MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
that's if if not if that would be an equitable disposition of the matter i suppose we could do they had but the coal company an awful ample opportunity to produce the evidence that he has a standard record request for production that basically asked for every single document on which was klein's names appear we object we have objected to the over breadth of that question and we produced such a great liberal record as the as the terminations letter and there was anything else that's in here is in the is a personnel file the information that goes into the computer usually entered by some other employee in the in the mind control room that takes a call taking communion the verifying evidence that came in there shouldn't be used as a basis for a motion for summary judgment
this assume that there wasn't coverage just as an insured do you think that two fifty five hundred is a deal breaker in other words the fact that the mustang didn't have that means there's no coverage here no th you know insurance policies here some amazing let me ask you this if i could do you or has there been any allegation that  not create liability coverage for third parties it does not apply because the bill the point of this exception to the exclusion applies for example in a negligent entrustment situation the third party is riding the so could it be that this court could reverse find a duty to defend and let the parties fair and you know get some more facts out here mike is that and i'm alternative  reaction those would have been in the granting coverage but they had to be sure to take them away
minnesota but your theory is therefore since there's no evidence showing or a line between a rock island county and where the body was found that she must have been dead there in that in and that we do know reasonably inferred that the last time he was in rock island county it was a date on the cell phone records right  where i find what you're talking about i mean all of this is circumstantial evidence that he i knew that she was dead and that he tried to conceal that for some indicate that it wasn't you know either a suicide or a natural death because of of that which would be similar to if there was still fire your own or something
white squares would add up to fifteen hundred
hundred dollars two hundred dollars for damages for the use of them only during the two week period of time we can test whether there was well enough but we're not really damages our base our buff the defendant chose not to supply and transcripts from me trial makes from reference only you and to david's and depositions that were supplied in opposition to make a motion for summary judgment that was eventually granted  with the quality of the product that is being delivered later it later on the mumbai client ceased buying the jars from the defendant and had requested all their molds to be return some of them were this particular one was not oh and my client had no need to use for that mold and more and did not buy any action just objected to the defendant retaining the ball it wasn't until it was discovered that the defendant was using the hole that belonged to my client to make products for my client's competitors that the litigation was so to up until the vocalist thirty watching you can either as a pilot for a few persian or you can find a former republic my client chose not to fire for conversion because with conversion what you're doing is you're getting paid for the products after the on all was from the term that the product that was being produced that the evidence showed that the product that was being produced was identical to the product that was being named with  objection being made as to the pleadings so there was no opportunity to the plaintiff to come and the pleadings after judgment which is permitted by the rules under certain circumstances and we proceeded under the theory that you were missing or you had been damage and were entitle to compensatory damages to the tune of one hundred thousand dollars to call exemplary damages the equivalent using our products to make things that he can sell the jars himself we could not show more didn't show that we would have clearly
made mention of the fair quite honestly that he said quote unquote back to work and see how he got us but he made no other actual recommendations he didn't order surgery but the man was released to full duty unfortunately he was not take care my point is that what is being done here is that the respondent is being penalized for what's in the centrally and employment is act the situation would certainly be different if mr roberts had been released to some kind of temporary or alternative duty then the obligation to pay temporary disability benefits would attach i don't think there's any dispute of working and if you throw east to some kind of temporary duty the argument will hold the wire this court or any other court that the petitioner has to walk and look for work but i don't think the same argument can be reasonably ma but he was able medically to work there's a big distinction there so it's my position if you were a temporary disability benefits it was improper to the arbitrator talks nothing about the the full duty he is capable of going anywhere to look for work if they don't take him back and taking back in at will employee or not taking you back is an important issue and you know the supreme court cited the interstate seattle case after the briefs were written in this matter and just by way of well in that case the supreme court mentioned fact employment issues are for i believe the term they used to the worker's compensation  it's got no basis on the person just temporarily totally disabled it doesn't matter why they're not working but they're still on the hook i think that's very distinguishable from the situation where a man is capable of working where there is no evidence to management but i don't see any reason why he should go back to try to work out i think the task here is has he reach maximum program i don't think anyone can look at that last report ball and this if this is going to be the rule in the court we're going to see that we're employers and say you can't come back to work even though you've got a or really use until you've seen our doctor and they can delay the as long as they want is that's going to change the rules at that point  you have to hit that point go out and work for other work while you're still employed because your boss won't let you come back while you're waiting for a six month examination i don't believe that's what the aunt needs i don't believe that's what the court really wants here that's
new explanations here today on what might have happened differently i would say that there will be a different complaint and there will be a different appeal but all we can do  even if you look at this case from the plaintiff's point of view here and understand it better than i did the early tradition clause of the contract
studies don't seem to address the question of when you see a bolt how often does it turn out to be wrong about what the bulge is disagree with that i don't d i know is it is it that is it out as some straight and that wasn't true with regard to the other observed person because he had one intended in the middle area of his sweatshirt suspicion or you could be arguing that in this case the officers didn't have a basis to conclude there was a gunship balls busy from the venues for and they had prior stop so which one of those positions are you pressing here are you pressing know you can say that it has a straight edge on the bottom shape for mr mills but neither of those things are uniquely gun shaped and is there any evidence was or any evidence he had his arms in the same position after the defendant correct and the actual viewing khans viewing was from across the road right correct and he was in the passenger seat listening in the vehicle looking across the street and he says that he got justification for stopping by an attempt from what he saw from across the street looking through the front of the wind the one conclusion one could reach from this is they saw four african americans walking on the street and decided they look suspicious let's just stop and that's the trouble that i have with this case is this is different than a lot of cases where even if the officers had been walking down the street and seeing it in it that you know what can we really prompted the around they were trying to bring marijuana into some kind of farm property and it's kind of broken up and they find down within close proximity so and  curiosity but i take it you know concealed weapons are not always as illegal in other states i said in idaho as they are in california i take it from the auster case this is a two thousand eight from our court we basically said you know there's only point two percent of the population that has a concealed carry permit with let me ask you how old this is a bowls in california w in idaho where there's more concealed carry permits is that change the analysis of this case d that happened in idaho with the officers of had reasonable suspicion or does it depend on the
and the respondent declining to accept it with draw which was absolutely within their rights and the issue remains and the issue before the court is whether or to st the human face or more broadly skin is plainly not a tangible medium of expression within the median within the meaning of the well tangible medium of expression is not  much less a human was never within congress's contemplation of the tangible medium of expression or the very least if congress intended that's a radical policy we should expect is going to come indicative language you somehow using the act of putting on the makeup what they were showing the makeup as reflected in the photograph right but  we're really the way we should be looking at the appellate was the only reason he was at the program experience he was hired to help out with the floater ok and d that is the work that we're looking use up seven minutes no i think i still have a little bit of turn i would also like to add a response to judge carney if i could just read judge members position not knowing is adopted by any to anything and the language coming council refers to about different things that invented in the future has nothing to do with this case that was the
the st thing that i part of my family and i do know men on the outside it do nothing members of the black area outlawed we have had under observation for some time we thought of making them members of our legion but we haven't done it yet too la
favorably to the house
c two x one point one a and a two point one a warrant mr alston pled guilty to an information for possession of ammunition of the standard of review here party mr alston was attending and also and it was there were many people there it was very crowded there was ends and it was of our area and there were video cameras stationed throughout the  early in the morning mr alston approaches a mr rasco and some words are exchanged between them and the punches mr ross then they s security guard returns to the view of that camera of accompanying mr rochester having mr roscoe in custody taking him toward the door now this is ironic because one would think that the security guard would be brad being the aggressor as the st one to grow up in taking him why we should assume the security guard knew which one was the dresser as opposed to sort of knowing there were two parties involved in a promise and removed one of the well that's entirely possible i'm just so as you now describe the fact you have this altered ation at the bar a punch thrown by mr allston security guard now steps in to separate the two and begins to escort mr or roscoe out the door so one of the issues in this case is the question of premeditation right and so as i understand the record in this case in the district court's finding it he seemed to conclude that given the fact that the parties at that point had been separated seven then had sufficient time to premeditated always think about what he was going to do next and of course premeditation doesn't take there's no set fixed amount of time that can happen an instant it can be an extended period of time so why don't why are we entitled to credit that you have the evidence that having separated these two mr allston and then goes after as you're a think you're about to describe goes after mr ross roscoe that virus the shots which luckily don't hit anybody but what why is it that you have the record evidence sufficient to support the judge's findings both as to malice of forethought and the separate requirement of premeditation what about the discourse separate finding out design a standard that part of the reason i suppose why he missed was that his arm was bent around the security guard and trying to fire at roscoe and that led to the in this just as an aside they don't pay their security guard enough because i don't think you know that that cat it that mr roscoe probably has him to thank for his this life but in any event that's neither here nor there connect the defendant mental conversation that happened in the dance hall to the altercation that was about to happen and it connects the defendant mental state to the firearm before the fight ever breaks out before  with mr rusk other five are you saying that the discourse findings up to that point would have been sufficient on premeditation yes ron i think it would i think that would have been i think there would have been a showing that there were some  sam yes the only thing i would say is the question is whether the firing of the gun was at mr roscoe and we would say there is not sufficient evidence that it was at mr roscoe of the
i had heard of the the other ones but just the ones i had heard i mean they're very well known as they're very well known establishment and i i don't know whether the ones i hadn't heard of are primarily focused on mins or women's clothing but and you're saying which i think that there is a if there is a certain segment of the population that will know that will recognize your client's name that is enough and if that's not a a large segment of the but if you i mean for those people who shop at those stores and buy those kinds of good the now is an alum mean something and therefore if they expand to floor covering that's going to have meaning to whatever this class of people what the so you're saying just as you do your business does pitch itself as he will do the same type of consumer as as the slack to other words it's not that not the from the from the sample not the place virtually are selected so why is the name of even an issue i mean you are one and i think the record reflected your client took some care in terms of choosing the name like a lot of manufacturing company having a new type of florid collage so the i think there is substantial evidence to support all the the the
fact finding because the record is insufficient with regard to the predicate matters they would need to know to be able to make those that timing their i mean we didn't suggest a new house they could develop a whole new record right we suggested that they could look at the should determine prejudicial errors but the record shelf is insufficient to allow us to do so you're not suggesting that the statue prohibit them from remanding the case back the court room and i'm sorry i forgot the board i meant to think work you're not your interpretation the fact you would like us to adopt is that the board must the court must in all cases make a decision on credit for air and they are not entitled to remain for further development of any factual record in order to saying there's no clear determination or error at all but i thought the court's opinion here in the board impermissibly relied at least in part on documents that were not  its responsibilities which started analyzing the noticed actually was good but i'm having trouble separating response abilities here so i can understand why they they might have if if that's what they did but in particular i'm just having trouble with the very idea about what this statement means is it conveyed notice and you're saying you want them to decide that in the first instance as part and parcel prejudicial error determination under under the court decision they're required to review the artist or record for the term
very frequently change the their praise obey you well i think it would but don't the don't we have to look beyond just the values we have to look at the reason and whether or not that was appropriate to change the comparables kno that the desire to save money i just i said to negotiate a lower price from a public policy standpoint that is absolutely the wrong message that we are seen as the was very clear the purpose she knew the purpose that the property was to be utilized far that's correct and we're only talking about four months difference so i still don't understand how well i  a different value we didn't we didn't we didn't throw away high the thirty three thousand dollars phrasal i think i was off the ball and here so so the difference between this case party to rely on that opinion and i think when you apply these cases to the facts of this case you'll agree with her in my position time they they basically shutdown the nation with us and then again in january of this year will file interestingly enough i'm not sure whether the record
expand the program of our companion yet many important that
international for the final half to show the palace have to show the crime was committed by the client and the law there's been no case that's ever found the other way around that the crime is committed by the law firm that was was one it became apparent that the four of your servants were having difficulties with the hospital they start exploring options one of the questions was what was the nature and extent of the consent given by davies back in two hard but getting back to what the evidence shows
eight hours nobody left nobody said had to talk to my where they signed it i didn't want to talk to my stores where they didn't have to say i want to talk to my lawyer because legal right into the agreement that this agreement is subject to revision or to decision consultation by the lawyer so i mean if we're going to have that i represented party was going to go she without the benefit of their lawyers and we put in the agreement that the agreement is subject to review and consultation  ratification consultation or involvement of council after two parties have tried mediation and basically complicate the wire because even the best can form of laypersons when they get into a legal morass an emotional swallow of a divorce really they rarely know exactly what the consequences of their actions or inactions going forward what their rights are and i think that in this particular case i believe these parties at the time they signed to understand that that they were signing and that they were done with this and that the case in your honor reversed judge disagree i think it doesn't make a hill of beans difference whether this was a word by a judge or whether it was done by ruben i think the rules of the normal rules of mediation should apply and while we do that what would be the purpose of not applying attorneys typing it up in it even talks to what the interest lay should be between the attorneys and the you know are we i expect in civil cases although i don't know the family but normally i expect in contract basis you might have the attorneys going in there with their with their with their partners and in fact the rules even talk about it but we didn't have to in this particular case we didn't have that much of anything it was well this would be a totally different case if they had written the right into the agreement that it was subject to review in consultation with their attorneys i agree and that's what judge cook said i was it was a condition preceding to the binding agreement i
in the road to two rows in left a lot snatcher with a lot of trees on it they will be painting i think this week so planning commission does get a chance to take a drive up in there really looks a lot different than what we're used to seeing her downloader were all the trees were not on the individual home buyers can come in and pick and choose what they want with trees they can keep on the loss  and all this plant is doing is making it easier for those who want to build to fit the type of home they want in on a particular and this isn't going to change in the stormwater plans they had for any of the individual logs is say i  to make it one way around the service i the way we've already stored repairing the interior of the store in certain areas to match that same color outside know that we did meet with them today work is beginning so i'll work with jeff and decide you know there's an agenda we have twenty ideas on where we're certainly not going to use that
court clearly establishing that although there is there is some evidence lending lending so that i would i would say probably yes i am looking this from open that  to my understanding is here he is trying to establish the peerage yet and that's a crucial distinction and it's something that the state and the public guardian's briefing went back and forth on of today j d s is bonded with both of these of these men and even though the parent eject under the law does not allow for the best interest factors and best interest of terminations on that  does it matter whether the previous order was final or not ah well in that sense in this it into context of six zero nine i would say no but in  morning again assistant state's attorney actually could on behalf of the people and i just want to make clear as you pointed out in the beginning our hundred good deonna expects they adopt the miners position in this case and don't set any individual weights to challenge the two thousand and thirteen paternity finding so i'll be l could at that point have said we don't want to proceed to each occasion on his without our high under all the state making up hired because we now know or have reason to know that jaime is snatch the biological father although he may be the legal father based on the map and we want everybody in here so having fun there at available procedure why should
in the petition for the proceedings under the act including the appointment of counsel thank the other detectors that were involved in this case so it's a stretch to say any of the time of detective mcdo with everybody else have some kind of involvement in the case that defendant should have to be appointed an attorney to further investigate claims didn't investigate his cleats and listen to him and prevent him from testifying to correct these factual inaccuracy is about that came out at the at the