MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
the court saying that there's no question of fact as between the contract and unjust enrichment you know there's  been paying the spot market price at that time we have no interest in ridgewood play because we would have been getting a higher price at that point in time they got the benefit of that index prices because prices were lower at that time and were starting to rise at the point bridge in fact reached just about their highest point point that they reached at that at that point and that was the stage where national tiriel was about to start to make its mark on th price and that is the whole basis of the bargain and that's one of the things that it is so unjust and unfair about the outcome of this case in a really a matter which way you look at this case if there was no contract the case has to be reverse issues in the case and i think if you are going to say that things that you do have to address the question of whether you see what the general stands for it's biased because if you're going to give a jury instructions on how the jury is supposed to decide were there are sufficient so which one of the law in this case is pretty significant and there's really confident you can apply fall under the circumstances of this case because i see the general statute requires far  performance the one that was set out in the e mail or in the contract that was sent the only difference that exists between the course of early just literally disputed negotiating provisions of ministerial terms before during and after the point at which they are now saying contra breach but at the time they had knowledge we have no real you're trying to work it out oh the contract that we had said when we were close it was a we're not going to buy anything beyond what we what we want it and so and so over the course of giving says nothing about all these other issues of the parties we're continuing to negotiate that's wh
back from the margins of that the first amendment allows and silence myself and that's exactly the kind of chilling effect that the that the first amendment rest optimist concerned with i'd also suggest as a matter of procedure it really means nothing because the  believe when you hear constitutional argument is against the current you must also address the constitutionality of the kafir which was found guilty but not samples i believe that that's
treated the same with respects new it's the practice of mr newton that we turn to your other issue sure which is that the hearing at this or the beginning of the the group of hearings announced that
deference throughout its analysis of the private and public interest factors and as it was through those factors this morning it will be clear that on balance those factors strongly favor transfer particularly when this cor look past criteria typically presented at trial the evidence deposition or not they're typically not presented as live witnesses in fact the supreme court rules express a preference for physicians to present a trial yet evidence deposition as cases where the local connection decided locally this case presents the controversy which is local to clinton county initially deciding in clinton county illinois of course that address medical malpractise cases routinely recognize the strong connection
seems to me the trial court did not really take into substantial consideration a substantive consideration the frequent periods of unemployment that you between the two views think that it is appropriate for the trial court to resolve that on the basis of the documentary of unknowns or should i say counsel for all
these contracts and once again if i said i think they changed the way this is a services which was above fifty percent of their services where more are going to be reversed because they're going to be fee for service  when you talk about the rules so the process by which the evaluations worked on was not done legally in your opinion correct and so the granting of a contract with their i th d as a party that is correct believe that conclusion from the circuit court was correct aside from that threshold matter though and i'd just like to know and as we referenced in our motion to cite supplemental authority the extraordinary believe it was requested by the plaintiffs itself had not implemented the regulations as provided for it gather it was the note was pacifically stated it was following the rules and regulations that had been implemented by the governor's office and so right in need of protection based on continuation of the seedings to funding again in that case the company an issue had received consecutive contrasts from the state for three consecutive years each one of those contracts had a one year term when that company side bid to receive a contract for a th year that bid was rejected by the state and the company argued that it had property interest in continuing to receive state funding and the only supreme court found that where each contract is independent of it another one the companies believe that it should continue to receive funding or continue to receive another contract cannot his or that is the allegation that's being made as we pointed out in our brief that type of claim has been rejected by other courts to the extent plainchant was relying on page sixteen of its brief on that he shaped joint ventur that in that case there was a provider of some medicaid services believe it was a nursing home that had been receiving reimbursements from the state and the state to try to change the reimbursement amounts and  successful better have not complied with all the terms of the bill i think they have to get fifty letters of reference from an order of contracts holders or something to that extent and only go forward so the plaintiff in peace shade comes and says hey this business the contract exception to the high a p a records that here contracts are clearly and really in the whole the the applicable case basically said that the contract exception is very limited and should be
yeah well how do you like that i like that ruined by well you didn't do that one any good buddy boy i want to shut up and mind your own business oh yeah separate two way to  no matter what your guy you'll have to admit that you good right but that's where it belongs you know where it belongs yeah i know where it belongs get out of
why if it is not it if it's not an enforceable agreement and it's not an option agreement would you call my aunts put a fifty thousand dollar deposit at this point and about six months later another fifty thousand dollars what w it's very very clear it doesn't say it's for the transaction is for an option to purchase property the transaction is the following within the four corners of this agreement it is a sale purchase of real estate nothing more nothing less it just never rose to the level of a final last contract but if it does pricing level nonetheless the plaintiff would be entitled to get the disclosure statement under the statu with an option he puts money here she puts money at risk and before the legislature wants that person to put money at risk in connection with this transaction the purchase is to potentially purchase this property he or she is supposed to get it's clearly not the least because a lease by itself is not covered by the stature it's clearly the option which is covered in fact is that the definition of a prospective buyer and a prospective buyer is assigned to to bring in prolog's so once we know there is no ambiguity in the agreement we look to the language to determine the intent of the partners here the language is clear it grants the buyer i don't want to put the second fifty thousand dollars down i walk away they can put the second fifty thousand dollars down now to get another period of time off for us and the fdic they have the right clothes then they don't want to they can walk away again and all the multiform residential real estate contract four point zero then agreement in fact has a disclosure requirements in it they sign this option agreement somewhat analogous to the situation the next case there was a developer who had ten thirty day period is in which to continue to do due diligence before he would he would be obligated to close in this transaction in that case the court said that was not an option that was part of the real estate transaction it wasn't calling auction if the green hit it intended to be an auction they were to call that interaction and the court said what the
sad we have it's massively overbroad injunction which encompass hauffe are substantial improvements on this property which have now been lying fallow the mine closure for sixty days some sort of definite time or at least sixty days i think they said it's been eight months this is a definite we can't move anything and yet we think we have a perfect something there's other ways to do it so i don't i don't think the ceiling of the mine he says draconian as the other side makes it out to be but but even if it were who stay pending arbitration parties are actually for millions and for million in that case when they want to cancel believes they prevail to some extent on their client this is like for black lung any case where arbitrator's ever enjoy somebody from doing something and we've seen the results of it even discussed in litigation this is the first time it's a strange notion of cancellation provisions into the back all of the obligation with respect to my nickel coal you cannot remove the weapon personal property buildings and other improvements that's applicable provision that we're relief is necessary and i think there would be no better case or example of that when i know on april twenty eighth we serve them with a notice that we are seeking the terro while we were in during the day and that hearing what were they doing sealing the mine they spent all day seemingly the mine because they wanted to avoid the possibility that we would be able to come in their term how much economic immediate plans to move those improvements despite mr pollard said in his argument that was their testimony they want to keep that competitor out of there they want to be able to sell it a higher price of a different mine that's why they're with respect to the mind of the whole that is still there would be determined by an arbitration panel and for millions would not object to that happening but before you get to that point the threshold issue that goes to the noble hole if they strip mining area here twelve million tons of mine a pole if they go under the surface that hasn't been touched by puti has no evidence with respect to that whether it's my nickel or not and of course that so those are all issues that's with twenty point one as all this is just holding black beauty house to change to a bad business situation rather than getting on with the business of saying whether  really would be an injustice to allow the encumbering of this very very expensive service just sit now they're lying fallow it can be a run for a company that's already lost fifty million dollars and if you want to keep the min let's see four million also grants to less or black beauty with a period of this leaves all of the coal mining rights and privileges that lassie owns under the deeds which now holds so this least by the way is not
in the very st paragraph of the whole it identifies the language of the settlement agreement which is completely dissimilar for the language in this settlement agreement says that the retirement benefits were to be quote equally divided postpone sure here we have a some specific that's again a fide in the agreement so how do we equate cope with this case i would agree that that is the identified the amount of the pension benefits to go to of to your client and what you're saying that they didn't intend that it be and some specifically intended it to just it doesn't seem like the trial court was provided with any particular reason why it was being delayed but the main what are we to do with there how are we to say that th and one final question for me how if that was the party's intention at the time of the marital settlement agreement had been entered into if it was the party's intention your client instead probably because he did the math and said wow i don't want a lump sum payment i want monthly benefits so he didn't file the quote grow he chose monthly precisely what your client did in fact byelection monthly benefits that completely took her out of the quote growing something that nothing recess until after what
first piece is an offering of flowers to get a shot the elephant headed lord who carries the end tire universe in his stomach who destroys evil we believe that our sins accumulated from centuries are destroyed by this great lord is a traditional five stands us that are like five gems that describe the  elephant headed one who is the son of shivah and the remover o beseech the lord to bless me and surrender myself to him he would come to her she says pretty  you must stay like this standing in front of me it's like so so that i made my you eternally and she says i will now not let you go presenting annika or a hero and who upon realizing her lord krishna was with another woman she stares at him with anger and tells him why don't you go to all the other beautiful women why are you coming to my door  this goes on and krishna tries to convince the nikah to take him back but does she take him back or does she not is to be seen i  rajamani and i'm presenting the ancient dance form of but at the knotty i'm from south india the piece that i'm presenting now is taken from a very famous and powerful someone who is fierce the entire store through the entire prayer describes every single facet of the goddess from the shape of her forehead which looks like the moon to her coral lips that are truly like the color of coral taken from an ocean to her earrings which are the sun and the moon her nose ring glistening like a thousand stars and so on and so forth i have chosen very select stands us from this prayer to honor goddess to honor woman
the plaintiff's credibility was the only thing going for him in this case that would pose a much more significant hurdle there is several other issues which the trier of fact is regarded in coming to find that no accident occurred and i must focus on the issue of notice because i  understand that if there is no accident then of course there can be no notice but in this case the notice is some of the best evidence of an accident for the plaintiff specifically the respondents exhibit to the incident report from this incident specifically is the form  did not call on the bill willing who would be the one person capable of contradicting the plaintiff's testimony that he did not report that accident also this testimony is corroborated by the testimony of michael maloney who was the direct supervisor of plaintiff michael malone indicated that upon learning for the first time according to him of the action on may twenty seventh about three months later he talked to the willing said you know did this happen and he sent the plaintiff  slide incident of which there is really no direct evidence that anything such as the several happened we have medical records from the start including response doctors dr p as a doctor fold doctor dixon dr and although it's admissible as a statement by a party only doesn't change the fact that it's hearsay and the only direct evidence in this case aside from that hearsay evidence is the medical records the testimony of the plaintiff the only history of any action back or however it's not the strongest evidence that is in the record th saw the company's medical doctors on may twenty seventh need twenty seven and the coworkers turris fans will endure each testified if they were pretty they were present together with him on a monday morning retired to say that he reported the accident you with that would be unfair given the fact that this reporting occurred in two thousand and ten mr willing retiring in two thousand and eleven i'm saying that you want to offer the plaintiff in his credibility certainly he could not have
from the doctor about it sometimes now there is a case law where there is substantial compliance for the if the doctor testifies that will be a adequate substitute for the treatment plan because the court knows what the goals of the treatment are and their treatment plan attainment ok here there was no clear testimony in the state or mets that there was no testimony about when with this charge which i think is something when you're being committed i mean you don't have to give exact date but when you're being committed and here's a person has committed any crime so it's a serious deprivation of liberty you would like to know when the creating basically a lot of areas where thirty states attorneys or system states attorneys commit reversible error by not adding their eyes crossing their t's we understand the purpose of this particular legislation the need for it in the same time though we want our other concert is to reduce the workload on this court and reduce the incentive for appeals of this has been addressed already on more than one occasion however hosen council's actuary and robin say the court was concerned at that time with whether or not the trial were to rest what did the goals you know whether actually it was the alternative placement and i think that's a pretty big concern of all parties in this type of proceeding whether or not to travel court adequately considers whether or not so the only question that wasn't really specifically address that is suggested in the statute is this time frame for conscious accomplishment of the goal and as mission by just offer a time frame but it's not suggested in terms of days of the muck she says when this individual acts or medication gets back to where he has been in the past is functional we w then move him to an alternate somebody which is more appropriate setting for him that's the goal that's the appropriate goal this is this guy's first time around the block i think he was committed in a previous year under very similar circumstances state's position initially is the issue should move less courses court if you as robert c doesn't adequately address it in the event you find that there is a reason for the public interest exception we would caution can be accomplished in two weeks one month to month would have been of no assistance to the trial court in our opinion it would have been nothing but pure gas speculation she gave i think fair testimony we don't know how long it's going to pay it's all depended on the binds of this individual and as a court pointed out before if it is unsuccessful then the ninety days are going to be back before this j timeline for the accomplishment and at that point you know there's a reason to address that issue specifically in this it i don't think there was a breeze i think everybody understood what the goal was but he understood time frame for the so it's clear in the statute that that's one of the moments that the state needs to be presented and dr cook the only time for a doctor mentioned was a firm ridge the question do you
quote from the court is the sheriff said she said it multiple petty traffic tickets over an eighteen year period phone well known to substantive convictions once for committing resisting and no testing positive but she went on to say i am sensing for the regional offense and not for the revocations presumably taking into account the for ever since i know you don't want to open the pandora's box of comparing people sense but this isn't saying last week champagne somebody's got x for why this is the published reports of the v o c finding that the average so what i'm suggesting to the court is that the judge says what she means and means what she says and then we take a look at the next thing she says in the same sentence that didn't have there's no record of it i suggest the court would never happen and what it means is the judge had in her mind that this was a true delivery case when she gave her five years read this to you in the way i think it probably it was said for the underlying offense the underlying offense was almost four years ago as of today or yesterday and then again in november on two separate occasions this temporarily chose to sell ok doing undercover officer so she wasn't saying two separate occasions in november she was just saying the underlying offense was violated three of your reading of it violated the three that i already read to you she had her third offer revocation once failing to report and follow through second time resisting and howard room who was a long time left of the hand writing short hand reporters and i quoted judge morgan in finding against me said the record in parts very middle i guess you could say definitively at least at some sort of fair notice another yet another probation violation there's a very good chances she w was only one sale delivery as we characterize it to a relative who was there trying to as we used to say played all majors a child's game when i was young i'm so curious in the history novels all made you know with children when if they rebuilt the old maid was to try to get someone else take the old maid of their hand and relieve them that seems to be about what happens most of these drug cases where you have an old maid you have president you get a sense and creditor deals or whatever and i suggest that's what we have here and it certainly no overtones of a commercial transaction she was never in the
is the court struck or to determine whether or not there is a valid cause of action that there's a question of fact here to be resolved  in the driver's insurance company that's not a well to grow to thirty seven if you if you have a homeless guy named hamlet and assuming that he comes in you can cross examine him he becomes nappers witness you can do things under rule two thirty seven so that may not be another quote scuse me let me ask you this got a father middle east father you've got a father who is assuming some supervisory responsibilities as far as the decease fact that he's transcend he's broke and he's probably judgment proof let me with your argument would wouldn't failure to join him or the other side decides to put in we don't know if we have the entire record so we causes me concern when you say we're going to the record record is maybe not what's in a court that say it will be more convenient for the first responders to corner the police department the defendant to appear in franklin county tha would be in sync their county and one of their burdens is to show that underling and morse that it would be more convenient for not only his defendant but all the defendants and you have not examines the computer i guess that was on her car that she was only going three miles or so at the time she caused this tragic death although that is closer to franklin county all those troopers everybody at the corner everyone is in franklin county and they filed affidavits of convenience and they've also interestingly enough found affidavits from someone who at least says they made measurements so we know it's ninety miles from west bank or in the sink or county courthouse  as we look at convenience which is what we have to look at all of these police officers the possibility of the view do you agree that there's a strong possibility tha know it is just a as as i'm sure and i make the same statement i made to mr price and that is this court is recently telling trial courts that you know we're in a tough spot it's not clear what we're supposed to at least in my view when you say we will use the record it's kind of leaves us in a quandary and yet you don't want to cause burgess to your client have to wait  doesn't you can still blame the father you can still point to the empty chair under somebody who maybe point