alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004078EN.01042401.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/424 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/424

---

(2004/C 78 E/0444)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2772/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(16 September 2003)

Subject:   Levels of professional indemnity cover for small insurance firms

Subject:

Is the Commission planning to instigate any European lower limits regarding professional indemnity cover? One of my constituents is concerned about the level of EUR 1 million cover he has to pay as a small insurance firm.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2003)

(23 October 2003)

The Honourable Member is most likely referring to Directive 2002/92/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2002 on insurance mediation (1). This Directive will establish a legal regime, which ensures a high level of professionalism for insurance intermediaries and reinforces the information requirements to be provided to customers. Customers will therefore be better protected.

1

The Directive requires that any insurance intermediary shall be registered with a competent authority in his home Member State, provided that he meets strict professional requirements in relation to his professional competence, good repute, professional indemnity cover and, where the insurance intermediary manages funds of his clients, appropriate financial capacity.

The Directive requires that an insurance intermediary shall hold professional indemnity insurance covering the whole territory of the Community or some other comparable guarantee against liability arising from professional negligence, for at least EUR 1 million applying to each claim and in aggregate EUR 1,5 million per year for all claims. This insurance cover or financial guarantee is not required when an insurance undertaking, a reinsurance undertaking or another undertaking on whose behalf the insurance or reinsurance intermediary is acting, takes the full responsibility for the intermediary's actions (in accordance with Article 4 (3) of the Directive).

Once the insurance or reinsurance intermediary has been registered in his home Member State he may conduct business in the entire Community under the freedom of establishment and the free provision of services.

The Directive shall be applied by Member States as of 15 January 2005.

---

(1)  OJ L 9, 15.1.2003.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Gary Roger WALKER.

No. 455P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 11, 2008.

J. Clark Fischer, Winston-Salem, for Walker.

Mary D. Winstead, Special Deputy Attorney General, Philip E. Berger, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 1st day of October 2008 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th day of December 2008."
### RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO . A

- 0662

- 20

A

- 0670

- 20

ROBERT SIPKO,

Plaintiff

- Respondent

,

v.

KOGER, INC., and

RASTISLAV SIPKO

,

Defendant s

- Appellant s

,

and

KOGER DISTRIBUTED

SOLUTIONS, INC., KOGER

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES,

INC., KOGER LIMITED

(DUBLIN), and GEORGE SIPKO,

D efendants.

______________________________

Submitted July 6, 2021

– Decided July 22, 2021

Before Judges Mess ano and Suter.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court

. " A lthough it is posted on the

internet

, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited

. R

. 1:36

- 3.2 A

- 0662

- 20 On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,

Chancery Division, Bergen County, Docket No.

C

- 000 393

- 07.

Newman, Simpson & Cohen, LLP, attorneys for

appellant Rastislav Sipko ( Daniel J. Cohen and Daniel

C. Stark, on the brief s ).

Lum Drasco & Pos i tan, LLC, attorneys for appellant

Koger, Inc. (Paul A. Sandars, III

, and Scott E. Reiser,

of counsel and on the brief).

Pashman Stein Walder Hayden, attorneys for

respondent Robert Sipko ( Michael S. Stein, of counsel;

Erik M. Corlett and Timothy P. Malone, on the brief s ).

Foreman Holt, attorneys for respondent Charles M.

Forman (Michael E. Holt, on the brief s ).

PER CURIAM

Appellants advised the court that all parties have agreed to the dismissal

of these appeals without prejudice pursuant to a fully executed consent

stipulation of dismissal filed with the court. The a ppeals are dismissed without

prejudice pursuant to the terms of the stipulation of dismissal

.
Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

July 30, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

136849 Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. In re AYDEN ROOD, Minor. Stephen J. Markman,

________________ _______________ __________/ Justices

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Petitioner-Appellant,

v SC: 136849 COA: 280597 Mason CC Family Division: DARROLL DONALD ROOD, 06-000019-NA Respondent-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 12, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1 ) whether the Department of Human Services made adequate efforts to contact the respon dent-appellee father, who had given contact

information to the court at th e June 8, 2006 hearing concer ning the rights of the child’s natural mother; (2) whether the Department of Human Services was under a legal duty, imposed by statute or court rule, to conduc t a home study or to make other efforts to place the minor child with the respondent father, given the unique circumstances of this case; (3) whether the existence of any legal du ty was mitigated by th e respondent father’s failure to contact the agency for over one year, failure to pursue visitation with his child who had been placed in foster care, or his domestic violence convictions involving the child’s mother; and (4) whether the failure of the family court to send notices of the proceedings to the correct address, or the fail ure of the Department of Human Services to make diligent effort to contact the respondent father at the address and telephone number provided by him at the June 8, 2006 adjudication heari ng for the respondent mother, precluded the court from terminating res pondent father’s parental rights.

We further ORDER the Mason Circu it Court Family Division, utilizing a procedure analogous to that described in Ad ministrative Order 2003-03, to determine no later than August 12, 2008, whether the respondent-appellee is indigent and, if so, to_______________________________________ __ 2

appoint attorney Jeffrey C. Nellis, if feasible, to represent the re spondent in this Court. If the respondent is not indigent, he must retain his own counsel.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to place this case on the October 2008 session calendar for argument and submi ssion. Petitioner-appellant’s brief and appendix must be filed no later than August 25, 2008, and re spondent-appellee’s brief and appendix, if appellee chooses to submit an appendix, must be filed no later than September 15, 2008.

Persons or groups interested in the determ ination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae, to be filed no later than September 24, 2008.

d0729 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 30, 2008

Clerk
STATE of North Carolina v. Frank Harry EASTER, Jr.

No. COA15-199.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Jan. 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Vacated in part; Dismissed in part; No Prejudicial Error in part; Remanded for Resentencing.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

                    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections                           ( print page 5196)                        552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.                

*Name of Committee:*                         National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis Panel; Biomedical Informatics.                    

*Date:*                         March 22, 2005.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Road, NW., Washington, DC 20015.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Hua-Chuan Sim, MD, Scientific Review Administrator, National Library of Medicine, Extramural Programs, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite 301, Bethesda, MD 20892.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.879, Medical Library Assistance, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 25, 2005.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 05-1831  Filed 1-31-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
# CE2004078EN.01023301.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/233 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/233

---

(2004/C 78 E/0235)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3165/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject:   Spanish Hydrological Plan (Pyrenees)

Subject:

In reaching decisions regarding the application of environmental legislation and the rules concerning the approval of bids for structural funding, does the Commission accept that plans for dam projects in the Pyrenees — particularly the Yesa Dam enlargement and construction of new dams at Biscarruès, Santaliestra, Itoiz and Rialp — should be considered as part of the overall Spanish Hydrological Plan, in that they are essential to the water transfers proposed?

Have formal requests for structural fund assistance towards the cost of any of these projects yet been submitted by the Spanish authorities?

Is the Commission aware that work on the Santaliestra dam has been suspended due to failure by those involved to take full account of the need for comprehensive environmental risk assessments?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 2003)

(11 November 2003)

Concerning the proposed dams in the Pyrenees in the catchment of the river Ebro, the Commission understands from the Spanish authorities that these dams do not have any connection with the proposed Ebro transfer foreseen in the Spanish National Hydrological Plan and that they will not be used to regulate the flow in the lower river. The Commission further understands from the Spanish authorities, that only the existing Mequinenza and Ribarroja/Flix dams in the lower reaches of the Ebro catchment will be used to regulate the flow at the abstraction point foreseen for the proposed transfer.

The Commission has requested information from the Spanish authorities regarding Community financing of these projects. In their reply, the Spanish authorities inform that none of these projects are included in the relevant Objective 2 Single Programming Documents, neither is there financing through the Cohesion Fund.

With regard to the suspension of work on the Santaliestra dam, the Commission was aware of the fact that work had been suspended.

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

<ARTICLE>                                    5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
condensed consolidated financial statements included herein and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                1
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                        3,904,087
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 1,183,607
<ALLOWANCES>                                     25,057
<INVENTORY>                                   3,289,172
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              8,524,005
<PP&E>                                        6,008,851
<DEPRECIATION>                              (1,908,047)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               14,390,326
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         1,640,087
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                       2,143
<COMMON>                                         40,502
<OTHER-SE>                                   10,967,594
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 14,390,326
<SALES>                                       2,574,976
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              2,799,664
<CGS>                                         3,414,293
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 3,414,293
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              5,609,811
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 25,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1,248
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (5,243,967)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (5,243,967)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                (5,243,967)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0

        

</TABLE>
LUCKY DUCKS, LTD. v. LEEDS.

No. COA07-1469.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed August 5, 2008.

Certification Date August 25, 2008.

Appeal from Guilford (05CVS12589).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. Randy Lee SELLARS.

No. 547A05-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 13, 2008.

Jarvis John Edgerton, IV, for Randy Lee Sellars.

Hilda Burnett-Baker, Assistant Attorney General, Robert F. Johnson, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th day of November 2008 by State of NC for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. State of NC shall have up to and including the 17th day of December 2008 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 13th day of November 2008."
# CE2004078EN.01042901.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/429 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/429

---

(2004/C 78 E/0448)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2790/03

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 September 2003)

Subject:   Banking rules in EU emissions trading: invariability of AAU (BSA) amounts

Subject:

Under the EU emissions trading directive (not yet published in the Official Journal) national decisions concerning the possibility for operators to bank emission allowances will be permitted during the time span covering the EU internal emissions trading period (2005-2007) and the first Kyoto period (2008-2012). In every Member State there may be companies which, prompted by substantial fluctuations in their annual output, for example, might wish to bank emission allowances even if they were prohibited from doing so in their home country. This creates an incentive to transfer the allowances in question temporarily to another Member State.

However, cross-border transfers during the internal emissions trading period will not lead to changes in the emission allowance (AAU or BSA amount) allocated to an individual country, contrary to what will happen from the beginning of the first Kyoto period.

Does the Commission consider it a problem that a transfer to another country purely for banking purposes and back again from that country to the country of origin in the Kyoto period will unfairly alter the aggregate emission allowances of the country which has allowed banking and enable the emission allowance to be doubled in the country of origin as far as the banked amount is concerned? Should the rules on adjustment of AAU and BSA amounts be revised when the EU emissions trading directive is reviewed in 2004 or 2006, before the first transfers are made between Member States for banking purposes?

---
A.B. COOPER, Jr. v. Julian Everette CAMERON, Jr.

No. 189P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

R. Tyler Archie, Attorney at Law, for Cameron, Julian Everette (Jr.).

Michael S. Harrell, Raleigh, Attorney at Law, for Cooper, A.B. (Jr.).

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 8th of June 2015 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          196211
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                        43032685
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                   29871182
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                       17050166
<ALLOWANCE>                                      30000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                93682161
<DEPOSITS>                                    67001589
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             320870
<LONG-TERM>                                   15000000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          8565
<OTHER-SE>                                    11351137
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                93682161
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 635745
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              2303329
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                254566
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               3193640
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             1663390
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2083045
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          1110595
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                           (5985841)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 445529
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (5302694)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (3521837)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (5.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (5.05)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                     222000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 30000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                30000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             30000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          30000


</TABLE>