alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136013 & (20) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136013 

 COA: 279169 

Oakland CC: 79-042691-FY 

RICHARD LEE OWENS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 19, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The 

motion for miscellaneous relief is GRANTED. 

s0828 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-2656

___________

John Smart; Sota Foods, Inc., d/b/a King *

of Potatoes; John Smart & *

Associates, Inc., *

*

Plaintiffs - Appellants, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of North Dakota. 

*

Sunshine Potato Flakes, L.L.C., * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Defendant - Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 16, 2001

Filed: May 22, 2001

___________

Before LOKEN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In August 1997, John Smart, John Smart & Associates, Inc., and Sunshine Potato

Flakes, L.L.C., entered into an Exclusive Distributor Agreement containing a broad

arbitration clause. The contractual relationship ended in January 2000, and arbitration

proceedings commenced in which breach-of-contract claims and counterclaims have

been asserted. John Smart and two of his companies filed this diversity action against

Sunshine, alleging that a post-termination letter from Sunshine’s plant manager to
1The HONORABLE RODNEY S. WEBB, Chief Judge of the United States

District Court for the District of North Dakota.

-2-

customers was defamatory. Responding to a motion by Sunshine, the district court1

entered an order staying the lawsuit and directing the parties to arbitrate this dispute.

The Smart plaintiffs appeal, arguing their defamation claims are not arbitrable. 

Absent a district court certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) -- and there was

no such certification in this case -- an interlocutory order staying an action and directing

arbitration is not appealable. See 9 U.S.C. § 16(b); Lebanon Chem. Corp. v. United

Farmers Plant Food, Inc., 179 F.3d 1095, 1102 (8th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, the

appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellee’s motion for an award of costs

and attorneys’ fees is denied.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# C_2008008EN.01001401.xml

| 12.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 8/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 8/14

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 November 2007 — Wesergold Getränkeindustrie v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung (VITAL FIT)

(Case T-111/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark VITAL FIT - Earlier national word mark VITAFIT - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Right to a fair hearing - Obligation to state reasons)

(2008/C 8/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG (Rinteln, Germany) (represented by: P. Goldenbaum, T. Melchert and I. Rohr, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Schaeffer, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 February 2006 in Case R 3/2005-2 relating to opposition proceedings between Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG and Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Wesergold Getränkeindustrie GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 143, 17.6.2006.

1

---
Stephen Hutto, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

August 4, 2016

**109*15ORDER

Petitioner filed a motion on July 15, 2016 for resentencing pursuant to Aiken v. Byars , 410 S.C. 534, 765 S.E.2d 572 (S.C. 2014). Now, therefore, pursuant to SC CONST. Art. V, § 4,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Honorable D. Craig Brown be vested with exclusive jurisdiction over the Petitioner's Motion for Resentencing in the above-captioned matter.

Judge Brown shall at all times be vested with concurrent jurisdiction in all circuits of the state to dispose of matters relating to this case, and shall decide all matters pertaining to the Petitioner's Motion, and shall retain jurisdiction over this matter regardless of where he may be assigned to hold court, and may schedule such hearings as may be necessary at any time without regard as to whether there is a term of court scheduled.

**110If necessary, to resolve issues related to the appointment of counsel, a hearing shall be conducted within thirty (30) days of this order.

Within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, Judge Brown shall issue a scheduling order setting forth the schedule that shall be followed in this matter, including the date of the hearing on the merits. The scheduling order may be amended as necessary.

s/Costa M. Pleicones

Costa M. Pleicones

Chief Justice
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

The Board of Directors
Travelers Property Casualty Corp.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 333-98365 and 333-84740) on Form S-8 of Travelers Property Casualty Corp.
of our reports dated January 28, 2004 with respect to the consolidated balance
sheet of Travelers Property Casualty Corp. and subsidiaries as of December 31,
2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated statements of income (loss), changes
in shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 2003, and all related financial statement schedules,
which reports appear in the December 31, 2003 Form 10-K of Travelers Property
Casualty Corp. Our reports refer to changes in the methods of accounting for
goodwill and other intangible assets in 2002 and accounting for derivative
instruments and hedging activities and for securitized financial assets in 2001.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Hartford, Connecticut
March 2, 2004
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

August 29, 2008

Ms. Elizabeth N. Miller

Scott Douglass & McConnico, L.L.P.

600 Congress Ave., Suite 1500

Austin, TX 78701-2589

Mr. Michael D. Jones

Kilburn Jones & Gill, LLP

6363 Woodway, Suite 1100

Houston, TX 77057

Mr. Roy R. Barrera III

Golden & Barrera LLP

424 East Nueva

San Antonio, TX 78205

Mr. George L. Willingham

Law Offices of George L. Willingham

201 Donaldson Avenue

San Antonio, TX 78201

Mr. Ramon Garcia

Law Offices of Ramon Garcia, P.C.

222 West University Drive

Edinburg, TX 78539

RE:Case Number:  05-0466

Court of Appeals Number:  13-02-00136-CV

Trial Court Number:  C-1313-97-F

Style:COASTAL OIL & GAS CORPORATION AND COASTAL OIL & GAS USA, L.P.

v.

GARZA ENERGY TRUST ET AL.

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed opinions and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 05-0466Page 2**
STATE of North Carolina v. Rayford Lewis BURKE.

No. 181A93-4.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Franklin E. Wells, Jr., Asheboro, for Burke, Rayford Lewis.

Gretchen Engel, Durham, for Burke, Rayford Lewis.

*738Danielle Marquis Elder, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Mikko Red Arrow, Assistant District Attorney, for State of N.C.

Jonathan Babb, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Sarah Kirkman, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

*AMENDED ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 29th of August 2014 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Iredell County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

> "Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."

ERVIN, J. recused.

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. A record necessary for determination of the issues presented in the Petition for Writ of Certiorari shall be filed on or before April 22, 2016. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 13(a)(2).
# C_2011145EN.01001901.xml

| 14.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 145/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — Viega v Commission

(Case T-375/06) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper and copper alloy fittings sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Participation in the infringement - Obligation to state reasons - Fines - Relevant turnover - Attenuating circumstances)

2011/C 145/26

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Viega GmbH & Co. KG (Attendorn, Germany) (represented initially by J. Burrichter, T. Mäger and F. Bulst, and subsequently by J. Burrichter, T. Mäger and M. Röhrig, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Nijenhuis and V. Bottka, acting as Agents, and by A. Böhlke, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings), and also, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Viega GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Viega GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Danny Robert AYCOCK.

No. COA15-474.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Jan. 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 23

- 00471

- CR

Catarino Vernon v. The State of Texas

On Appeal from the 36th District Court of San Patricio County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. S

- 22

- 3403CR

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. August 30, 2024
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 99.04

                 QUINTILES TRANSNATIONAL CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                            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 Quintiles Transnational Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K, as amended by Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A, for
the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James L. Bierman, Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to my knowledge 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 result of operations of the Company.

                                       /s/ James L. Bierman
                                       -----------------------------------
                                       James L. Bierman
                                       Executive Vice President and
                                       Chief Financial Officer

                                       April 29, 2003
                                       -----------------------------------
                                       Date

                                       66
STATE of North Carolina v. Antone Lamont BELL.

No. 347P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Oct. 14, 2015.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, for State of NC.

Antone Lamont Bell, for Bell, Antone Lamont.

L. Johnson Britt, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the application filed by Defendant on the 13th of October 2015 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Robeson County:

> *77"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of October 2015."
# C_2011340EN.01002001.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/20

---

Order of the General Court of 22 September 2011 — Athinaïki Techniki v Commission

(Case T-94/05 RENV II) (1)

1

(State aid - Complaint - Decision to take no further action on the complaint - Referral back to the General Court after setting aside - No need to adjudicate)

2011/C 340/40

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Athinaïki Techniki AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, Agent)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Athens Resort Casino AE Symmetochon (Marousi, Greece) (represented by: P. Spyropoulos, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 2 December 2004 to take no further action on the applicant’s complaint relating to alleged State aid granted by the Hellenic Republic to the Hyatt Regency consortium in connection with the ‘Mont Parnes Casino’ public contract.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

| 2. | The European Commission shall bear its own costs and half of the costs incurred by Athinaïki Techniki AE. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs and half of the costs incurred by Athinaïki Techniki AE.

| 3. | Athinaïki Techniki shall bear half of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Athinaïki Techniki shall bear half of its own costs.

| 4. | Athens Resort Casino AE Symmetochon shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Athens Resort Casino AE Symmetochon shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.

1

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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997             SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           3,026                  11,827
<SECURITIES>                                     7,038                  19,403
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,534                  25,820
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                51,424                  56,129
<PP&E>                                          32,857                  24,201
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 173,749                 145,099
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,897                  15,910
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           446                     439
<OTHER-SE>                                     103,000                  92,294
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   173,749                 145,099
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                83,818                  48,117
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                58,305                  33,426
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (785)                 (1,571)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 26,298                  16,262
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,256                   6,342
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,042                   9,920
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,042                   9,920
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.36                    0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.35                    0.23
        

</TABLE>
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00238-CV

In re Nathan Macias

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM COMAL COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator has filed an emergency motion for temporary relief and a petition for writ of

mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8, 52.10. Having reviewed the motion and petition, the record,

and the response filed by the real party in interest, we deny the motion for temporary relief and the

petition for writ of mandamus.

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Waldrop

Filed: May 1, 2008
David Viron Garrett, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 21, 2016

*580ORDER

Petitioner filed a motion on July 8, 2016 for resentencing pursuant to Aiken v. Byars , 410 S.C. 534, 765 S.E.2d 572 (S.C. 2014). Now, therefore, pursuant to SC CONST. Art. V, § 4,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Honorable D. Garrison Hill be vested with exclusive jurisdiction over the Petitioner's Motion for Resentencing in the above-captioned matter.

Judge Hill shall at all times be vested with concurrent jurisdiction in all circuits of the state to dispose of matters relating to this case, and shall decide all matters pertaining to the Petitioner's Motion, and shall retain jurisdiction over this matter regardless of where he may be assigned to hold court, and may schedule such hearings as may be necessary at any time without regard as to whether there is a term of court scheduled.

If necessary, to resolve issues related to the appointment of counsel, a hearing shall be conducted within thirty (30) days of this order.

Within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, Judge Hill shall issue a scheduling order setting forth the schedule that shall be followed in this matter, including the date of the hearing on the merits. The scheduling order may be amended as necessary.

s/Costa M. Pleicones

Costa M. Pleicones

Chief Justice
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT


Board of Directors
Mid Continent Bancshares, Inc.
El Dorado, Kansas

We  have  audited  the  consolidated   financial  statements  of  Mid  Continent
Bancshares,  Inc. and  subsidiary as of September 30, 1995 and 1996 and for each
of the three years in the period ended  September 30, 1996,  and have issued our
report thereon dated November 12, 1996; such consolidated  financial  statements
and report are  included  in your 1996  Annual  Report to  Stockholders  and are
incorporated  herein by  reference.  Our  audits  also  included  the  financial
statement schedule of Mid Continent Bancshares,  Inc. and subsidiary,  listed in
Item 14(a)2.  This financial  statement  schedule is the  responsibility  of the
Company's  management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our
audits. In our opinion,  such financial statement  schedule,  when considered in
relation  to the  basic  consolidated  financial  statements  taken  as a whole,
presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.




/s/Deloitte & Touche LLP
Kansas City, Missouri
December 12, 1996
State of North Carolina v. Alexander Ramesh Munjal

No. COA15-1203

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 16, 2016

AFFIRMED IN PART; REMANDED IN PART.
# C_2008107EN.01002601.xml

| 26.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/26

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 February 2008 — Apple Computer International v Commission

(Case T-82/06) (1)

1

(Actions for annulment - Common Customs Tariff - Classification in the Combined Nomenclature - Person not individually concerned - Inadmissibility)

(2008/C 107/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Apple Computer International (Cork, Ireland) (represented by: G. Breen, Solicitor, P. Sreenan SC, and B. Quigley, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis and J. Hottiaux, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2171/2005 of 23 December 2005 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2005 L 346, p. 7)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Apple Computer International shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Apple Computer International shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.

1

---