MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
secondly the court then turned to see whether or not i have a right to receive training inside the us for generally the court found the state under no obligation to provide substandard services for those who are on this si the supreme court of the united states in that case all they did for the first askand stated that the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment was intended to prevent government from both abusing the government constitute a violation of the due process rights cheney like the case you're involved in child who was injured by a private individual while he was in the custody of his natural parents and the shamiana county social services department received several complaints citizens from harming each other nothing in the language of the due process clause itself requires the state to protect the life liberty and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors it's be this was to protect the people in the state not to ensure that the state protected them from each safety by having once offered himself to the states a permanent duty to protect arises not when the state's knowledge of the individual's predicament or permits expressions of intent how but from the limitation which he has imposed a danger to the point or are rendered him more vulnerable to an existing in order for the state really dangerous theory to be available for the kind that is required near in action by state actors even in the face of an on danger is not sufficient to trials governmental protection against physical abuse by his parents or by other persons not acting under the direction of the state there is no such and i don't and by contrast the state removed age from the custody of her parents and having done so could not deliberately exercise my professional judgment rather than a failure to win his argument fails to acknowledge that intention one hundred reaction towards going analyze whether a state official exercised professional judgment after first determining that they have a constitutional duty to provide let me ask another question that i mean in this case that there was a pending court proceeding yes and that do not proceed having to do with this trial and that in that proceeding that probably true family services was going to in order to family services is obligated to be monitoring what was going on  assaulted by other students while he was a full time resident at a state school students with disabilities and in that case the the minor was residing in the state institution not receiving residing with his parents  both restate the role articulated and just cheney by the supreme court that the state does not have a duty to protect a child who is in the custody of his parents here in the circuit court of madison county gave custody just a school it was mother valerie school obligations to protect children from physical abuse by parents nor does the constitution and i don't child to governmental protection from either persons not acting under the direction of the state here severe rights did not have a city of justice scofield's and
parent may file for what's called allocation of parental responsibilities only if the child is not in the physical custody of either parent so so that i mean i guess my question is what other evidence was there to put on about that issue because the op the facts are pretty clear and fortunately the father died the father had custody under a prior judgement the father was living separate from the grandparents at the time and then we have the timeframe of when the dishes were filed and so forth so that's what i'm trying to get to would be really needed more time to produce evidence on that very narrow period but that i'm still kind of keen on your claim that you didn't have enough time to present your evidence on that issue of how it was that the children got from their father's home after his death to the grandparents there in this your clients have standing to ask for and you know for example interviewing the children suppose that you let's just assume that the children would have gone in and said we want to live with their grandparents ok what does that have to do with the of the grandparents come to be in physical position of the children did it would be one thing if the mother said that you could have i don't want it after the death and then disappeared for a year those grandparents would have standing  when the mother hasn't by consent or agreement or abandonment or whatever i mean that you're looking at that from the date of death forward not with the mother didn't last ten years or whatever you follow children she did not relinquish that we don't talk about a situation like in dialer she was were pushing potentially would have walked away from the children for a long period of time and more specifically with regard to the
to their work station but the coworker and this is not clear to me there was some indication that the coworker had been working on a project in the area near the lunch table and that and this may or may not be correct this are that the pizza crust was actually grown on to some of that work area as well as the floor  probably four to suggest the question to the court but where are your shoes whether the problem standard is clearly erroneous or  area clean despite these emanations he intentionally do pizza crusts on the floor now it would be our contention that there is just wrong and there's not supported by an individual is entitled to employment benefits under these under certain circumstances of terminations if you can surgically excise each piece of conduct and say that while he through the statutory definition of misconduct in front of the alleging and in fact in front of the board of the view we gave a very simple or appeal this and they didn't accept it because apparently the the reasonable rules governing the world the violation is going to harm somebody and it's got to be displaying a warning for other explicit instruction from the employing you
expanders but that only proves our point because even if you're going to say that we are asking governors in the you know if you're going to go off on this tangent the rule on the aristide was the price that settlement compensation are the ones that are injection and paid nothing and with her knowledge of fifteen years of this case the judge decided which of those two scenarios should only just marion's it was more like and that's exactly the kind of in the weeds detail issue that this court decided was better decided by the judge who's been living with  no one on one meeting we had multiple rounds for winning and she agreed with us on a subsidiary argument but she ruled against us on the primary argument so once you knocked out primary arguments say she's wrong about the language she
nothing i'm not surprised can see found three long pieces north and in the ground it might have been your figment got inside but he was inside we saw him you saw him while this very room kind of you must have hidden somewhere after we killed downie that explains why the lights went off and why the burglar should you hear the sound of turning w one of the richest men in england
prohibited activities everything else was a party for instance he used to be working to get the political action group he was compelled to work there was the very help with crowd control what he said is within the bounds of that job i don't think it should be doing that particular thing but i understand from the plaintiff here is my job is to work with
and it's almost always the glass you is not i'm not talking about a leaded glass for or stained glass we're talking about glass that is normally used for glass but what about the grass used in rigorous prior art call it so the line class or does not bother to know doesn't call it just cause class and is that because they were all made out of the same type of glassware because no one thought that the precise composition that merely because they mention alternatives the best prior art jacobs taught a class x a but it also taught flexible material made it bold and the court fel based material got out that with all of the the various properties that's just a description of borosilicate glass it's not as if it adds any special come potence that aren't present inherently in borosilicate glass correct yes ok now you show your position i take it then is that the only issue here is the conversion from glass  any measurable amount and the evidence was that certain appreciable its low percentage would give the device known not of the product is the borosilicate less so that it's our position that the achieve the properties that are called out in the cloud well those properties there's no evidence that the world silicate glass makes glass or smooth or slippery and there are really because you put out if you put on arguably knowing whether he intended to not because his debate had a certain level of lubrication it but he can't tell what the requirement of the claim is so he doesn't know whether his advice that a great deal of inventive activity goes on you know quite outside the patent system it's just you know constant small improvements and this looks to me like a case where someone you know very ingenious li intelligently well you know there are various forms of glasgow ashley substitute one with the with the normal last and and higher is a very common alternative but if it's the kind of thing that kind of incremental improvement that goes on constantly and does not involve significant as at all you just tried out a new class no big deal and all  these all of the devices were flexible that it says if you can use glass well line float glass is inventive if i were to come in now to patent office which is there with your glass which is a another formulation of glass that actually has or has better thermal properties and it's harder than p only have to do is look up the properties of each of these types of glass and pick one from the list and one to the patent office to do the covers is that those things all patentable in light of case are those one of the plaintiffs that he had three hundred thousand google hits for the phrase glass filled up but he said i don't know what those mean i don't know if there's any duplicate
someone that you know the tower was meant to be a transition of those windows and i don't really need the tower that didn't really care either way but there's something about nate giving them the building a little more current imagery to it then looking like it has to be the twenty or the sibling to the other building media i think we're accomplishing relating i don't know how far we have to go with that i don't like be proportionately bright and they are schizo phrenic it's not like trying to be something else all of the sudden then step back a bit though those interim designs just i don't know didn't but again you know there's something to be said about  it doesn't look like it's overpowering downhaul anymore it complements telmo but it's got some unique style to it i think that think we are just about there i do think that tower which popped up in the lot so we talked last time about possibly going to the finance commission when they reconstitute themselves in june look where they're going for the summer
that the settlement but he would not approve the settlement he thought your clients could theoretically with a lot more that's pretty good to go in for both but but as i understand it both sides wanted the district court to prove the settlement that's what am curious what authority we would have to disrupt that aspect of the case though because i thought both parties agreed as part of the settlement that it would not take effect without the district court approval that is american is your is your point that that provision is a can either use the word condition so it is a condition but i think your notion is it's a condition that is subject to court approval d which itself is subject to appellate review is that's where the idea retirement plans which is called a stable value and with respect to whether stable value was the right investment the appellate say they're going to should have considered at american says that they did and also that exemption even applies therefore the appellant's are putting the cart before the horse and trying to reverse engineer the conference furthermore the courts have made clear that a bank's mere holding a plan
somebody professional you are hours and hours and hours and hours ones thanks for telling us husband he was a swell guy maybe you know who can muslim you only wish we knew mrs king you know the police will find out i'm so sorry it was two dollars would you give me a receipt please it's some sort of a memorandum to buy some goods are you sure i never thought it was important what makes you think that know one rising sun that's not going to rise spies among us everyone net i'm wondering
but i think it's important that people understand that there are two different things otherwise at this museum and for those to care enough to read this it would be important mad because we will have full proposal to go forward so are there any places that we should be looking for and they are i am very happy with paying online for an arcade online so just trying to say this is where we may be hearing more things because people are more aware of our first post or were made out of for this kind of support or was developed a little later an alternative was developed a little later through public where the cost is part of that but it's not until analysis what it would cost on this line because we don't have to so the cost is a part of this and yes that would be to pass fail because if it to sharpen a pencil and figure out ok how can we do this do we sort of things like that out so that your tool analysis detail definition that's where we're going to get into those characters on ridership cost service plans specific to each alternative to promote an a to the public for series of open houses in late july early august but the public engagement piece there in late august early september hopefully the pack will be able to approve what alternative should continue on into plan to assess the operating costs to a bus or two or train based on the regional costs that are out there so what you're trying to do is get agreement on how you're going to analyze ahead of time so you're not trying to figure that out once you've got the ok to go and do the an
proceeding it can create commotion unless there is it makes a written finding that granting the motion would be in the minors best interest it also either and to make it worse there was no service on the parties and were granted the motion the day it was file so d c s the guardian of the item had no chance to dismiss the state's petition i would have called it the sibling his adoptive parents i would call that a case where the that was involved in the siblings case i would potentially call the sibling to testify in that hearing that did not hear from any of those people because there is no reason to call a of those people at the hearing that was held on march the twelfth the hearing was just to contending that the dauphin proceedings are inadequate in any way for as a forum to explore that issue and to safeguard that interest and if the court decides that the adoption by the hens is not in the child's best interest for any reason the court can reject motion to dismiss but this case is unique because there was a hearing just three days prior which the circuit court could evidence that would have been required to consider the merits of the motion to dismiss i know that the main information elicited to ensure that the state didn't unilaterally be an unexpected motion to dismiss return children to potentially abusive parents on but in this case the motion to dismiss was as the states the record suggested invited by the circuit cour condition and future welfare of person subject to the act and that requirement is spent in section one day two of the juvenile court there and for the reasons we've stated
to turn it over to the sort of the second ground for why the petition the action was taken away it was and has to do with the base of the voiding the whole program because the language about the right to proceed before an administrative agency was not as clear as  ancillary provisions that allow for certain judicial forum provisions of you know allowing collective action under the fair labor standards act interim mission when the next etc but what distinguishes the national relations act is not only the case is a bit different because there was an individual acting and by all accounts that was not adjudicated it appears from the face the decision that the individual plaintiff was not a statutory employer would not even consider such a tour employee under that and all right so that ma within that that framework now as far as the you know the court's decisions under the e a a again i feel like i'm probably repeating myself too much but that did not involve court supports that interpretation of justice thomas of the supreme court and i believe and i'm sorry if i have this mistake i believe it was an american express versus a time i wish but it may have been in concepcion where a single concurring opinion which no other justice joined taking just that position and this appleby's are already are taking saying we need to take collective action to complain about the ages going to nation against the and you're saying they can in spite of screen court rulings that's should get confused by labels when the court talks about a substantive right it's talking about what is the core right protected by the statute and here you may assert your rights and then or are they in a manner which looks procedural fighting a class action by joining a class action or what the court is talking about is what is now a quarter right protected by the ad and the core right here is no different then any agreement to waive the right to be free  agreement can include a class right waiver is that your position that that is our position the one question might be toronto whether a union could waive such a right because under this statute of course unions can waive the right to strike for stated you can't have an agreement which says you can't join the a f l cio union but you can join the other unions and you can have an agreement which says you can't exercise your core substantive right to pursue workplace rights in court or rob the tray sh traditional management form they were contracts waiving the right to join the union they were contracts waiving the right to collectively bargain they were contracts that were exacted from employees under the worst practices with promises and preclude collective activity because the way the language is talks about us that any suit you have against the employer needs to proceed individually whether it's out of the employment relationship or something different
and she admitted and we quote from her testimony page two of the required brief question and with respect to the amount it is claimed now you have no evidence that any of the transactions it received a copy of the document the allegedly signed by somebody else that puts into this file is not making business record we've cited several cases for that proposition been for versus chicago transit first district nine care one never sees a doctor all they get is a lawyer crying transmission but if they want to get the documents they can get them from versions but they made no effort to do so in this case so it's basically the bill a customer really provided it's not signed with anybody it can't possibly constitute a contract where the alleged good party is bound by have never used the credit card after allegedly
must know that there is some real imminent danger that your child is going to do something dangerous you need to know about that and you need to know at that time has the opportunity to do something about the opportunity to exercise
specific occupational classification category as the the vocational expert said there was forty three thousand of these jobs in the national economy our position on this is that he did night there's not forty three thousand bakery whole project there's forty three thousand possible light unskilled judge in this category and he had done a fide bakery helpers and  here's here's my understanding of what the vocational expert did in this case he went to the category number of fifty one dash three thousand and ninety nine which is food processing workers comma all other and then he gave the number as you said of forty three thousand is actually forty two thousand six hundred and twenty but forty three thousand for our purposes but as you said that is for all of those food processing workers nationally not for bakery help and then if you go down the u s bureau of labor statistics website this is not the exact match but for example for bakery and toward tila manufacturing even on the national level you've only got one thousand nine hundred and sixty jobs and so there was no match for the numbers that the he overestimated by forty one thousand by and then relevant the relevant and that's is where category is assuming that's the you know the number the eight hundred number represents the bakery helper there may be more than one d o t occupation that's a and that according to the government's brief it's conceding that the bakery helper job is the only one that's at issue right and when i asked when i asked the vocational expert if you seen the job performed they said no i mean that's just as that's as clear as day and he didn't he didn't miss by a little you know if the if the difference had been that the number of jobs available was you know two thousand five hundred and he thought there were three thousand or three thousand five hundred you could say ok harmless error it's close but the error is over forty one thousand jobs and if you've given up the codes and data to get into the local number  a code number and that code number is wrong and he's numbers are based on that wrong code and the representative at the to the occupational employment statistics and doing the research and determining if there's a conflict and being pointed out that there's a conflict between category
to and their kick backs were paid in order to market the drug for pre diabetes which is a compass is a broad swath of the population of the united states  allegations in the complaint benefit him the second major complaint benefit from the discovery that came from the trial documents and testimony from a trial product liability trial on that began in actually read out what i see as the two pronged analysis when it comes to not be particulary for these types of cases he said in the for in the first instance there was no specific claim for on and i'll read it this is were referencing can wait kerry fails to provide even a single example or for conduct resulting reimbursement observably of us the drug by federal health care program and does that these were patients who did not have diabetes or the health care plan we know and i don't think it was a debate on or not a real debate at the law or the other one it hasn't come up here that this breaking ground thank you thank you your  on and there are some direct allegations we have about statistics one comes from the later himself he works at a very high level right so smith kline which was a competitor to me not to  and they had a competing product india which was a direct competitor with that dose and his intelligence group this is between two thousand and one and two thousand and three yet the start of this massive what we call a massive marketing off label marking campaign his intelligence gr came and said that off label marketing sales were scrapped rocketing we're going from the number that we've alleged that he's alleged to spot from five percent to thirty percent and if you couple that with the sheer size of the act of that's not where we are here we're on and just the off label portion of that and i think she can be is confined to that kind of her being i would assume much smaller variance to actually upon it beyond that