Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Emmert Industrial Corp. v. Douglass, 130 Or App 267, 269, 881 P2d 827, rev den 320 Or 325 (1994) (court’s first inquiry is whether order appealed from is appealable, even if neither party raises question). For the reasons that follow, we conclude that we have jurisdiction under section 16(a)(1)(A) of the FAA, which provides that “[a]n appeal may be taken from * * * an order * * * refusing a stay of any action under section 3 of this title.” When federal claims are brought in state courts, “state courts are bound to follow federal substantive law but are free to follow their own practices as to matters which are strictly procedural.” Geris v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 277 Or 381, 383, 561 P2d 174 (1977); see also Felder v. Casey, 487 US 131, 138, 108 S Ct 2302, 101 L Ed 2d 123 (1988) (<HOLDING>). State courts, however, may not follow state 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the rules governing criminal cases apply to  3582c2 proceedings (B) recognizing that states may establish procedural rules governing litigation in their own courts (C) holding that the rules governing interpretation of a lease are the same as those governing interpretation of a contract (D) holding that states likewise retain immunity from private suit in their own courts which congress may not abrogate by article i legislation (E) recognizing strong preference that children live in their own homes with their own families
Output (English): holding that states likewise retain immunity from private suit in their own courts which congress may not abrogate by article i legislation