alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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 25, 2015

d0922 

# Order

Clerk September 25, 2015

151104

IN RE CERTIFIED QUESTION FROM

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF SC: 151104

APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, US COA, 9 th Circuit:

_________________________________________/ 12

- 17734

PETER DEACON, individually and on behalf

of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v

PANDORA MEDIA, INC.,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the question certified by the United States Court of Appeals

for the Ninth Circuit is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on

whether to grant the request to answer the certified question. MCR 7.30 8 ( A )( 3 ). The

parties shall file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order addressing

whether Deacon has stated a claim against Pandora for violation of the Michigan Video

Rental Privacy Act, MCL 445.1711 et seq., by adequately alleging that Pandora is in the

business of “renting” or “lending” sound recordings, and that he is a “customer” of

Pandora, because he “rents” or “borrows” sound recordings from Pandora. The parties

should not submit mere restatements of their prior filings.

The Intellectual Property Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan is invited to

file a brief amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the

issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amic us

curiae.
§ 553.11 General rules governing eligibility for interment, inurnment, and memorialization at Arlington National Cemetery. ( a ) Only those persons who meet the criteria of § 553.12 or are granted an exception to policy pursuant to § 553.22 may be interred in Arlington National Cemetery. Only those persons who meet the criteria of § 553.13 or are granted an exception to policy pursuant to § 553.22 may be inurned in Arlington National Cemetery. Only those persons who meet the criteria of § 553.14 may be interred in the Arlington National Cemetery Unmarked Area. Only those persons who meet the criteria of § 553.15 may be interred in an Arlington National Cemetery group burial. Only those persons who meet the criteria of § 553.16 may be memorialized in Arlington National Cemetery.
( b ) Derivative eligibility for interment or inurnment may be established only through a decedent's connection to a primarily eligible person and not to another derivatively eligible person.
( c ) No veteran is eligible for interment, inurnment, or memorialization in Arlington National Cemetery unless the veteran's last period of active duty ended with an honorable discharge. A general discharge under honorable conditions is not sufficient for interment, inurnment or memorialization in Arlington National Cemetery.
( d ) For purposes of determining whether a service member has received an honorable discharge, final determinations regarding discharges made in accordance with procedures established by chapter 79 of title 10, United States Code, will be considered authoritative.
( e ) The Secretary of the Army has the authority to act on requests for exceptions to the provisions of the interment, inurnment, and memorialization eligibility policies contained in this part. The Secretary of the Army may delegate this authority to the Executive Director on such terms deemed appropriate.
( f ) Individuals who do not qualify as a primarily eligible person or a derivatively eligible person, but who are granted an exception to policy to be interred or inurned pursuant to § 553.22 in a new gravesite or niche, will be treated as a primarily eligible person for purposes of this part.
( g ) Notwithstanding any other section in this part, memorialization with an individual memorial marker, interment, or inurnment in the Army National Military Cemeteries is prohibited if there is a gravesite, niche, or individual memorial marker for the decedent in any other Government-operated cemetery or the Government has provided an individual grave marker, individual memorial marker or niche cover for placement in a private cemetery.
#### § 903.775 Administrative and judicial review of decisions.

Part 775 of this chapter, *Administrative and Judicial Review of Decisions,* applies to all decisions on permits.
§ 516.10 Service of civil process within the United States. ( a ) *Policy.* DA officials will not prevent or evade the service or process in legal actions brought against the United States or against themselves in their official capacities. If acceptance of service of process would interfere with the performance of military duties, Army officials may designate a representative to accept service. DA personnel sued in their individual capacity should seek legal counsel concerning voluntary acceptance of process.
( b ) *Request for witnesses or evidence in civil proceedings.* See subpart G to this part.
( c ) *Process of Federal courts.* Subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the commander, civil officials will be permitted to serve Federal process. (See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4, 45).
( d ) *Process of state courts.* ( 1 ) In areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction that are not subject to the right to serve state process, the commander or supervisor will determine whether the individual to be served wishes to accept service voluntarily. A JA or other DA attorney will inform the individual of the legal effect of voluntary acceptance. If the individual does not desire to accept service, the party requesting service will be notified that the nature of the exclusive Federal jurisdiction precludes service by state authorities on the military installation.
( 2 ) On Federal property where the right to serve process is reserved by or granted to the state, in areas of concurrent jurisdiction, or where the United States has only a proprietary interest, Army officials asked to facilitate service of process will initially proceed as provided in the preceding subparagraph. If the individual declines to accept service, the requesting party will be allowed to serve the process in accordance with applicable state law, subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the commander.
( e ) *Process of foreign courts.* A U.S. District Court may order service upon a person who resides in the judicial district of any document issued in connection with a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal. (28 U.S.C. 1696). In addition, the U.S. State Department has the power to receive a letter rogatory issued by a foreign or international tribunal, to transmit it to a tribunal, officer or agency in the United States, and to return it after execution. (28 U.S.C. 1781). Absent a treaty or agreement to the contrary, these provisions will govern.
( f ) *Seizure of personal property.* State and Federal courts issue orders (for example, writ of attachment) authorizing a levy (seizure) of property to secure satisfaction of a judgment. DA personnel will comply with valid state or Federal court orders commanding or authorizing the seizure of private property to the same extent that state or Federal process is served.
[59 FR 38236, July 27, 1994; 59 FR 45975, Sept. 6, 1994]
§ 14.21 Laboratory-scale flame test apparatus. The principal parts of the apparatus used to test for flame resistance of conveyor belts are as follows— ( a ) A horizontal test chamber 66 inches (167.6 cm) long by 18 inches (45.7 cm) square (inside dimensions) constructed from 1 inch (2.5 cm) thick Marinite I ®, or equivalent insulating material.
( b ) A 16-gauge (0.16 cm) stainless steel duct section which tapers over a length of at least 24 inches (61 cm) from a 20 inch (51 cm) square cross-sectional area at the test chamber connection to a 12 inch (30.5 cm) diameter exhaust duct, or equivalent. The interior surface of the tapered duct section must be lined with 1 ⁄ 2 inch (1.27 cm) thick ceramic blanket insulation, or equivalent insulating material. The tapered duct must be tightly connected to the test chamber.
( c ) A U-shaped gas-fueled impinged jet burner ignition source, measuring 12 inches (30.5 cm) long and 4 inches (10.2 cm) wide, with two parallel rows of 6 jets each. Each jet is spaced alternately along the U-shaped burner tube. The 2 rows of jets are slanted so that they point toward each other and the flame from each jet impinges upon each other in pairs. The burner fuel must be at least 98 percent methane (technical grade) or natural gas containing at least 96 percent combustible gases, which includes not less than 93 percent methane.
( d ) A removable steel rack, consisting of 2 parallel rails and supports that form a 7 ± 1 ⁄ 8 inches (17.8 ±0.3 cm) wide by 60 ± 1 ⁄ 8 inches (152.4 ±0.3 cm) long assembly to hold a belt sample. ( 1 ) The 2 parallel rails, with a 5 ± 1 ⁄ 8 inches (12.7 ±0.3 cm) space between them, comprise the top of the rack. The rails and supports must be constructed of slotted angle iron with holes along the top surface.
( 2 ) The top surface of the rack must be 8 ± 1 ⁄ 8 inches (20.3 ±0.3 cm) from the inside roof of the test chamber.
#### In the Matter of Eleanor Varden, Petitioner, v John E. Wertime, as Treasurer of Warren County, Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered in Warren County) to review a determination of respondent which dismissed petitioner from her job pursuant to section 75 of the Civil Service Law. Petitioner began work in respondent Warren County Treasurer’s office in January of 1966. On May 1, 1975 respondent filed a written complaint charging petitioner with insubordination to her immediate supervisor and refusal to take orders, repeated absences from her work on personal business without authorization, and failing to report to her desk after punching in on the time clock. After a disciplinary hearing was held pursuant to section 75 of the Civil Service Law, respondent dismissed petitioner as an employee of Warren County. The record contains substantial evidence supporting the charges preferred against petitioner. Under the circumstances, we do not find the penalty of dismissal excessive. Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Staley, Jr., and Larkin, JJ., concur.
#### DONNIE EARL ROBBINS v. FRANKLIN FREEMAN, Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Correction, in his official capacity; JUANITA BAKER, Chairman of the North Carolina Parole Commission, in her official capacity; ELBERT BUCK, WILLIAM A. LOWRY, CHARLES L. MANN, SR., and PEGGY STAMEY, Members of the North Carolina Parole Commission, in their official capacities

No. 416PA97

(Filed 6 March 1998)

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a decision of the Court of Appeals, 127 N.C. App. 162, 487 S.E.2d 771 (1997), reversing an order entered by Jenkins, J., on 9 January 1996 in Superior Court, Wake County. Heard in the Supreme Court 11 February 1998.

*George B. Currin for plaintiff-appellee.*

*Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, by David F. Hoke and Elizabeth F. Parsons, Assistant Attorneys General, for defendant-appellants.*

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Catherine Schurmann, Respondent. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Appellant.

Motion granted, fee fixed at $150 and disbursements allowed in the sum of $20.90.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-11-00124-CV

MICHAEL V. PISHKO,

Appellant

v.

DR. LALE YURTTAS,

Appellee

From the 361st District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10-003350-CV-361

No. 10-11-00125-CV

N.K. ANAND,

Appellant

v.

DR. LALE YURTTAS,

Appellee

From the 272nd District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10-003351-CV-272
Pishko v. Yurttas Page 2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The appellant in each of these two cases has appealed the respective trial court’s 

order allowing Appellee to take their presuit depositions pursuant to Rule of Civil 

Procedure 202. Appellants also sought mandamus relief from the trial court orders in 

separate but practically identical original proceedings, and today we have denied 

mandamus relief in the original proceedings.

“Presuit deposition orders are appealable only if sought from someone against 

whom suit is not anticipated.” In re Jorden, 249 S.W.3d 416, 419 (Tex. 2008). That is, if 

the order allows the presuit deposition of a person against whom suit is contemplated, 

the order is interlocutory and there is no appellate jurisdiction. Thomas v. Fitzgerald, 166 

S.W.3d 746, 747-48 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005, no pet.). 

In the trial courts and in the original proceedings, Appellee has taken the 

position that she is investigating potential claims against not only her employer, but 

also against the Appellants. Because Appellee contemplates or anticipates a possible 

suit against Appellants, the trial courts’ orders are interlocutory, and these appeals are 

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and 

Justice Scoggins

Appeals dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed July 20, 2011

[CV06]
### SUBCHAPTER XV—GENERAL PROVISIONS
#### In the Matter of Suzanne Danis, Respondent, v Melvin Stillerman, Appellant.

In a proceeding pursuant to the Uniform Support of Dependents Law (Domestic Relations Law, art 3-A), the father appeals (by permission) from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County, dated June 12, 1978, which denied his motion to dismiss the petition. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Petitioner, the former wife of the appellant, instituted this proceeding in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida, under Florida’s Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA), to compel support payments for the parties’ 18-year-old son. The proceeding was transferred to the Family Court, Westchester County, pursuant to the Uniform Support of Dependents Law (USDL). Subdivision 2 of section 35 of the Domestic Relations Law, the pertinent provision of the USDL, provides: "A proceeding to compel support of a dependent may be maintained under this article in any of the following cases: * * * 2. Where the petitioner resides in one state and the respondent is a resident of or is domiciled or found in another state having substantially similar or reciprocal laws.” The appellant moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the URESA and the USDL are not "substantially similar or reciprocal” and the Family Court thus lacked jurisdiction. The appellant argued that since the Florida law did not require him to support a child who had turned 18, and the New York statute required him to continue support payments until the child turned 21, the statutes were not substantially similar or reciprocal. The Family Court’s rejection of this argument and denial of the motion to dismiss were correct. Support proceedings commenced under Florida’s URESA have previously been transferred, *819without jurisdictional defect, to Family Courts in New York State pursuant to the USDL (see, e.g., *Matter of De Filipo v De Filipo,*45 AD2d 710). The substantial similarity or reciprocity of the statutes is not undermined by the existence of dissimilar provisions *(Martin v Martin,*58 Mise 2d 459, 461; *Matter of County of Santa Clara, State of Calif, v Hughes,*43 Mise 2d 559, 564; but see *Spong v Eckelberger,*89 Mise 2d 1008). We believe, under the facts of this case, that the substantive law of New York should govern (see Fla Stats, § 88.081). Latham, J. P., Rabin, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.
### §488c. Administrative provisions

#### (a) Cooperative agreements

The Secretary—

(1) may enter into a cooperative agreement with the Secretary of Agriculture, or the head of any State department of agriculture or its designee involved in agricultural regulation, in consultation with the State agency responsible for homeland security, to carry out the provisions of this part; and

(2) wherever possible, shall seek to cooperate with State agencies or their designees that oversee ammonium nitrate facility operations when seeking cooperative agreements to implement the registration and enforcement provisions of this part.

#### (b) Delegation

#### (1) Authority

The Secretary may delegate to a State the authority to assist the Secretary in the administration and enforcement of this part.

#### (2) Delegation required

At the request of a Governor of a State, the Secretary shall delegate to that State the authority to carry out functions under sections 488a and 488b of this title, if the Secretary determines that the State is capable of satisfactorily carrying out such functions.

#### (3) Funding

Subject to the availability of appropriations, if the Secretary delegates functions to a State under this subsection, the Secretary shall provide to that State sufficient funds to carry out the delegated functions.

#### (c) Provision of guidance and notification materials to ammonium nitrate facilities

#### (1) Guidance

The Secretary shall make available to each owner of an ammonium nitrate facility registered under section 488a(c)(1) of this title guidance on—

(A) the identification of suspicious ammonium nitrate purchases or transfers or attempted purchases or transfers;

(B) the appropriate course of action to be taken by the ammonium nitrate facility owner with respect to such a purchase or transfer or attempted purchase or transfer, including—

(i) exercising the right of the owner of the ammonium nitrate facility to decline sale of ammonium nitrate; and

(ii) notifying appropriate law enforcement entities; and

(C) additional subjects determined appropriate to prevent the misappropriation or use of ammonium nitrate in an act of terrorism.

#### (2) Use of materials and programs

In providing guidance under this subsection, the Secretary shall, to the extent practicable, leverage any relevant materials and programs.

#### (3) Notification materials

#### (A) In general

The Secretary shall make available materials suitable for posting at locations where ammonium nitrate is sold.

#### (B) Design of materials

Materials made available under subparagraph (A) shall be designed to notify prospective ammonium nitrate purchasers of—

(i) the record-keeping requirements under section 488a of this title; and

(ii) the penalties for violating such requirements.

(Pub. L. 107–296, title VIII, §899D, as added Pub. L. 110–161, div. E, title V, §563(a), Dec. 26, 2007, 121 Stat. 2087.)
#### IN RE APPLICATION BY C & P ENTERPRISES, INC.

No. 347P97

Case below: 126 N.C.App. 495

Petition by petitioner (C&P Enterprises) for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 September 1997.
Exhibit
21





SUBSIDIARIES
OF THE REGISTRANT





SUBSIDIARIES
OF HURCO COMPANIES, INC.





JurisdictionName
                              
                              Of IncorporationHurco
      B.V.
                              
                              the
      NetherlandsHurco
      Europe Limited
                              
                              United
      KingdomHurco
      GmbH
                              
                              Federal
      Republic of GermanyHurco
      Manufacturing Ltd.
                              
                              Taiwan
      R.O.C.Hurco
      S.a.r.l.
                              
                              FranceHurco
      S.r.l.
                              
                              ItalyHurco
      (S.E. Asia) Pte Ltd.
                              
                              SingaporeNingbo
      Hurco Machine Tool Company, Ltd.
                              
                              China





The
foregoing list does not include other subsidiaries which, individually or in the
aggregate, did not constitute a significant subsidiary as of October 31,
2009.
No. 01-14-00216-CV 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

HOUSTON, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

Victor Elgohary and Victor Elgohary, Representatively on behalf of Lakes on 

Eldridge North Community Association, Inc.,

Appellants, 

v.

Lakes on Eldridge North Community Association, Inc., RealManage, LLC; Darla 

Kitchen, Don Byrnes, Michael Ecklund, Laura Vasallo Lee, John Kane, Julie Ann 

Bennett, Rick Hawthorne, Cara Davis; Christi Keller, Jim Flanary, Jill Richardson, 

Neil McLaurin, Walter Spears

Appellees. 

APPELLANTS’ MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING

TO THE HONORABLE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS: 

Appellants ask the Court to extend the time to file their brief.

A. INTRODUCTION

1. Appellants are Victor Elgohary and Victor Elgohary, 

ACCEPTED

01-14-00216-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

12/30/2015 6:40:05 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 12/30/2015 6:40:05 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
Representatively on behalf of Lakes on Eldridge North Community Association, Inc.

2. Appellees are Lakes on Eldridge North Community Association, 

Inc., RealManage, LLC; Darla Kitchen, Don Byrnes, Michael Ecklund, Laura Vasallo 

Lee, John Kane, Julie Ann Bennett, Rick Hawthorne, Cara Davis; Christi Keller, Jim 

Flanary, Jill Richardson, Neil McLaurin, Walter Spears.

3. The deadline to file this motion is December 31, 2015. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 49.8.

4. This motion is partially agreed, but not as to length of time.

B. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES

5. The Court has the authority under Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure Tex. R. App. P. 49.8 to extend the time to file the motion for rehearing.

6. Appellants’ motion for rehearing is due on January 4, 2016.

7. Appellants request an additional 31 days to file their brief, extending 

the time until February 1, 2016.

8. No prior extension has been granted to extend the time to file 

Appellants’ motion for rehearing.

9. Appellants need additional time to file their brief because numerous 

other client deadlines have delayed appellants’ ability to complete their motion.
C. Prayer

10. For these reasons, Appellants ask the Court to grant an extension of 

time to file their motion until February 1, 2016.

______________________________

VICTOR S. ELGOHARY

State Bar No. 24067587

6406 Arcadia Bend Ct

Houston, Texas 77041-6222

Phone (281) 858-0014

Attorney for Appellants
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I certify that I have conferred with James McConn on December 16, 2014 and he 

indicated that he is unopposed to an extension but would prefer that extensions be granted in 

two week increments since he has not conferred with his clients on this issue.

______________________________

Victor S. Elgohary

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of Motion to Extend Time to File the Brief was served on 

Appellees, through counsel of record, James McConn, LeClairRyan, 1233 West Loop South, 

Suite 1000, Houston, Texas 77027 through the e-filing manager on December 30, 2015.

______________________________

Victor S. Elgohary