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)

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