jurisdiction usually depends on the allegations at the time a case is removed and not on anything that might happen later if the medical bills came in low that wouldn't defeat juristic it depends on the allegations at the time injured no other witnesses to what happened and in those cases the individuals who were injured either had no memory of what caused the injury or why that person was injured or that to actually why he tripped and there was no witnesses to why he tripped so your client speaks of the worst piece of trim you're quite didn't observe the workpiece correct of trim there is one photograph of the of the wood that fall on that was taken immediately afterwards but as far as it is i'm aware unfortunately there is no a photograph of the actual war or crooked piece of w admission by the store manager that there was a piece of wood and that should not have been there should have been called out during a stocking or when the store was being faced and so that's the that's what's this thing which the characteristic caused the wood to fall and it's not like the keating case where the plaintiff in that case fell from a three story porch while doing repair work and that casey didn't he didn't remember actually falling he remembers he was swinging a hammer and the next that he knows he was in the hospital and that in that case the plaintiffs even admitted that it was possible that he was the one who removed the railing or it could have separated he had no idea what happened that's not present in this case wrapped around her legs or wired via her legs and so the circumstantial evidence in that case was found to be sufficient to allow the jury to determine the proximate cause as they should have been allowed to do in this  it does your honor i can also tell you that judge shot already and analyzed this issue and i can tell you that the nature of the injuries also demonstrate the case is worth more than fifty and though joe couldn't tell you about that in this my string is whether controversy exceeding seventy five thousand your notice removal goes just what you are supplemental statement in this court does your time bind to fifty thousand dollars claim since i was well we got one hundred thousand that's enough as a matter of law it's not enough right the supreme court established that sometime early in the nineteenth century what the plaintiff may be contemplating is not only not in the record so far as i can see it's not something that's true as of the data removal your notice of removal says well this is all just the allegation in your notice removal on which removal was founded is legally false where do we go from here and your testimony about what you think might happen is not as of later developing ok very much spend all other argument all the other issues around her to suspend all arguments and all other issues there will be no other argument or we shall comply no look you know you're not going to argue this case again if you ever that's what we're left with zero in on the issue of the managers testimony your honor the manners testimony is that that should not be there because work piece of the wood don't belong there they belong  court cases in northern or central district or the seventh circuit all hold true that it has to be liability has to be based on a reasonable certainty the defendant created the heart w defendant one last or drew on any one of the cases cited the proposition is still there has to be reasonable certainty now this court said it a couple of times one back and all five in the roger whitmore case plaintiff must connect the dots between proctor and post in the post hoc error go proctor and more recently this court described the standard as such it's true there's circumstantial evidence and that's why we're talking about circumstantial evidence he doesn't know and we didn't see him there's no evidence so everything's talking about circumstantial evidence and lots of cases around based on circumstantial evidence but this court and in the bow case and twenty seventeen  true that circumstantial evidence need not exclude all other possibilities but the conclusion must be one more than speculative and rather it must be the only reasonable it's not the only probable conclusion and it's not the most likely conclusion and it's certainly not the only reasonable conclusion that this court piece of it was because the tumbling the manager and from the employee that they that the employees from marks are trained to stock these bins and to ensure that there is no crooked or warped wood in the bin and so going to the result from the