MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
the case was clear that requiring notice of a potential disability is a useless act on and you know that's clear from the facts in this case that if he she notified her lawyer one of these three  what seems to be we have cases that say that but an employee was given a medical diagnosis of carpal tunnel but they work for another year and go have a breakdown for another year and then the fourth we've we've done it we said hey you know when the complete breakdown on this even though it's days and days and months and perhaps years following the diagnosis of part of the medical condition and link to  return from injury is so you know some workers you know it's not in their best interest think they continue to work past the day when they should wear so what you're saying is if they take one for the team they shouldn't be i don't think there's any question whatsoever when the court says circuit court says repetitive trauma manifests itself on the date and it gives a standard it's clearly talking about manifestation and i said this is important because perspectives first from the circuit courts perspective it doesn't have to sit with state date all it has to do is look at the testimony that dr watson gave said this this petitioner had been complaining of this problem for over two years in the course of him seen her in that in the hospital when they're walking through the hallway she say my hands are hurting i've got something terribly wrong with my hands we need i need to do something finally after hearing this for two years he says i can't keep going all the way you've got to make an appointment and come see me  up i think in this case overwhelming evidence it answers that question for you is to take a look at this individual she's not a factory line worker who has a high school education she's a r and she's  there is a context to a reasonable person absolutely never arguing that the context of medical training working in a hospital would be different in the context of someone who's you know warehouse or cute little town center that happens in two thousand we follow that along she continues to to work she reports that in two thousand and four she changes the type of type in input but she doesn't her john and mr oliver testified that to tie the time in a d it's specular best or whether if you would report something off for it that would go for a vote surgery at that time i don't know that well enough but we do have a history of at least two years prior to her actual diagnosis where she's telling her treatment because day after that day one day after may twenty sixth two thousand none and you know the claimant followed all the proper seizures and she should not be punished because the circuit court says the manifest weight of the evidence says that it should be one of three other possible reatment of carpal tunnel syndrome so i don't see how she can type notes or self and there's no evidence of that she can just pure speculation that she knew that she had the condition
discussing what happened in seymour the coroner although in my reading of the cape the case the supreme court opinion it doesn't appear as though the supreme court is really dealing as a truncated opinion if you will is that the supreme court isn't affirmative matter that defeats the claim and in support of the motion we provided material that davis but material by way of the schedules bankruptcy schedules the petition i believe there was in the no mind purpose of judicial stoffel and and when to use it and when perhaps not teams and so and here again we get a chance to highlight the factual differences between the seymour case and what we have here and not just the seymour case but a lot lot of the cases out there federal and state that have argued with the notion that is it is it are case pending that she had to take it all in turn on suit and i am literally weeks before she filed for bankruptcy protection number one number two she under oath ma it's explaining why it's it's going to exercise discretion to apply stoffel in this particular case so it's not dealing with we have to have consistent positions there's no question about that ok but what we have here i like principle you know how do you respond to the fair look there appears to be because you agree with inconsistent positions does not necessarily establish the seat how can you otherwise validate this is improper and to me bankruptcy and then subsequent there to suffer an injury and his subsequent there to file the lawsuit after i think the bankruptcy had been discharged and there was an argument but mislead and and the trial court in our case cited those very specific facts that the court fell more important to applying this equitable doctrine and in dismissing this case with month later filed bankruptcy ok and then as part of the schedules the disclosures and the petition under oath under the penalty of perjury says i there are no lawsuits existing within one here i
underlying allegations both in this case and in the underlying case that was that issue in the you know the contract with the city the critical point i wish to emphasize is that as it is the cour is well aware that it would like the words have expressed the hell that was a contractor by retaining control over the operative details of it so contractors work may become vicariously liable for the failed to provide schwartz with a safe place to work while the significance of that is those are all pleading i stand on that i don't need to belabor those points here i at the end of our brief we noted that we've always maintained that if there is due to from pekin as a primary noncontributory defense obligation i don't dishwasher coverage that you dishwasher ask to have an allegation of vicarious liability to me as a carious liability means liable yet planes the interesting thing about martin's argument is that it really no need to spend time on that point the second thing is is the duty to defend determined by looking at the allegations in the complaint versus the insurance policy which has been the standard test illinois applied for decades or as the dues of the fine passed in so diluted that a court can venture past the allegations in the complaint and consider some hypothetical version standard is determined by using the allegations of the complaint versus an insurance policy in this case when you look at the comp certain cases which endorse a far ranging hypothetical analysis based on the the complaint this court has to look at we don't know what facts are out there we don't know what  the point is that courts aren't allowed to work at annoying complaints and divine facts that are played for the sake of a foreign culture and that's the better analysis and the one that frankly dictates predictable and this is also a case of pekin was involved in the court actually said it's tied to the allegations in the complaint made and they did not endorse the far ranging speculation that all homes that as far as score fourteen goes i'm planning here was a subcontractor and the law presumes that a contractor here martin is not liable for the actions of contractor on the receipt for fourteen unless the in the brief to consideration of the sub contract and this one analysis was not one that i saw and i thought i think in court today he suggested that we should be considering the subcontract again i would i would encourage everyone myself included to go back and one set up a direct conflict in this district with the first district i don't believe that's where you got to contractors status so i think in trying to clear the consideration of quinn's pleading there overstating the holding united contractors i respectfully sued for failing to provide support and adequate rebar cage to work out i think that is a fair construct of those allegations and that puts us in a situation where martin is being sued for something that  quote improperly we were alleged to have improperly operated managed and controlled the force of the premises so that is the reckon proximate result there of the point that was injured and when you say i contend that allegation i
you know it is not complicated it is a question yes does it make any difference whether he interfere her opinions based upon his knowledge of what she was going to say and his knowledge
not it was calculated to provide her with the information was required on its face it is in fact in fact it does not say to date that the judge presumed she had actually received this o p m decision but even indication we did actually either met or when she received the final decision so there's actually no evidence it was on time what we have is we have a date of the decision which is november notification she would have been able to establish that she did time week while i mean for example the the decision on reconsideration was dated i believe you're right november should well let's suppose she received it on november tenth and certainly her filing was on time it was very much a visit was that we don't know whether that's the case or whether she it took two or three months for her to get it and happened of course there was a long delay but that's because the decision was sent to the wrong address but here my understanding from the record is that it was sent to the same address that he has now well actually make is that with or without any argument at all that she was prejudice it's hard for us to conclude that this was anything other than supreme court case in little or just doesn't win will say that in dealing with their retirement disability the court at least in those days that was before the board was created t to the board but in that case she was the board of the court found that she was misled by a defective timeliness notice which led her to believe that the principal issue was the da late denied review in the court and said no she should be excused because of this detective noticed that she was responding to and they said as a general matter judges should inform  all the things that are stated there it's just a realistic to expect a pro se litigant so just sauber to reasonably understand what's being put forward there and that's where we get to the due process arguments
think you know cut a finger or something chopping something i can see that but you get to be really is this something that he was required to do looking for vegetables under tables you know the sick happen all the time or is it just you know this particular his arm into a deep narrow back street trees parts for inspection was distinctly associated with his employment the act of reaching into a box or so you telling us to pursue shop looking can usually underneath the table for missing vegetables doesn't matter what how frequently he's doing it or whether it's to sync with associated basically you're put your are giving is you know occasionally in the course of being the sushi he would occasionally and whether it's once a week once a month have to look for vegetables on of the that's what he was doing so if you're a manager of a plant and occasionally you're called upon to help somebody in the middle with you dude be compensated if you're injured because your overall responsibility like a ship is to help on implant surfers if there's bending over her bending down looking for things was really something pretty distinctly associated with his personal job duties you're trying to sell it on the japanese get simple overarching responsibility for the kitchen although it is natural necessarily his  which had lewd acts which the employee might reasonably be expected to perform incident his assigned duties absence of that then put it in the category of the job description of the next notes and if you don't have a job description
developing so to some extent the liberal issue was a moving target but the facts were presented in a very thorough way and at the end of the entire stretch presentation mr john waiting for the plaintiff's myself in the court slap issue should also provided her comments on the record because she had the record before that her comments were to encourage the plaintiffs to look at the rack of merit of their case to also from the beginning of the case that the claim against them was a genuine anti spam claim a genuine slap claim so when we said to the court that it would be a motion for summary i'm seven days counsel for the looking at the core issue that the basis of the decision in from our own well is the separation of powers between the co equal branches of the illinois government and to the legislature couldn't this one that says separation either before for collateral estoppel to apply it has to a gentleman who had settled his case and was not even a witness in the state's later proceeding which had nothing to do with getting his property cleaned he had an summary judgment and even if summary judgment had not been properly beach the court should have granted michael noonan a dismissal a marriage under the enticing i'll stand on the operation for the remainder of our arguments unless
of the lease which was what head of stablished the options are the rights to renew the lease and it also did not change the provision that those options to renew are deemed to be automatically exercise in the absence of a notice from tenet to the man minute seventy thousand dollars per year plus a percentage of the grant conditions subsequent were satisfied namely that the tenant was in good standing in the head there were no breaches or default some of the lease so at the time leases drafted the demise term and after twenty years now this is not only consistent with the legal definition of the my eyes are demise term but it's also consistent with the original language in section two point zero two of the lease originally remember the lease i ran chart that said for the rent on one point zero to hear a lot in that i want to start with what i think the problem is with that argument at the time one point zero two was originally drafted you had section two point zero to the very specific a moments or briefly with respect to the lease and its definition of demise term i would invite the corps to carefully read section one point zero two and i
board rules require that if you want to take issue with a complaint you take action within thirty days if that happened in this case did you contest the complaint you an answer to the complaint filed instead of something contesting the contents of the complainer the sufficiency of the complaint and answer was file of whether or not this was hazardous waste you're saying that you know they didn't check that box but what about the request to admit and i can't remember the exact time the machines but the documents that were prepared when you were going to ship to who are attempting to ship to various places anyone actually read these things or they just kind of slap together i mean what i just wrote you were not you know no hundred couple hundred these are the back to back requests to admit pretty i hope that this matter will be communicated back to the drafting pleadings of this current they need to be more careful
clause saying if anything here is not mentioned and it's later discovered it's to be divided in the same way justice which was fifty percent of the mill parish so that's the answer she would give fifty percent can be interpreted the other residents at the labor but issues he's already getting his retirement benefits i mean and that's what the court determines basically that's what he was doing even though it was titles as just one thing he's actually and i don't think that the record necessarily reflects there but the three answer a question as best i can here is taking the disability now instead of the retirement that the husband would retire  disability benefits it does not use the word pension it uses the word specifically due to disability benefits until the confessor age of retirement at which point he must retire he's no longer eligible to receive the disability but that he will begin drawing on his pension at which point he becomes drawing on his pension mr there will receive the same fifty percent of the male portion that she had a resolute it under the marital settlement agreement i'd like to also pressed just a se
and it also makes a difference with respect to whether or not we can determine if she's the rehabilitated if she's a prospective juror and she has not yet been placed in the jury box in question by the court can you disregard certain things in you be you know fear and impartial versus if she's are even some length to that's over and she sends this text and gives these responses and there is no opportunity i realize no one knew this was going that there was no opportunity to even look to the record and say well hey when you have that happen after that happened the judge questioned her about what you're considering with the evidence it isn't what you're not considering so we don't know that i didn't say soliciting and i don't know that there's any basis to say she's the hypothetical i gave you are trying to form this question here if she says i've been selected on the boat child sexual abuse interested i frankly think you know just speculating this is all probably much ado about nothing that we got her on the witness stand she say oh yeah i you know i didn't think there was anything to do and i got these where is here what we have is maybe that is we won't really know until we heard from a journalist this is what makes this case so usual  trial and his lawyer should have pursued this perhaps but maybe it's just due process claim about the don't see doubt about the germans conduct this is not my question is is it a colorful claim and she says it's got to be a substantial claim of a claim of substantial constitutional
drives digital and i don't know whether if we set up a monitor i don't can't tell from the record whether we look at the monitor and he can see what the camera sees without being actually recording stadium that the vendor said he did this and the fans are taking ten dollars in there he used for gas so that doesn't match up to the evidence either because twenty dollars was taken so there the whether or not they had whether or not this has it had to come in or not really doesn't matter because they had evidence i'm  reliable enough either so we have all you have is just this tiny little evidence that he actually confessed to doing this that would be the only evidence instead of just your calibrating your doing whatever you know the department comes in in check that defense attorneys would say would the operator has you know how it works and clearly we have case law and now this is they don't have to know how it works just has to be certified that certain intervals why does the why does the police officers explanation of what he believed happened any different then that probably because there was a problem with the i can only explain him as detective again needed that for some reason there was still news for the camera was not picking up motion and therefore as he testified the when the know what stops the motion does he have to go out there and and go through hoops to figure out what happened or does he just get to i guess this is what happened while i believe that that matter is not a foundation question i believe that that goal is to the weight of the arguments if the judge wants to believe that his explanation was not there and the judge said that he accepted that his explanation believe that set one extent that we know it's probably magnum and sitting at that desk in this second district court you're right it would have no relevance for the day but here we don't have that problem because we have the people testifying to the money was on not just you know the camera because he testifies later that the cameras are always on it's the video that started in stopping he testifies to that he testifies that one when we left it there was a working order and when he came back state is the states require to rebut that the old time argument but is the argument then it was tampered with or it malfunctioning door or does it make a difference when you come right down to what the state's responsibility is going to be from the record that this is the this is exactly what i shot on the d v r is that now i mean your strength right here is it was tampered with but what if it's the original recording and even were bringing it the judge said either it is or isn't there isn't any and of a judge has to make a decision so do we need before we start whiteley's ing t v our recordings we need to rely ability hearing to determine the
inconsistency to the statements going then he was seventeen he was so embarrassed to have been sexually molested that he needed to build himself up and his statement to the base was more of a a question that the state proved the elements of a first degree murder the issue here is not whether the defendant was actually acting in such passion as would  videotape compassion all also shows that the defendant did not possess an unreasonable belief in the need for self defense the only evidence that would tend to show that he did was his own
good morning again i counsel a sense that this is a unique case the facts are unique but that doesn't mean that the evidence failed to support the conviction for an easy action  some together right because they could not be fighting without getting together in the face of their past purposes doesn't mean that it's not a crime because that would amount to oftentimes mutual combat that could result in say a second degree murder were still acting together because if they are doing that there will be no danger there will be no match in terms of the claim of ineffective assistance it as i stated after he was shot at right i believe it was the testimony was on the simultaneously i don't believe it was so bad that i think it was the victim's cousin i could be wrong if i thought mr young said that the shots came from  a little like you remember that i believe is mr henry saying that the entire event occurred in only about fifteen seconds which in my minds your honor would be practically simultaneous so especially given the number of bets that were fired on both ends i believe the
case i would guess that the attorneys who are going to be arguing for each side both of you if there's to step up to the podium and kindly identify yourself for the record n suggest that is is wrong if you're not a family member a reason of death means this but if you're a family member it doesn't mean yes and that is what normally might be considered in the spirit result the family caregivers
system can make static corrections through software
sturdiest and that's all well and good so how do how do we know that the lawyer didn't have time you know you could get career offender status and you might get such and such but i'm hoping you informed and intelligent knowing voluntary choice that's why he should be given that information or write it under if you're under oath and the judge tells you you're going to get all you can get a lot more than this i know your lawyer may give you a they understand and we don't accept rule i'm pleased until we're confident as a matter of fact that the waivers appropriate it seems to me that that we need a little more than that if if what we have before us is all we have here  could hear anything that the lawyer might have told the client i'm not sure but i know i feel like there's a lie the president says we shouldn't be trying to reach that issue in this proceeding and