alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Stanley F. Zlobec, Deceased. Robert E. Maxwell, Appellant; Estate of Stanley F. Zlobec, Respondent.

In a proceeding to fix an attorney’s fee, Robert E. Maxwell, the former attorney for the executrix and estate of the decedent Stanley F. Zlobec, appeals from (1) a decision of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Signorelli, S.), dated December 3, 1986, which, *inter alia,*denied his petition for compensation, and (2) an order of the same court, dated February 11, 1987, entered on that decision.

Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a decision *(see, Cohn v Meyers,*125 AD2d 524); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent estate is awarded one bill of costs, payable by the appellant personally.

The only issue before this court is whether the appellant attorney, who formerly represented the executrix and the estate of the decedent, was entitled to compensation for any work he allegedly performed for his clients. The Surrogate obviously denied the appellant’s fee application on the ground that he had been discharged for sufficient cause by the executrix because he had improperly obtained her consent to represent her and the estate. The Surrogate further held that the appellant subsequently refused to acknowledge the discharge, claiming that the executrix had signed an "irrevocable” retainer agreement precluding his discharge; thereafter, he refused to turn over estate assets and documents to the executrix and proceeded to file a probate petition.

After reviewing the affidavits submitted by the parties, who stipulated that the matter should be decided without a hearing, we find no basis to disturb the Surrogate’s exercise of his discretion in denying the appellant’s petition for fees. Contrary to the appellant’s contention, it is "well rooted in our jurisprudence, that a client may at anytime, with or without cause, discharge an attorney *in spite of a particularized retainer agreement between the parties” (Demov, Morris, Levin &*
      *638
      *Shein v Glantz,*53 NY2d 553, 556 [emphasis supplied]). "When an attorney-client relationship deteriorates to the point where the client loses faith in the attorney, the client should have the unbridled prerogative of termination. Any result which inhibits the exercise of this essential right is patently unsupportable” *(Demov, Morris, Levin & Shein v Glantz, supra,*at 557). While an attorney who is discharged without cause is entitled to recover in quantum meruit the reasonable value of services rendered to his client, if an attorney is discharged for sufficient cause, then he is not entitled to any compensation *(see, Matter of Montgomery,*272 NY 323, 326; *Teichner v W & J Holsteins,*64 NY2d 977, 979).

The other contentions sought to be raised by the appellant are not properly before this court. Lawrence, J. P., Eiber, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
---

---

EXHIBIT 13.(a).1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report of Blue Square-Israel Ltd. (the Company) on
Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby
certify that to the best of our knowledge:

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 results of operations of the Company.

|Date: June 30, 2004 |  | BY: /S/ Gil Unger
Gil UngerChief Executive Officer
|------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------

|Date: June 30, 2004 |  | BY: /S/ Emanuel Avner
Emanuel AvnerChief Financial Officer
|------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
Listen

# Annual Statutory Enforcement Reports

-    First  
-    Previous  
-  1 
-  2 
-  3 
-  4 
-   Next  
-   Last  

-  All Reports 
-  Annual Statutory Enforcement 
-  Briefing Reports 
-  Advisory Committees Reports 
-  Budget and Performance 
-  FOIA Reports 
-  Data Inventory Program 
-  Civil Rights Complaints 
-  Historical Publications 
-  Archives
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 11(i)

                           EAGLE USA AIRFREIGHT, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                                   (UNAUDITED)
              (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AND FOOTNOTE AMOUNTS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                                MARCH 31,
                                                        -----------------------
                                                           1998         1997
                                                        ----------   ----------
         <S>                                            <C>          <C>       
         Net income                                     $    9,879   $    7,462

         Shares used in basic calculation:
           Weighted average shares outstanding              18,418       17,621
                                                        ----------   ----------
                  Total basic shares                        18,418       17,621

         Additional shares for diluted computation:
            Effect of stock options (1)                        738          933
                                                        ----------   ----------
                  Total diluted shares                      19,156       18,554
                                                        ==========   ==========

         Basic earnings per share                       $     0.54   $     0.42
                                                        ==========   ==========

         Diluted earnings per share                     $     0.52   $     0.40
                                                        ==========   ==========
</TABLE>

----------
(1)      For the six months ended March 31, 1998, calculated assuming exercise
         of options for 3,152,111 shares of common stock at prices ranging from
         $1.25 to $35.13 per share and assumed repurchase of shares at the
         average market price of $29.55 computed as of the beginning of the
         period. For the six months ended March 31, 1997, calculated assuming
         exercise of options for 2,261,878 shares of common stock at prices
         ranging from $1.25 to $30.63 per share and assumed repurchase of shares
         at the average market price per share of $27.47 as of the beginning of
         the period.




                                       22
# C_2021334EN.01002801.xml

| 20.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 334/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 334/28

---

Publication of a cancellation request pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs in conjunction with Article 7(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 664/2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 with regard to the establishment of the Union symbols for protected designations of origin, protected geographical indications and traditional specialities guaranteed and with regard to certain rules on sourcing, certain procedural rules and certain additional transitional rules

(2021/C 334/08)

This publication confers the right to oppose the cancellation request pursuant to Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), in conjunction with Article 7(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 664/2014 (2), within three months of the date of this publication.

CANCELLATION REQUEST

Cancellation request in accordance with Article 54(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012

‘Salaisons fumées, marque nationale Grand-Duché de Luxembourg’

EU No: PGI-LU-0063-CANCEL - 8 October 2018

PDO ( ) PGI (X) TSG ( )

1.   Registered name proposed for cancellation

‘Salaisons fumées, marque nationale Grand-Duché de Luxembourg’

2.   Member State or Third Country

Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

3.   Type of product [as in Annex XI]

Class 1.2. – Meat products (cooked, salted, smoked, etc.)

4.   Person or body requesting cancellation

| Association pour la promotion de la Marque nationale de la viande de porc [Association for the promotion of quality Luxembourgish pigmeat] |
| --- |
| 8, rue de Gralingen |
| L-9380 Merscheid/Putscheid |
| LUXEMBOURG |

Association pour la promotion de la Marque nationale de la viande de porc [Association for the promotion of quality Luxembourgish pigmeat]

8, rue de Gralingen

L-9380 Merscheid/Putscheid

LUXEMBOURG

5.   Type of cancellation and related reasons

| ☐ | In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 54(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 |
| --- | --- |

☐

In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 54(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012

| ☐ | Point (a) |
| --- | --- |

☐

Point (a)

| ☐ | Point (b) |
| --- | --- |

☐

Point (b)

| ☒ | In accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 54(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 |
| --- | --- |

☒

In accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 54(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012

The geographical indication ‘Salaisons fumées, marque nationale Grand-Duché de Luxembourg’ is no longer used. The Association pour la promotion de la Marque nationale de la viande de porc hereby requests that the registration be cancelled.

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 17.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Ciliento, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Sherman, J.), rendered July 18, 1985, convicting him of driving while intoxicated as a felony, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-25-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-27-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-25-1999
<CASH>                                           4,961
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,881,108
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (316,987)
<INVENTORY>                                  2,108,755
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,739,799
<PP&E>                                       6,376,236
<DEPRECIATION>                             (3,320,954)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,954,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,535,451
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,792,857
<COMMON>                                       104,050
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,954,700
<SALES>                                      9,610,801
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,610,801
<CGS>                                        9,282,961
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,282,961
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,989,765
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             713,885
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,375,810)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              2,835,565
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,540,245)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.95)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.95)


</TABLE>
# C_2022046EN.01002201.xml

| 28.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 46/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 46/22

---

Corrigendum to Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 460 of 12 November 2021
  )

(2022/C 46/02)

On page 4, State aid number SA.63553:

for:

| ‘Objective | Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy’ |
| --- | --- |

‘Objective

Remedy for a serious disturbance in the economy’

read:

| ‘Objective | Sectorial development’ |
| --- | --- |

‘Objective

Sectorial development’

---
Exhibit 21


                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Company                                                                                 Jurisdiction
<S> <C>
Trigon Insurance Company (dba Trigon Blue Cross Blue Shield)............................Virginia
    Healthcare Support Corporation......................................................Virginia
       HealthKeepers, Inc...............................................................Virginia
       Physicians Health Plan, Inc......................................................Virginia
       Trigon Administrators, Inc.......................................................Virginia
       Trigon Services, Inc.............................................................Virginia
    Peninsula Health Care, Inc. (3).....................................................Virginia
    Primary Care First, L.L.C. (2)......................................................Virginia
    Priority, Inc. (4)..................................................................Virginia
       Priority Health Care, Inc........................................................Virginia
       Priority Insurance Agency, Inc...................................................Virginia
Monticello Service Agency, Inc..........................................................Virginia
    Capitation Risk Management, Inc.....................................................Virginia
    Consolidated Holdings Corporation...................................................Delaware
    Health Management Corporation.......................................................Virginia
       Healthy Homecomings, Inc.........................................................Missouri
       Healthy Homecomings Incorporated of  St. Louis...................................Missouri
    Mid-South Insurance Company.........................................................North Carolina
    Trigon Health and Life Insurance Company (formerly Monticello
       Life Insurance Company...........................................................Virginia
    Trigon Health Ventures, Inc.........................................................Virginia
</TABLE>



(1)    Unless otherwise indicated, subsidiaries are 100% owned by the Registrant
       or the indicated parent company.

(2)    50% owned

(3)    51% owned

(4)    80% owned
#### TOWNSEND, Respondent, v. MANN, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

December 2, 1896.)

Action by Theophelia C. Townsend against John Townsend Mann.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur.
THEA~TORNEYGENERLAL 

OF TEXAS 

WILL WI-ON 

A-mNEYC3ENERAl. April 10, 1961 

Honorable H. B. Zachry 

President, Board of Directors 

Texas Agricultural and Mechanical 

College System 

BOX 2570 

San Antonio, Texas 

Opinion No. WW-1035 

Re: Whether changing the name of 

the "Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas" requires 

Dear Mr. Zachry: a constitutional amendment. 

You have requested an opinion concerning whether the 

changing of the name "Agricultural and Mechanical College 

of Texas" requires a constitutional amendment. 

In Heaton v. Bristol, 317 S.W.2d 86, 93 (Civ.App.958 

error ref., appeal dism., cert. den., 359 U.S. 230), It was 

held: 

"The record shows that the Agricultural 

and Mechanical College of Texas Is the oldest 

State-supported Institution of higher learning In Texas. It was established pursuant to 

Acts of 1875, pages 72, 74, General Laws of the 

State of Texas, and the College first opened 

Its doors in October 1876, and It has been In 

continuous operation since that time. The 

statutory provisions relating to the College 

are grouped under Chapter 2, Title 29 of the 

Revised Civil Statutes of Texas." 

Section 13 of Article VII of the Constitution of Texas 

recognizes that the Agricultural and Mechanical College of 

Texas was created prior to the Constitution of 1876 but had 

not begun operation at the time the Constitution of 1876 was 

adopted (February 15, 1876). The Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas, being created by Acts of the Legislature 

(Chanter XLIV, General Laws of Texas, 1871; Chapter CXXVI, 

General Laws of Texas, 1871; Chapter LVII, General Laws of 

Texas (1875) rather than by a provision of the Constitution of 
Honorable H. B. Zachry, Page 2 (WW-1035) 

Texas, you are advised that changing the name of the "Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas" does not require 

a constitutional amendment but may be done by an act of the 

Legislature. 

SUMMARY 

The Agricultural and Mechanical College 

of Texas was established pursuant to 

Chapter LVII, Acts of 1875, Page 72, 

General Laws of Texas (Heaton v. Bristol, 

317 S.W.2d 86, 93 (Civ.App. 1958, error 

ref., appeal dlsm., cert. den., 359 U.S. 

23O), and the changing of the name of the 

"Agricultural and Mechanical College of 

Texas" does not require a constitutional 

amendment. 

Yours very truly, 

WILL WILSON 

Attorney General of Texas 

JR:ms 

John Reeves 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

W. V. Geppert, Chairman 

Iola B. Wilcox 

Robert T. Lewis 

Vernon 0. Teofan 

Sam Ray Wilson 

REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

By: Morgan Nesbitt
EXHIBIT 11


                        EARNINGS PER SHARE COMPUTATIONS

                                        YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                        1995               1996
                                        ----               ----

PRIMARY EARNINGS PER SHARE:
Net income (loss)                     $908,219          $(206,855)
                                      ========          =========

Weighted average common
shares outstanding                   2,150,000          2,346,325

Weighted shares issued
from exercise and assumed
exercise of:

  Warrants                               --                --

  Options                               23,174             --
                                     =========          =========

Weighted average common
 and common equivalent shares
 outstanding                         2,173,174          2,346,325
                                     =========          =========

REPORTED EARNINGS PER SHARE

Net income (loss) per common
 and common equivalent share             $0.42            ($0.09)
                                     =========          =========

FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE:

Fully diluted EPS is not shown as there is no dilution from Pimary EPS.
114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 22 

AN ACT 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt 

employees with health coverage under TRICARE or the 

Veterans Administration from being taken into account 

for purposes of determining the employers to which the 

employer mandate applies under the Patient Protection 

and Affordable Care Act. 
2 

•HR 22 EH

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Hire More Heroes Act 

5 of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EMPLOYEES WITH HEALTH COVERAGE UNDER 

7 TRICARE OR THE VETERANS ADMINISTRA8 TION NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN DETER9 MINING EMPLOYERS TO WHICH THE EM10 PLOYER MANDATE APPLIES UNDER PATIENT 

11 PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. 

12 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 4980H(c)(2) of the Inter13 nal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the 

14 end the following: 

15 ‘‘(F) EXEMPTION FOR HEALTH COVERAGE

16 UNDER TRICARE OR THE VETERANS ADMINIS17 TRATION.—Solely for purposes of determining 

18 whether an employer is an applicable large em19 ployer under this paragraph for any month, an 

20 individual shall not be taken into account as an 

21 employee for such month if such individual has 

22 medical coverage for such month under— 

23 ‘‘(i) chapter 55 of title 10, United 

24 States Code, including coverage under the 

25 TRICARE program, or 
3 

•HR 22 EH

1 ‘‘(ii) under a health care program 

2 under chapter 17 or 18 of title 38, United 

3 States Code, as determined by the Sec4 retary of Veterans Affairs, in coordination 

5 with the Secretary of Health and Human 

6 Services and the Secretary.’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 subsection (a) shall apply to months beginning after De9 cember 31, 2013. 

Passed the House of Representatives January 6, 

2015. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 22 

AN ACT 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 

and Affordable Care Act. mandate applies under the Patient Protection mining the employers to which the employer being taken into account for purposes of deterTRICARE or the Veterans Administration from exempt employees with health coverage under
(Stouri of Appeals

iFtfty Bisitxci at ©*xas at lallas

JUDGMENT

LEWIS SERVICES CORPORATION

D/B/A CAPITAL MORTGAGE

SERVICES AND COMMERCE

SERVICE CORPORATION D/B/A OAK

TREE MORTGAGE CORPORATION,

Appellants

No. 05-98-01366-CV V.

MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS

RAILROAD EMPLOYEES HOSPITAL

ASSOCIATION, Appellee

Appeal from the 160th Judicial District

Court ofDallas County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No.

97-07978-H).

Opinion delivered per curiam before

Justices Morris, Whittington, and Moseley.

Based on the Court's opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice.

It is ORDERED that each party shall bear its own costs ofthis appeal. All other relief not

expressly granted is DENIED.

Judgment entered December 4, 1998.

M£RK WHITTINGTONl

JUSTICE
Dismissed and Opinion Filed December 4, 1998

In The

(Gmtrt of Appeals

Wxfttj StstHrt 0f Gkxas at Sallas

No. 05-98-01366-CV

LEWIS SERVICES CORPORATION d/b/a CAPITAL MORTGAGE

SERVICES and COMMERCE SERVICE CORPORATION

d/b/a OAK TREE MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Appellants

V.

MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS RAILROAD EMPLOYEES

HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, Appellee

On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 97-07978-H

OPINION PER CURIAM

Before Justices Morris, Whittington, and Moseley

The Court has before it the parties' November 30, 1998 amended joint motion to

dismiss with prejudice, which recites that the parties have settled their differences. This

appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1; 43.2(f). It is ORDERED

that each party shall bear its own costs of this appeal. All other relief not expressly granted
is DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47

981366F.U05

-2-