MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
exception and then i would have thought that there would be a lot of the law where somebody brings a case similar to yours person says it's at will employment and you say ah but the discrimination statutes create this property interests and i couldn't find any lying this same song because i would have thought that would have been where you would mostly see the impingement on at will employment and then you the question is you might have it you might have a property interest in not being fired for registering majority reason but you have to have a governmental requirement for checking that and actually under title seven for example different sections in the statute maybe property insurance but the force of mechanism and charge of the government involved name is not mandatory so i think that's where the gap is so i that's why i'm that but my query here once we cut through the chase so what degree does your theory allow people to sue the government agency not the employer but the government agents and where so you know throughout the complainant discusses your honor the fact that the defendant's officials engaged in conversations with and public arena as well as the senior official reasoning for withdrawing the complaint was that she didn't want her employer to find out that she made the complaint so that's a bit problematic but that doesn't take it outside of whether others are all asleep or why she
we're here on an appeal don't know set the standard as to what your standard it's what the standard here is for a reasonable price tradition in that area that question was never asked nor answered by the did our best to get this case moving how well the reason i bring this up is it's not an excuse merely another fact in this case the fact that we all have to deal with if there were some things that happened close to trial it's to repeat myself too much rum
them both trial courts determination that the case should be dismissed and this appeal of the first thing is that the suit was obviously filed when mr meyers was to see and we know from the law that such a or any letters of office for mr meyers estate at that point the statue of limitations passes there is no pending loss we know no state or letters of office at the trial for mr meyers at any appointed it or if counsel or plaintiff bed or suit a special representative which is the policy of the protocol that would be required in this case then that would be a proper legal entity but at this point in time when the statue  probate and see if there's an administrator appointed and then name that person at the personal representative in this personal injury case if that hasn't happened then he needs to of file in motion for leave to name a special representative and then pursue against that person what we know from the statutes there's two clear distinctions in the statute under two nine b two that deals with special viewpoint of special representative that deals with a personal representative of a disease very specific there is no interchangeability of those two terms and the significance of the role case from the supreme court is that it discusses the distinction between special representative and personal representative very specifically talks about that there is a certain protocol that needs to be filed and if there is no probate if there are no letters of office or administrator that's been appointed back situation that we have does not provide for an extension of the statue limitations sessions be one and session seen which deal with personal representative do so i think that that tells us everything we need to know a clear plain reading of the statute itself tells us that if you're in a situation where you need to file against a special representative of a deceased person you need to file within  they there is no other way i going to read these statutes other than that there's no ambiguity about it i don't think there's any lack of clarity about the ex the se limitations for the plaintiff in this case was simply not extended the court i believe law subject matter jurisdiction when there was no pending lawsuit against any legal entity by the time the schedule limitations pa there is the you know the real case is significant or pointed out the factual factual to similarity that's certainly true in that case there was a personal representative what that supreme court case case when that occurs therefore if you have if you don't have that and you simply need to follow the requirements of two hundred ninety two for a special representative you need to follow that specific section it's very clear way that wasn't done in this case and the proper procedure for a deceased person without an estate which is clearly laid out into ninety two was not done as well so i think in any scenario paint this case was properly dismissed at the
to the trenches the distribution book what about the disclosures what about just telling the market here there's a very deep here's the exit oh the market is move just just be aware that this is tough there's a prolonged failure to
the judge did in other words maybe i mean because of the way the question was worth it is a logical to think that what the judge thought was that would be taking definition that i think any adult pretty much knows what it is i think if the question maybe had been you know a little bit different maybe the  what you can see did it is possible that the jury was having problems understanding it was a language issue is pompey's this or is it that or is it this well i think there was testimony and think th between maybe and we've talked about that you also see it as you know the full significance special legal significance then why did the term stan offense i mean they charged a penetration of the anus if it's i think that's pretty significant that is the point of reference the anus so it is a legal it's a legal term in this respect it doesn't say bit penetrate internee capping the issue is it penetrated her tennis so we they don't and he does the translation if i'm wrong it's either for front or front box in backpacks shouldn't they then either evidence or otherwise clarify what that means well i think it was
there's plenty of evidence in this case through dint of the princip although that's not what the instructions say  persuasive than conflicting testimony it's important to know that at the trial required for aiding and abetting a complex crime like i'm twenty four c so in rosemond the situation that you have had was a question about whether the defendant knew he knew there was going to be a modern why are accomplice liability which is that there's just no differen
well even if you had handle a spokesperson you slow me down i don't want to hurt your feelings but you're not physically tough enough for the job i'm s life is wonderful gentleman toast is an order how quickly the last few days of god if only we could turn back the clo how many days but it did to each question ten ten days i should say eight women and children on a skeleton crew will get underway and i spoke or first thing in the morning if worst comes to worst they should still be out of range when the missiles hit assuming the missiles are accurate enough to hit the base there's no question about a missile target that's very reassuring and what about the rest of you the rest of us will hope for the best sure major carter i have been saving this for a very special occasion i really shouldn't take it sir and drink it by myself but i with if carter's going to get drunk tonight you don't want to you got any more surprises for doctor are you afraid of heights sometimes while you have a list of most real running out of time all right let's go
before that they had it d d e so he said contact or participating with them they couldn't they couldn't get the contract to begin with unless they had a ten percent at least a ten percent participation by  to really have ten percent participation they were just mis representing their situation shirts and hats you know signs under trucks that they were that that in three hundred plus cases that they displaced so many others from the opportunity to do this kind of it's doing in this case versus applying a credit to the loss that occurred as a result of the government benefit what difference is that should an inefficient send contractor who only makes one million dollar profit  thank you very much will have
a pending probation here in destroy any demonstration that this defendant received one hundred percent accurate information on the disclosure that something he was actually suspended  providing the him with the correct information about mr miller's qualifications and abilities to represent him and his status with the f t c he wasn't able to adequately assassin whether he wanted to believe any to attorney a choice was complete when mr wiener gave him the fast information on the record and that's the information that the sport needs to know that it carries station that was held off the record  relating to his choices as he presented the facts there's only a handful of them and i would hope that this type of situation wouldn't happen that often that an affirmative right would be tells you that there are we have we have about the sad because he didn't peach the officer with the statement about the ha forty seven that was not included in his police report right fact and i'm suggesting that a trial tactic may
got first in line for the trial because he just moved to most of hamilton county right afterwards and that's good to feel we're talking about the same victim and just repeated incidents occur thank you
off the brother of the two brothers then and the daughter began to take drawings from that company they all three of them serviced the company even though they were working full time for the driver had no interest in this business in that car but he not only threatened to sue them but he also made veiled threats that he would remove them from their positions with the does some work there is no question about that but when she returned from texas she requested you go back to work as vice president of operations and don got to refuse to allow her to do that and and she made many requests even through her mother marilyn one of the other stockholders to go back to work but she was not allowed to go back to work and then  was illegal conduct at the time as a side issue vice accord that she did fire eventually but it was after she was removed from the board of directors  conduct practiced against the minority stockholder can also be call of pressure on the status of own question isn't just illegality or fraud although we do not really g want to talk about that just a moment prior to the action taken by the defendants actually what we meant to say was the sure holders receive fifty nine percent of the record so the profits prior to the action taken themselves may not be admissible because of hearsay but certainly the expert is allowed on rules to testify and of course of course it's true that we think that's important in terms of being able to prove damages because we think that we prove what we're supposed to under the statute to get you that you have request thank you very much to other shareholders personally opportunities like buying the business real estate from the library store or investing in this company called had meds i don't believe that sure is or would you need to other shareholders to  with respect to changing the locks very quickly the judge didn't find much credibility in the testimony of stephen governor who testified that you know they get it for security reasons or the other stores because of the laws and again we're talking about a cause of action under the americans with disabilities for experts of business you to be able to rely on the wrong reports provided by other experts in this case we had informed the services of a real estate appraiser to appraise the property taken aback when he was not allowed to testify to the manner in which he proceeded and in doing his expertise valuation this was not a surprise was to move the other
issues the first part richelle involved the commission's decision on notice accident causation mistakes testified she told assistant manager cindy on february fourteenth two thousand and nine about the pain  regards to the other shoulder all this time goes by she never mentions it to her treating physician doesn't that sort of weigh against don't it does it all but only in the sense that and this is from my experience as a practitioner and worker's compensation looking through hundreds of thousand pages of medical records orthopedist like dr mackintosh somebody goes in with numerous complaints that various body parts they tend to focus on the b to actually shop at this wal mart while she was off work nothing in those that particular video i believe contradicts directly her testimony and showed her listening five pound plus a toke from her day the quality video and through every single second of the poor quality grainy from zero distance quite a distance away bench point and she is not seen in the entire time she was walking up and down aisles yes they are  issue with dr mackintosh stating that when she was under restrictions for a while and she was back to work for the spot for war she was working as a  however when confronted with additional information or a refresher of her recollection she did adopt she did change and say ok i was mistaken about that's that's the more accurate fact with
indicator for every mistake or you judicially it's you after paying all these insurance premiums judicial estoppel really what we're trying to get asked we don't want you to take unfair advantage of the legal system we don't want you to gain advanta and the other questions not the moment you may want to see the rest of your time  recently insurance policy on the artwork itself that is that is why we did not make that an issue here that i don't think whether or not other than alerting the trustee to that for the possession of half a million dollars worth of artwork do with the state of the financial affairs those who lost everything you're holding for anybody else and if i may point out in one of the documents submitted by cesky his own statements to the company he also when he was asked about the artwork that was on the schedule because you know i'm an avid collector i collect a lot of artwork this schedule that we're accounts for about sixty percent of what i own i've got another forty percent up there now where was that in his papers again i don't so he could gain an advantage certainly under hamilton and how to live with that i think at that point the court was able to exercise its discretion and apply the doctrine expect an interest which is what he seems to classify this as is not insurable unless it's founded on an actual right or a contract to it so for instance if i put a down payment on a on an item and have a signed contract i can go insure it which then brings up the question what's the extent of my insurable interest and again that and that would be how much of my going to lose by its destruction but in this case all he has is this hope of one day inheriting it historical interest and i'll tell you why if i were to lose something that i'm holding for somebody else if somebody breaks into my apartment and steals it and they come to me and say hey any value of my property i could tell them  liability issue it's not my fault go after whoever took this property unless and where i'm not legally obligated to pay for it and they cover myself with liability insurance but this is a property insurance matter if they want to cover their property they can insure it that's what the law is people who are not in possession of their own property insurance i know from personal experience insurance companies not very happy about that he was transferred or whatever whatever interest he had as of the time he filed for bankruptcy it was transferred to the trustee and nothing's changed between then time of the loss so he didn't say after after my just charged my grandparents no interest because all it was the something that didn't belong to me and i was going to inherit it later then find out he has and i was terrible interest on the last because nothing changed after that he didn't even say well then afterwards my grandparents
at the same time ok verification or rocco or an age or it's undisputed that this was an isolated incident it took several years before it was formally reported in its undisputed that that behavior was ed then perhaps a jurisdictional issue might be right for are the view so that's the reason i'm asking this question i do understand that all orders of probation require offenders to be law abiding and that into the statute that you've just cited he would be required to comply with separate sort of registration requirements but so the reasons i'm asking those questions is specifically in reference to the big decision of r and there was a third decision about the same time watson i believe and of course untether i was this drunk dissent but heather and coach of our stamp are the proposition that at least some members of this court presidential effect does it have on us to day and you have anticipated my question very well i appreciate the level preparation you bring to the podium here today so let's assume just for the sake of ok ok so you are cautiously optimistic that once we get the mandate we will not be changing the substantive impact of our decisions ok i appreciate that th then most likely he was ten and perhaps even under ten that said now if anything she says she was eight years old but she also says she was in fourth or fifth grade she never says it was date night when ur summer given that i think the maybe has to be some is it possible for him to move in the states and yet we know that he would even be capable of being sexually gra innocence innocence into problems innocence of child because of age and the presumption of innocence for any given adult and so that is what i'm struggling with here what caused the trial judge to presume that a ten year old or twelve year old and i know kids are changing you know how i was at ten years of age is different from how my children expectations were not fulfilled because it behavior was repeated or is that crossing the line for us because to me he expected he said he expected it to feel good but the behavior was never repeat something that feels good is something i love massages a i go to have their beauty massage you know couple times him because it feels good but he didn't repeat this behavior would it be fair to us  condition of probation that is present in this order shall obey all the laws of the united states center etc whether the condition of probation with a requirement to obey all laws of the state of illinois distinguishes
opinion and one of the reasons i actually took this case up this far as because the dissenting commissioner points out were things that the two reverse and commissioners were doing that it was probably the room looking to find a way to get around interstate scaffolding to cut off the t t based upon you know a false claim of the guy doing something to someone in the workplace sacrificing really analyzing the case how it ends they want to actually realizing what was happening from  focus in treatment towards the arm which didn't result in compliance ok the specialist who correct the arm problems because it wasn't an arm problem it was coming from the now as we know from the disco gram that was done four months later when he got in the hands of the next the commission is this attack against the guys credibility based upon something you supposedly did it work you know this is harassment issue but if you look at what they brought to the table during the trial i do not think that any of that happened if you look at what but that's how they see the treatment should play on the arm doctors can't figure it out you know this is you send him to the people that have the explanation that's how it gets it out runs on substituting your faith diagnosis has to be a violation of
inches and so therefore the defendant we have to realize that he would have been put on notice as to the fact that the condition of the sack was and normally higher and would have caused a distraction therefore leading there was nothing about the flat surface of the stuff that caused her to fall in deede she caught her foot before she reached the flat surface of the step so in looking at the this case has you all the plaintive is arguing that the height of the staff was a distraction today this cour amount of difference in height regardless and so this could not be a basis for concluding that there was a defect this court has held in th case in the garcia versus young case in the lake versus related management case these are all recent decisions by this court finding that the open obvious rule  failed to come forward with one any any genuine basis to determine there was any defect in the walking surface of this stuff whatsoever and to any basis to claim there was any exception to the open obvious rule in fact genuine i can serve soft testified after discovery deposition that she saw the step she thought it was taller than normal and she appreciated that difference so there isn't really anything in the evidence before the court either in the testimony of jenny lightens the testimony of donna hornstein or the testimony  nine inches is still i'm only high because industry standard is seven and three quarters inches here repeatedly unmindful through it over and over again we are custom two stacks stacks are usually only seven and three quarters inches and if they are any higher we become distracted and we have to raise our feet even higher to reach that therefore it distracting us from any other conditions that the step may have and that is what the play to this arguing here is that the distraction exception would be applicable in should
to five different forms of excessive absenteeism other misconduct so it and those are entitled to i think you can try to make me understand why they would that would allow a rational jury to conclude retaliation given all that misconduct well part of the evidence part of the evidence is the fact that he was being looked at below he saw regional physician the justification for that what he was do look what's the justification for giving him a law position than senior cops representative from what you do what are you from chief so that that has to be taken into account what has been of six no half months in the context of this case is simply too long further he did not challenge this aspect of the district court decision on appeal a concert with also failed to show that the legitimate reasons for not promoting him were physically capable of performing the job defendants were certainly entitled to use their business judgment in weighing his excessive absenteeism more than one hundred and eight days in two thousand and sixteen alone against his
of what was going on of course correct ok why we would want to challenge the credibility of the informant because tape recordings were there and they accurately portray the transactions it demonstrated a fundamental problem reporting second of all agent britain was able to testify about creed just position testimony based solely upon that's i understand but then what is it about the informants credibility th the surround if you will you now have testimony that's adding content not just context but constant incriminating content and i'm trying to understand where they're on this tape to see i did that by describing the behavior or whether the stand back over there and so did mr stanley then returned five or six minutes later it was a short time later  confidential informant testimony is testimony and if you if you apply that rule and if this testimony of the serious you know the characterizations and descriptions of what he has to
hospital in essence here handle the situation decide they leave on the extra who physicians do their job well the hospital succeeds in its chosen mission profiting financially and otherwise from the quality of emergency care so deliver on such fast