alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008079EN.01001402.xml

| 29.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/14

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský Soud v Ústí nad Labem (Czech Republic) lodged on 24 December 2007 — RLRE Tellmer Property s.r.o. v Finanční ředitelství v Ústí nad Labem

(Case C-572/07)

(2008/C 79/25)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Krajský Soud v Ústí nad Labem

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RLRE Tellmer Property s.r.o.

Applicant:

Defendant: Finanční ředitelství v Ústí nad Labem

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Whether the provisions of Article 6 (Supply of services) and Article 13 (Exemptions within the territory of the country) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (1) can be interpreted as meaning that the letting of an apartment (and possibly of non-residential premises) on the one hand and the related cleaning of the common parts on the other hand can be regarded as independent, mutually-divisible taxable transactions. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Whether the provisions of Article 6 (Supply of services) and Article 13 (Exemptions within the territory of the country) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (1) can be interpreted as meaning that the letting of an apartment (and possibly of non-residential premises) on the one hand and the related cleaning of the common parts on the other hand can be regarded as independent, mutually-divisible taxable transactions.

1

| 2. | If, as the referring court suspects, the answer to the first question is in the negative, it further asks the Court of Justice whether the provisions of Article 13 of that directive, and in particular the introduction and part B(b) thereof: (1) require; (2) preclude; or (3) leave to the determination of the Member State the application of VAT to payment for cleaning of the common parts of a rented apartment block. |
| --- | --- |

2.

If, as the referring court suspects, the answer to the first question is in the negative, it further asks the Court of Justice whether the provisions of Article 13 of that directive, and in particular the introduction and part B(b) thereof: (1) require; (2) preclude; or (3) leave to the determination of the Member State the application of VAT to payment for cleaning of the common parts of a rented apartment block.

---

(1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2014159EN.01002401.xml

| 26.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 159/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 159/24

---

Order of the General Court of 21 March 2014 — Frucona Košice v Commission

(Case T-11/07 RENV) (1)

1

((State aid - Spirit and spirit-based beverages - Cancellation of a tax debt in a collective bankruptcy procedure - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - No longer any legal interest in bringing proceedings - Decision repealing and replacing the contested decision - No need to adjudicate))

2014/C 159/32

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Frucona Košice a.s. (Košice, Slovakia) (represented by: K. Lasok QC, J. Holmes and B. Hartnett, Barristers, and O. Geiss, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati and K. Walkerová, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: St. Nicolaus — trade a.s. (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by: N. Smaho, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/254/EC of 7 June 2006 on State aid C 25/05 (ex NN 21/05) implemented by the Slovak Republic for Fruncona Košice a.s. (OJ 2007 L 112, p. 14)

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1) | There is no need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1)

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2) | The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Frucona Košice a.s. |
| --- | --- |

2)

The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Frucona Košice a.s.

| 3) | St. Nicolaus — trade a.s. shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3)

St. Nicolaus — trade a.s. shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.

1

---
NEXT ADVISOR CONTINUED, INC. v. LENDINGTREE, INC., et al.

391A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 1, 2016

Russell F. Sizemore, Attorney at Law, Jonathan M. Watkins, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Mary Cabell Clay, Attorney at Law, Glenn E. Ketner, III, Attorney at Law, Scott M. Tyler, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Lendingtree, Inc., et al.

Christopher G. Smith, Attorney at Law, Susan H. Hargrove, Attorney at Law, Isaac A. Linnartz, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Next Advisor Continued, Inc.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of November 2016 by Defendant to Amend Certificate of Service of Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of December 2016."
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-20257

Summary Calendar

ADRIENNE GALLIEN; JOSEPH GALLIEN

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

WASHINGTON MUTUAL HOME LOANS INC; WASHINGTON MUTUAL

BANK; FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

No. 4:06– CV 4034

Before DAVIS, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The only issue presented in this appeal is whether the district court

abused its discretion in denying Appellants’ Rule 60(b) motion to “set aside

judgment and remand or alternatively to reconsider and enter a corrected order

allowing leave to amend.”

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 30, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-20257

2

We affirm the district court’s order denying Rule 60(b) relief for the following

reasons:

1) The district court had jurisdiction over this case because the Federal

Home Loan Mortgage Corporation(Freddie Mac) was a party.

2) Our review ofthe denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is extremely limited.

3) Appellants’ arguments concerning procedural error in removal were

waived by Appellants’ failure to make a timely complaint to the

district court.

4) No reason is presented as to why the Appellants allowed more than

14 months to elapse before seeking relief under Rule 60(b).

5) Appellants’ complaint about the court’s denial of their application

for preliminary injunction is not the proper subject of a Rule 60(b)

motion. Rule 60 does not apply to interlocutory orders and is not a

substitute for an appeal.

6) No extraordinary circumstances are presented that required the

district court to reopen this case.

We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and find no merit in any

of them. 

AFFIRMED.
# C_2009256EN.01002401.xml

| 24.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/24

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 September 2009 — Lange Uhren v OHIM (Geometric shapes on a watch-face)

(Case T-152/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for a Community figurative mark - Geometric shapes on a watch-face - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Lack of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009)

2009/C 256/43

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Lange Uhren GmbH (Glashütte, Germany) (represented by: M. Schaeffer, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M. Kicia, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 February 2007 (Case R 1176/2005-1) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign representing geometric shapes on a watch-face.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Lange Uhren GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Lange Uhren GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.

1

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          18,516
<SECURITIES>                                     9,899
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,148
<ALLOWANCES>                                       530
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,486
<PP&E>                                          34,903
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,314
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  76,109
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,256
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           125
<OTHER-SE>                                      68,350
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    76,109
<SALES>                                         63,344
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                63,344
<CGS>                                           35,322
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   35,322
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,735
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,226
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,840
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,386
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,386
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.59
        

</TABLE>
# C_2010011EN.01002203.xml

| 16.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/22

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2009 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM (350, 250 and 150)

(Joined Cases T-64/07 to T-66/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Applications for Community word marks 350, 250 and 150 - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2010/C 11/42

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. (Częstochowa, Poland) (represented by: D. Rzążewska, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Montalto and K. Zajfert, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Three actions brought against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 December 2006 (Cases R 1033/2006-4, R 1034/2006-4 and R 1035/2006-4) concerning applications for registration of word marks 350, 250 and 150 as Community trade marks.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | orders Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.

1

---
State of North Carolina v. Ricky D. Collins

No. COA16-60

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 18, 2016

NO ERROR.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

SEPT 23, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

Honorable J. Owen Forrester, United States District Judge for the Northern District of *

Georgia, sitting by designation.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-15066

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 07-21512-CV-CMA

GREAT LAKES REINSURANCE (UK) PLC, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

versus 

STEVEN POMARICO, 

DENNIS DODSON, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(September 23, 2008)

Before BIRCH and MARCUS, Circuit Judges and FORRESTER, District Judge. *
 See Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 289-90, 115 S. Ct. 2137, 2144 (1995) 1

(determining that a stay by the district court of a declaratory judgment action is reviewed for

abuse of discretion).

28 U.S.C. § 1333. Admiralty, maritime and prize cases. 2

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States,

of:

(1) Any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all

other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled.

(emphasis added).

2

PER CURIAM:

Having thoroughly reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and

having heard oral argument by counsel, we can find no abuse of discretion,1

particularly in view of the “Savings to Suitors” clause of 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1) and 2

the familiarity of the Florida courts with maritime disputes. See, e.g. Carnival

Corp. v. Carlisle, 953 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 2007). Therefore, we AFFIRM the

judgment of the district court.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4017 

To designate a peak located in Nevada as ‘‘Mount Reagan’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 6, 2014 

Mr. HECK of Nevada introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To designate a peak located in Nevada as ‘‘Mount Reagan’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF MOUNT REAGAN. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The peak in the State of Nevada 

5 located at N 36.18804 W 114.99815 shall be designated 

6 as ‘‘Mount Reagan’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the peak referred to in subsection (a) shall be 

10 deemed to be a reference to Mount Reagan. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 136616 Marilyn Kelly
 

Maura D. Corrigan
 

Robert P. Young, Jr.
 

SHELBY TOWN CENTER I, L.L.C., Stephen J. Markman,
 

Plaintiff-Appellant, Justices 

v SC: 136616 

 COA: 273689 

Macomb CC: 2004-001323-CZ 

GORMAN'S LAKESIDE, L.L.C. and 

GORMAN'S FURNITURE, L.L.C., 

 Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 6, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0915 

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 22, 2008 

 Clerk
EXHIBIT 18**CONSENT OF M. HESTER**     I hereby consent to the use of my name in connection with the following report and documents,which are being filed as exhibits to and incorporated by reference into the registration statementon Form 40-F of Goldcorp Inc. (the “Company”) being filed with the United States Securities andExchange Commission: 1. The technical report dated March 31, 2006, entitled “Technical Report NI 43-101FI LosFilos Project, Mexico” (the “Los Filos Report”); and  2. The annual information form of the Company dated March 30, 2007, which includesreference to my name in connection with information relating to the Los Filos Report,and the properties described herein.March 30, 2007/s/ M. Hester
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4012 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4012

    To prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from proposing, 
  finalizing, or disseminating regulations or assessments based upon 
            science that is not transparent or reproducible.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 6, 2014

Mr. Schweikert (for himself, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Hall, Mr. Broun of 
Georgia, Mr. Culberson, Mr. Bridenstine, Mrs. Lummis, Mr. Rohrabacher, 
   Mr. Collins of New York, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Olson, Mr. Cramer, Mr. 
   Bucshon, Mr. Hultgren, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Palazzo, Mr. Brooks of 
    Alabama, Mr. Salmon, and Mr. Franks of Arizona) introduced the 
following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, Space, 
                             and Technology

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from proposing, 
  finalizing, or disseminating regulations or assessments based upon 
            science that is not transparent or reproducible.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Secret Science Reform Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. DATA TRANSPARENCY.

    Section 6(b) of the Environmental Research, Development, and 
Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 4363 note) is 
amended to read as follows:
    ``(b)(1) The Administrator shall not propose, finalize, or 
disseminate a covered action unless all scientific and technical 
information relied on to support such covered action is--
            ``(A) specifically identified; and
            ``(B) publicly available in a manner that is sufficient for 
        independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research 
        results.
    ``(2) Nothing in the subsection shall be construed as requiring the 
public dissemination of information the disclosure of which is 
prohibited by law.
    ``(3) In this subsection--
            ``(A) the term `covered action' means a risk, exposure, or 
        hazard assessment, criteria document, standard, limitation, 
        regulation, regulatory impact analysis, or guidance; and
            ``(B) the term `scientific and technical information' 
        includes--
                    ``(i) materials, data, and associated protocols 
                necessary to understand, assess, and extend 
                conclusions;
                    ``(ii) computer codes and models involved in the 
                creation and analysis of such information;
                    ``(iii) recorded factual materials; and
                    ``(iv) detailed descriptions of how to access and 
                use such information.''.
                                 <all>
```
**Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 November 2007 – Commission v France**

**(Case C‐67/07)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2004/24/EC – Traditional herbal medicinal products – Community code – Failure to transpose within the prescribed period

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 7)

**Re:**

| |
| --- |
| Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt within the prescribed period of the provision necessary to comply with Directive 2004/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending, as regards traditional herbal medicinal products, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 85). |

**Operative part**

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | By failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending, as regards traditional herbal medicinal products, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | The French Republic is ordered to pay the costs. |
PERQUIMANS COUNTY by and through the Albermarle Child Support Enforcement Agency, ex. rel., Aerial L. Sehlemeyer, Plaintiff, v. Brandon S. VANHORN, Defendant.

No. COA15-562.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Aug. 2, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Vacated and Remanded.
STATE v. Adam Robert JACKSON

397A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 20, 2017

Danielle Blass, Attorney at Law, G. Glenn Gerding, Attorney at Law, Southport, for Jackson, Adam Robert.

Joseph A. Newsome, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Sarah Kirkman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

G. Glenn Gerding, Attorney at Law, Southport, Jillian C. Katz, Assistant Appellant Defender, for Jackson, Adam Robert

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 19th of January 2017 by State of NC:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of January 2017."

State of NC shall have up to and including the 3rd day of March 2017 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
Bradford M. Haigler, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

August 23, 2016

**406ORDER

Petitioner filed a motion on June 27, 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 Diane Schafer Goodstein be vested with exclusive jurisdiction over the Petitioner's Motion for Resentencing in the above-captioned matter.

Judge Goodstein 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 she may be assigned to hold court, and may schedule such hearings as may be necessary at any **407time 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 Goodstein 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