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

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

 October 23, 2019

Order 

Clerk

October 23, 2019

159744-5(59)

MICHAEL J. LONG, Personal Representative

of the ESTATE OF MICHAEL KNUDSEN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant- Appellee, SC: 159744

v COA: 341412

Grand Traverse CC: 2016-031437-NM

GEOFFREY FIEGER and FIEGER LAW, PC,

Defendants/Counter- Plaintiffs/Third-Party

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

and

RICHARD M GOODMAN, GOODMAN

KALAHAR, DEAN A ROBB, and DEAN ROBB

LAW FIRM,

Third-Party Defendants-Appellees. 

__________________________________________/

ZACHARY ALLEN KOTT-MILLARD, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant- Appellee,

SC: 159745

v COA: 341414

Grand Traverse CC: 

 2016- 031442-NM

GEOFFREY FIEGER and FIEGER LAW, PC,

Defendants/Counter- Plaintiffs/Third-Party

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

and

RICHARD M GOODMAN, GOODMAN

KALAHAR, DEAN A ROBB, and DEAN ROBB

LAW FIRM,

Third-Party Defendants-Appellees. 

__________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of appellants to extend the time for filing 

their reply is GRANTED. The reply will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or 

before November 7, 2019.
1

Pallarino, Bob

From: Poentis, Aaron Y CIV NAVFAC HI, EV <aaron.poentis@navy.mil>

Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 6:24 PM

To: Richard Takaba (richard.takaba@doh.hawaii.gov); roxanne.kwan@doh.hawaii.gov

Cc: Kishaba, Raelynn I CIV NAVFAC HI, EV4; Shimabuku, June T. CIV NAVFAC HI, EV4; 

Tsutsui, Bruce O CIV NAVFAC HI, OPHE3; Mizuno, Arleen M CIV NAVFAC HI, PRJ412; 

Lovgren, Andrew C LCDR, NAVSUP FLCPH C700; stuart.yamada@doh.hawaii.gov;

steven.chang@doh.hawaii.gov; Pallarino, Bob; Linder, Steven

Subject: RED HILL STATUS REPORT - January 27, 2015

Signed By: aaron.poentis@navy.mil

Hi Richard/Roxanne: 

Attached are the updated information for the weekly progress report from Navy Region Hawaii, and the Fleet Logistic 

Center Pearl Harbor for the week of January 27, 2015. In a process to ease reading, only sections with changes will be 

annotated. 

1. Preliminary Work Plan 

Action complete. 

2. Release Response Action Items (initiate immediately, complete as soon as practicable) 

a. Action 1 - Provide a schedule for the ventilation of Tank 5 and an estimated date to commence the investigation 

of release point(s) within Tank 5. 

Action complete. 

b. Action 2 - The rate of vertical migration for the released JP-8 free product is unknown. Information from the 

previously collected basalt cores could be used for initial modeling of vertical migration. This information is necessary to 

protect drinking water resources from petroleum contamination. Prepare models for petroleum JP-8 releases of 10,000, 

20,000 and 30,000 gallons from points at 25% intervals from the bottom to the top of Tank 5. 

No change. 

c. Action 3 - Removal of petroleum free product from the area outside the tank will reduce downward migration of 

the released JP-8 free product. Characterization of the free product plume and recovery of free product with increased 

monitoring are required to address this plume. 

No change. 

d. Action 4 - Additional studies and procedures are required to address the potential and impact of any future 

releases from the USTs within the Complex. This will require new financial and personnel resources to complete. 

Funding for the preliminary work plan and all necessary following work is critical. 

d.(1) Groundwater Monitoring Wells 

Groundwater samples were collected from the two new wells on January 23, 2015. The remaining groundwater 

monitoring wells will be sampled on January 27 and 28, 2015. 

d.(2) Site Characterization 
2

No change. 

d.(3) AOC/SOW 

Discussions are ongoing. 

d.(4) Request for Additional Information 

No change. 

d.(5) BWS/USGS Groundwater Flow Study 

No change. 

Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions. 

v/r, 

Aaron
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         340,805
<SECURITIES>                                    28,575
<RECEIVABLES>                                  778,375
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    298,084
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,475,905
<PP&E>                                      23,378,738
<DEPRECIATION>                            (18,090,230)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,912,739
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          863,031
<BONDS>                                      1,653,757
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        40,123
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,190,828
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,912,739
<SALES>                                      2,192,031
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,224,030
<CGS>                                        1,173,626
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,833,313
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             124,233
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                266,484
<INCOME-TAX>                                    25,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            241,484
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   241,484
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
23.1





Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-3 Nos. 333-110460, 333-115724, 333-15933, 333-24187 and 333-28415)
of Magnetek, Inc. and in the related Prospectuses, and in the Registration
Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 33-58929, 333-04021, 333-17889, 333-45935,
333-45939, 333-90645, 333-90647, 333-75418, 333-129362 and 333-146898)
pertaining to the Amended and Restated 1989 Incentive Stock Compensation Plan of
Magnetek, Inc., Magnetek, Inc. Non-Employee Director Stock Option
Plan, Magnetek, Inc. Deferral Investment Plan, Magnetek, Inc. 1997
Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan, Magnetek, Inc. Amended and
Restated Director Compensation and Deferral Investment Plan, 1999 Stock
Incentive Plan of Magnetek, Inc., 2000 Employee Stock Plan of
Magnetek, Inc., Magnetek, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan and 1999 Stock
Incentive Plan of Magnetek, Inc., 2004 Stock Incentive Plan of Magnetek, Inc.
and Executive Employment Agreement for Thomas G. Boren, and the Amended and
Restated Director and Officer Compensation and Deferral Investment Plan, of our
reports dated August 31, 2009, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedule of Magnetek, Inc. listed
in Item 15(a) and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting
of Magnetek, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended June 27, 2010.











/s/
      Ernst & Young LLPMilwaukee,
      Wisconsin





Date:
August 31, 2010
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

YUSUF R. BROWN,

Petitioner

v.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF

LANCASTER COUNTY,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 177 MM 2020

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 23rd day of February, 2021, the Application for Leave to File

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or

Extraordinary Relief is DENIED.
257 La. 176

#### Lester C. SIMPSON v. YOR-WIC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Inc., et al.

No. 50983.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 14, 1970.

In re: Lester C. Simpson applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Cad-do. 240 So.2d 20.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there appears no error of law in the ruling complained of.
# C_2021182EN.01003001.xml

| 10.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/30

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 8 February 2021 — Digi Távközlési és Szolgáltató Kft. v Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság

(Case C-77/21)

(2021/C 182/43)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Digi Távközlési és Szolgáltató Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the concept of ‘purpose limitation’ as defined in Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (1) (the ‘Regulation’), be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the controller stores in parallel in another database personal data which were otherwise collected and stored for a limited legitimate purpose is consistent with that concept or, conversely, is the limited legitimate purpose of collecting those data no longer valid so far as the parallel database is concerned? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the concept of ‘purpose limitation’ as defined in Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (1) (the ‘Regulation’), be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the controller stores in parallel in another database personal data which were otherwise collected and stored for a limited legitimate purpose is consistent with that concept or, conversely, is the limited legitimate purpose of collecting those data no longer valid so far as the parallel database is concerned?

| 2. | Should the answer to the first question referred be that the parallel storage of data is in itself incompatible with the principle of ‘purpose limitation’, is the fact that the controller stores in parallel in another database personal data which were otherwise collected and stored for a limited legitimate purpose compatible with the principle of ‘storage limitation’ established in Article 5(1)(e) of the Regulation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Should the answer to the first question referred be that the parallel storage of data is in itself incompatible with the principle of ‘purpose limitation’, is the fact that the controller stores in parallel in another database personal data which were otherwise collected and stored for a limited legitimate purpose compatible with the principle of ‘storage limitation’ established in Article 5(1)(e) of the Regulation?

---

(1)  OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                       9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         277,667
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               220,009
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    530,454
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      11,375,423
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        11,140,779
<LOANS>                                     30,432,413
<ALLOWANCE>                                    233,016
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              45,636,240
<DEPOSITS>                                  27,974,252
<SHORT-TERM>                                 3,285,690
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            645,035
<LONG-TERM>                                 10,518,599
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,834
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,196,830
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              45,636,240
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                537,087
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               44,150
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               211,317
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               792,554
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             340,010
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             522,923
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          209,631
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      969
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 99,960
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                202,193
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     125,934
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   125,934
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.79
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.78
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.33
<LOANS-NON>                                    221,070
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 4,903
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 49,914
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               232,134
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      351
<RECOVERIES>                                        77
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              233,016
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           233,016
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0




</TABLE>
#### Gilbert HAMER v. Jinnie Sue P. HAMER.

No. 45927.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Oct. 26, 1970.

Robert J. Kelly, Batesville, Michael Cox, Holly Springs, for appellant.

Eugene Thompson, Marks, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
H. Res. 6

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

January 5, 1993.

Resolved, That pursuant to the Legislative Pay Act of

1929, as amended, the six minority employees authorized

therein shall be the following named persons, effective January 3, 1993, until otherwise ordered by the House, to-wit:

William R. Pitts, Jr., Walter P. Kennedy, Ronald W. Lasch,

Jay Pierson, William Gavin and B. Robert Okun, each to receive gross compensation pursuant to the provisions of House

Resolution 119, Ninety-fifth Congress, as enacted into permanent law by section 115 of Public Law 95–94.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### FACTORY INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, a foreign corporation, Petitioner, v. AMERICAN DISTRICT TELEGRAPH COMPANY, etc. and Smith Plumbing Services, Inc., etc., Respondents.

No. 43903.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 19, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 16, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 277 So.2d 569.

ROBERTS, ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

CARLTON, C. J., and ERVIN, J., dissent.
Heather Clement /s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

September 8, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00153

- CV

Tina M. Allen SOUZA

, Appellant

v.

Heather Clement TESSMER

, Appellee

From the 22 5th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014

- CI

- 15319

Honorable Peter A. Sakai, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

The panel has considered Appellant ’ s Motion for Rehearing, and the motion is DENIED.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 8th day of September, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
# C_2023205EN.01000301.xml

| 12.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 April 2023 — European Parliament v European Commission

(Case C-144/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Implementing Decision C(2020) 8797 - Authorisation of certain uses of chromium trioxide - Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals - Article 60 - Granting of authorisations - Obligation to demonstrate that socio-economic benefits outweigh the risk to human health or the environment arising from the use of the substance and that there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies - Article 62 - Applications for authorisation - Article 64 - Procedure for authorisation decisions)

(2023/C 205/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: C. Ionescu Dima, M. Menegatti and L. Visaggio, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lindenthal and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: W. Broere, M. Heikkilä and T. Zbihlej, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 1(1) and (5) and Articles 2 to 5, 7, 9 and 10 of Commission Implementing Decision C(2020) 8797 of 18 December 2020 partially granting an authorisation for certain uses of chromium trioxide under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Chemservice GmbH and others), inasmuch as those articles concern the authorisation for uses 2, 4 and 5, as well as use 1 in relation to the formulation of mixtures for uses 2, 4 and 5; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 1(1) and (5) and Articles 2 to 5, 7, 9 and 10 of Commission Implementing Decision C(2020) 8797 of 18 December 2020 partially granting an authorisation for certain uses of chromium trioxide under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Chemservice GmbH and others), inasmuch as those articles concern the authorisation for uses 2, 4 and 5, as well as use 1 in relation to the formulation of mixtures for uses 2, 4 and 5;

| 2. | Declares that the effects of Implementing Decision C(2020) 8797 are to be maintained for a period not exceeding one year from the date of delivery of the present judgment; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that the effects of Implementing Decision C(2020) 8797 are to be maintained for a period not exceeding one year from the date of delivery of the present judgment;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 163, 3.5.2021.

---
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 525

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to welfare

reform legislation.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 18, 1994

Mr. KNOLLENBERG (for himself, Mr. SOLOMON, Mr. MCCOLLUM, Mr. KIM,

Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Ms. MOLINARI, Mr. WALKER, Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas,

Mr. UPTON, Mr. BALLENGER, Mr. TORKILDSEN, Mr. EVERETT, Mr.

STUMP, Mr. KLUG, Mr. HOBSON, Mr. FIELDS of Texas, Mr. DORNAN,

Mr. EWING, Mr. CANADY, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. MCKEON, Mr. LEWIS of

Kentucky, Mr. HORN, Mr. WOLF, Mr. ROYCE, Mr. SMITH of Texas, and

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina) submitted the following resolution; which

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with

respect to welfare reform legislation.

Whereas, since 1965, welfare spending at the Federal, State,

and local levels has cost United States taxpayers

$5,000,000,000,000;

Whereas, despite rapid increases in welfare spending since

the inception of the War on Poverty, the poverty rate in

the United States has not been reduced significantly;
2

•HRES 525 IH

Whereas 14.7 percent of United States residents were mired

in poverty in 1966, versus 14.5 percent in 1992 (the last

year for which figures are available);

Whereas the Federal Government spends on welfare programs more than twice the amount required to lift every

person on welfare from poverty; and

Whereas welfare rolls have increased sharply since the enactment of the Family Support Act of 1988, and less than

1 percent of recipients of aid to families with dependent

children work, and the costs of implementing such Act

have exceeded estimates by $10,000,000,000: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that any welfare reform legislation that

3 passes the House of Representatives—

4 (1) should result in net savings to the United

5 States taxpayer within 5 years;

6 (2) should limit increases in aggregate spending

7 for welfare programs to the rate of inflation;

8 (3) should not require any new taxes;

9 (4) should not increase the Federal deficit by

10 more than the amount by which the Federal deficit

11 would increase in the absence of the legislation; and

12 (5) should not require State or local govern13 ments to bear any administrative costs that would

14 not be borne by such governments in the absence of

15 the legislation.

Æ
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Eugene A. VERRETT v. CLERK OF COURT, 20TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF WEST FELICIANA, State of Louisiana.

No. 52041.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 5, 1978.

In re: Eugene A. Verrett applying for writ of mandamus. Parish of West Felicia-na.

Writ denied. On showing made, not entitled to trial transcript.

CALOGERO, J., and DIXON, J., would grant the writ. The transcript sought is on file in this Court.