v Deloid Thompson, Appellant, et al., Respondent.

—In a proceeding to stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Graci, J.), dated May 20, 1985, which granted the petition.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Appellant Thompson cannot complain that the petition was untimely when his attorney "engages in tactics calculated to hinder or prevent a contest by petitioner of the arbitrability issue” by burying the demand for arbitration, which was not *596the American Arbitration Association’s recognizablé form, in the middle of appellant’s hospital record and, apparently, not otherwise adverting to it *(see, Matter of American Sec. Ins. Co. [Tabacchi], 95*AD2d 808). Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Brown, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1

                                  EXHIBIT 11.1

                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                Three Months Ended               Six Months Ended
                                                      June 30,                      June 30,
                                                  1998       1997                 1998       1997
                                                 ------     ------               ------     ------   
                                                                                                     
BASIC                                                                                                
------   
                                                                                                     
<S>                                               <C>         <C>                 <C>       <C>      
Net income (loss)                                 3,391       (819)               6,464     (1,699)  
                                                                                                     
Weighted average shares outstanding              18,744      2,000               18,401      2,000   
                                                                                                     
Net income (loss) per share                      $ 0.18     $(0.41)              $ 0.35     $(0.85)  
                                                                                                     
                                                                                                     
DILUTED                                                                                              
------   
                                                                                                     
Net income (loss)                                 3,391       (819)               6,464     (1,699)  
                                                                                                     
Weighted average shares outstanding              18,744      2,000               18,401      2,000   
                                                                                                     
Weighted average common stock equivalents           705          0                  747          0   
                                                 ------     ------               ------     ------   
                                                                                                     
Total shares outstanding                         19,449      2,000               19,148      2,000   
                                                                                                     
Net income (loss) per share                      $ 0.17     $(0.41)              $ 0.34     $(0.85)  
                                                                                                     

</TABLE>
#### COUNTY OF UNION, APPELLANT-PETITIONER, v. PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY, *ET AL.,*RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.

September 19, 1960.

*Mr. Grover C. Richman, Jr.,*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Henry J. Sorenson*and *Messrs. Lamb, Langan & Blake*for the respondents.

Granted.
*(121*App. Div. 655.)

#### CITY REAL ESTATE CO. v. MacFARLAND et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 25, 1907.)

Appeal from Special Term.

Action by the City Real Estate Company against Archibald J. MacEarland and others, and George I. Malcom, as committee, etc., of Louisa Malcom Stenton. Erom an order denying the motion of George I. Malcom, as committee, to set aside service of summons on him, he appeals. Order reversed, and motion granted.

Argued before PATTERSON, P. J., and INGRAHAM, LAUGH-LIN, CLARKE and HOUGHTON, JJ.

Nelson S. Spencer, for appellant.

Harold Swain, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Eor the reasons assigned in the opinion in City Real Estate Company v. MacFarland, 106 N. Y. Supp. 333, on the appeal from the order granting leave to sue the committee, the order denying the motion to set aside the service upon the committee should have been granted.

It follows that the order denying the motion to vacate the service should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with $10 costs.
#### In the Matter of EDWARD O. WEST, an attorney at law.

January 23, 1961.

Por the order: *Mr. David A. Gelber.*

Por the respondent: *Mr. Paul T. Euclcin.*

Respondent suspended until the further order of the court. Opinion reported at 34 *N. J.*61.
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, the Chief Executive Officer of PHL Variable Insurance Company (the registrant), certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this Quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the registrant;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



(a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c)

disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a)

all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.





|Date:  August 14, 2006 |  | /s/ Philip K. Polkinghorn     
|---------------------- |  | ------------------------------
|                       |  | Name:
Philip K. Polkinghorn   
|                       |  | Title:
Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 99.01


          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 Transmeta Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Matthew R. Perry,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 result of operations of
         the Company for the periods presented therein.




                                                    By:     /s/ Matthew R. Perry
                                                       -------------------------
                                                                Matthew R. Perry
                                                         Chief Executive Officer
                                                                  March 27, 2003
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in the following Registration Statements of Caremark Rx, Inc. (a
Delaware corporation) of our reports dated February 1, 2001 (except for Note 17,
as to which the date is March 15, 2001), with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and schedule of Caremark Rx, Inc. included in this Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000:

         Form S-8 33-86806 pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan;

         Form S-8 333-11875 pertaining to MedPartners' Incentive Compensation
            Plan;

         Form S-8 333-11127 pertaining to the 1995 Stock Option Plan;

         Form S-8 333-05703 pertaining to MedPartners' Employee Savings Plan;

         Form S-8 333-14159 pertaining to Caremark's Employee Savings Plan;

         Form S-8 333-14163 pertaining to Caremark's Non-Employee Director Stock
            Option Plan and Caremark's Stock Purchase Plan;

         Form S-8 333-38835 pertaining to MedPartners' 1997 Long Term Incentive
            Compensation Plan;

         Form S-8 333-16863 pertaining to MedPartners' Employee Stock Purchase
            Plan;

         Form S-8 333-17339 pertaining to the resale of common stock by certain
            selling shareholders;

         Form S-8 333-30145 pertaining to the MedPartners' 1994 Non-Employee
            Director Stock Option Plan and 1994 Incentive Plan;

         Form S-8 333-42967 pertaining to the Amended and Restated 1995 Stock
            Option Plan;

         Form S-8 333-50849 pertaining to MedPartners' 1997 Long Term Incentive
            Compensation Plan;

         Form S-3 333-53761 pertaining to the resale of common stock by certain
            selling shareholders;

         Form S-8 333-64371 pertaining to MedPartners' 1998 Employee Stock
            Option Plan;

         Form S-8 333-68709 pertaining to the Non-Qualified Stock Option
            Agreement Dated August 6, 1998 between MedPartners and Edwin M.
            Crawford;

         Form S-8 333-68707 pertaining to MedPartners' 1998 New Employee Stock
            Option Plan; and

         Form S-3 333-90583 pertaining to the offering of Preferred Securities
            by Caremark Rx Capital Trust I.



ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



Atlanta, Georgia
March 15, 2001
#### Jeffrey Gilbert, Appellant, v Allstate Insurance Company, Respondent.

[943 NYS2d 780]—

*1073In an action to recover additional proceeds of a fire insurance policy, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated May 12, 2011, which denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff owned property as a tenant in common with a business partner, Alice Gardner, who is not a party to this action. In 1996 the plaintiff procured a policy of fire insurance on the property from the defendant solely in his own name. On October 2, 2009, the premises were destroyed by a fire. The defendant paid the plaintiff one-half of the value of the property on the ground that the plaintiff had only a one-half insurable interest in the property. The plaintiff, arguing that a tenant-in-common has an undivided right to the full use, enjoyment, and possession of the entire property *(see Butler v Rafferty,*100 NY2d 265, 269 [2003]), brought this action to recover the full value of the destroyed premises. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We affirm.

Insurance Law § 3401 limits a contract or policy of insurance to the insured’s “insurable interest.” When two cotenants own real property which is damaged by a fire and insurance is procured in the name of only one cotenant, recovery under the policy is limited to the insured cotenant’s one-half interest in the real property *(see Graziane v National Sur. Corp.,*120 AD2d 773, 775 [1986]; *Krupp v Aetna Life & Cas. Co.,*103 AD2d 252 [1984]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.E, Balkin, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          68,904
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,004,408
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,113,994
<PP&E>                                         800,056
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,131
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,926,204
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          445,290
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       752,537
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,926,204
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                54,512
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   41,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,429
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,812
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,437
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,375
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>
HOMESIDE LENDING, INC.
       EXHIBIT 12 - COMPUTATION OF THE RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                          (Dollar amounts in thousands)



The  following  table  sets  forth the ratio of  earnings  to fixed  charges  of
HomeSide Lending, Inc. for the three months ended June 30, 1998, the period from
February 11, 1998 to June 30, 1998 and the  predecessor  company's three and six
months ended May 31, 1997. The ratio of earnings to fixed charges is computed by
dividing  net fixed  charges  (interest  expense  on all debt plus the  interest
portion of rent expense) into earnings before income taxes and fixed charges.

                                  Predecessor    For the Period    Predecessor
                   For the Three  For the Three  From February     For the Six
                   Months Ended   Months Ended   11, 1998 to       Months Ended 
                   June 30, 1998  May 31, 1997   June 30, 1998     May 31, 1997 
                   -------------  ------------   --------------  --------------
Earnings before
  income taxes       $    32,924    $    33,273    $    47,333     $    62,127
                   -------------- -------------- --------------  --------------

Interest expense          25,940         18,062         39,569          38,479
Interest portion of
rental expense               514            322            713             798
                   -------------- -------------- --------------  --------------
Fixed charges             26,454         18,384         40,282          39,277
                   -------------- -------------- --------------  --------------
Earnings before
  fixed charges           59,378         51,657         87,615         101,404
                   -------------- -------------- --------------  --------------

Fixed Charges:

Interest expense          25,940         18,062         39,569          38,479
Interest portion of
  rental expense             514            322            713             798
                   -------------- -------------- --------------  --------------
Fixed charges        $    26,454      $  18,384      $  40,282       $  39,277
                   -------------- -------------- --------------  --------------
Ratio of earnings
  to fixed charges   $      2.24      $    2.81      $    2.18       $    2.58
                   ============== ============== ==============  ==============
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-19-00575-CR

GILBERT COLUNGA

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

214th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 18FC-0688F

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

June 17, 2021