alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit21.1**

**Magnetek, Inc.**

**Subsidiariesof the Registrant as of July 1, 2007**

The following list ofsubsidiaries of Magnetek, Inc. indicates the jurisdiction of organization.
| ** **                                           | ** ** | **Jurisdiction of** | ** ** | **Status at**    |
|------------------------------------------------------|------------|---------------------|------------|------------------|
| **Name**                                             | ** ** | **Incorporation**   | ** ** | **July 1, 2007** |
| Magnetek, Inc.                                       |       | Delaware            |       | Active           |
| Magnetek Mondel Holding, Inc. (1)                    |       | Delaware            |       | Active           |
| Magnetek Alternative Energy, Inc. (1)                |       | Delaware            |       | Active           |
| Magnetek (U.K.) Limited (1)                          |       | England             |       | Active           |
| Mondel ULC (3)                                       |       | Canada              |       | Active           |
| Magnetek National Electric Coil, Inc. (1)            |       | Delaware            |       | Inactive         |
| Magnetek de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (2)                 |       | Mexico              |       | Inactive         |
| Manufacturas Electricas de Reynosa, S.A. de C.V. (2) |       | Mexico              |       | Inactive         |
| Mejor Electronica de Mexico S.A. de C.V. (2)         |       | Mexico              |       | Inactive         |
| Servicio de Guarderas, S.C. (2)                      |       | Mexico              |       | Inactive         |
| Magnetek Service (U.K.) Limited (1)                  |       | England             |       | In liquidation   |

 

----

(1)          100% owned by Magnetek,Inc.

(2)          99% owned by Magnetek,Inc.

(3)          100% owned by MagnetekMondel Holding, Inc.

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN RE: UPSET SALE, TAX CLAIM 

BUREAU OF TIOGA COUNTY, CONTROL 

NO. 012488 (MARTIN J. OSTAPOWICZ)

PETITION OF: MARTIN J. OSTAPOWICZ

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 62 MAL 2024

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth 

Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 1st day of July, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

GRANTED. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:

(1) Did the courts below err in affirming a county tax sale of real estate where 

the successful bid at the sale of [p]etitioner’s home was approximately 18 

percent of its appraised fair market value?

The parties are requested to discuss First Federal Savings and Loan Association 

of Lancaster v. Swift, 321 A.2d 895 (Pa. 1974), in their briefing to this Court.
No. 10796.

#### The Crystal Ice Manufacturing & Cold Storage Co. *v.*Pletsch & Sutton.

Decided January 19, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Franklin county.

*Mr. Walter B.*Page, for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. John L. Davies,*for defendant in error.

Judgment reversed. Grounds stated in journal entry.

*461It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said circuit be, and the same is hereby, reversed, and this court proceeding to render the judgment which said circuit court should have rendered, it is considered and adjudged that the judgment of the court of common pleas be, and it hereby is reversed for error in refusing to give to the jury the second instruction requested.

Crew, C. J., Summers, Spear, Davis and Shauck, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-01-1997
<CASH>                                          331000
<SECURITIES>                                 124708000
<RECEIVABLES>                                 66652000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  292105000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             512327000
<PP&E>                                      1560749000
<DEPRECIATION>                               703402000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              1500429000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        369980000
<BONDS>                                      173719000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                      62689000
<OTHER-SE>                                   811984000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                1500429000
<SALES>                                     2807649000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            2807649000
<CGS>                                       2018546000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               2750306000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            13363000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               57343000
<INCOME-TAX>                                  22563000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           34780000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  34780000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .57
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Michael LEGGETT v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden Orleans Parish Prison.

No. 61997.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 5, 1978.

In re: Michael Leggett, applying for remedial writs. Parish of Orleans.

*1162Writ denied. Applicant may supplement the assignments of error filed by the attorney appointed to assist him, and he may brief them. However, John M. Lawrence is appointed to advise the appellant on this appeal.
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 9
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 9
EPA SANITIZED

Page 3 of 9
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 9
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 9
 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 9
EPA SANITIZED Page 7 of 9
EPA SANITIZED Page 8 of 9
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 9 of 9
#### R. J. GALLAGHER COMPANY v. LENT, INC.

No. 12038.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

July 10, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 31, 1978.

Writ Refused Oct. 26, 1978.

. See also, La.App., 361 So.2d 1231.

Stephen K. Peters, Baton Rouge, of counsel for plaintiff-appellee R. J. Gallagher Co.

Donald Smith, Baton Rouge, of counsel for defendant-appellant Lent, Inc.

Before LANDRY, SARTAIN and ELLIS, JJ.

ELLIS, Judge.

R. J. Gallagher Company, judgment creditor of Lent, Inc., a corporation, filed a motion to examine Lent as a judgment debtor, praying that Arman Melikyan, president of Lent, be ordered to appear on behalf of the corporation.

Mr. Melikyan filed a motion to vacate the subpoena on the ground that he is not the judgment debtor, and should not be required to appear on behalf of the corporate debtor. After a hearing on the latter motion, the trial court denied the motion to vacate the subpoena. From that judgment, Mr. Melikyan has perfected a suspensive appeal.

Article 2451 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides:

> “In aid of execution the judgment creditor may examine the judgment debtor, his books, papers, or documents, upon any matter relating to his property, either as provided in Articles 1421 through 1515 or as provided in Articles 2452 through 2456.”

Mr. Melikyan argues that, since only the judgment debtor can be examined under the above provision, he cannot be compelled to testify about the affairs of the corporation.

The argument is without merit. Corporate debtors can testify only through their officers, and if we were to give effect to Mr. Melikyan’s argument, it would have the effect of exempting corporations from the provisions of Article 2451 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure. See *Continental Supply Co. v. International Gas Products,*176 La. 1, 145 So. 119 (1932).

The judgment appealed from is affirmed. All costs are to be paid by defendant.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Amended and Restated Quarterly Report of Hemispherx
Biopharma, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the fiscal quarter ended
March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the “Report”), I, William A. Carter, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) The Report fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





(2) The information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
result of operations of the Company.





Date:
February 11, 2011





/s/ William A. CarterWilliam
      A. Carter, M.D.Chief
      Executive Officer
#### CONFEDERATION LIFE ASSOCIATION, a Canadian corporation, Petitioner, Cross-Respondent, v. Reyes Arida CONTE, Respondent, Cross-Petitioner.

No. 41888.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 4, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 254 So.2d 45.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., dissent.
257 La. 854

#### Edna Stewart KINCHEN v. Leonard KINCHEN, individually, Coy Kinchen, Inc., and Jackson W. Ratcliff.

No. 50954.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 25, 1970.

In re: Edna Stewart Kinchen applying for certiorari or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Livingston. 244 So.2d 316.

The application is not considered. The Court of Appeal refused to consider the application for rehearing filed with it for the reason that it was filed too late.
# C_2021228EN.01002102.xml

| 14.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken (Germany) lodged on 23 March 2021 — Maxxus Group GmbH & Co. KG v Globus Holding GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-183/21)

(2021/C 228/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Saarbrücken

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Maxxus Group GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Globus Holding GmbH & Co. KG

Question referred

Are Directive 2008/95/EC, (1) in particular in Article 12, and

Directive (EU) 2015/2436, (2) in particular in Articles 16, 17 and 19,

to be interpreted as meaning that the effet utile of those provisions prohibits an interpretation of national procedural law which

| 1. | imposes on the applicant in civil proceedings for cancellation of a national registered trade mark on grounds of revocation for non-use a burden of raising and presenting an issue, as distinguished from the burden of proof; and |
| --- | --- |

1.

imposes on the applicant in civil proceedings for cancellation of a national registered trade mark on grounds of revocation for non-use a burden of raising and presenting an issue, as distinguished from the burden of proof; and

| 2. | requires the applicant, in the context of that burden of raising and presenting an issue,






  a. | to make, in such proceedings, substantiated submissions regarding the defendant’s non-use of the trade mark, to the extent that it is possible for the applicant to do so; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

requires the applicant, in the context of that burden of raising and presenting an issue,

a.

to make, in such proceedings, substantiated submissions regarding the defendant’s non-use of the trade mark, to the extent that it is possible for the applicant to do so; and

| b. | to carry out, for that purpose, its own research into the market, in a manner which is appropriate to the request for cancellation and to the specific nature of the trade mark concerned. |
| --- | --- |

b.

to carry out, for that purpose, its own research into the market, in a manner which is appropriate to the request for cancellation and to the specific nature of the trade mark concerned.

---

(1)  Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (Codified version) (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25).

(2)  Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2015 L 336, p. 1).

---
H. Res. 396

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

March 23, 1994.

Resolved, That the powers and duties conferred upon the

chairman of the Committee on Appropriations by the rules of

the House shall be exercised by Representative Obey of Wisconsin, as acting chairman, until otherwise ordered by the

House.

Attest:

Clerk.
# C_2020240EN.01003301.xml

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/33

---

Action brought on 29 May 2020 — Electrodomesticos Taurus v EUIPO — Shenzhen Aukey E-Business (AICOOK)

(Case T-328/20)

(2020/C 240/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Electrodomesticos Taurus, SL (Oliana, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Shenzhen Aukey E-Business Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of the EU word mark AICOOK No 17 174 236

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 March 2020 in Case R 2212/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | declare the use of the opposing trade mark to have been established in relation to ‘Food processors’ in Class 7; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the use of the opposing trade mark to have been established in relation to ‘Food processors’ in Class 7;

| — | refuse registration of trade mark No 17 174 236 on account of its similarity to the opposing mark; |
| --- | --- |

—

refuse registration of trade mark No 17 174 236 on account of its similarity to the opposing mark;

| — | and, subsidiarily, to avoid registration of that trade mark, declare that the use of the opposing trade mark has been established in relation to ‘Food processors’ in Class 7; |
| --- | --- |

—

and, subsidiarily, to avoid registration of that trade mark, declare that the use of the opposing trade mark has been established in relation to ‘Food processors’ in Class 7;

| — | order EUIPO’s Opposition Division to adopt a decision in relation to opposition B 3006619 (MUE No 17 174 236 AICOOK) finding that the use of the opposing trade mark has been established in relation to ‘Food processors’ in Class 7. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO’s Opposition Division to adopt a decision in relation to opposition B 3006619 (MUE No 17 174 236 AICOOK) finding that the use of the opposing trade mark has been established in relation to ‘Food processors’ in Class 7.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
#### Louis K. NASSER, Appellant, v. Amy B. NASSER, Appellee.

No. 73-756.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 7, 1974.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Martin County; C. Pfeiffer Trowbridge, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements of Golden Triangle Industries, Inc. for the period
ended March 31, 2000, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<CIK> 0000042284
<NAME> GOLDEN TRIANGLE INDUSTRIES, INC.


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       1,138,529
<SECURITIES>                                    63,975
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,499,855
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (985,896)
<INVENTORY>                                    217,560
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,116,823
<PP&E>                                       5,179,538
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,356,706)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,904,799
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,437
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      4,105
<COMMON>                                           768
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,883,489
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,904,799
<SALES>                                        369,490
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               369,548
<CGS>                                          264,527
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  105,021
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               197,903
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (6,492)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,226,445
<INCOME-TAX>                                   325,803
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            900,642
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   900,642
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.12
#### Derta ARDOIN v. Felix BORDELON et al.

No. 54194.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 14, 1973.

In re: Felix Bordelon and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of St. Landry. 284 So.2d 117.

Writ denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal the result is correct.
#### Thomas Leon FRANCIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-867.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 28, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit
      23.1 Consent of
      Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm.







CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





The
      Board
      of Directors


Earth
      Search Sciences, Inc.


Lakeside,
      Montana





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
      Form
      S-8 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2003 (File
      No.
      333-106630) of our opinion, relating to the consolidated financial statements
      appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Earth Search Sciences, Inc.
      for
      the year ended March 31, 2007.








/s/
      Malone & Bailey, PC


Houston,
      Texas


www.malone-bailey.com
#### DICKSON & DICKSON *vs.*LEWIS & GRAHAM.

On an application to continue a cause for the absence of a material witness, if injustice be likely to result from the delay, the court will require the party to disclose what he expects to prove hy the absent witness, in order that the other party may admit it if he choose.

Action of assumpsit.

Motion to continue the cause on the affidavit of John Lewis, one of the defendants, that Elijah McDowell, whom he has lately discovered to be an important witness, is absent, and that he could not *290safely go to trial at this term without the benefit of his testimony, which he believes he can procure at the next term.

The plaintiffs filed a counter affidavit, that defendants w'ere indebted to them in the sum of $800 and upwards, and that they believed they were in danger of losing their debt if the cause was continued ; and, on this counter affidavit, *Bates,*of counsel for plaintiffs, moved the court that the defendant be required to disclose, on his oath, what fact or facts he expected to prove by Elijah McDowell, in order that he might admit them if he could safely do so.

*Frame*and *Laws,*for the motion.

*Bates,*contra.

*The Court*

said that applications of this kind were directed to the equitable consideration of the court, and governed by a legal discretion, in order to effect the ends of justice. The defendant has by his affidavit laid a ground upon which the courts usually grant a continuance. Yet as the plaintiff, by his counter affidavit, suggests that injustice may be done by the continuance, and proposes a mode by which the defendant may now have the benefit of what he expects to prove by his absent witness, it is but reasonable that the defendant should be required to disclose the facts.

Lewis then, on his oath, stated that he expected to prove by McDowell, that he set up public notice of dissolution of the partnership of Lewis & Graham in March, 1835, which being admitted, the motion for continuance was refused.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk December 21, 2009

y1214 

# Order

December 21, 2009

138622(48)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138622 COA: 281940 St Clair CC: 07-000192-FC AJENE MARK JORDAN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for re consideration of this Court’s September 28, 2009 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it doe s not appear that the order was entered erroneously.
No. 10848.

#### Johnson et al. *v.*Thomas et al., Exrs., et al.

Decided October 20, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Columbiana county.

*Mr. J. C. Boone*and *Mr. S. W.*Ramsey, for plaintiffs in error.

*Mr. C. S. Speaker; Mr. George Duncan*and *Mr. J. G.*Mqore, for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, C. J., Sitauck, Crew, Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.
No. 10553.

#### Campbell et al. *v.*McCue et al.

Decided December 1, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

*Messrs. Douglass & Workman; Mr. Frank O. I.evering; Mr. S. H. Gottshall*and *Messrs. Sq'uire, Sanders & Dempsey,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Messrs.*Solders, *Thayer, Mansñeld & Day,*for defendants in error.

Former judgment adhered to.

Price, C. J., Spiauck, Summers and Spear, JJ., concur.