MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
v was a word beyond medium in my day it was the end of my day it was in may of two thousand and seven the t t c was awarded through july of two thousand and seven so the first issue is causation the commission felt that there was no causation between the with complaints but then there is the additional finding of the narrowing of the ac joint index right that is a change from the prior condition and i would argue that it is a material increase in light of the fact that she was evidence in here from the cook county records at any rate and they had those restriction may very well have been partially because you for shoulder not only go back to how different is the restriction that she's under is the time of the nineteen  eleven is it also important to note that she waited almost five years to even bring the original pics to trial so there were making constant tests of counsel claims that her condition stabilize there is nothing in the record to speculate that it occurred after i took her twenty m to january twenty seventh two thousand and eleven is pure speculation i understand that she heard her she counsel claims that she had health insurance but she couldn't go to the restrictions and they have ongoing issues with the the body part he under the employer accommodates those restrictions for a period of time on home and then the employer stops accommodating the
original this down put up and now
he was aware of this as you see failure to maintain situation prior occasions we know that the air conditioning unit had had water and grease out and removed from it as well in the same manner or not and the other person to go do something else there is no evidence in the record that he dresses any other way he has been on this route on three separate occasions and presumably more the exact same shit on the other occasions did he have this there really there was specific evidence of the defect in the last hour and the evidence now further that had been introduced at the time it was done was very careful on landers and so the court found that was enough that order you get to address the actual issues in this case i think all three justices have addressed the fundamental flaws with games appeal here there are a number of issues that we laden water may be in the open in obvious danger but he's saying that there is no there's nothing of that open obvious nature on the latter and therefore he was his client you know  office when property owners and residential owners hire outside contractors who specialize in a particular field they expect to reasonably expect that these people will know what they're doing will know what the situation into this exception i think is really different situation i don't find any case law that deals with economic convenience and most of the times are laborers who have no choice you know they get a response you have to do the job they're feeling or the supervisor it is the linchpin of this case and i reason is because it's the only direct evidence regarding addition of the latter you know counsel goes on and on about circumstantial evidence and that's as it is the walls because the flame is treading water himself and his news booth but say she was counted and there wasn't any it's just as probable that he had water on the bottom of his shoe and when he stepped down he slipped because design accomplished after discussion of this i don't remember for the record after discussion with herb barbecue they said no we're not going to go to that next level just do it this way or w make but the nature of her shoes may have prevented the transfer we are all sorts of things that could have happened including the fact that he is leather soles or his
proceedings i understand that it is probably going to be an expensive effort on both sides but it should not be a stand that kind of that kind of action is the it should be allowed to sta collinsville area recreation district escort and from their point of view i think i'd be remiss if i didn't say i have a history with a particular connection to judge harrison but from our point of view the context during these hearings w i don't believe so maybe i do
culturally extend it to certain fringe arises if someone like this individual is willing to go through the motions  a citizen and i don't have a foundation that let it go and it isn't i'm involved in the economic side down the road because he's clearly under the influence of marijuana so here's my question doesn't the police don't the driving their cars smoking cannabis because i smell the burnt older don't they have an obligation to see it if that operator the operator never vehicle is impaired yes i would see that and how did they do that without stopping  to peach the conclusion that the person and the expertise t that whatever the police officer did was improper and therefore depending what the police officer did if they arrested him showing that what they did was improper or was a little bit more difficult to establish th
your own or do you want to indicate where you're lying on the uniform partnership to act or what other well first of all they have to be operating under a license and they admitted in the record below they you kno have a license and so we claim her sheer can operate in nursing home under the rubble of a nursing home licensed maintained by one of the foreigners in the record below and i don't have a record here with me but did the record can have a license here is because providence testing license and they are operating jointly under the your grievance which i pointed out to justice spins and so for that reason there is a horror should appear and partnerships are this court can decide that partnership is a bonafide even legal entity a legal method of operating a nursing home and in that particular instance the all the of the of the complaint and considered an owner where one that lasts or has significant control over the day to day operations am and isn't that filling it up the person who operates the definition am to have significant control over the day to day operations before we even can think of it as an affiliate or and it's only if we get to that point because they admitted there providing rehabilitation services on those premises then they admit they don't have a license as a nursing home this law does not allow someone to his own wife since the law does not license it cannot operate out of a nursing home and furthermore the nursing home care act says that a hospital can operate out of a nursing home and so what which is what you are suggesting years you interpret one one nine city or the functional equivalent of operating person absolutely or well if you look at the bill and if you look at the nursing home care if it doesn't state anything about this case that certain services can be provided but that doesn't that's set for the i have read right here is control over the k to day operations of the facility now has your question i have analyzed the joint venture that i must have taken four or five pages analyzing it i'm not going to go back over it but the owner of the facility is one of the defendants here and the owner of the facility is in partnership and affiliation under the joint venture reman we did this defendant and owner means  of both organizations get together and say how i believe green you can do that even if they can't agree to it then it has to go to the board of directors of the various companies so what i'm suggesting is that you are here for us to decide to put a new
bradford cohanim this court in this case is a come up on appeal following a renewal of a post trial motion for judgment as a matter of law the trial court granted the interplay of policies with respect to use of force and taking action while off duty after consuming alcohol by the police officers the incident involved a aug th two thousand and fourteen if the st began as officer serban intervened believing giving statements that he believed that the situation was going to escalate officer serban displayed his badge identified himself as a police officer  there was then a physical altercation between officer serban and played a hand in at which time officer rieger believed that he needed to intervene to prevent further injury or potential injury with respect to the actual policy is at issue here and in the court's decision the jury was presented with a great amount of evidence and discussion regarding the interplay of three of the major policies that are at issue in this case the st as a general order one dollar of the indianapolis metropolitan police department which requires that force be reasonable given the facts and circumstances known by the officer at the time of the of that comment further provides extensive rules and guidelines on how the officer should deal with specific situations however it has been our mission throughout this litigation that the safeguards that the city needs to place put in place need to be at the level of where they st take action after consuming alcohol when that off duty officer can become involved as we believe that there is a highly predictable chance that the officers will exceed the force requirement to the requirements for use of force given the fact that they're under the influence of alcohol and we believe this is in line with  support that there was a highly predictable likelihood of a constitutional violation of this nature and that the city's lack of guidance and lack of specific and
determination so i'm trying to figure out what the story is that guides us as to whether there's probable cause to think that a nd person who shows up about which we have no information other than their because you could think well it's reasonable to infer that they wouldn't just show randomly so therefore there's a problem because they think there are more you could think could be as brother there's no indication he told her about drug trafficking and he wants to go to m participated in checking out the car presumably for g p s the voices tracking the voices that sort of thing that wasn't done by one individual with the any basis for the conclusion that the whole world was neither of the two people who showed up but that would seem to be to help the government's case if it were true  wouldn't it just be a lot more sense in a situation like this where you you have reason to think you can stop the car no question before you sir are resting and searching the occupants of the car you ask a question or sell like is this the car or well i believe the without asking any questions that's right you know that seems to me that what some support about setting the rules in that way because it seems like you stopped the car at that point you could just ask a question of your own informant
i'm just curious
special court martial proceeding if there was a judge present and judge presided an actual judge schooled in the law if you will that that would then he was thirty two hearing which i didn't mention in the british but it's a very important right in a general marshall but you don't get a special court martial we're not talking about i mean you're talking about some kind of a categorical exclusion but you your hear the immigration judge seemed to have more from military with this process perhaps than any of us because he previously had served as a judge advocate and he his comments about the process a special court martials as i read his comments pretty much answers the question is it there or not special court martials unless there's an exceptional enough but it didn't address the issue but if there isn't a judge or all the time other aspects that need to be looked at because they didn't have that's one way i'm ok and this is a special promotion of course there is there's yes ok what does that mean i know we don't have to give we obviously going to be a that doesn't have a justification for their change in position we do not have to give it deference but doesn't that just put the that would be a question for the attorney general to answer in the first instance and i'm not so sure that was addressed here it is a position it was raised and it wasn't addressed ok by if you're if the question is somewhere up in the air i really hurts occur and i think congressional intent lands itself to resolution in this case because it's always been that congress intended
down but did not invite the defendants then there was a letter to sent didn't wish to speak to the board or the board seem that interested in hearing from them it's up to speak to the board what  was at some point in two thousand and eleven on that i referred to you or him cut down to large fully mature trees on his property without prior written approval of the board of directors in violation of section two point two point two of the landscape manual did raise the issue of those finances with the property manager so you tell us and they had the opportunity at any point in time to arrange for the board these are board members or people who are part of the community using the fine i'm sorry just  that represented as my property he admitted to allegations that it was his property and so forth and had no way of knowing who was the record in this particular circumstance  nudist for hearings of the membership of the membership it has no such requirement for the board the act also says that the word can use appropriate technological means which is defined as really and anything that's secure to make any but again that doesn't provide for emergency situations there's a whole host of reasons why you know that things may need to act outside the confines of the rules assessed me or any number of reasons  conclusion i think it does just basically come down to the december twenty second letter counsel talks about additional opportunities that my client was this would be against the rules but at that time there were already pointing out why their true people said histories have to come down and that the next step would have been they could've given that relate back to the work but they never got the opportunity
blackmore used her i mean isn't there this element of prejudice here one pain clinic is going to have to now years later go out again try to get this pacific information act out the treaters the
well i guess i'm somewhat harshly because if i ever had any access to the court on the whole on the first two petitions and i'm going to be denied any access whatsoever because it is now  tissues may or may not be the same only different what is your observation as to are they distinguishable other then in time or finality other than  cannot find any authority it seems to support that well off i would submit to you that there probably needs to be at least an indication that the client is willing to acknowledgement of that then technically there is no attorney client relationship and i don't see any basis upon which the appearance of that attorney should be allowed to go forward but beyond that acknowledgement i don't know why there would need to be an agreement as to fees when the trial or is supposed to be set in the interim phase and especially if it's indicated that the client is so indigent that they can't afford fees and i like the to refute or defeat the purpose for having a statutory authority for any of these because the if you accept the don't know if you want to comment or if you want to try and reconcile the idea that we're supposed to presume that mr kinnon is one of the nicest people on earth and is willing to do  contribution from you i don't know how long your plan has been prejudiced by you not having a document that he didn't sign if anything you would tend to indicate that
that he wanted distributed and should be held to the same two thousand and eight evaluation so at least according to what the status in this order is evaluating the property as of the date during the pendency of this where the court did give some money to the party is i think there was a joint fire that was created and things of that nature do you think the court was during the pendency of this district that's using the date of the work or the date of march thirteenth correct and that is what your issue is one sixteen or seventeen and and
oh seems to have relevance to this appeal primarily as it relates to the issue of waiver it may be to some degree the issue of this office but there's nothing that i can see in beverly olds that answers the central question as to whether the california insurance code automatically really a legally to and i'm an i'm confused as to what you were trying to accomplish through the stipulation in a practical sense in here i've got to concede  mr williams williams that i'm sort of putting my trial judge had on here and i'm feeling a little pain for judge pitcher who did a lot of work in this case not only in this case but in the companion ca of this case come back to her there's no reason why she wouldn't simply issue the same ruling yes relates to the anti assignment issue and i just i guess mediation would be to enter an order based dating submission the following decision and referring the matter to mediation it doesn't necessarily have to be the th circuit mediators but that would put the appeal on hold while you guys pursue those mediation efforts and then you could jealousy there are several that case or mediation was not successful at that point we would give you a decision
have they're not really their adjustment of status into legal permanent residents and that's the crux of our argument today indeed an interview has been scheduled at the honolulu immigration office and  proceedings and they were entitled under explosion proceedings to just enough status before the district director the flattest are the only ones to have the misfortune of being placed in proceedings pursu as i mentioned before in all other markets cases and i respect at least a minute that we have provided the court with with legal arguments and actual argumentation about why it should have taught but let's look at the consequences if this before they can seek reentry into the united states and that emphasizes our central point we are asking this court for the relief that is within its reach declaring the florist not to be for all that is what for all done forever allow somebody to come into the country legally they are still seeking to enter the country that is the definition of parole said that was a red herring as they seek to use this definition to adjust status today not when they see that when they first hit the shores they're seeking adjustment of status today as as you can readily see in our supplemental briefs like to this court v v avenue for that relief just opened up two weeks ago dad that is why we raise it before time well what gives us entitlement to that status is that all the other marcus entourage cases were prosecuted under expulsion proceedings which allowed for adjustment of yes and we we respectfully submit that it's not as forgiving and it should not apply because it was in in effect at the time they entered this country and
c in the two to one and that was the replacements and what is the significance of the presence of personal property tax replacement income tax within statement as opposing input income tax it was a choice in legislature in monkeys when they song was claim them to come they were title two attorneys fees for representing an entire class of people mostly farmers who had parcels of property on their farms sex and i believe in a case i suggested that zero it doesn't necessarily relate to them and it seems like you're making kind of the a cliche amongst others on in college when something was illegal we said sick birds and there was another cliche which is the same only different and that's what it seems like you're saying these are the same only different am i missing something we're not or maybe they're different only the same where we are no different than any corporation that happens to have a loss in that year and doesn't pay the tax we're no different than any know are you the same only different or are you different only the same where diggers you know you claim to be the same in the sense that you both taxable but you're different in the sense that one which is what the constitution i think is getting it is not necessarily going to result from the replacing tax there's going to be some fears but what's critical is that new categories of taxpayers can cannot  replacement taxes by the seven ranger trusts which lead to as your honor said and correct a deduction republican republic concedes really that there is no constitutional right to pay because if there wasn't a right to pay taxes and the penalties were the expropriation or appropriation of your property for failure they wouldn't you be entitled under the constitution to pay those taxes taxation i suppose you could pay the taxes to avoid the taking but but i don't believe there is a constitutional right to pay taxes there's a constitutional right to be compensated for taking with due process of from paying replacement taxes and i just want to add to your question about the importance the significance of the the regulation there are a number of reasons why we shareholders of republic bank whether they are of the full and complete amount of shareholders i can speculate but they are selfish shareholders in
move to the public at war that individual comes forward to advance the claims of the public generally and any member of the public can come forward to advance that claim and not include individualized harm under that limited this case the you identify that one and then duty that's mandatory and then the older cases recognize some kind of mandatory public interest duty what is it here that's mandatory course i read would comprehensive plan to say they must do a compatibility analysis they said we're believe on our experience one hundred thirty two residential homes had to be forcibly repurchased and demolished because they were in the shadow of up with the result merely that they have committed to do agree construction compatibility analysis that's all we're saying the mayor has agreed the mayor had needed it was subject to compatibility and in fact based on the facts of this case when they were presented in this official capacity entire chapter on zoning specifically references it was done to regulate watch structures in nooses so as to implement the two thousand comprehensive plan it had to be implemented it was implemented and we're going to guess about what that means in terms of the study because the they have the facilities good but that's not bad spec and we do this shit anybody thing if a parent gets issues and then it's wrongfully issue they have litigation on whether it should or should not have been issued that's that