MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
plastic band actually got hold of him in due course status to me that question also answers the question of who has a better claim right to the proceeds under unjust enrichment theory i know that there was discussion back and forth with those that on its face give notice absolutely not that notation without any further context doesn't give any indication whatsoever as to what that means you don't know what  even if that call had not been made the bank would still should have done a whole due course based on the facts of the situation because the only evidence which would show that they had actual knowledge that there was a problem with this check is just  problem on him there was also a discrepancy in the amounts that was listed in the check we have been issued here there's no issue with respect to this check in particular it was a proper check it was payable to the person it was intended to pay for to the name of equitable claims i think you have to look at the trying to both parties as to who was in the better position to void the balls and i think ultimately had mr magical done any of those things that the discovered requests had gone out we were presented with a settlement agreement with the right before trial ultimately we foul a motion for sanctions at that point in time i think that this goes well beyond summary judgment what would the end result will have been i'm not i'm not sure by you know ultimately i'm not sure that the president's really plays a part we don't want to let turns make their own decision of as to why what should not should be turned over when you have a claims but i think there's other issues as well that those claims in order to please rescission negotiation based on actual mistake you have to actually improve both parties are mistaken about the material features and and just put marianna hang on martin drama i just don't see this as a as a reasonable thing to do in terms of this recession for him again we go back to hold a new course if the bet is not a whole new course and i don't think there
i want to discuss notice of the statute it doesn't speak of statutory supreme court rule twelve style numbers it's now up to statute says there is a provision in the statute for notice however is that correct need to reach that position because you peerless it was an oral motion in fact it was a third motion made by this insurance company that was running away from st john's over a two year period the trial court imperialist one thousand one day to double high and both can be severely determined when couper number one was to motion for substitution as the right reason before the trial they say in virtually the same situation as we have here they say page three through six responds motion was time file decision was not even referring to section the section of notice this court has said that were the motion meet these minimum requirements apart it's right to substitution judge will cost is the absolute supreme court case on the question which is bull versus akim was really it's here that it was made to or frankly it was made to delay to proceed it doesn't appear that was the case in the record but that does go to your would say so because i'm in this up to the party to decide if they want to go and judge me or if they want to go back to judge a i don't get to pick judge a they just get to disqualify a judge be rare but i i don't know i don't see how having worse for the person who is in the motion or who might oppose the motion to determine whether it's properly made then i think the notice would be would be ok and that's a pretty generous dinner a lot shorter notice that the standard five day mail or three d are to be personal delivery
appeals that have conducted the proper analysis the purpose of this privilege and come out on the side that not only preserving marriage is going for is an important societal but also on that
body must comply with proper requests for the schools or unless the requested material falls within this civic in the early crude statutory exception you do that well i agree that the statute says for that type of satisfactory to satisfy the obligations of any really that he himself has before and that's a fundamental problem here the formal problem is that if we exercise the power by the public official goes on to his turmel office union representing the employees were investigating the underlying facts and we thought where request was the most effective way to get at some of these issues and again that was picking up on the on the th issue if i may the initial response was t ok so section seven creates a duty to bargain in good faith and and you're saying that that's what mr miller did and so forth is there any authority in any statute to allow anyone to peek behind the curtain and to look at motives or alleged motives as far as parking because we've we've heard a lot of in the brief and in argument today about the motives behind the missile in the hold in a think is important in this case the i o or b hell the employer in this case is the state's attorney not the individual office holder in the employer's contention that all continuing contracts are invalidated by a change in one if you performed work in this case work its members at a cost to its members and is therefore entitled to recover fees we believe is a sanction will conduct it was it was a misrepresentation and more importantly in quotation marks to its members at no cost or at no cost or at no cost to its members each one dollar of those four different times is in quotation marks and i think i was using
believe that he didn't obtain a complete search warrant and also the day before they were all together briefed on the nature of the nature of the investigation they were all aware of the same bank in the world and briefed essentially in the same room case was whether the search warrant needed to particularly describe the items and whether affidavits and complaints that she could strike items would save the search warrant and that case  was a civil case not a criminal case correct correct to the cases where they're suing for data just correct it did not duplicate the application of the exclusion rule in that case correct it did because to reach whether  look at the other documents and asserted that if the purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct which there's legions of cases out there that see it that the purpose of it is to exclude is to the decision here is going to be based on the execution of the search warrant then does the logic tell us did we should look at what was seized during the execution of the search warrant and if you do then what you see is that the only we executed the war that's unclear the reason that a lot of this is so clear about how the scots so screwed up is because every time the defense attorney try to figure out you know did you present this to the judge the steam objected because they didn't walk the saying yeah you know what the police erred in the this case but we're not going to say because of that that they're immune from civil liability maybe the evidence would still come in the criminal case maybe there's good faith throughout in this search warrant but you know what you're still going to be under the illinois controlled substances act or the can of this control act which are the items listed in the search warrant which is you're going to argue that if the defense counsel filed a motion to suppress he loses because the i didn't see would seek to
of monies are returned to you after you paid them first and i think that's precisely what's happening here was that it was put first ok over one point three nine three million dollars so upon the closing ash as your honour's aware from the record upon mechanism then put in place that morning so i would get money from the city after that and that's a term that's the way in which the city and the parties really invent all of their documents are using the word reimbursed in other words  even even by the way even on the city's interim her taishan of what's going on already morningstar is getting money back from the city although the real estate taxes they're paying subsequent to the closing that's what we contain those terms as set forth in exhibit one which is the redevelopment agreement but then it goes on to see if we're going to honor the ordinance we got on the whole thing because it explains what happened next as well as any other terms million three hundred ninety three thousand dollars and as you said those were the utility costs well those really cost and have been provided by cover if you will by the city in connection with the redevelopment and so ordinarily order to have been for amendment or are you talking about the site where there is still being mechanisms in place for morningside to be reimbursed now who is obligated to pay the taxes that triggers the obligation to reimburse does change taxes had to be paid by the developer that clearly but then we go to the ordinance this is mr attorney please take exhibit one which is the second amendment ok and then and then including any other terms when you're when you're moving from the second amendment to the side that are and then the ordinance is how you get there when you're moving from a second amendment to the side that are also including any other terms necessary to effectuate in the inten application and that's to be determined by the city's lawyers so this ordinance i think is if section three particularly is absolutely clear evidence that the city knew any knowledge that this second amendment was not the final word or otherwise after i don't think there are factual disputes it is least not genuine and material factual disputes i think the documents are quite clear what happened here and what the result should be and i think it's exactly as as the found right the parties who authorized them where to make changes to the second amendment to get to the to get to the cya that's what he did one of the changes was he explicitly struck the words  city attorney being empowered to make whatever changes are necessary to affectionally the intent and that's how we get to the
you know we harp about these briefs constantly and nobody listens to us maybe what we don't do shit starts striking non compliant graves and making you do it over again you leave us the job of doing the research for serious question is whether this man was putting forth his best efforts offer the second half of his opinion the
you is over me is over the only thing left is us all of us the only beginning maybe the world did come to an end us the only thing left after all the fuss the only thing left one world one family sal the further we go the more we know the further we walk the more we see the other the further we go the more we have of each other the further we go like a river forever is all we know through smoke and flames i see a burka rose so bright and peer through tears of rain i feel the dream as one puddle of a flower blooming despite the pain blooming forever dreaming don't take me away from my people is all i have don't take me away from the cent is all i am and getting on no modern trip don't take me away from my people we are the light coming back together we are the light don't mind the weather we are the light walking out of hell together we are the light shallow soone making me feel making us real sooner or later illusions fall away the sacred way here to stay the sun still lights the way sooner or later it all gets in a world of change nothing has changed the constant still remains the universe still maintains under the chaos above the loss beyond the heartbreak nothing has changed all is love all is love all is held in place the constant still remains nothing all that is and all that was is held together by all the dreams the breath the beauty the breath of truth all that is and all that was is held together by the sacred br into infinity dreaming beauty goddess of energy one with in the arms of an angel i rest my head and the arms of the angels all souls are held history hanging by a thread in the arms of an angel i rest my head all that is sacred all that is holy all that is blessed will guide me will guide you guide us through this hellish mass all that is sacred i pray i breathe i am will gu peace mother the flowers of good are here for good the hard as a flower the heart is all flowers the heart of good
ronald evans command module pilot it would remain in lunar orbit operating a battery of experiments that would take this last close look at the of next year with three men going up and spending twenty eight days and then two months later after they land will but three men up to fifty six days they'll come down and thirty days later another three will go fifty six days the year of the seventy as the astronauts rested engineers in two nations were working out technical problems of the apollo soyuz test program the first joint russian and american space mission well the prime purpose molded with tape then held in place with clips from the lunar module telescope it was a repair that would last the remainder of the mission they would sample several locations on this a b moon would cause more excitement i see it it's worked on the moon the engineers on earth prepared for tomorrow's day in space i have a model here of the space shuttle i just said resign of the downloading airplane on top of a and man will return to space to explore to the moon and beyond living when we leave the solar system one of the injured to find another planet earth but before they left the surface of the moon it would be a brief ceremony moon they lift the plank reading here men completed his first explorations of the moon december nineteenth seventy to eighty made the spirit of peace in which we came be reflected in the is still being written a lonely world in the absence of man but here we have left our mark a signature attesting a legacy to future generations we stood on the shoulders of
a will sit first and there are two cases before panel a one of which will be taken orally in that case for the record is still will vs u s p s second cases get five minutes rebuttal and five minutes for your case in chief you may proceed dueling experts here let's assume dr berman he was the government's expert right let's assume he was the only expert here in you didn't have your own position dr hall you're not contending that that in of that testimony
will in the words of justice o'brien from the first district this appeal involves the humble issue of a statutory worker's compensation  my supposed to try to show how we train our people and refuting the allegations that she did they were wrong on and on and on and on i struggled in the past twenty five years i've been doing the same thing on every case you have to deal with those position after deposition and changed my position in the middle of mediation before where i want to go one way radio only so that's the first point from that will have to go to the second one is that i want to be respectable or respectful to the judge that made this ruling and that is that we have a judge that was in probate court who walked into this case in waiting for another who was on the bench in the trial and basically said you know i don't know what's going on here you want to come back at the other judge who would kind of fill me in and said multiple times this is a bitter really confusing matter and if done and that was distributed the plaintiff took his twenty five percent fee we subtracted the provost share of cost welcome to our recovery we took our seventy five percent of the case proceeds on the at that point it's our position that that was one of the confusing things on the lower court is that that is the calculation the total amount that you figure programmer share cost him to make a determination of the amount that we're going to get reimbursed back or entitle to by statute seventy five percent of minus programmer share off so this case is the recount case because the death case is continuing on for twenty five years calculation whether they love the snow men or not my job is to protect protect the employer by being lean i have an absolute duty to protect me and it's a simple calculation they took the wro was raised for the very first time in a point number two counsel claims liverpool bad acts at issue in the case i went through the records and i counted eighteen and i can go through these wimberly one but there was an counseling representing the employer the ruling case the trial which broke down on the side of the road there was the defendant's testimony was that the truck did not have its emergency flashers on i can talk about all of those but i don't what is the bat i mean that's what i'm trying to figure out what is it that was compromising his case over there if he would have asked the court intervene he's he's already told you and i think is really
own up on things that are manifest weight issues but you have an issue in your brief that i think there is some discussion and that's the issue with the arbitrator when outside of the record and made observations outside of the courtroom in order to base her decision on i think the section that you're referring to reads the arbitrator observe the petitioner very time before during and obvious are improper behavior on the part of the judge there's plenty of evidence in the record that could have supported the decision but we turn the moment she on this file each his right to d
knowing what we know about miller and all those factors the trial court would have thought differently of the sentence c p knowing all these factors and considerations don't you think the judge thought about had no idea why defendant want to commit such a heinous crime so that is a factor as are the factors and the fact that sentencing hearing the fact that he graduated from high school he had started studying for an associate's degree but he was employed at the time of the individual character west texas somewhere those to those of a juvenile that would put him in a similar place as a juvenile so that he would be afforded the presumption something like the presumption that a juvenile is given about the brain science so here it says i just can't just point to a judge and we do not get the presumption of the brain science in miller because they're adults they don't get that presumption they have to talk about their sentencing schemes to pry the juvenile bringing forth the factors individual factors to be considered and then proc together with the brain science concerning juveniles that's  court judge miss you have to reset through the proceedings of all three we found this defendant guilty of a brutal heinous meditated premeditated
recall reading in the isn't the main case sound point it's the matter case that speaks in terms of what the court was asking the questions about if the original complaint does not trigger coverage and a your profession has been areas that were never specialised knowledge labor and skill it doesn't necessarily equate with whether your license by a governmental agency or holding insurance producer's license or anything like that it just covers your line of work you work business activity must be duplicated to trigger the exclusion or to have the exclusion of hot so if you have a business judgment being you just need or principal business activity that is what is  under the professional service policy or professional services given what we have here is the situation where the statement in the letter in the first case and the oral statements in the ways to read something into that but for the sake of coverage we have to the rules of construction dictate that we have to get it all down in favor of the insured to to finish up on the professional services sued for the basis of that opinion and rightly so that was true get triggered the exclusion because that was the core belief or the core business of that company likewise in the first roche engineering environmental involving your insurance to go to an environmental inspection firm that did a report as to whether or not all be discussed this was in fact removed from the school when the third party didn't like being in that one sentence of the letter on the burning case i could be done in any business do not get into the professional services of an insurance agency no specific product was offered to be solved no specific rider coverage analysis forecourt insured this may so to that extent the professional services exclusion does not apply the  were services what better way to negate that out where to get those services than to say that they are no longer in business or they'd like pursue other interests it's the ultimate that you need to do that only to follow the law of a court above you not the first district case where there are multiple divisions and one division of the first district doesn't have to follow another division of the first or there's only
for singlish a single based story the only issue on the table is whether there was a work related disease and the only question on that issue is whether he has whether the treatment records by themselves can rule out any work related to disease or consideration that's not their job they have to have some basis for knowing what diseases are and what constitutes evidence that will lead them to their decision in this case there is no reasonable basis in the record for the commission's decision and there's plenty of evidence for with with your permission our work through that as i go along because i know that the claimant has a bird but the bird isn't a flat still picture when you're talking about seal p d coupled with the requirements of the yeah it's more like a kaleidoscope history of smoking that's supposed to be very much like the ones in the way of gross decision that we did in two thousand and eleven and that's my point has to have a basis must be based on something and that's what's missing in this in this rec i told you the c o p d is the one that i'm most likely to prove to you that the burdens been met the democratic goes is very hard because as long as there is one x ray this negative i guess the commission gets to make that decision it's a lot harder but five is just x rays found no signs of code related that cross examination it merits he never even review the guy's medical records before june twenty first twenty all right i mean when when dr tudor looked at the extra has nothing to do with the question still feeding when he said there was an obstruction and there was chronic bronchitis he said there was a c o d in his testimony he said that coal mining can produce a clinical picture indistinguishable they have found numerous times that dr opinion wasn't as good as dr hauser or anybody else that is a critical finding with a conflict that is because in their province in this decision they found the evidence and not support that session without without even going there and i didn't even want to get into the whole c o p d thing you know the other problem with this case from gross is that we have a statute of limitations and you get five years i'll the case for see that in this case was filed three and a half years after he small he's always said that and why when i question that burden of proof of birth proof required to look at both sides of the coin yeah i have to put it on the table and it has been with the american the rest si
free of each other the defendant had the trace at that time to leave the scene so for you to escape to a place of safety but instead he chose to do was to go to the car and five to six car wrecks and when he had previously saying he sees mr jones standing there at the testimony again as in mr jones his hands are up there is no danger to the defendant at that point mr jones hasn't chased him and as he went to get the physically attacked him at most she's gone through his pockets to try to find out his identification and she's in fear for her life to a car and she's sitting in the car trying to get the car to start so that she can get out of the area the record to indicate that mr johns had ceased being the aggressor and the affirmative action that was taken by mr jones to remove himself from being the aggressor in the situation on the testimony indicates that mr jo