MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
is where the elephant claim limitation is for it's gone that's not the situation here at the time summary judgment was granted there was a whole and complete addition with respect to the bottom loaded screw where is the opening at the opposite at me isn't that the opening at the opposite end isn't that a claim limitation which is really subject words say that and that the construction is identical to the claim construction is identical to what the word set the specification would indicate that the arguments is that there is nothing in the claim that requires that a bore be formed from within this receiver member as an integral unitary structure absolutely of the shape of the receiver but i'm trying to understand the relevance of this you say there was no testimony as to why was this brought out before the jury that this was a flaw in the burden yes it was and we al why no no your honor what i'm saying is there was not before the jury there was no particularized testimony and we've seen argument on the function that way result for the shape limitation that exists in confused by the excerpt from the record when clued in both sides preached on this point was there some testimony relevant to that point that was introduced with regard to the literal argument and then you clearly you know despite the cases lost profits the question of law is the determination as to whether or not there was an exclusive license in that case is that a question of law our question of the question of law you are because we believe that it goes to interpretation of the agreements recognize that because the court clearly treated as if it was a question of fact i mean on the jay wall they found fact and i didn't really see your briefs argue with that point so much clear right but in order to determine whether or not the here based on the conduct and writings whenever whether or not that constituted an exclusive license you say that's a question of law yes because it's based on the written  outs well it seems to me reading this reading the order that the judge remarked that they were so were limitation in an opening limitation but then went on to particularly find th not that in one thousand nine hundred three at the time of the technology agreement there was at the same time an exclusive license for the pac and the only problem with that is that if everybody can see that later we messed up because the inventor had merely signed away t three the same time the technology agreement was drafted and signed and agreed to it could hardly could not possibly intended for that to include the path correct because we all agree that the they intent the intent was to the pa
to say substantial gainful activity usually encompasses work activity that doesn't mean that all work activity is substantial and so if this panel were sound all we are we think there is evidence of work
turned around and four hooded man people came in running again and just literally attacked me i mean i didn't have a chance to think or do anything else they just you know  and jamal and him before them came in together the purpose was to get the combination of the safe to the victim's currency exchange according to chad jamal and isaac ran into the garage now here's where it changes his testimony in the next second he says he and i says here drove around the block but i waited ten fifteen minutes when they called my phone and told him to come in is a complete contradiction of the former statement that all four of them went in at once the front door was open he said and the garage door was closed he was not sure if it was i say or jamal who had something in his hands jamal williams who's pushing his way into the house the door into mrs vengeance face he may not be the one who put the gun in mr ridgen face later and threatened his life to get the information on the currency exchange it is on the whole period consistent as to how these offense occurred when their occurred and in what order they occurred you have a consistencies of their testimony but more than that you have the consistencies in what they closing stated mr repton says that he saw possibly four individuals but the individuals were all massed there was no way you could tell who was who are no way you could identify any one of these people incensing the judge stated mr williams was one of the persons who product on that night and he was the person who ran into the garage for storage she gave him consecutive sentences totaling twenty five seventy five years not for me to suggest whether it would be or not but it would have to be reviewed elsewhere in this appeal secondly i want to talk about ineffective assistance of coun ball was criminal sexual assault but the defendant was convicted of residential burglary and home invasion and he received consecutive sentences which on appeal were made concurren i've received twenty five years he's your basic in your brief yeah this is this is a this is a twenty year old kid who got seventy five years which is a  said in the brief that they both testified in exchange for leniency i don't know if i actually put in the twenty five years which is what they got i don't recall ever seeing anything or any argument that it was disproportion sentence if they can but since we broke the appeal right right ok but he's a twenty year old kid going to college she was trying to start a new life he received a seventy five year sentence which is in essence a life sentence for this child and ok that the testimony is entirely inconsistent there's no way of
original one thousand seventy six total disability due to individual unemployability rating because the benefits ought not to arguments made defined jurisdiction under issued before the court of appeals for veterans plane was the better in this request for the benefit of an earlier effective date retroactive to nine hundred seventy eight production as requested in his aug twenty one hundred eighty eight letter that letter expressly requested that his rating be increased from fifty to one hundred percent retroactive to that ninety seven year reduction this year before the board on march twenty nine hundred ninety eight and september twenty eighth two thousand and one was also the same claim for an earlier like that in fact were described as entitlement to an effective date seventy six on the disability rating that was reduced in one nine hundred seventy eight but the same question then doesn't necessarily require that in showing taking the comes back to the important skills are better explained by this time it's all for law in the back that no one's paying attention to the original august twenty first nine hundred eighty letter saying board specifically the most recent september twenty eighth one decision in which the board failed to examine the veteran's request in august twenty first like a letter which was retroactive to nine hundred seventy eight the only thing the war did well initially i should say the board said oh well we'll give it to you back to the last day he worked which happened to be there were twelve ninety nine and then when the veteran does his notice of disagreement  and move forward with the case again they say oh wait a minute we'll go ahead and get you now back to the day we received your letter so they're still not going back to what the better to have please go back to my nine hundred seventy eight wait a minute that's not good enough look at humans august twenty fourth one nine hundred eighty eight the day that we received your letter well the question is when are these lower orders and in the board going to look at as the government has pointed out mr king as a veteran did not fall by regulation size using size language that was necessary to if if you refer to either one of those decisions i believe even mentioned that he was also claiming that he had been administered zones rose during his service is honorable service with the united states or worse that ok all right then thank you
when a union charges these later on do you agree with me that in genesis the court sort of tried to maybe poor little cold water on the idea of st amendment applies the same as between public and private public sector cases interest many cases that any type of opt out arnie is unconstitutional so the the type of scrutiny of the standards that the supreme court's applying now applied to this case well because there is person unions need to use the tools available in law but you can say the same thing about every ordinary breach of contract case and we don't say that a breach of contract case is state action otherwise under the state action so i think that's what we're trying to  that these cases are actually and the american manufacturing he's made it clear that it is really depends on the different facts that are in play and that there's not really a clear line it's really kind of a case by case basis ultimately you know those are the two cases of the ct side since put it in jest which is why they brought them up court is whether the annual objection renewal requirement is permissible now admittedly there is some language in there that appears to approve the one time continuing opt out my question the idea is i think is that the union only gets to take that money if the procedure is you know adequately tailored to respect the st amendment right i guess that's why we're talking about opt outs versus up them but i mean that's that's how i understand we're even talking about the issue right and opt out is a far less tailored provision than an opt in with respect to st amendment rights yeah yeah i mean i mean my question about shay do you read shade is providing the same level of scrutiny same level of tailoring analysis as layer cases  the level of scrutiny that was applied and shared which are bound by unless it's been clearly over ruled isn't the same thing as the supreme court is doing the more modern cases like knox and harris and because we've been told by the supreme court is whatever the standard is in janice janice says issues or your honor if in a constitutional who wins case if the supreme court recognizes that there's a tension with the person in it it can decide it can decide it we're we're not going to decide that we're going to go to the statutory genesis version was looking at whether what the bargaining power the union stocking with the employer or whether that is political whether that's the st and the next question and when that janice decision was talking about inches between private and public sector it was exclusively in the
absolutely is important is it is the have here is you it's also important to know that you review is not for bad reasons is not to get rid of a doctor who complaining about patient care in a way that might cause the hospital molly to fix and so instead of fixing it you get rid of the doctor if that were the case that would be just this damaging the patient clear as is about patient protection in general assembly made a decision the decision was one we're not doctors and we don't have to there is nothing more important than the health and safety look any further than finding another but you're not able to provide a way for the doctors or i don't know if i if i can sit here and thing for a minute i can solve or what i want but it's not something that i've actually given  but in another case
breaking car windows and so they passed by clark who is going to the back of someone's house which we now learn is his grandmother's and they told him stop they thought he had a crowbar in the police video we see that we see him running into the you with that i mean the lot of people are attacking him and calling him a paid actor and it's terrible but i mean when you're involved in the political process you want to discussion so obviously you're allowed to have opposition but in the case of luring him she just him for not getting
was with the truth and then when he told the jury that his testimony was consistent with the with the fourth statement british believe him because that was the tr discussed it will their concerns  this was the start of the show i don't think anybody can deny that and anything that moved through his credibility was was crucial in was harmful very harmful to defense i think to the point where it in north carolina vs piers was a trough and the trough right for whatever reason the end or collateral attack right why can't we consider the evil that law when we look at this statutory authority because when we look at hierarchy united states supreme court illinois supreme court illinois the supreme court ruled statute it's kind of the way we might think why can't we consider that and so i think that when you keep that in hind it's not reading the statute as it is written does not really  theory is that robin the teenage daughter was the actual accomplice and so she read in pages and pages of the daughter's diaries and letters about how much she hated her five she consistently stated basically story and that it was for the jury that the court would if they are willing to whether his testimony was consistent with that story the one with the current version of the story and so i think the jury she has limited relationship with the children who were toddlers and time to track because she requires so much medical attention that she couldn't actually be with them when they were little so you know what do we say or what are you al pre sentence investigation report right so tell me if you can or would help how do we take a case decided ten years or so which would be alabama versus net and applying two five five four which comes right after north carolina  much there does have to be in for the judicial consideration of this because with this many comments really talk specifically about north carolina versus pierce this result cannot be what they intended review by the same token nobody wants to abort a defendant ten years later for a trial where you're hedging things up can you sleep for victims of every suffered significantly forcing the state to put on witnesses ten years later when memories in general  about what counsel didn't do with what you did a great job that she she didn't you know she really rigorous process of nation on earth cells and i would i would agree with that but i would say it doesn't matter it doesn't necessarily matter this is not a crime chase we're talking about the virtual absence of council failure occurs at all you're talking evidence by which they could look at this witness and say i don't believe or i do believe i mean how do you how would be we use the reasonable you know
and he got his tax bill and he would pay it because it was a home he had no knowledge of the second the side yard was never lived on when i filed the  states there are many other records that are handled that will run the issues with if you were to pick a number whatever it is five ten whatever that our initial on that there is states where you don't have a lot of security as well as stocks and bonds and stuff like that five six are going to handle the situation it's only when you got to the states tha ago was certainly probably three or four times higher lower or should say what it is right now so they're they're all cots carrots and staff to how people are appointed to his board of directors and so on it would make sense to me that you require a yearly application and you know you can take a look at what he's have been generated the previous year and you know if they whether this is i don't want to put in the legislation that has to go to them permanently because we don't know if they're going to continue with the operation
turned into a sentencing hearing immediately no parade was complicated in the trial where mrs march and numerous times regarding even the most basic market was illegal for example one was actually pleading guilty to he was instance there's a struggle to sort of figure out what to do with this it's complicated i think and more importantly except for constitutional challenges e j there have been a lot of challenges to  considered and i mean there is no indication in the transcript that it was brought up during the hearing this the trucker certainly makes no mining or region that in the record is not stated we did it was fired but there's nothing in the transcript where
first of all under ohio law all the authority of the company is exercised by or under the direction of the directors and that includes whether or not to bring a lawsuit and you know why there is a presumption that the board of directors is this interested in an independent can actually say that judgment and that presumption is heightened when it is here eleven of the twelve directors sitting at the time inconsistent with the corporate form so what has happened is that courts have really hurt it was trying to find a balance between and once that balance of the balance is well if the board of wish there was a pleading that their compliance director craig morgan the former deputy acting deputy attorney general one assistant u s attorney who was hired in two thousand and eight because of the troubles that the company still selling down in florida keys or work a pharmacy we look at them we think they're very suspicious but you know this is an economic issue for us so we're going to is kind of important even though he goes the other direction but it's important because it does show the kinds of things that can demonstrate in futility on a particular rights basis and even more significant putting the number of employees it has a sixteen million it is spend a brief outline of the suspicious order monitoring the problems it's ongoing training of employees its commitment to maintain adequate diversion controls it's on inspections it's cessation and distribution to over three hundred pharmacies including at least fifty of them in florida but there were instances in late with florida where the program didn't work in the it was a failure given boots on the ground judgments and examinations with respect to those four pharmacists it was nothing to suggest that there was some kind of in my opinion yes the district court did get it right and remember what the underlying standard is for the record liability for director monetary liability which is intent to harm company
commercial free speech rights as well commercial free speech rights themed railway because it's commercial speech but the regulation has to be reasonable to the to the interest of the government and in this case if i section i'm just i'm just concerned the value you have but one piece of land for tax purposes called the parcel and that you begin that vote but just say the plausible use of the property is is the building and i believe that the evidence that we submitted to the department shows that and what should we look for in the record well i think you should look at the zoning i think you should look at the commercial development
akin to a mortgage foreclosure coming out about the process or versus higher educations about the property the rest kept up with was maintained whether there was any indication that he should check any further one of the interesting things about this case we don't have any that here because we don't have or know where the record of her record owner at the time was from the with you if she was in fact in the property but i would submit that a lot of tests and ninety days with someone not these from the door with a car in the driveway i think shows due diligence however we never got to that point because the trial court would not conduct you have an injury hearing after was asked for a motion for reconsideration so we have a record that doesn't tell us notice that was required to be published for her under section ten of the act and this is a very detailed notice your honor which requires more than using parcels and what to do with who  talk about yes it is because in a fact when you look at twenty two forty five this is the section we're dealing under they have to establish publication and due diligence to serve someone and so this court first district looked at it and said yes in fact there is a persona here is fiction required because if it's not in the court doesn't have that cha and so the applicant once they determined they couldn't find this is for dealings whether she was about house or not it's not her responsibility statutorily were under a lot of public policy to let everybody know that i'm here in the states it's section twenty two jan here's what's required it's a very long detail of the case and and it does certain things that happen there's a very specific office because it's designed to publish and to notify people among other things that you're going to lose your house it's specifically says this property has been sold for the week with taxes yet serves you to redeem media play it requires you would give you information the kind that the county clerk how do you redeem it tells you you could lose possession of your house that's the tune of twenty thousand and notice required to be published under section twenty two fifty eight and the twenty t on july fourteenth that was the first rung day of a publication i believe the first attempt at sherman's of this is pretty obvious was july nineteenth so the publication preceded the first attack that serv publication and section twenty two fifteen describes the publication must take place in the newspaper under section twenty two when the only time of what you do or not include i don't think that's what the statute requires i think it requires that twenty two ten notice that wasn't done in your arms that means the first op essential a tell us who you couldn't serve i mean who you could locate and in each instance when they submitted that to the or the affidavit says not today all right but what about all the traditionally we see works of go out and they'll post that notice paper to the front door the back door or something or both doors but that's not
medical malpractise case by definition are complex and your honor to reading it a couple of areas the first and foremost and this is important because it goes to the presentation of the evidence also contrary to const contention the first is all about adapter testifying technical degree the public doesn't know this if i except a client into my office and i give them advice on how to proceed with the patents what to do with their businesses i think it's a bit of my
case and so i used to be she answered no when the patient history and he's doing all this typing that's all she does and she has no idea that it's work related all at that point she doesn't necessarily know but i me can see these are inconsistency is the  could be troubled by the accident on the issue calls a connection on the issue because he did not have an accurate depiction or accurate information as to the amount of work she did every day they ignored is a smart an employer but it was martin the employer  without going into any other things about benders opinion to tell was on record as saying she didn't have it yet he does an operation you've acknowledged why would you do an operation if you didn't have a carpal tunnel problem you know if you get into the so you treatment for multiple positions between august twenty one and june twenty eighth and and during this time a good number of tests blood work due to his complaints of liver and domino problems and yet or thought they had resolved years before how do obviously he has sent them that developed while he was working basing this on his knowledge and understanding on the to the public health issues with these chemicals as well as the will to diagnoses were the symptoms the the the progression