alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-17-00160-CV

ROBERT B. JAMES, DDS, INC.; Robert B. James, DDS, Individually; Jean James, 

Individually; and Alexis Mei Pyles, Individually,

Appellants

v.

Cassandra J. ELKINS, DDS

Appellee

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016-CI-19860

Honorable Karen H. Pozza, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE BARNARD, JUSTICE CHAPA, AND JUSTICE RIOS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order denying Alexis 

Mei Pyles’s “Anti-SLAPP” Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claims Pursuant to Chapter 27 of the 

Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code is REVERSED IN PART. We RENDER an order 

dismissing Cassandra J. Elkins, DDS’s claims against Alexis Mei Pyles and Robert B. James, 

DDS, Inc., for defamation, business disparagement, intentional infliction of emotional distress, 

and civil conspiracy, to the extent those claims involve any statements Alexis Mei Pyles made to 

the San Antonio Police Department. The trial court’s order as to Alexis Mei Pyles’s “Anti-SLAPP” 

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claims Pursuant to Chapter 27 of the Texas Civil Practice & 

Remedies Code is AFFIRMED in all other respects. 

The trial court’s order denying the James Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss under the 

Texas Citizens’ Participation Act is REVERSED IN PART. We RENDER an order dismissing 

Cassandra J. Elkins, DDS’s claims against appellants Robert B. James, DDS and Robert B. James, 

DDS, Inc., for business disparagement and intentional infliction of emotional distress to the extent 

those claims involve any statements Robert B. James, DDS made to the San Antonio Police 

Department. We further RENDER an order dismissing Cassandra J. Elkins, DDS’s claims against 

appellants Jean James and Robert B. James, DDS, Inc. for defamation, business disparagement, 

and intentional infliction of emotional distress to the extent those claims involve any statements 

Jean James made to the San Antonio Police Department. The trial court’s order denying the James 
04-17-00160-CV

- 2 -

Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss under the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act is AFFIRMED 

in all other respects. 

As to the claims on which we render a dismissal, we REMAND this case for a 

determination of costs and attorney’s fees under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.009. 

Costs of this appeal are taxed against the party incurring the same. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.4. 

SIGNED May 30, 2018.

_____________________________

Irene Rios, Justice
Edward Lee CARTER, Petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 19-5459.

Supreme Court of the United States.

Oct. 15, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Tommy COLE, Petitioner v. R.J. RACKLEY, Warden

No. 19-6064

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 21, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Duane POPE, Petitioner, v. Scott R. FRAKES, Director, Nebraska Department of Correctional Services.

No. 19-5739

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 15, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Nebraska, Lancaster County denied.
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

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.

November 26, 2019

s1118 

# Order

Clerk November 26, 2019

158824

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 158824

COA: 337999

Jackson CC: 15

- 000816

- FC

TROY DESEAN JOHNSON,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

By order of April 2, 2019, the application for leave to appeal t he October 16, 2018

judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decisions in People v

Beck (Docket No. 152934) and People v Dixon

- Bey (Docket No. 156746). On order of

the Court, Beck having been decided on July 29, 2019, 504 Mich ___ (2019), and leave to

appeal having been denied in Dixon

- Bey on July 29, 2019, 504 Mich ___ (2019), the

application is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the

question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Amendment No. 1 to the Tommy Hilfiger Corporation Non-Employee Directors Stock


 Exhibit 10.3 
  
 Amendment No. 1 
 to the

 Tommy Hilfiger Corporation Non-Employee Directors Stock Option Plan 
  
 WHEREAS, Tommy Hilfiger Corporation (the “Company”) maintains the Tommy Hilfiger Corporation
Non-Employee Directors Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 6 of the Plan, the Company may amend the Plan; and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee and the Board of the Company, by resolutions adopted on February 2, 2004, have authorized the
amendment of the Plan as set forth herein. 
  
 NOW
THEREFORE, effective as of February 2, 2004 with respect to Stock Options granted on or after that date, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 
  
 1. Section 5(a) of the Plan is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 
  
 a. Initial Grants. Each Non-Employee Director who is first appointed or elected to office on or after
February 2, 2004, shall initially receive, on the date of such appointment or election to office, a Non-Qualified Stock Option to purchase 20,000 shares of Stock at a price equal to the Fair Market Value at the time of the grant of the shares of
Stock subject to such Non-Qualified Stock Option. 
  
 2. Section
5(b) of the Plan is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 
  
 b. Annual Grants. Prior to termination of the Plan pursuant to Section 6, on the first to occur of either the April 1 or October 1 following the first anniversary of each Non-Employee Director’s date of
initial grant (the “first annual grant date”), and on each anniversary of such Non-Employee Director’s first annual grant date, such Non-Employee Director shall receive an additional Non-Qualified Stock Option. For grant dates on or
after February 2, 2004, such Non-Qualified Stock Option shall be to purchase 4,000 shares of Stock at a price equal to Fair Market Value at the time of the grant of the shares of Stock subject to such additional Non-Qualified Stock Option, provided
such individual shall continue to be a Non-Employee Director. 
  
 3. Section 5(d)(b) of the Plan is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 
  
 (b) Exercisability. Beginning on the first anniversary of the date of grant, Stock Options shall be exercisable for up to 100% of
the shares of stock covered by the Stock Option.
Kenneth MILLER, Petitioner, v. Robert FERGUSON, Attorney General of Washington.

No. 19-121

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
# C_2019433EN.01030601.xml

| 23.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/306 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/306

---

P8_TA(2018)0347

Cooperation Agreement between Eurojust and Albania *

European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 September 2018 on the draft Council implementing decision approving the conclusion by Eurojust of the Agreement on Cooperation between Eurojust and Albania (08688/2018 – C8-0251/2018 – 2018/0807(CNS))

(Consultation)

(2019/C 433/39)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the Council draft (08688/2018), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Council draft (08688/2018),

| — | having regard to Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam, and Article 9 of Protocol No 36 on transitional provisions, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8-0251/2018), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam, and Article 9 of Protocol No 36 on transitional provisions, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8-0251/2018),

| — | having regard to Rule 78c of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 78c of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0275/2018), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0275/2018),

| 1. | Approves the Council draft; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments. |
| --- | --- |

4.

---