Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al

Filing 900

NOTICE by Apple Inc.(a California corporation) Translations of Foreign Authority (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit 7, #8 Exhibit 8, #9 Exhibit 9, #10 Exhibit 10, #11 Exhibit 11, #12 Exhibit 12, #13 Exhibit 13, #14 Exhibit 14, #15 Exhibit 15, #16 Exhibit 16, #17 Exhibit 17, #18 Exhibit 18, #19 Exhibit 19, #20 Exhibit 20, #21 Exhibit 21, #22 Exhibit 22, #23 Exhibit 23, #24 Exhibit 24, #25 Exhibit 25, #26 Exhibit 26, #27 Exhibit 27, #28 Exhibit 28, #29 Exhibit 29, #30 Exhibit 30, #31 Exhibit 31, #32 Exhibit 32, #33 Exhibit 33, #34 Exhibit 34, #35 Exhibit 35, #36 Exhibit 36, #37 Exhibit 37, #38 Exhibit 38, #39 Exhibit 39, #40 Exhibit 40, #41 Exhibit 41, #42 Exhibit 42, #43 Exhibit 43, #44 Exhibit 44, #45 Exhibit 45, #46 Exhibit 46, #47 Exhibit 47, #48 Exhibit 48, #49 Exhibit 49, #50 Exhibit 50, #51 Exhibit 51, #52 Exhibit 52, #53 Exhibit 53, #54 Exhibit 54, #55 Exhibit 55, #56 Exhibit 56, #57 Exhibit 57, #58 Exhibit 58, #59 Exhibit 59, #60 Exhibit 60, #61 Exhibit 61, #62 Exhibit 62, #63 Exhibit 63)(Selwyn, Mark) (Filed on 5/7/2012)

Download PDF
Exhibit 32 On: 12/23/2011 Court of cassation Civil chamber 3 Public hearing of February 25, 1971 Appeal no.: 69-12549 Published in the bulletin REJECTION PRES: MR. DE MONTERA, president RPR MR. BEL, reporting judge ADV. GEN. MR. LAGUERRE, advocate general Plaintiff ATTORNEYS. MARTIN-MARTINIERE, attorney(s) FRENCH REPUBLIC IN THE NAME OF THE FRENCH PEOPLE ON THE SINGLE GROUND: WHEREAS ASSOCIATES Y... BRING COMPLAINT AGAINST THE CHALLENGED JUDGMENT, WHICH DETERMINED THAT THE COUPLE X... WERE HOLDERS OF A FARMING LEASE ON TWO PASTURES BELONGING TO THEM, FOR HAVING MISREPRESENTED THE FACTS AND DISTORTED THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED WITH THE RESULT THAT THE PARTIES HAD NOT ABLE TO COME TO AGREEMENT ON THE PRICE OF THE LEASE; BUT WHEREAS, AFTER RECALLING THAT, BY THE RULING OF JUNE 18, 1968, WHICH BECAME IRREVOCABLE, THE COURT OF RURAL LEASES HAD RULED THAT THE BEGINNING OF EXECUTION OF A NON-WRITTEN LEASE MADE ON THE TWO ABOVE-MENTIONED PARCELS WAS ESTABLISHED BY COUPLE X..., THE COURT OF APPEAL, ASSESSING ITSELF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TESTIMONIES HEARD IN THE COURSE OF THE INVESTIGATION ORDERED BY THE COURT, DECIDED THAT THEY PROVED THE EXISTENCE OF A LEASE, WHOSE PRICE HOWEVER WAS NOT DETERMINED; WHEREAS, THEN, IT MADE A PROPER APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1716 OF THE CIVIL CODE IN APPOINTING EXPERTS Z..., TO SET THE AMOUNT THEREOF: THUS, WITHOUT DISTORTING ANY DOCUMENTS OR COMMITTING AN ERROR OF CLASSIFICATION, THE APPEAL COURT JUDGES GAVE A LEGAL BASIS TO THEIR DECISION; FOR THESE REASONS: REJECTS THE APPEAL BROUGHT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON APRIL 29, 1969 BY THE CAEN COURT OF APPEAL; Publication: Bulletin of the judgments of the Court of Cassation, Civil Chamber 3, No. 135, P. 97. Decision challenged: Caen Court of Appeal of April 29, 1969 Headings and summaries: LEASES IN GENERAL – VERBAL LEASES – PRICE – SETTING – EXPERT OPINION. MADE A PROPER APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 1716 OF THE CIVIL CODE. THE DECISION WHICH APPOINTS EXPERTS TO SET THE PRICE OF A VERBAL LEASE WHEN IT HAS BEEN IRREVOCABLY RULED BY A PREVIOUS DECISION THAT ITS EXECUTION HAD BEGUN AND THAT THE INVESTIGATION ORDERED GAVE PROOF OF ITS EXISTENCE. Case-law precedents: CF. Court of Cassation (Social chamber) 1956-01-05, Bulletin 1956 IV No. 3 P. 2 (QUASHING) Texts applied: Civil code 1716

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?