alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,
Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement Megan K. Cavanagh,
Justices 

# Order

January 17, 2020

159413

LOREN KROLL, by RONALD KROLL and SUSAN KROLL, Legal Guardians, Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v SC: 159413 COA: 341895 Muskegon CC: 16

- 006224

- NI DELORES DEMORROW and MONTAGUE AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Defendants

- Appellees.

________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 26, 2019 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered.

The issue before us is whether the plaintiffs, Loren Kroll’s legal guardians, presented a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Delores DeMorrow’s alleged failure to activate the bus’s caution lights was a cause in fact of Loren’s injuries. When reviewing a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Odom v Wayne Co

, 482 Mich 459, 466

- 467 (2008). Summary disposition is appropriate only if there is no genuine issue regarding any material fact and the moving party is therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id . at 467. Factual causation requires showing that “but for” the defendant’s actions, the plaintiff’s injury would not have occurred. Ray v Swager , 501 Mich 52, 63 (2017).

Viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, there was sufficient evidence

to ba r summary disposition on the factual

- cause element of the plaintiffs’ negligence

claim. The driver of the truck that struck Loren testified that it was his habit to slow to a stop when he saw a bus’s caution lights activated. He further testified that ha d the bus’s caution lights been on in this case, he would have stopped. The Court of Appeals erred when it found that this testimony was mere speculation and that it was not proven that DeMorrow’s alleged failure to activate the caution lights was a factu al cause of Loren’s injuries. The truck driver’s testimony created a genui ne issue of material fact as to

whether the accident would have occurred but for DeMorrow’s failure to turn on the lights because the truck driver would have slowed to a stop before he hit Loren.I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 17, 2020

b0114 2

Clerk Relying at least in part on its erroneous factual

- cause analysis, the panel then concluded that “DeMorrow’s failure to activate the caution lights cannot be the proximate

cause of the accident.” Kroll v DeMorrow , unpublished per curiam opinion of the Cour t of Appeals, issued February 26, 2019 (Docket No. 341895), p 3. Therefore, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals as to cause

- in

- fact, VACATE the judgment of the Court of Appeals as to proximate cause, and REMAND this case to that c ourt for further proceedings not

inconsistent with this order.
# C_2018022EN.01006002.xml

| 22.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/60

---

Action brought on 29 November 2017 — Café del Mar and Others v EUIPO — Guiral Broto (C del Mar)

(Case T-774/17)

(2018/C 022/81)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Café del Mar SC (Sant Antoni de Portmany, Spain) José Les Viamonte (Sant Antoni de Portmany) and Carlos Andrea González (Sant Antoni de Portmany) (represented by: F. Miazzetto and J.L. Gracia Albero, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ramón Guiral Broto (Marbella, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘C del M’ — European Union trade mark No 5 889 126

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 September 2017 in Case R 1618/2015-5

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | declare the European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘C del M’ No 5 889 126 invalid; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘C del M’ No 5 889 126 invalid;

| — | order the defendant to bear the costs of the present proceedings and the proprietor of the trade mark at issue to bear the costs of the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and the Boards of Appeal of EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to bear the costs of the present proceedings and the proprietor of the trade mark at issue to bear the costs of the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and the Boards of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001.

---
Unassociated Document


    EXHIBIT
10.3


       

      CAZADOR
ACQUISITION CORPORATION LTD.

       

      FORM OF 

       

      SERVICES AGREEMENT

       

       

      _______,
2010

       

      Arco
Capital Management LLC

      7
Sheinovo Street

      1504
Sofia, Bulgaria

      


      Ladies
and Gentlemen:

       

      This
letter will confirm our agreement that commencing ________, 2010 Arco Capital
Management LLC ("ACM") shall make
available to Cazador Acquisition Corporation Ltd. ("CAC") certain office
space and general and administrative services as may be required by
CAC.  In exchange therefore, CAC shall pay ACM the sum of $7,500 per
month. CAC will pay ACM the monthly fee of $7,500 until the earlier of (i) the
completion of CAC’s initial business combination and (ii) CAC's
dissolution.

       

      [Remainder
of page Intentionally Left Blank]

       

      
        
           


        

        
           


          
            

          

        

        
           


        

      


      
        
          	 
      	
                  Very
      truly yours,

                
	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
                  CAZADOR
      ACQUISITION CORPORATION

                  LTD.

                
	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
                  By:

                	 
      
	 
      	
                  Name:

                
	 
      	
                  Title:

                


        

      

       

      Agreed
and Accepted

       

      ARCO
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC

       

      
        
          	
                  By:

                	 
      
	
                  Name:

                
	
                  Title:
EXHIBIT 32 
Section 1350 Certifications  STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 The undersigned are the Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of Vision Industries Corp. This Certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This Certification accompanies the Amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Vision Industries Corp. for the three months ended March 31, 2009. The undersigned certify that such Amended 10-Q Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Amended 10-Q Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Vision Industries Corp. as of March 31, 2009. This Certification is executed as of December 4, 2009. By:/S/MARTIN SCHUERMANNMartin Schuermann
President and Chief Executive Officer 
(Principal Executive Officer)  By:/S/ LAWRENCE WEISDORNLawrence Weisdorn
Chief Financial Officer 
(Principal Financial Officer)  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Vision Industries Corp. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 10.21  


 Anacor Pharmaceuticals, Inc.  


 Change of Control Agreement for Stephen Benkovic, Ph.D.  


In
the event of a Change of Control of Anacor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "Company"), all restricted stock and stock options granted to you by by the Company and held by you shall immediately
vest as of the date immediately prior to the effective date of the Change of Control transaction. For purposes of this Agreement, a "Change of Control" shall mean a sale of all or substantially all of
the Company's assets, or any merger or consolidation of the Company with or into another corporation other than a merger or consolidation in which the holders of more than 50% of the shares of capital
stock of the Company outstanding immediately prior to such transaction continue to hold (either by voting securities remaining outstanding or by their being converted into voting securities of the
surviving entity) more than 50% of the total voting power represented by the voting securities of the Company, or such surviving entity, outstanding immediately after such transaction. For purposes of
clarification, an equity financing in which the investors are primarily venture capital or other financial investors will not be a Change of Control, even if equity securities representing greater
than 50% of the total voting power of the Company are sold. 


You
shall be entitled to receive the acceleration benefit to the extent of the maximum after-tax benefit to you, after taking into account any excise tax that may be imposed upon the
benefit that is characterized as an "excess parachute payment" under applicable law. You are advised to consult with your own tax or financial advisor to understand the possible financial and tax
implications as a result of receiving any such benefits. 

 










			
	 AGREED AND ACCEPTED:
	
 	
 	

 
	/s/ STEPHEN BENKOVIC






  Stephen Benkovic, Ph.D.	 	9/24/06






  Date
	
 ANACOR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
	
 	
 	

 
	/s/ DAVID PERRY






  David Perry

Chief Executive Officer	 	9/28/06






  Date



 

 1
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2104 

To clarify that no express or implied warranty is provided by reason of 

a disclosure relating to voluntary participation in the Energy Star program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 4, 2019 

Mr. LATTA (for himself and Mr. WELCH) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To clarify that no express or implied warranty is provided 

by reason of a disclosure relating to voluntary participation in the Energy Star program, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Energy Star Program 

5 Integrity Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NO WARRANTY. 

7 Section 324A of the Energy Policy and Conservation 

8 Act (42 U.S.C. 6294a) is amended by adding at the end 

9 the following new subsection: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2104 IH

1 ‘‘(e) NO WARRANTY.— 

2 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Any disclosure relating to 

3 participation of a product in the Energy Star pro4 gram shall not create an express or implied warranty 

5 or give rise to any private claims or rights of action 

6 under State or Federal law relating to the disquali7 fication of that product from Energy Star if— 

8 ‘‘(A) the product has been certified by a 

9 certification body recognized by the Energy 

10 Star program; 

11 ‘‘(B) the Administrator has approved cor12 rective measures, including a determination of 

13 whether or not consumer compensation is ap14 propriate; and 

15 ‘‘(C) the responsible party has fully com16 plied with all approved corrective measures. 

17 ‘‘(2) CONSTRUAL.—Nothing in this subsection 

18 shall be construed to require the Administrator to 

19 modify any procedure or take any other action.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Xsovt Brands, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Avi M Koschitzki, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 results of operations of the Company.






Date: August 15, 2011
By:
/s/ Avi M KoschitzkiName: Avi M KoschitzkiTitle: President and Chief Executive Officer(principal executive officer)
# C_2018455EN.01001801.xml

| 17.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 455/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 455/18

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Family Division (England and Wales) — United Kingdom) — UD v XB

(Case C-393/18 PPU) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 8(1) - Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility - Concept of ‘habitual residence of the child’ - Requirement of physical presence - Detention of the mother and child in a third country against the will of the mother - Infringement of the fundamental rights of the mother and child))

(2018/C 455/26)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice, Family Division (England and Wales)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UD

Defendant: XB

Operative part of the judgment

Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted to the effect that a child must have been physically present in a Member State in order to be regarded as habitually resident in that Member State, for the purposes of that provision. Circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, assuming that they are proven, that is to say, first, the fact that the father’s coercion of the mother had the effect of her giving birth to their child in a third country where she has resided with that child ever since, and, secondly, the breach of the mother’s or the child’s rights, do not have any bearing in that regard.

---

(1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.

---
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. ER01-372-001]

Take notice that on December 29, 2000, New England Power Company (NEP), pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824d (1994) and section 35.13 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations, 18 CFR 35.13, withdraws its service agreement filed with the Commission on November 6, 2000 in Docket No. ER01-372-000, and submits for filing a First Revised Service Agreement No. 124 between NEP and ANP Bellingham Energy Company for Firm Local Generation Delivery Service under NEP's Open Access Transmission Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 9. 

Copies of the filing were served upon ANP Bellingham Energy Company and regulators in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before January 19, 2001. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-1312 Filed 1-16-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 32.1




Certification
of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer 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 quarterly report of NIVS IntelliMedia Technology Group, Inc.
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ending June 30, 2008 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated
below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his
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.




/s/
      Tianfu LiTianfu
      LiChairman
      of the Board and Chief Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)February
      11, 2009/s/
      Simon ZhangSimon
      ZhangInterim
      Chief Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)February
      11, 2009




The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission as part of the Form 10-Q/A or as a separate disclosure
document and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of NIVS
IntelliMedia Technology Group, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, irrespective of any
general incorporation language contained in such filing. A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2017104EN.01005902.xml

| 3.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/59

---

Action brought on 3 February 2017 — Schmid v EUIPO — Landeskammer für Land- und Forstwirtschaft in Steiermark (Steirisches Kürbiskernöl)

(Case T-72/17)

(2017/C 104/83)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Gabriele Schmid (Halbenrain, Austria) (represented by: B. Kuchar, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Landeskammer für Land- und Forstwirtschaft in Steiermark (Graz, Austria)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the mark at issue: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark at issue:

Mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark ‘Steirisches Kürbiskernöl’ — International registration No 900 100

Mark at issue:

Proceedings before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

Proceedings before EUIPO:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2016 in Case R 1768/2015-4

Contested decision:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | amend the contested decision and declare the mark IR No 900 100 to be revoked for the EU for all goods;
  in the alternative |
| --- | --- |

—

amend the contested decision and declare the mark IR No 900 100 to be revoked for the EU for all goods;

in the alternative

| — | annul the contested decision on account of the failure to provide evidence of use of IR No 900 100 as a trade mark and refer the proceedings back to EUIPO; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision on account of the failure to provide evidence of use of IR No 900 100 as a trade mark and refer the proceedings back to EUIPO;

| — | in any event, order the proprietor of the mark to pay the applicant’s costs incurred in the proceedings before EUIPO and in the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, order the proprietor of the mark to pay the applicant’s costs incurred in the proceedings before EUIPO and in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | infringement of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | infringement of Article 55(1) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of Article 55(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---