MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
thing so what rule going back to a question judge lee out what rule does the strength of the mark in the market place have to do with whether or not the market show the marks in context but when the marks are in allies using the correct test it's clear that the district court correctly found this is not trying to pass off its product as if it were o be the likelihood of confusion tester counterfeiting is in allies using the same sleek craft factors that are applied in trademark infringement which makes sense because our vision is a form of trademark infringement is just an of the elements of the test and the court did go through some analysis a likelihood confusion test when it was comparing the marks in design and they were not likely to confuse consumer i believe the district product is a counterfeit a plate of id product did the court just jump to without considering whether it was counterfeit or not and just jump to the comparison of the products just referred to was analyzing the substantial similarity or indistinguishability the marks in finding that they were not substantially indistinguishable if there was a lot of differences between our chronos on the i product in isolation and use though not as a consumer was either in the marketplace but in the abstract that approach would eliminate all context including source identifiers on pharmacies product a fitting less rigorous than trademark infringement which of course compares marks in context or conus arguments that marks are compared in isolation or that there is a schism over whether to the defendant company the court found that that would make no sense of how intervening cause of action there because it was clear in context the way consumers are going to look at the market the way marks are used that this was not coming from pla registered mark of a rd party and so the district court applied the correct standard here by looking at the party's marks in context as they appear in the marketplace i dressed the district cour outer and inner packaging as well as the jar and of course these product is sold in and did see him with our home as our packaging ended up you can see images that there are ten source identifiers on
has a right to this money yes the lease is not say when when the landlord sold the first stone or sold the building to the second owner there's nothing that says oh and by the way i'm also selling you my right to th torn to the landlord a torn means to pay rent and that he has to pay rent to the lamb or whatever the landlord is could be the original landlord or a successor landlord and the tenet here sa seventy two thousand dollars and the atlantis oh yeah and the tenant said ok i'm going to pay you what's to prevent the original owner from saying to the tenant i never authorized the new owner to take so if i understand the argument you're making here it's that the contract between the successor owners governs the neuron and that's not the argument that was presented to the trial court t court in the trial court the new owners and the lease provide its period that i get to spank rams a and there wasn't any argument that the contract between the original owner in the success  i don't i don't see any argument being advanced from the trial for the defendant the answer then you didn't agree ok and during this time this is my my own counsel here is the fourth one there is a rod of delay going none but we found a party claim against the management company that was managing the management company representing the bank the pri prevail take the attorneys who represented the the management company on the third party claim they filed a motion to dismiss and that indeed prevailed and the case was dismissed because i wasn't on relevant to this matter but there
haven't won eight in the eastern district of missouri united states  it may be the highest in the country you think that's true and i can only say within the th circuit your honor that i believe that it is one of the one of the higher sentences however i think that there were fourteen military sentencing cases that additional questions related to any of these issues d and i thank you very time and i would yield d the rest of my time
testimony was that
from the eastern district of arkansas johnny banks the shelby hawkin  is money may it please the court there monaghan attorney for the appellate shelby hawkins this case is an analog tory appeal from the eastern district court of arkansas denial qualified immunity to officer shelby hawkins and case number to the extent that version is not blatantly contradicted by the record that it is no reasonable jury to believe it and the facts just report to term and them to be are clearly set out beginning on pages six versions of the events which led officer hopkins to shoot mr banks and the district court erroneous we pointed to to that is that the district court claimed were in dispute that the parties a it is that the only slice though that's an dispute in terms of what the officer heard that it was something that sounded like no no no it seems that seems to me there's a lot of dispute about what else was heard whether they were human voices whether they were just noises it  what actually struck officer hawkins in the hat there was evidence from the state police that it was possible that could have been a metal sign that was hanging on the door way  to murder because it was sadly in our brief is whether an object of lee reasonable officer officer officer hawkins position and have probable cause to believe that mr banks posed an immediate threat of serious place that in the analysis here what do you mean by under attack six to twelve feet is that just looking at the fact that that case given the totality of circumstances in our case the circumstances as if you were going to move in the opposite direction when the distance between them was six hundred and twelve feet was enough to justify i guess an objective reasonable officers belief that he was creating dark it all happened instantaneously it was rapidly evolving and again it's undisputed that mr banks took that posture that it took when he opened the door and the district apartment and nothing you can now that that case clearly actually distinguished from president that's all that i thank you both for your arguments and being willing to appear by video here for court this afternoon
specific points and that is that there it was clear evidence and it did misha that the company knew the statements that were made were false the intent is also clear the servicing as processors serving as processor for a t m s credit debit card transactions in two thousand and twelve the credit card industry announced a new technology all the  authenticate credit debit card transaction e m c uses computer chips imbedded in cards to prevent fraud they did not exist in two thousand and ten on october fifteen liability for disputed transactions shifted from the issuing bank to the merchants for non m v transactions complete change to the network it is undisputed that this was of no business decision to not support that machine they simply made the determination to do it otherwise and interestingly enough to visit date the replacement machine still doesn't do they went away from the ls five thousand two hundred had just five more machines and they still didn't make that n v ready so they not only new this was something that was no this was not a conscious act they normally decided to apply their resources in another place as opposed to the beginning and the machines the process the entire the entirety of the i hope i answered your question well i understand your answer thank you but i continue client have a right to rely on the state in that part of the one of the elements you have to prove yes sir and the right as a result of the change of the network the network changes this then related to the written contract and subject to the terms of the written contract in terms of modification no it's outside of that contract that is the that is the point that we're making absolutely and had they told us they weren't going to be compliant we would have done exactly that yes sir your honor that is the nail struck squarely on that we have abs they are  processor it is reasonable if you want i guess my problem is if you are free to do that then how can you say you had a right to rely on representation be something that wouldn't be subject to a separate agreement i mean th jury might be persuaded by that but here there's such a big disconnect between the target base that we're getting and the fact that now how many years i think three years later  un i would probably think of it as a wire transaction but it's a checklist and all of these functionalities operate based upon software integrated into the  what that force of references is the steps in the types of things that the functionality will be in vista case unfortunately with the shift everything changed and that is sort of the whole point  everybody knew in advance on this date there's going to be a shift and thus all of the method of all of this is done to try to get the preparation of i hope i answered your question ye technology if interesting when nothing the part of this that i find most interesting is the shifting of liability that was not anticipated or d prepared and it's a it's happening all it can't be any more evidence any more direct the math so that issue of expense respectfully i think is over i thank you for hearing me it appreciate the opportunity to be before you
good morning this is our my grego from senior perspective today i have a surprise for you we're going to do a day at a senior center and we will be going around and talking to some of the different people and what all goes on before during and oh you don't ladies and gentlemen i'm the big noise for the for the program around here i do the you know dreaming i come in an orderly in the morning i make the coffee i go object a restroom do a little bit of this a little bit of i think forty eight forty nine something  everybody and then we clean up the kitchen and go home or play bingo if they have time for bingo and there's other helpers in there there's barb and sam and jim and rosemary help barb's over here i'm barbara cushy and i'm a volunteer to come here and work in a kitchen pointing to me to get keep it hot and then all the food we serve him on plates i do too i help and then put them up on the counter and the people come around pick up their  plates and then my husband and i we take turns with it to other couple was and we go up to canon's burg and pick up the food and bring it down here so
if it's in the party's contract that governs but also the question is if that if it's incorporated then why isn't the limitation incorporated as well no i agree and that was one of the arguments that we made in our fleet the limitation the rule not the contract provide the rule has a limitation that says it only applies if the transaction at issue is twenty five thousand dollars or less it's transactional was not twenty five thousand dollars a mess so why should that limitation that's included in the text of the provision not apply here that's the question the text of the rule says that provision is not   ratification or any of the other defenses against the buyers would apply they're all wiped out by this contract provision are they not wiped out you apply and the pr the i think you're saying that the buyer can use the defenses that it would use against them seller to avoid the obligations under the financing contract of all they do is create a contract that sits between the buyer and the men and women institution in other words your client never signed the contract so they would say there is no country and and c i t and once you have that whether it's by ratification that it's created or by stop or by actually signed a document but then still is subject to the same defenses that would have existed with respect to the s side and then you've got plenty of time to respond thank maybe you can help me with the concept i was just scratching seems to me that the most the ratification of stop will do yes to make a contract when one was a son but so we could assume for the purposes of today's marine the marine dealers represented that he was acting on behalf of the ideal is authorized to do so now if one credits that in the light most favorable to the turn of how can an equitable stop will be render and in the summary judgment conte circumstance where your agent and the district court held that marine was determination based on the trust in his money interest in the by contract you can't once you know your agents on something that wasn't authorized you can't just rely on that agents to tell you what formed the two things it's either him or his that they know from the welcome letter which says here's what you do if this is not right contact this p o box call this phone number this is the union address that those are the things that they were to do if there was an issue with the
answer the door and that is an indication that he did not want to in effect discuss what he assumed the police wanted to discuss it's not right it's it's a well i can i can see the latter point but i i still don't understand why the argument has to be coached or should be called just in terms of flight consciousness of guilt can be manifested in ways other than running  so i go back to my question if there was evidence disputed i'm not that the police announce themselves and the indication was you know just police or something to that effect wouldn't the normal the reasonable interpretation of that announcement be that they were there for some law enforcement purposes for of them canvassing knowledge that should reason would make images available to others sufficient to support the two level enhancement under the guidelines circumstantial evidence that a reasonable person who installed the software would have seen do with this case the theory of the defense one of the other people at the house and that's certainly a legitimate that the defendant times use this computer there is no evidence that he ever used this computer on any of the multiple days on which child pornography was downloaded o was nothing the only documents on the computer belonged to him and a person he knew from new york that had nothing to do with the two other people in the case the sky conversations that went on using your car under his name no one distribute some perfectly art objectionable material for a perfectly lawful purpose bad that absent affirmative proof that someone else use the computer the jury can presume beyond a reasonable doubt that every use of the computer was here's despite the fact that the computer was in a comedy or you were not password protect i mean i might feel at first blush a little differently about this case if this computer was him the defendant's home or office or in his or in his bedroom and he was seen only one who  and it was his computer and the thing ended with no with no nothing to say other than people were there because in every house people are there and there's no password i understand josiah's point about the living room but you know those computer i look at child porn he was definitely someone who you could say could have been doing it so you had an example poison there and if the evidence is unethical players then the government doesn't prevail of course but here you have the evidence that says this defendant is the user of that computer by admission by this guy conversations by the documents and the only other document computer belongs to a person that only he knows
we have here a gentleman who put in the focus house because he couldn't live at home because of the younger sibling when there was a risk i'm still when you put him in the focus house because you're going to take him out of his home placement group home placement or any physical restriction of activity by facility staff through so i guess the question comes down to what is it about this particular placement and what is required to do in that to here in this because you have a situation where you live in a twelve year old coolidge to commit initially criminal sexual assault every criminal sexual abuse and sexual abuse who ultimately pled to the misdemeanor but during the course of the investigation they determined that only abuse is to the neighbor boy who is the alleged here but a couple of other neighbors there has to be a place where the child can focus house itself last week properly for the argument apparently there are contracts in the part of hostess house that the minor was in just limited to sex sexual offenders and they have contracts with other entities rather then a tentative probation or is it something that could be part of an amusing to get the correct procedure in proceeding as an appropriate placement facility and i'm honestly not sure i i don't think we can ignore the statute because there are some other consequences i think it's very true and to the extent that this court wants to encourage the legislature to perhaps we evaluate some of these things even if we lose it and  and apparently from the truck or its contents it is considered to be a decent program and because they have conference with other agencies they soon that they're doing decent work but to the extent that it is considered custody and so went into continue of harm with respect to sister and said this to me and to be taken out of the house we're going to place him in this home he could've still attended counseling into his house but he wouldn't be in custody so you know there's a variety of scenarios that you come up but i think it should be made clear to
so why are they required to find your claimant credible when they pointed out that the supervisor who was i understand is a relative of some kind of a relative of your claim of them testified that contradicted your claim
about something i would and warner brothers entertainment may please the court important purpose it's not merely a procedural mechanism to record an appeal is unlikely to allow a panel to determine the party the actions but by opposing counsel do not approach the level of meaningful participation in the st state conduct that was mentioned was participation in that document and in fact it was issued the day after the stipulation was it ing that is done pro forma  closed in the parties there were no more claims pending and as a matter of procedure it up when the clerk did close the case it seems to me it just missed without prejudice such that if again we have to speculate here your honor but if you're asking what the potential harm is starlight was not prepared to go forward with a trial at that point they dismissed without import or the court would have had the opportunity and would have been required to look at the stipulation that sign it if procreate and we might be in a different position than we are now where there is no approval is not meaningful consider it part of the stipulation submitted in which starr line its case did not require and did not have any district court or just a phase ax cited by star line were deemed to be meaningful participation there would still have to be a showing that the intent of the parties was dismissed with prejudice wrote it without and there is nothing record that indicates t is without prejudice and there is no reference in the stipulation to an appeal to the fact that it was for the purpose of an appeal it was for the purpose of voiding the final a other line of cases a dismissal without prejudice does not allow jurisdiction for it and finally just under snow the last thing is to the extent of storyline b states that this lack of jurisdiction of a fully prepared peal constitutes some kind of inefficiency or waste of the court of arms time this issue was brought to their attention very upbeat view was filed back  over a year ago just to two thousand and eighteen we noted excerpt its appeal rather than attempt to correct the record or that the records if there would be a fellow jurisdiction storyline continued and went amended counter which star lines counsel said it was the crux of the merits of this appeal undisputed use of discretion standard it's also analyzed undue delay and faith previous amendments prejudice the opposing party but each of the factors is supposed to analyze and such a motion therefore it considers the right law and unless there was a manifest misapplication of the facts the district court's opinion should be respected for the court noted therefore the five and relied to a great extent on prejudice in undue i quickly start i want to quickly know the timing because i was going into my counsel just to make sure it's clear five between february of two thousand and the made two thousand and eighteen status conference the parties submitted five joint reports to judge or terror informing him it's interesting mentioning faction would be claims against him due to arbitration except for
entire industry except it had a catastrophic failure has it anything come along since then with the promise that this originally had
reached up towards the down sure and then down to the floor with a house in your side there was insufficient a reasonable suspicion to justify the program detention of the vehicle free movement coupled with an so she gave her purse to the officer for him to get that diabetic medication then son of the controlled substances were found in the containers that wer  says i need my medication she's outside the car regardless of how she got there she's got her first and she says i need my diabetic medication so he takes the purse from
finish it if that doesn't dampen then you're going to come back the state's going to come back and say well the doctor testified that it was a drop of blood pressure but it doesn't have to be  of consciousness due to a drop in blood pressure that caused her to cross the center line then isn't it up to the jury whether or not the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that her driving was a proximate cause of the injury if h and is shot by a drive by another drive by drive the driver starts to lose blood which causes the loss of her blood pressure she's got marijuana in her system she loses control  crosses the center line same result ok let's say she's shot she's shot and she loses consciousness because she's bleeding and has a loss of blood which causes her to consciousness because she was a gunshot wound she started to bleed her blood pressure went down and she lost consciousness you know we don't know why or maybe you might have found out of the doctor testified in this case as to why she lost it but