alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011204EN.01001102.xml

| 9.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 204/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 May 2011 — Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Unicre-Cartão International De Crédito SA

(Case C-308/10 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 74(2) - Evidence not submitted in support of the opposition within the period prescribed for that purpose - Failure to take account thereof - Discretion of the Board of Appeal)

2011/C 204/20

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH (represented by: J.Zindel, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent), Unicre-Cartão International De Crédito SA

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 27 April 2010 — Union Investment Privatfonds v OHIM — Unicre-Cartão International De Crédito, by which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment brought by the holder of the national figurative marks UniFLEXIO, UniVARIO and UniZERO for goods and services in Classes 35 and 36 against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 October 2006 dismissing the appeal brought against the decision of the Opposition Division rejecting the appellant’s opposition to registration of the Community figurative mark unibanco for goods in Classes 36 and 38 — Misinterpretation of Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Discretion of the Board of Appeal in respect of evidence not submitted in support of the opposition within the period prescribed for that purpose.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.

1

---
Leonard D. FUQUA, petitioner, v. Megan J. BRENNAN, Postmaster General, et al.

No. 16-9644.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed June 15, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-2162

Lower Tribunal No. 13-2263 SP

________________

United Automobile Insurance Company,

Appellant,

vs.

Millennium Radiology, LLC, d/b/a Millennium Open MRI, a/a/o 

Alexander Fiallo-Batista,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Myriam 

Lehr, Judge.

Michael J. Neimand, for appellant.

David B. Pakula, P.A., and David B. Pakula (Pembroke Pines); Marks 

& Fleischer, P.A., and Gary Marks (Ft. Lauderdale), for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and LOGUE, and LINDSEY, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

We reverse and remand consistent with our decision in United 

Automobile Insurance Company v. Millennium Radiology, LLC, 47 Fla. L. 

Weekly D175, D177 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 12, 2022) (“Millennium's ‘identity’ is 

not the same in each of these cases against United Auto; Millennium draws 

its identity from its assignor from case to case. The identity element of 

collateral estoppel, therefore, is not satisfied.”).
Kengi N. MERRITT, petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

No. 17-7849.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              DEC-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,756,309
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,763
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,769,072)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (26,172)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (26,172)
<DISCONTINUED>                                (11,762)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (37,934)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00
        

</TABLE>
# C_2012165EN.01000202.xml

| 9.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 April 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-141/10) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 39 EC to 42 EC - Freedom of movement of persons - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Social security of migrant workers - Refusal to pay certain benefits - Workers employed on drilling platforms in the Netherlands - Admissibility of the action)

2012/C 165/03

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and M. van Beek, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C.M. Wissels, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the form of order sought by the applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L Inez Fernandes and E. Silveira, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the form of order sought by the applicant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 3(1) and 13(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2) and of Articles 45 TFEU to 48 TFEU — Refusal to pay certain benefits to workers living in the Member States of the European Union who are employed on drilling platforms in the Kingdom of the Netherlands

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Portuguese Republic to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Portuguese Republic to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.

1

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


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                         MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                                   215,879 
<SECURITIES>                                                   0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                          2,731,336 
<ALLOWANCES>                                             352,000 
<INVENTORY>                                              523,931 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       4,451,956 
<PP&E>                                                   497,980 
<DEPRECIATION>                                           296,465 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        22,415,311 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 10,660,779 
<BONDS>                                                  103,251 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0 
<PREFERRED>                                            3,117,274 
<COMMON>                                                  15,151 
<OTHER-SE>                                             3,850,869 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          22,415,311 
<SALES>                                                9,258,004
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       9,258,004
<CGS>                                                  6,833,143 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          1,689,136 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         352,000 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       402,141 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                           14,146 
<INCOME-TAX>                                               5,000 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    (130,654) 
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0 
<CHANGES>                                                      0 
<NET-INCOME>                                           (130,654)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             (0.01) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             (0.01) 
                                              


</TABLE>
# C_2012258EN.01001603.xml

| 25.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 258/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 258/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Winzer Pharma v OHIM — Alcon (BAÑOFTAL)

(Case T-346/09) (1)

1

(Community trade marks - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community trade mark BAÑOFTAL - Earlier national word marks KAN-OPHTAL and PAN-OPHTAL - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 258/27

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Dr. Robert Winzer Pharma GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: S.Schneller, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Alcon Inc. Hünenberg, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Vidal-Quadras Trais de Bes, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 May 2009 (Case R 795/2008-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Dr. Robert Winzer Pharma GmbH and Alcon Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 28 May 2009 (Case R 795/2008-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 28 May 2009 (Case R 795/2008-1);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Dr. Robert Winzer Pharma GmbH. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Dr. Robert Winzer Pharma GmbH.

| 3. | Orders Alcon Inc. to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Alcon Inc. to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 256, 24.10.2009.

1

---
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
333 Market Street
San Francisco CA 94105
Telephone (415) 957 3000
Facsimile (415) 957 3394


Report of Independent Accountants

August 4, 2000

To the Board of Directors of
Meridian Fund, Inc.


In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements of Meridian
Fund and Meridian Value Fund (the "Funds") for the year ended June 30, 2000,
we considered their internal control,including control activities for
safeguarding securities, in order to determine our auditing procedures for
the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements and to
comply with the requirements of Form N-SAR, not to provide assurance on
internal control.

The management of the Funds is responsible for establishing and maintaining
internal control.  In fulfilling this responsibility, estimates and judgments
by management are required to assess the expected benefits and related costs
of controls.  Generally, controls that are relevant to an audit pertain to the
entity's objective of preparing financial statements for external purposes
that are fairly presented in conformity with accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States. Those controls include the safeguarding of
assets against unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in internal control, errors or fraud may
occur and not be detected.  Also, projection of any evaluation of internal
control to future periods is subject to the risk that controls may become
inadequate because of changes in conditions or that the effectiveness of
their design and operation may deteriorate.

Our consideration of internal control would not necessarily disclose all
matters in internal control that might be material weaknesses under standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A
material weakness is a condition in which the design or operation of one or
more of the internal control components does not reduce to a relatively low
level the risk that misstatements caused by error or fraud in amounts that
would be material in relation to the financial statements being audited may
occur and not be detected within a timely period by employees in the normal
course of performing their assigned functions.  However, we noted no matters
involving internal control and its operation, including controls for
safeguarding securities that we consider to be material weaknesses as defined
above as of June 30, 2000.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Board of
Directors, management and the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not
intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified
parties.

 /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
   ------------------------------
   PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Open Meeting of the Commission – Monday, November 2, 2020

AGENDA

1. Call to Order

2. Opening Statements

Chairman Heath P. Tarbert

Commissioner Brian D. Quintenz

Commissioner Rostin Behnam

Commissioner Dawn D. Stump

Commissioner Dan M. Berkovitz

3. Final Rule: Amendments to Part 50 Clearing Requirement Exemptions for 

Central Banks, Sovereigns, IFIs, Bank Holding Companies, and CDFIs

Staff Presentation

Clark Hutchison, Division of Clearing and Risk 

Motion 

Commissioners’ Questions and Discussion

Vote

4. Closing Remarks

5. Adjournment
IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2023 ND 199

In the Interest of E.E.J.-C., a child

L.J.J., Petitioner and Appellant

v.

D.D.C., mother, Respondent and Appellee

and

E.E.J.-C., child; and B.D.Q., 

father, Respondents

No. 20230091

Appeal from the Juvenile Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, 

the Honorable Daniel E. Gast, Judicial Referee.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Erica L. Chisholm, Wahpeton, ND, for petitioner and appellant; submitted on 

brief.

Kyle R. Craig, Minot, ND, for respondent and appellee; submitted on brief.

FILED 

IN THE OFFICE OF THE 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

OCTOBER 26, 2023 

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
1

Interest of E.E.J.-C.

No. 20230091

Per Curiam.

[¶1] L.J.J. appeals from a juvenile court order denying her petition for 

guardianship of E.E.J.C., a child. L.J.J. argues the court erred in finding the 

child was not in need of protection. After reviewing the record, the court’s 

findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence and are not clearly 

erroneous. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Jerod E. Tufte

Douglas A. Bahr
AIR AND LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP., et al., petitioners, v. Roberta G. DeVRIES, Administratrix of the Estate of John B. DeVries, Deceased, et al.

No. 17-1104.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted.
Terrence A. JOHNSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7895.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 26, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Randolph Rolando LAWRENCE, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 17-8192.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 14, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District denied.
Dominic EVANS, aka Flatline, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8337.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 30, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Domineque RAY, petitioner, v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.

No. 16-5295.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 23, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
# C_2011063EN.01001801.xml

| 26.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/18

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău — Romania) — SC SEMTEX SRL v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bacău, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Bacău

(Case C-440/10) (1)

1

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Failure to provide a factual description - Inadmissibility)

2011/C 63/33

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bacău

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC SEMTEX SRL

Applicant:

Defendant: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bacău, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Bacău

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Curtea de Apel Secția Bacău Secția Comercială, Contencios Administrativ și Fiscal — Registration of second-hand vehicles previously registered in another Member State — Environmental tax on vehicles on their first registration in a Member State — Compatibility of the national rules with Article 110 TFEU — Discrimination in relation to second-hand vehicles already registered in the territory of that Member State and not subject to that tax on a subsequent sale or new registration

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Curtea de Apel Bacău by decision of 1 September 2010 is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.

1

---
# C_2009220EN.01002303.xml

| 12.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 220/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/23

---

Action brought on 10 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-258/09)

2009/C 220/47

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and A. Marghelis, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by authorising, in the Walloon Region, the functioning of existing installations which do not comply with the requirements provided for in Articles 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14(a) and (b) and 15(2), and that despite the expiry of the 30 October 2007 time-limit, as is provided for in Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (1), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by authorising, in the Walloon Region, the functioning of existing installations which do not comply with the requirements provided for in Articles 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14(a) and (b) and 15(2), and that despite the expiry of the 30 October 2007 time-limit, as is provided for in Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (1), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for ensuring compliance of existing installations, the operation of which is liable to have an effect on emissions into the air, water and soil and on pollution, expired on 30 October 2007, in accordance with Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC. However, on the date the present action was brought, the defendant had still not taken all the measures necessary to comply with that requirement in the Walloon Region or, in any event, it had failed to inform the Commission thereof.

---

(1)  OJ 2007 L 24, p. 8.

1

---