MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
establishes injury and pain and suffering in this and evidence of the proven element of damages was disregarded by the jury secondly that by a morning seven months or five thousand five hundred dollars for all medication wouldn't do the trick that same day he went to see a doctor my girls were x rays were performed and that the object of findings of injury were because of that evidence to build that this case is in line with this court's decision in murray versus bill where a new trial was ordered on the issue the issue of damages only and in that case there were x rays that show a straightening of the lurker that occurred in the cervical spine and this objective evidence was consistent dollars in medical expenses that this that the claimant underwent for a couple of weeks where she admitted that she was playing tennis every day to be very active in school activities the supreme court that it was reasonable to find that verdict was intervening trauma and prior incidents with her and injuries here none of that is true there's no defense expert there's no doctor saying he wasn't injured there's no right or contributing accidents there's no subsequent contributing accident the jury objective soft tissue injury that was caused by this accident there's no mother and on the record the pain and suffering were clearly established and this was the thing and this was the basis for the jury what a medical expense it should have  something for pain and grief so in this case the jury disregarded that and we don't know why it is easier in the supreme court going to make an award when you have a bill in front of you than it is to have this case is different than slow and over it was very clear that when she went to the doctor couple of days after the accident she was there for problems she had on multiple occasions prior to  prior to this accident no doctors and oh this is related to something or also over there was a significant gap in treatment there was an issue of old sports injuries new sports injuries and s model accidents after the are no accident in question in that case she got imported not for months you got awarded nine physical therapy visit and one doctor's visit and cancer fifteen hundred dollars in treatment this jury awarded mr banks were five thousand five hundred dollars in medical expenses every ninety he said was related and that represents seven months of pain related medical expenses as
investigation with that was done by farmers i believe a a a denial and it was based on an investigation that was done by the investigators a whisky there were state essential appliances and the insurance company shouldn't be allowed to ask mr morgan about something other than whether the insured plaintiff cooperated with  him and have something to eat  special report there was a from a police report issued
whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa hey you think i pay you to stand around and do nothing you lazy w why i gave him i
force disagrees and argues that the intersection or junction between two things can form what can be described as major and i would like to add
any number of those pieces are not at all related to agriculture and we know that in brief again the lighting major utility transmission facilities railroad rights of way all kinds of things that are not available doesn't also made of these or commercial to four these people they are sending a letter saying that they reviewed the application for the permit and writing true for me that it may only be used for personal or agricultural purposes and not for business operations so i'm wondering why the holding you knew to write this letter he was running a business before he applied for the permit but not that  a vehicle shall not be considered a residential structure but if you look at page five in the schedule you'll see a primitive uses a trailer commercial or private when you see that definition and you look at the work a structure and then you look at the definition of structure all landing unit is used for agricultural purposes is a permitted use earth and that works but he's got a greenhouse whole sale and retail that's a business  it's being conducted away from her the farm or the property but when justice challenging asked that question she asked about is it isn't that part of the business it probably is part of
believe there's adequate evidence to do that we have to use the gestures of monist it pursued a lot of things in order to get to that point because we have to presume that there was there are already out there who was waiting in the bushes so to speak circumstances i'm not sure i understand it seems like in any situation where you have two individuals whether they are robbing a bank or burglarizing a home the argument could always be made that there was compulsion so is the state saying that they don't like the definition of the i p i are they saying that this additional language is needed in all cases to clarify the i p i no i'm not understanding what the specific circumstances were here in the record right here you're right it is not every case i you would probably agree that the fact that you have this long period of time you're buying some pounds even carrying a gun is not imminent so i guess that's what my question is if emma accurately where his family was in the credit protection for his family it's just not but that's going to go to the word imminent this is i can see a prosecutor arguing before the jury everything that you've said and then saying that this is not imminent and therefore you can't find for the but you know for the defense of compulsion so i'm still having trouble understanding why the i p i was changed i maybe i misunderstood that but
the museum's newsletter telling about all different kinds of her area that we have included including other walk and county history programs coming up this round bags and other things and also telling about her exhibitions and this is the island caper a wonderful both that's been doing well watching crew here for years and they've been they've been doing the museum history cruise for twenty nine years  where the flattened calamity it's my dad's eightieth birthday today and we're out here celebrating by taking a cruise and we're looking very forward to it yes thank you you're very welcome but they pop weekly rates if you want to sometimes it's nice to charter a boat before you buy it so that you know how it runs and you know what kind of conditions you're going to get into how the engine goes and so this breaks down the boat that you've just seen and the weekly rates through to charter it and so it's called northwest expirations hears the phone number so thanks for watching public interest issue so if you're interested in charging a boat so that you can see if you want to buy it everybody is different and you can test the engines and test everything you can call in and children set up an appointment for you and she'll set up a charter so some of those boats in those photographs are for sale and some of them are charters and there's another don and our a blue heron yacht sales and they also do eight chris craft eighty eight is only thirty five thousand so they have a lot of remarkable ice and a lot of different boats and a lot of different styles is also the area for see if you like it or you can buy a boat but this is nice because they have a sailing school so in case you are a first time boat owner and you'd really love the luxury of having a boat you can come here and learn how to drive your boat before you see a little off and here's the other one and as i showed you guys a few minutes ago these people also have at belhaven charters they also  for sale it's really nice they have a great wall and they all have all sorts of power boats and sail  and they have all sorts of variety of prices i mean this boat is twenty nine thousand for thirty four foot and this location in bellingham has a marina and i don't know about the dock space that you call and these people would probably tell you about  in all sorts of sail boats in case you're going to buy a sailboat to go up the same ones and so here's the bill even shorter and their phone numbers three six zero seven three three six six three six there's the blueberry and then across the street is where we're going to go because right over there is the orca we're going to meet the front of the or and this is the marine that we're the boat do some people think that there  and they all flowed out kitchen and here is their flyer for out kitchen and this boat story has nothing to do with their charter these books you can charge
daughter's we would want our contribution claim against a person who is responsible for cleaning out the gutters to also be tagged along with us on so that those issues can be tried at the same time evening it wasn't slippery there were no sheets of ice they were able to walk through the misty water through the sleet through the rain that was had been going on for two hours that day then they were snow and by the time they came out there was snow covering the sidewalks it was a sheet of ice as you've already heard people were slipping all over the place which is inconsistent with the situation as when they first however the property owners to the management company to the maintenance contractor about a defect or problems or it could be that the allegations that the governors were dripping are causing some kind of a natural accumulation or some rather than the natural which is precipitation that was prevalent get with regards to the proximate cause and intervening harvest it shouldn't matter whether you're intervening causes are related to a sane individual or multiple individuals if you've got an intervening cause that should be what is relevant it's incumbent upon the plaintiff to demonstrate facts which would cause a legal duty i don't even think the sport needs to get sued whether the act lies or not because we can decide that there is not even a duty so we don't even have to resolve to discuss and they cannot do that they have no nexus between the drinking water and the location of the fall they have no expert that could save the dripping water that would land on the slab that slope towards the building could arrive at the kitchen of the fall and they will be able to have such expert testimony because again the slope from the slab which would first catch that you're being water is going the wrong direction they don't have any evidence to show that the slope of the sidewalk property management's an owner's responsibility to the scene when it deals with national communications isn't there a have no obligation or duty to remove national simulations and if they attempt to do so which they have laid so that anyone who attempts to remove snow or ice from the sidelines shall not be liable for personal injuries caused by the snow or icy conditions resulting from his or her acts or omissions so than a natural accumulation because the summary judgment against them was moved in the first place and that the defendant should be allowed to see a contribution claim against the better cleaning person based on the plaintiff's allegations that the cutters
in we've talked about the recommended releases but the testimony at the hearing by i think it was dr around even though he recommended release didn't he also say that he could answer responded when he was in view with words or so you're saying because he voluntarily agreed to be interviewed before the court goes to the to order him to be interviewed currently if it were the fact that he had done some things that made him socially dangerous ten years ago then there would never be a reason for a recovery hearing because the deal would have been done if we were to die consider the the second examination your position still is that there was current information that would have helped him in the he never made it past the orientation stage which there were four stages also the doctor for the state didn't find different highness back and that then responded i do agree that there was substantial evidence that he never really did much at all to address what his problems were but do you believe that the judge could just  still be incarcerated and you believe that he could basically cherry pick her take parts of the evaluation and disregard the conclusion that he the three individuals came up with that said fact on the jury do you think that was by placing the crying victim on the witness stand from years past how does that crying good though relate to the present seem to
kind of like a light duty work right did they ever is there anything in the record that says we have no light duty and so we've got to make you do this or your evidence the contrary saying we're not going to honor the duty restrictions or something like that district so my question is the same to you as it was to mr donahue was there discovery in the record about application of the neutral policy there was and what did it show mr reviews and then all of a sudden the no four started the bad reviews all of that still would have been available in with the same thing i think what mr dunn is saying is that he's he's building his case this way certain corporate representatives put her in a position where she could not comply with the absenteeism policy in another corporate representative who knew nothing about the whistle blowing just did his job and fired her because she did not comply with the absenteeism policy but if she was put in that position where she could terminated that's what that was about but you know if the argument here i think is you have certain corporate representatives put into motion a series of events that is going to cause the terminate and they do that because of whistle blowing and then as a result of those events that they put into motion she's terminated due to some policy by some other corporate representatives she's been terminated
me not in accordance with o down and what the actual transcript shows so from the judge's perspective mr goldstein was presenting it or that i behalf of saxony which the interest of the nation star was this fire on is first they were first record and solo and our position was and again it hasn't been adjudicated that way so the first position and the at is support c sixty nine to seventy on the record pure grass eleven in twelve of the title commitment so i want to clear that up and there's another point that i think is important to clear up and man is there in fact took the position and explained to the court her position that taylor being had been served and although there was a bankruptcy filing and other issues with taylor being that all those had occurred  and she explained it but without the court doesn't have to resolve this issue because i'd like to take a step back and go to my defenses and i believe that is quite clear and i think that just dates i found two different dates that were there were set out in the record and when saxon assignment was made and one was the time or twenty fifth of two thousand and ten and client for or to run four point three to apply are absolutely clear second the action need not be a legal malpractise or even a negligence claim it's absolute there in the language of the now at this point in time and some sometime after me we've already talked about the dates being somewhat unclear since takes the assignment and incense holy smokes we came out you know we got so and it doesn't make any difference of down the road and that gets reversed or vacated or what have you you are injured because there's a vegetable against you so i mean you can open walk away back to then but if you you know because there's no damages so you can't have it both ways you can say there's no damage to the leading up to in putting this this judgement on wyoming getting this problem on the ground and then say that it meant nothing happened until  now and dad we also have have included in our brief the argument that this is just this is just not on its face fraud and in fact it's the council and i should say nation sta didn't self out of court by damaging that there was no intent by the person who supposedly misspoke to mr goldstein yes that there was no intent and that's been that's been candidly and goes by the wayside now and all of these attorneys alternative arguments are present best there's no plan greece responding to any of them so i think again any kind of response is waved and i will be i would like to see you know sort of stand up an objective case there's a i just had this in another case which is why it pops into my head material services out of the illinois supreme court ninety nine a second something make step point very clearly and we can raise this issue without any enemy to prove their case out of the that nation star is now those who it's mortgages now no good
injuries rheumatoid arthritis is not an injury it's a condition big back to just the observation they found and injury not he single in the visible injury these are two separate injuries or conditions they are giving her workers compensation benefits for those injuries that she
i think the call of the safety valve in the committee commons that we'll repeat this is a motion it's a notion asking the board here's the good cause here's what happened we didn't file or we didn't file on time please accept a late notice of looked at the statute and says this is a plain language yes you do in the us is is the property intended are permitted to be used for recreational purposes hong kong's a library more like a gymnasium and less like a school  it's not just studying its books it's movies it's a videos they have reading programs where they can read stories to people who are interested in listening they have activities in the parking lot they have subjective standard they're not going to look at what just the claim is saying that they're doing at the time because that would always create a question of fact three are good mind to address notice as well do they think  and in this case the testimony is clear and again undisputed which is important read persons from the library megan miller and the director look right to this property at least three times a week during normal months she said like february march when it w always placed a bag he lifted it and it was in a flash position that is the only testimony and there is no testimony indicating that the language did anything to create or cause a condition there's judgment and look at do we want to reconsider this and should we add with it recognize that anything you're trying to bring before the trial court now is not going to make a difference because all the evidence before the court is not establishing notice which is necessary for willful and wanton and both negligence and it's also not supporting the claims that the library did something and should be good to cause something to happen no evidence
it is it your position then that the information from the bank to the office or question was given to him after there was a full investigation and charges pending actual here yes there are there are is about whether or not the first district decision injection correctly applies to this case and what this court must do whether the sides to follow jackson and apply jackson to this case or whether doesn't and where things go from there so with respect to the constitution don't have a privacy interest in their records because of the third party nature of bank records because of a whole host of reasons going back to you know generally just the fact that you know in which our state courts and this is in the state health course the state supreme court headed to court to follow the united states supreme court in different directions adopting greater protections for the citizens of illinois based soley on the state constitution tell me when the police officer got the information whether that was too poor after an investigation and the gun it doesn't tell me was there this next bit was arrested ok that's why i keep saying you can't point to anything in the record t all the records with this program person's name on it is the state action or is that simply the bank saying you know told me i made you think i'm sick to my of a crime i think agree with that and here you go that a civil suit against the bank for this stage and it's not participated in the gathering of that information it just receives with the bank brings to it as opposed to the state by the discovery through the process and that simple statement of the record does not mean the facts when the facts are provided to the state there's no there's nothing in the record that supports the government's argument that this was somehow providing food to th
and in that declaration which was acquired by the united states in connection with its motion for summary judgment of mr carter indicates that two of the three named plaintive already had their  their administrative terminations of entitlement to that office and that the only reason they did not receive the benefits is because of the united states regulations that should be considered money mandated and in this case where it's an allegation that the government owes you money there has to be a song served here there is not some servant because opium still has to determine the amount of the
continuing basis so that was obviously not true she wrote up a lot of things but never brought up any buses for bad seeds witnesses indicated that you know that was map the case i mean they had credibility were defective the commission of reversed the arbitrator's award here based on what it found to be incredible testimony on the part of the claimant relative to the fact it seems right commission also specifically found the claimants credibility was undermining damaged by her failure to attribute any symptom to the bus seats until her visit with dr ch'ien now in january twelve twenty zero nine eleven months after she sought treatment consultation with the entrails of chickens i don't think we have big ability to turn around and say this guy is shown far our no reasonable human being could believe that and then when you get a situation like you're arguing mass transit to start our position is that the commission's decision should be affirmed their decision is not against the manifest we do the evidence if you review their decision i first and foremost she must prove that she had an accent and her main are her main testimony was whining that she had these broken seats that she received the same buses all the time they all had these  issue comes out the first time that we hear their their vows or bellows fell out of the box causing injury to her back when she went back november december on the first time that we hear that
and that's exactly the book the wording is use if you read the opinion basically sets out that it's supposed to be an objective standard and that every round i think agrees with bath as far as i can tell from reading the three of the briefs the correct question to ask is whether there's a
before the person who view that is something that was going on right in there that is something that he needed to be terminal where that person who view war was going to be acting in the best interest best public interest kell sufi for working on both history of information cases that he had pending at that time even though you only prevailed one he was seeking attorneys fees for the alternative method  you knew how i handled him how him i felt and he recommended be on because i could take something that nobody is used to doing and do something with it but judge dorothy said that reasonable necessary legal services to enforce a cause of action that actually exists in favor of this fine