alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 24, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135546 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly DAVID ROMAIN and JOANN ROMAIN, Maura D. Corrigan Plaintiffs-Appellees, Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, v SC: 135546 Justices 

 COA: 278591 

Wayne CC: 05-512147-NO

FRANKENMUTH MUTUAL INSURANCE 

and IAQ MANAGEMENT, INC., 

Defendant, 

and 

INSURANCE SERVICES CONSTRUCTION, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for rehearing is considered, and it is 

GRANTED. This Court’s opinion of July 23, 2008 is VACATED. The application for 

leave to appeal the November 21, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is again considered, 

and it is GRANTED. The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed whether 

the Legislature’s use of the term “proximate cause” in MCL 600.6304 conflicts with 

other statutory provisions, whether the Legislature intended to impose a legal duty 

requirement as a precondition for allocating fault under MCL 600.2957 and MCL 

600.6304, and whether, if MCL 600.6304 merely codified the common law doctrine of 

negligence, a finding of duty is a prerequisite to a finding of fault. 

The Clerk of the Court is directed to place this case on the January 2009 session 

calendar for argument and submission. Appellant’s brief and appendix must be filed no 

later than November 10, 2008, and appellees’ brief and appendix, if appellees choose to 

submit an appendix, must be filed no later than December 12, 2008. 

The Michigan Association for Justice and Michigan Defense Trial Counsel, Inc. 

are invited to file briefs amicus curiae, to be filed no later than December 26, 2008. 

Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this 

case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae, with such briefs to 

be filed no later than December 26, 2008. 

0923 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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 24, 2008 

 Clerk
The respondent is the Honorable Dwight L. Phifer, Judge of the 2nd Judicial District Court, Cherokee County, 1

Texas.

NO. 12-08-00359-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

§

IN RE: WAYNE ERNEST BARKER,

RELATOR § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

§

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this original proceeding, Wayne Ernest Barker alleges that he sued Adan Rodriguez and

Stephanie A. Hart, who then filed a plea to the jurisdiction and a motion to dismissthe suit pursuant

to Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Barker filed a response, and the trial

court set a submission date of July 8, 2008. He complains that, although the submission date has

passed, the trial court has not ruled, and seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the court to rule on

the defendants’ plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss.

1

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and was intended to be available “only in situations

involving manifest and urgent necessity and not for grievances that may be addressed by other

remedies.” Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex.1992) (orig. proceeding). For Barker to

be entitled to relief by mandamus, he must meet two requirements. First, he must show that the trial

court clearly abused its discretion. Id. Second, he must show that he lacks an adequate remedy at

law, such as an ordinary appeal. See id. Courts of appeals have the power to compel a trial court

to rule on a pending motion. In re Ramirez, 994 S.W.2d 682, 684 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1998,

orig. proceeding). However, they may not tell the trial court how to rule on the motion. See In re

Castle Prod. Ltd. P’ship, 189 S.W.3d 400, 403 (Tex. App.–Tyler 2006, orig. proceeding). 
2

Before mandamus may issue to require a trial court to rule on a motion, the relator must

establish that the court was asked to perform the act and failed or refused to do so within a

reasonable time. See Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Garcia, 945 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. App.–San Antonio

1997, orig. proceeding). Here, Barker filed his mandamus petition in this court on September 5,

2008, which is 59 days after the July 8, 2008 submission date. Although Barker alleges that the trial

court has had a reasonable time within which to rule, the information provided in this proceeding

does not support his conclusion. Therefore, Barker has failed to show that the trial court has abused

its discretion by failing to rule prior to September 5, 2008. See In re Villareal, 96 S.W.3d 708, 710

(Tex. App.–Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, Barker’s petition for writ of mandamus

is denied. 

 SAM GRIFFITH 

 Justice

Opinion delivered September 10, 2008.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)
# C_2010221EN.01003401.xml

| 14.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2010 — Commission v Hellenic Ventures and Others

(Case T-44/06) (1)

1

(Arbitration clause - Action for the creation and development of seed-capital funds - Termination of the contract - Action against the members of a company - Inadmissibility - Reimbursement of advances - Interest)

2010/C 221/53

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Patakia, acting as Agent, and S. Khatzigiannis, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendants: Hellenic Ventures — Elliniki Etairia Epikheirimatikis Protovoulias AE (Athens, Greece); Konstantinos Katsigiannis (Athens); Panagiotis Khronopoulos (Athens); and Nikolaos Poulakos (Athens) (represented by: V. Khristianos and V. Vlassi, lawyers)

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Action under Article 238 EC by which the Commission seeks an order that the defendants reimburse an advance paid under a contract entitled ‘Seed Fund 601’, concluded between the Commission and the defendant company

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders Hellenic Ventures — Elliniki Etairia Epikheirimatikis Protovoulias AE to pay the European Commission the sum of EUR 70 000, together with late-payment interest calculated at the Belgian statutory rate from 25 April 1999 until payment in full of the debt; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders Hellenic Ventures — Elliniki Etairia Epikheirimatikis Protovoulias AE to pay the European Commission the sum of EUR 70 000, together with late-payment interest calculated at the Belgian statutory rate from 25 April 1999 until payment in full of the debt;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders Hellenic Ventures to pay the costs, with the exception of those incurred by Konstantinos Katsigiannis, Panagiotis Khronopoulos, and Nikolaos Poulakos; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Hellenic Ventures to pay the costs, with the exception of those incurred by Konstantinos Katsigiannis, Panagiotis Khronopoulos, and Nikolaos Poulakos;

| 4. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs of Konstantinos Katsigiannis, Panagiotis Khronopoulos, and Nikolaos Poulakos. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs of Konstantinos Katsigiannis, Panagiotis Khronopoulos, and Nikolaos Poulakos.

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.

1

---
Carter v. State of N.C., et al.

200P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 7, 2016

Dianne Michele Carter, Pro Se.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, For State of N.C., et al.

David R. Johnson, Deputy Counsel, For State of N.C., et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd of May 2016 by Defendant for Writ of Prohibition for Usurpation of Power:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of June 2016."

Ervin, J. recused
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, James S.J. Manuso, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of SuperGen, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of SuperGen, Inc.

Dated:
March 9, 2011

By:

/s/ JAMES S.J. MANUSOName:

James S.J. ManusoTitle:

President and Chief Executive Officer


I,
Michael Molkentin, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of
SuperGen, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of SuperGen, Inc.

Dated:
March 9, 2011

By:

/s/ MICHAEL MOLKENTINName:

Michael MolkentinTitle:

Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. 1350 has been
provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to
be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, each as amended, (whether made before or after the date of the
Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

---



QuickLinks
----

(2004/C 65 E/228)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2762/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 September 2003)

Subject:   Disclosure of the entire staff complement of the cabinets of members of the Commission and changes therein in the past, present and future

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(4 November 2003)

The content of the IDEA guide is defined by the administrations of each Institution, body or agency of the Union. The Commission limits the information provided to managerial level only and, when applied to Cabinets, this consequently means that information in that publication is confined to Heads and Deputy Heads of Cabinets.

For details of the rules applying to Cabinets and an overview of the composition of Commissioners' cabinets, the Honourable Member is referred to two public web-sites as follows:

In the experience of the Commission, the interest of the great majority of members of the public focuses on current members of a cabinet. The cost of developing and maintaining a separate website giving details of all former members of Commissioners' cabinets would therefore be disproportionate to its usefulness. Such information can, in any event, be made available upon request and the Honourable Member could ‘keep track’ of changes by making, say, annual visits to the website or contact with Commissioner's offices if he wished to.

The declaration of interests is provided for in the Code of Conduct of Commissioners and applies to the Commissioners. The members of Cabinet are subject to the rules set out in the Staff Regulations. They are therefore bound to respect the obligations specified in the Regulations, in particular the provisions of Articles 11 to 17 relating to conflict of interests and duty to exercise honesty, tactfulness and discretion. The Staff Regulations do not require the presentation of a declaration of financial interests by officials and those rules have that, and much else, in common with the rules governing civil service in democracies everywhere.

----
1402.

#### Gannt *v.*The State.

Accusation of cheating, etc., from city court of Lexington— •Judge Cloud. August 20, 1908.

Submitted October 27,

Decided November 10, 1908.

*E. P. Shull,*for plaintiff in error.

*Hamilton McWhorter Jr.,*solicitor, contra.

Russell, J.

This case is practically identical with the case of *Barnes*v. *State,*3 *Ga. App.*333 (59 S. E. 937). *Judgment affirmed.*
_______________________________________ __ 

# Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 130476-77 & (69)(71) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver PATRICK PAPALAS, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 130476-77 COA: 252527 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices Wayne CC: 00-034152-NO FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff/ Cross Plaintiff-Appellee, and

METRO INDUSTRIAL PIPING, INC., Defendant/ Cross-Defendant-Appellant, and

WALBRIDGE ALDINGER COMPANY, Defendant/Cross-Defendant, and

ROUGE STEEL COMP ANY, DETROIT EDISON COMPANY, and COMMERCIAL CONTRACTING COMPANY, Defendants, and

METRO INDUSTRIAL PAINTING, INC., Third-Party Defendant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motions for miscellaneous relief are GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the November 8, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that th e questions presented should now be reviewed by this Court.

t0521 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.

May 30, 2007

Clerk
STATE v. Dominique Alexander JONES.

No. 333P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

Dominique Alexander Jones, Bennettsville, for Jones, Dominique Alexander.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th of September 2015 by Defendant to Expedite:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2015."
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

August 15, 2018

N o. 04

- 18

- 00153

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.L.H. and G.F.H.

From the 45th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016PA01945 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor

, Associate Judge Presiding



### ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the portion of the trial court’s order terminating Appellant Father A.H.’s parental rights is AFFIRMED. With respect to Appellant Mother R.C., her appeal is ABATED for appointmen t of new appellate counsel. The trial court is ORDERED to appoint new appellate counsel for Appellant Mother R. M

. R. on or before August 25, 2018 . The trial court clerk is ORDERED to file a supplemental clerk’s record that includes the

trial court’s order o n or before September 4, 2018

.

The motion to withdraw filed by Manuel C. Rodriguez, Jr. is GRANTED. The motion to withdraw filed by James B. Peplinski is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED on August 15, 2018.

_____________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

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

court on this 15th day of August, 2018

.

_____________________________ Keith E. Hottle, Clerk of Court
----

(2004/C 70 E/202)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3007/03

by Giacomo Santini (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 October 2003)

Subject:   Role of the European Rural Carrefours in CAP information campaigns

The ‘Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 814/2000 on information measures relating to the common agricultural policy’ (1) expresses satisfaction at the results achieved by the information campaigns conducted in 2000, 2001 and 2002, but also stresses that their impact on the public and their cost-effectiveness could be improved. The Commission states, on the basis of data obtained from ‘flash’ Eurobarometers, that the general public's lack of knowledge about the CAP, WTO, food safety and other issues linked to agricultural policy confirms more than ever the need to step up information measures and improve their impact.

For some years now the European network of Rural Carrefours has been playing a role in informing the public about the common agricultural policy, thanks to the existence of about 140 European rural information and promotion centres supplied with publications, newsletters and websites and staffed by people competent to deal with CAP issues. The European network of Rural Carrefours can make a worthwhile contribution to achieving the objectives of Regulation (EC) No 814/2000 (2), as regards improving both the impact on the general public and cost-effectiveness. In order to achieve this result, the Commission's Agriculture DG should ensure structured involvement of the ‘Carrefours’, in the interests of running information campaigns more efficiently and making the information measures carried out by the Commission more coherent.

One of the measures undertaken by the Commission was, precisely, to train those working in the Rural Carrefours in a number of specific CAP-related subjects, under the auspices of the Agriculture DG, which demonstrated the need for functional links with these centres. The Rural Carrefour network has accompanied Commission staff on information stands at agricultural fairs.

Can the Commission say:

----

(1)  COM(2003) 235 final.

(2)OJ L 100, 20.4.2000, p. 7.

----
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3787 

To repeal the annual adjustment of retired pay and retainer pay amounts 

for retired members of the Armed Forces under age 62, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 19, 2013 

Mr. LANKFORD introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committees on Veterans’ Affairs, House Administration, and Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each 

case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of 

the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To repeal the annual adjustment of retired pay and retainer 

pay amounts for retired members of the Armed Forces 

under age 62, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3787 IH

1 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT OF RETIRED 

2 PAY AND RETAINER PAY AMOUNTS FOR RE3 TIRED MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES 

4 UNDER AGE 62. 

5 Section 403 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 

6 is hereby repealed. 

7 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENTS 

8 FOR PENSIONS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

9 WHO RETIRE BEFORE AGE 62. 

10 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the pen11 sion of a retired Member of Congress who is under the 

12 age of 62 shall not be increased. 

13 SEC. 3. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND DEPARTMENT OF 

14 VETERANS AFFAIRS JOINT CONTRACTING 

15 FOR PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. 

16 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Sec17 retary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

18 shall jointly ensure that brand-name prescription drugs 

19 purchased by the Department of Defense and by the De20 partment of Veterans Affairs are purchased jointly by 

21 such Departments at the same level such drugs were pur22 chased jointly by such Departments in fiscal year 2005 

23 or in excess of that level. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1


                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.03

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT

                  To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
                    Innovex PLC and Innovex Holdings Limited

We have audited the combined income statement and statement of cash flows for
the year ended March 31, 1996 which comprise a combination of Innovex PLC and
Innovex Holdings Limited and its subsidiaries. These combined statements are the
responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on these combined statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards in the United
Kingdom and the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan
and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial
statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a
test basis, amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also
includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made
by management as well as evaluating the overall financial statement
presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our
opinion.

In our opinion, the aforementioned combined statements present fairly, in all
material respects, the results of the operations of the Innovex Companies and
their cash flows for the year ended March 31, 1996 in conformity with generally
accepted accounting principles in the United Kingdom.

Generally accepted accounting principles in the United Kingdom vary in certain
significant respects from generally accepted accounting principles in the United
States. Application of generally accepted accounting principles in the United
States would have affected the results of operations for the year ended March
31, 1996, to the extent summarized in Note 27 to the combined financial
statements.



Reading, England                                                    /s/ KPMG
July 24, 1996                                          Chartered Accountants
                                                         Registered Auditors
JOS. A. BANK CLOTHIERS, INC.
                                   EXHIBIT 11

                 STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


During 1997, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Statement
No. 128 (SFAS No. 128), "Earnings Per Share," which establishes new standards
for computing and presenting earnings per share.  The Company has adopted SFAS
No. 128 and restated earnings per share data presented to reflect the new
standard.  SFAS No. 128 requires presentation of basic earnings per share and
diluted earnings per share.  The weighted average shares used to calculate basic
and diluted earnings per share in accordance with SFAS No. 128 is as follows:

                                      1995        1996        1997

Weighted average shares
  outstanding for basic EPS          6,790       6,790        6,791

Diluted EPS:
Dilutive effect of
  common stock equivalents             --           34           73

Weighted average shares
  outstanding for diluted
  EPS (pro forma)                    6,790       6,824        6,864

Weighted average shares outstanding for calculating dilutive EPS include basic
shares outstanding, plus shares issuable upon the exercise of stock options,
using the treasury stock method.
Martha ODOM, Guardian Ad Litem for Shericka Wallace, minor child v. Douglas H. CLARKE, MD, Piedmont Primary Care, Inc., f/k/a Piedmont Pediatric Clinic, P.A., and CMC-Northeast, Inc.

No. 63PA08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 10, 2008.

Joseph P. Booth, III, Joseph M. Stavola, Greensboro, for Cabarrus Memorial Hosp.

James E. Ferguson, II, Margaret Errington, Charlotte, William G. Simpson, Jr., for Odom.

J. Dennis Bailey, Winston-Salem, for Douglas Clark.

*ORDER*

Defendant's (Cabarrus Memorial Hospital) Petition for Discretionary Review is allowed for the limited purpose of remanding this matter to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of *Dogwood Development and Management Co., LLC v. White Oak Transport Co., Inc.,*362 N.C. 191, 657 S.E.2d 361 (2008).

By order of the Court in Conference, this 10th day of April, 2008.