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

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

,

Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch

,

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.

February 1 9 , 2021 

# Order

Clerk February 1 9 , 2021

160991 ( 126 )

TOWNSHIP OF FRASER

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

, SC: 16 0991

v COA : 337842

Bay CC: 16

- 003272

- CH

HARVEY HANEY and RUTH ANN

HANEY

, Defendants

- Appellees

.

_________ _____________________________ /

On order of the C hief Justice

, the motion of the Michigan Lakes & Streams

Association, Inc., to file a brief amicus curiae is GRANTED. The amicus brief submitted

on February 16 , 2021 , is accepted for filing

.
#### Orrigen B. Herrick, Respondent, *v.*Wilbert L. Smith et al., as Executors of Monroe C. Smith, Deceased, Appellants.

*Herrick*v. *Smith,*173 App. Div. 956, affirmed.

(Argued June 5, 1918;

decided June 14, 1918.)

Appeal froto a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered April 21, 1916, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term. Monroe C. Smith, of the city of Syracuse, died on the 24th day of July, 1914, leaving a widow and two children, a son and a daughter, both of age. Among his effects in his safe was an insurance policy of $25,000, upon his fife in the JEtna Life Insurance Company. After his death the plaintiff, who was in no way related to him, claimed that Mr. Smith had in his lifetime made him a gift of this policy, and brought an action against the insurance company to recover thereupon as assignee. The executors of the deceased asserted their right to the policy as a part of his estate. The insurance company paid the proceeds of the policy into court, the executors were interpleaded in its place as defendants, and the action continued to determine the validity of the plaintiff’s claim. The answer and amended answer of the defendants put in issue the assignment in question, and challenged its validity .upon the ground of the mental condition of Mr. Smith at the time, and charged that it was the product of fraud and undue influence practiced upon and exercised over the decedent.

*William Nottingham, William A. Mackenzie*and *L. P. Smith*for appellants'.

*A. H. Come*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, .with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan and Cardozo, JJ. Dissenting: McLaughlin, J. Not voting: His cock, Ch. J.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Elder, Felton and Senior Judge Willis 

TERRENCE ANTONIO HOLT 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 0513-04-4 PER CURIAM 

 JULY 13, 2004 

FAIRFAX COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Terrence Antonio Holt, on briefs), pro se.

 (David P. Bobzien, County Attorney; Peter D. Andreoli, Jr., Deputy 

County Attorney, on brief), for appellee. 

 Terrence Antonio Holt (claimant) appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation 

Commission denying his claim for medical benefits and temporary total and partial disability 

benefits related to his hip replacement surgery, and finding that he failed to prove that his 

avascular necrosis was causally related to his compensable August 5, 1996 left knee injury. We 

have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Holt v. 

Fairfax County Sheriff’s Office, VWC File No. 182-05-98 (Feb. 12, 2004). We dispense with 

oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

Affirmed.

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT IRISH, DBA Furniture Sales

Agents, Inc., Individually, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

MAGNUSSEN HOME FURNISHINGS,

INC., 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 18-55650

D.C. No. 

2:17-cv-00515-PSG-KS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 7, 2019

Pasadena, California

Before: SCHROEDER, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff-Appellant Robert Irish filed suit in California state court against

Magnussen Home Furnishings, Inc. Irish alleged that Magnussen wrongfully

terminated his employment in violation of California’s Fair Employment and

FILED

NOV 29 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Housing Act (“FEHA”) and the public policy embodied in FEHA. Irish also

alleged that Magnussen failed to pay him earned incentive commissions and sought

an accounting of Magnussen’s records to ascertain the amount of commissions

owed. After removal to federal court, the district court granted Magnussen’s

motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Irish was an independent

contractor as a matter of law and that only employees could bring the claims Irish

asserted. We affirm. 

Whether an individual is an employee or independent contractor is a

question of law unless the determination depends upon a dispute of material fact. 

S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dep’t of Indus. Relations, 769 P.2d 399, 403 (Cal.

1989). No material facts are disputed here. Irish set his own schedule, paid

himself out of his company’s funds, owned most of the equipment he used, was

permitted to work for other employers at the same time he worked for Magnussen,

and was never issued W-2 tax forms. Taken together, these facts show that Irish

was an independent contractor. See Borello, 769 P.2d at 404; see also Alexander v.

FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 765 F.3d 981, 988 (9th Cir. 2014) (explaining

that right to control is the principal test in evaluating an individual’s employment

status). 

2
Because Irish was an independent contractor as a matter of law, and FEHA

protection is only available to employees, summary judgment was appropriate on

his FEHA claims. See Estrada v. City of Los Angeles, 159 Cal. Rptr. 3d 843, 846

(Cal. Ct. App. 2013); Sistare-Meyer v. Young Men’s Christian Ass’n, 67 Cal. Rptr.

2d 840, 845 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997). It follows that Irish is not entitled to punitive

damages on those claims. Irish is also not entitled to earned incentive commissions

under California Labor Code sections 201 to 204, which apply only to employees. 

Irish’s accounting claim, which was entirely based on the failure to pay earned

incentive commissions claim, thereby also necessarily fails.

AFFIRMED.

3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000319420
<NAME> LYRIC ENERGY, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1.000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           64,521
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,160,129
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,224,650)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   158
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,928
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,042)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,042)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                464,093
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   459,051
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .008
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .008
        

</TABLE>
Order entered September 23, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01158-CV

TRAILBLAZER HEALTH ENTERPRISES, LLC AND 

BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Appellants

V.

BOXER F2, L.P., Appellee

On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-07070

ORDER

Based on the Court’s opinion of today’s date, we DENY appellants’ petition for 

permission to appeal amended order on motions for summary judgment, allowing interlocutory 

appeal and staying case signed August 6, 2013. We ORDER that appellants bear the costs of 

this appeal.

/s/ DOUGLAS S. LANG 

JUSTICE
#### YURIKO BINGHAM aka YURI BINGHAM, Appellant, v. REGINALD CLARK BINGHAM, Respondent.

No. 8008

August 26, 1975

539 P.2d 118

*540
      *Scotty Gladstone,*Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Jones, Jones, Bell, LeBaron and Close,*Las Vegas, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

When the parties to this action divorced in 1969, they entered into a settlement agreement wherein the husband, respondent herein, agreed to pay appellant “$100 per month for the support and maintenance of each child . . . during the minority of said children.” At the time, NRS 129.010 declared 21 to be the age of majority for males; thus, it seems clear the parties intended that respondent’s obligation to assist appellant in supporting their son would continue until he attained age 21. The court’s decree of divorce approved their agreement, reciting that “the same is hereby merged and incorporated into this judgment and decree as a part hereof.”

In 1973, our Legislature amended NRS 129.010 to recite that “[a]ll persons of the age of 18 years who are under no legal disability, shall be capable of entering into any contract, and shall be, to all intents and purposes, held and considered to be of lawful age.” This enactment apparently precipitated controversy concerning the rights of appellant, who moved for an order construing the decree. The district court determined that appellant was not entitled to assistance in supporting the parties’ son, after he reached the “age of majority” as re-defined in NRS 129.010, and this appeal followed.

We believe the district court erred. “On the date of the agreement and the decree it was contemplated that such payments would continue until the [child] attained age 21 which was then the statutory age of majority for male children. The *541intervening amendment reducing to 18 the age of majority from 21 did not affect the father’s obligation to pay child support until age 21 or until the child was emancipated.” Carpenter v. Carpenter, 316 N.E.2d 207, 208-209 (Ill.App. 1974). Accord: Ruhsam v. Ruhsam, 518 P.2d 576 (Ariz. 1974); Worrell v. Worrell, 489 S.W.2d 817 (Ky. 1973).

Reversed.
**
**Exhibit 32**

**CERTIFICATION OF**

**THETRUSTEE***

**OF THE SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

In connection with the accompanying report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021, andfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James R. Wilharm, Director of Trust Real Estate Services and Senior Vice President of PNC Bank, National Association, on behalf of PNC Bank, NationalAssociation, the Trustee of the San Juan Basin Royalty Trust (the “Trust”),* not in its individual capacity but solely as Trustee of the Trust, hereby certify that: 

 
 1.
The Report fully complies in all material respects with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (as explained in Note 1 to the Trust’s financial statements contained in the Report, in accordance with the Securities and Exchange Commission Staff Accounting Bulletin Topic 12:E, FinancialStatements of Royalty Trusts, the Trust prepares its financial statements in a manner that differs from generally accepted accounting principles; such presentation is customary to other royalty trusts); and 

 
 2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Trust. 

 

PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS

TRUSTEE OF THE

SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST
By: 
/s/ James R. Wilharm
Name: James R. WilharmTitle: 
Senior Vice President

Director of Trust RealEstate Services

Date: March 31, 2022

 
*
The Trust has no executive officers. 
**
EXHIBIT 22.1
                     SUBSIDIARIES OF INTER-TEL, INCORPORATED

         Listed below are all the  subsidiaries of Inter-Tel,  Incorporated,  as
well as the  jurisdiction  under the laws of which each was  organized,  and the
percentage  of  the  outstanding  voting  stock  of  each  owned  by  Inter-Tel,
Incorporated.
                                                PERCENTAGE      STATE OR
                                                OF VOTING     JURISDICTION
NAME                                           STOCK OWNED   OF ORGANIZATION
----                                           -----------   ---------------

Inter-Tel Integrated Systems, Inc.                 100%         Arizona

Inter-Tel Technologies, Inc.                       100%         Arizona

Inter-Tel Leasing, Inc.                            100%         Arizona

Inter-Tel.net Inc.                                 100%         Nevada

Inter-Tel Software and Services, Inc.              100%         Arizona

Inter-Tel Midwest, Inc.                            100%         Delaware

Inter-Tel Incorporated-New Jersey                  100%         Delaware

Inter-Tel NetSolutions, Inc.                       100%         Texas

Inter-Tel DataCom, Inc.                            100%         Delaware

Southwest Telephone Systems, Inc.                  100%         New Mexico

American Telcom Corp. of Georgia, Inc.             100%         Georgia

Access West, Inc.                                  100%         Delaware

Inter-Tel Integrated Systems (UK), Ltd.            100%         United Kingdom

Inter-Tel Japan, Inc.                              100%         Japan

Florida Telephone Systems, Inc.                    100%         Florida

NTL Corporation dba ComNet of Ohio                 100%         Ohio

Integrated Telecom Services Corporation            100%         Kentucky

Telephone Corporation of America, Inc. (Telcoa)    100%         Maryland

                                       53
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ameriprise Certificate
Company (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
William F. Truscott, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Ross P.
Palacios, as Principal and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of 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 results of operations
          of the Company.


Date: May 4, 2010                       By /s/ William F. Truscott
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           William F. Truscott
                                           Chief Executive Officer


Date: May 4, 2010                       By /s/ Ross P. Palacios
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Ross P. Palacios
                                           Chief Financial Officer
#### Elfega RAMIREZ CRUZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-71245.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 23, 2005.*

Decided April 4, 2005.

Elfega Ramirez Cruz, Goleta, CA, pro se.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Nancy E. Friedman, Esq., DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Elfega Ramirez Cruz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Where, as here, the BIA affirms without opinion, we review the IJ’s decision. *See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft,*350 F.3d 845, 849 (9th Cir.2003). We review constitutional issues de novo. *See Ram v. INS,*243 F.3d 510 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.

Petitioner contends that she was denied equal protection because she was not allowed to apply for suspension of deportation. Petitioner’s argument is without merit because Congress comported with equal protection when it repealed suspension of deportation for aliens, such as petitioner, who were placed in removal proceedings on or after April 1, 1997, while permitting aliens placed in deportation before that date to maintain their applications for suspension of deportation. *See Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft,*324 F.3d 1105, 1108 (9th Cir.2003); *Hernandez-Mezquita v. Ashcroft,*291 F.3d 1161, 1163-65 (9th Cir.2002).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the *164courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 25, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
132754 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 132754 COA: 266078 Berrien CC: 2005-402405-FH THOMAS RAY SPANGLER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 26, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY
, J., would remand this case fo r an evidentiary hearing.

s0418 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.

April 25, 2007

Clerk
Front Back
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

Notice is hereby given that the following have been issued a Certificate of Financial Responsibility for Indemnification of Passengers for Nonperformance of Transportation pursuant to the provisions of section 3, Public Law 89-777 (46 App. U.S.C. 817(e)) and the Federal Maritime Commission's implementing regulations at 46 CFR Part 540, as amended: 

                    Carnival PLC (trading as P & O Cruises) and Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd., 24305 Town Center Drive, Santa Clarita, CA 91355,                     *Vessel:*                     Artemis, Arcadia.                 

                    Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (d/b/a Royal Caribbean International), 1050 Caribbean Way, Miami, FL 33132-2096,                     *Vessel:*                     Freedom of the Seas II, Freedom of the Seas III.                 

Dated: November 4, 2005. 

Bryant L. VanBrakle, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05-22368 Filed 11-8-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED

SUPERSEDED
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in the previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No.
33-99432, No. 333-32157 and No. 333-58134) of Intelligent Systems Corporation of
our report dated March 20, 2002 with respect to consolidated financial
statements of VISaer, Inc. and Subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2000
included in the Form 10-K of Intelligent Systems Corporation for the year ended
December 31, 2001, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



                                 /s/ Moody, Famiglietti & Andronico, LLP


Boston, MA
March 20, 2002
#### STATE v. INGRAM

No. 40 PC.

Case below: 10 N.C. App. 709.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 4 May 1971.