alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### McCARTY v. NATURAL CARBONIC GAS CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

November 13, 1907.)

-Appeal—Dismissal—Grounds—Want of Actual Controversy.

Where an appeal from an order of the Special Term suspending a judgment enjoining defendant from burning soft coal for generating steam, which order was entered after affirmance of the judgment by the Court of Appeals, and was therefore urged to have been entered without jurisdiction, was not argued until over a month after the period of suspension had expired, the appeal will be dismissed; nothing remaining but the abstract question.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 3, Appeal and Error, § 3122.]

Appeal from Special Term, Saratoga County.

Action by Richard H. McCarty against the Natural Carbonic Gas 'Company to enjoin defendant from burning soft coal for generating ■steam. From an order suspending for 30 days the judgment enjoining defendant from so doing, after affirmance of such judgment "by the Appellate Division and Court of Appeals, plaintiff appeals. Appeal dismissed.

Argued before SMITH, P. J., and CHESTER, KELLOGG, -COCHRANE, and NEWELL, JJ.

George R. Salisbury, for appellant.

Hiram C. Todd, for respondent.

CHESTER, J.

The order appealed from suspends for 30 days the ■provision in the judgment enjoining the defendant from burning ■soft coal on its property for generating steam; such suspension being for the purpose of allowing the defendant to make the necessary ■changes in its plant in order to use hard coal for generating steam. The order was made after the judgment containing such injunction "had been affirmed by this court and the Court of Appeals. McCarty v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 114 App. Div. 908, 100 N. Y. Supp. 1127; S. C., 189 N. Y. 46, 81 N. E. 549, It is now urged by the appellant that the Special Term was without jurisdiction to grant the order in question, as its effect was to modify a judgment after ■its affirmance by the court of last resort.

The order was made July 19, 1907. It in terms suspended the injunction “for 30 days from the date hereof.” Such suspension expired, therefore, on August 19, 1907, over a month before the argument of this appeal. There remains, therefore, only an abstract or ■academic question for determination. Nothing now stands in the way of the enforcement of the plaintiff’s judgment according to its terms. No practical result can be reached by deciding the question, and, following the course usual in such cases, we think we should dismiss the appeal. Fleischman v. Fleischman, 80 Hun, 90, 30 N. Y. Supp. 22; Matter of Woodworth, 64 Hun, 522, 19 N. Y. Supp. 525; People ex rel. Geer v. Com. Council of Troy, 82 N. Y. 579; Matter of Manning, 139 N. Y. 446, 34 N. E. 931.

Appeal dismissed, without costs. All concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, 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.

July 3, 2013

h0626 

# Order

Clerk July 3, 2013

144783 & (54)

PATRICIA LEVINE, Personal

Represent ative of the Estate of FREDERICK

H. L EVINE , M.D., Deceased,

Plaintiff/Counter

- D efendant/

Appellant,

v SC: 144783

COA: 299639

Berrien CC: 2004

- 003060

- CK

JAMES E. O’DORISIO, M.D.,

Defendant/Counter

- P laintiff/

Appellee.

______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to su bstitute parties is GRANTED. The

application for leave to appeal the November 17, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals

is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we

REVERSE th at part of the Court of Appeals opinion holding that the trial court erred by

failing to equally divide between the parties the profits from use of the vascular

laboratory from the date of dissolution to the date of the sale of the laboratory. MCL

450.4404(5) is not applicable to this c ase. Instead, the division of the profits of the

company are governed by the operating agreement, which provides that the PLLC “shall

be dissolved” upon the occurrence of a withdrawal event. ¶12.1. Thus, the PLLC was

dissolved on January 13, 2004, when the hospital and the defendant entered their

memorandum of understanding making the defendant’s loss of staff privileges

permanent. The value of the PLLC should be assessed as of that date. The defendant is

not entitled to any profits derived from the pl aintiff’s use of the laboratory between

January 13, 2004, and the date that the laboratory was sold. In all other respects, leave to

appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining question presented

should be reviewed by this Court.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Harry K. Dupree Stuttgart National Aquaculture Research Cntr: Stuttgart, AR
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Stuttgart, Arkansas Harry K. Dupree Stuttgart National Aquaculture Research Cntr People & Locations







Rebecca S Roberts
                        Harry K. Dupree Stuttgart National Aquaculture Research Cntr

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Lab Technician
                        Phone: (870) 672-8272
                        
                        
                        Fax: (870) 673-7710(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION

November 7, 2008 Revision Cause number: 01

- 1 7

- 00 0 35

- C V

Style: In re Seascape Owners Associatio n, Inc. , and Home Depot USA, Inc.,

d/b/a The Home Depot, Relators

Date motion filed * : February 9 , 201 7

Type of motion: Unopposed M otion t o Exten d Deadline for Fil ing of Response to

Relators’ Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Part ies filing motion s : Real Part ies in Interest Julie Dow, Individually, and as Executrix of the

Estate of David Holden Gasser, Deceased, and Karen Ragland, Heir at

Law of the Estate of David Holden Gasser, Deceased

Document to be filed: Response to Petition

Is appeal accelerated? Yes (original proceeding).

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: February 21 , 201 7

Number of extensions granted: 0 Current Due D ate: February 21 , 2017

Date Requested: March 1 5 , 2017

Ordered that motion i s:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: March 1 5 , 2017

.  Denied

 Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________

Judge ’ s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley



Date: February 1 4 , 2017
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

B.R., )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D16-4537

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed December 14, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk 

County; Mark H. Hofstad, Judge.

Ita M Neymotin, Regional Counsel, and 

Joseph Thye Sexton, Assistant Regional 

Counsel, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Laurie Benoit-Knox, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, BLACK, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
1The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-4162

___________ Gerald L. Brumley, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Arkansas. City of Rockport; Officer Brandon * Thomason; David Thomason, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: May 3, 2007 Filed: May 9, 2007

___________ Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Gerald Brumley appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Following careful de novo review, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. All pending motions are denied.

______________________________
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT UNDER SECTION 302 OF**

**THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Peter Maloney, certify that: 

 

1. I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Keynote Systems, Inc.; 

 

2. Basedon my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; 

 

3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 

 

4. The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis quarterly report is being prepared; 

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: 

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting. 

 

Date: August 13, 2004
#### Diedrich Holtkamp et al., Appellants, v Parklex Associates et al., Defendants. Flemming Zulack Williamson Zauderer, LLR et al., Proposed Respondents.

[941 NYS2d 874]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), dated February 22, 2011, as denied that branch of their motion which was for leave to serve a supplemental summons and fourth amended complaint adding Flemming Zulack Williamson Zauderer, LLR Mark C. Zauderer, and Jonathan D. Lupkin as defendants and asserting a cause of action against them pursuant to Judiciary Law § 487.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The conduct alleged by the plaintiffs occurred in part prior to the applicable three-year period of limitations *(see Lefkowitz v Appelbaum,*258 AD2d 563, 563 [1999]; *Jorgensen v Silverman,*224 AD2d 665, 665-666 [1996]). Further, the plaintiffs’ allegations were not sufficient to set forth a cause of action against the respondents pursuant to Judiciary Law § 487 *(see DeStaso v Condon Resnick, LLP,*90 AD3d 809, 814 [2011]; *Sabalza v Salgado,*85 AD3d 436, 438 [2011]; *Schwartz v Sayah,*83 AD3d 926 [2011]; *McCluskey v Gabor & Gabor,*61 AD3d 646, 648 [2009]; *Callaghan v Goldsweig,*7 AD3d 361, 362 [2004]; *Glorioso v DeBlasio,*227 AD2d 588, 589 [1996]). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for leave to serve a supplemental summons and fourth amended complaint adding the respondents as defendants and asserting a cause of action against them pursuant to Judiciary Law § 487 *(see Lucido v Mancuso,*49 AD3d 220, 229 [2008]).

*820The parties’ remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be addressed in light of our determination. Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 30 Misc 3d 1226(A), 2011 NY Slip Op 50208(U).]
**Exhibit 21.1**

**SUBSIDIARIES OFMEDICSIGHT, INC.**
| **Name of  Subsidiary**              | ** ** | ** **        | ** ** | **Jurisdiction of Organization** |
|--------------------------------------|------------|-------------------|------------|----------------------------------|
| Medicsight Nominees  Limited         |       | England and Wales |
| Medicsight PLC                       |       | England and Wales |
| Lifesyne (UK) Limited                |       | England and Wales |
| Medicsight Asset  Management Limited |       | England and Wales |
| Medicsight USA, Inc                  |       | Nashville, U.S.A. |
| Medicsight International  Limited    |       | Gibraltar         |
| Medicsight Finance  Limited          |       | England and Wales |
| HTTP Tech, Inc.                 |       | New York, U.S.A.  |
| Medical Vision Systems, Inc.    |       | Delaware, U.S.A   |

 

E-7

----
#### Plane *et al. v.*Walker.

July 8, 1915.

Complaint. Before Judge Bell. Pulton superior court. January 24, 1914.

*W. 0. Wilson,*for plaintiffs in error. *Rdgar Latham,*contra.

Atkinson, J.

1. When considered in the light of the pleadings and the evidence and the entire charge, the excerpts from the charge which are complained of show no error requiring the grant of a new trial.

2. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices eoneur.*
#### Huson Ice and Coal Company *v.*Cunningham.

May 12, 1915.

Complaint. Before Judge Park. Greene superior court. August 31, 1914.

*Rogers & Knox,*for plaintiff.'

*Lewis, Davison & Lewis,*for defendant.

Evans, P. J.

This case was tried with that of Huson Ice and Coal Company *v.*T. R. Thornton, the pleadings in both cases presenting the same issues. A verdict was returned for the defendant in each ease, and the plaintiff separately moved for new trials, which were refused, and it sued out a writ of error in each case. On a review of the *Thornton*case this court held that no error of law was committed and affirmed the verdict. *Huson Ice & Coal Co.*v. *Thornton,*143 *Ga.*297 (84 S. E. 969). The assignments of error are the same in both records, and the decision in that case is controlling in this. The evidence in the case sub judice is sufficient to support the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, eoseept Fish, O. J., absent.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-536

In Re: CARLOS TAYLOR,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-97-1577-21BD)

Submitted: April 16, 1998 Decided: May 1, 1998

Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carlos Taylor, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Carlos Taylor petitions the court for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the district court to enter default judgment in his

favor in his suit against the South Carolina Department of Corrections. The grant of a writ is a drastic remedy to be exercised only

in extraordinary situations. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,

426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Taylor’s case does not present such a

situation.

Court are extremely reluctant to grant a writ of mandamus. See

In re Ford Motor Co., 751 F.2d 274, 275 (8th Cir. 1984). The party

seeking such relief carries the heavy burden of showing he has no

other adequate means to attain the relief he desires and that his

right to such relief is clear and indisputable. Allied Chem. Corp.

v. Diaflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980) (citations omitted).

Taylor has not made such a showing.

Accordingly, although we grant Taylor leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, we deny his petition for a writ of mandamus. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
Document

Exhibit 4.6
FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS INC.
2018 EQUITY AND INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN


WHEREAS, Universal Electronics Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Company”) has adopted and maintains the Universal Electronics Inc. 2018 Equity and Incentive Compensation Plan, adopted by the Board of Directors on April 24, 2018 and approved by the shareholders of the Company on June 4, 2018 (the “Plan”); 


WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company is entitled to amend the Plan in accordance with Section 13(a) thereof, subject to approval by the shareholders, and desires to do so in order to increase the authorized shares available under the Plan by an additional 1,100,000, such that the total number of shares of Common Stock available for issuance in connection with all types of Awards will be 2,100,000, plus the number of shares of Common Stock, if any, that may be forfeited under outstanding awards granted under any of the Prior Plans;


  NOW, THEREFORE, the following amendments are hereby approved and adopted:
1.    Section 5(b) is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to provide as follows:


(b) Shares Available.  Subject to adjustment in accordance with Section 11 of the Plan, the total number of shares of Common Stock reserved and available for issuance in connection with all types of Awards under the Plan shall be two million, one hundred thousand (2,100,000) (all of which may be issued as Incentive Stock Options), plus the number of shares of Common Stock underlying any award granted under any of the Prior Plans that expires, terminates or is canceled or forfeited for any reason whatsoever or settled in cash (in whole or in part) or is unearned (in whole or in part) under the terms of the applicable Prior Plan.


2.    The increase in the number of shares of Common Stock issuable under the Plan shall be effective upon receipt of approval for such increase by the Company’s shareholders, and shall be subject to and contingent upon receipt of such approval.


3.    Except as provided herein, all other provisions of the Plan shall continue in full force and effect.
  
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized officer on this 8th day of June, 2021.




By: /s/ Bryan Hackworth
Title: Senior Vice President and CFO
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of IBSG International, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, I, Michael Rivers, President, Chief Executive Officer , hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

| | 1.       
               Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
               quarter ended June 30, 2004, fairly presents, in all material
               respects, the financial condition and results of operations of IBSG International, Inc.
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 16, 2004

By: /s/ Michael RiversPresident and Chief
Executive Officer